That would be a different crime. The FBI's investigation is still just an investigation. They've removed the option of using Pagliano's testimony against him, but they haven't formally charged Clinton with anything yet. I'd be surprised if they didn't ultimately find something worth prosecuting, but at this point, she's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
About 90% of your statements are outright factually incorrect. Yes, I've worked for the government before, and different programs have different rules, depending on exactly what information is protected and the operational requirements of the program. The most glaring omission from your rant is the existence of composite information, where multiple pieces of information are unclassified individually, but when present in the same container (like a document or a server's hard disk) become classified. Two separate emails could have been unclassified when sent, but their presence on the same system makes them classified upon receipt.
It's not possible to twist the situation in anyway that makes what she did with her server legal.
I've never suggested that what she did was legal or not. I'm suggesting the apparently-preposterous idea that the FBI's investigation is actually following procedures established by the Constitution and legal precedent. This grant of immunity doesn't actually mean anything at all as far as Clinton's guilt or innocence is concerned. It just means the government isn't going to use Pagliano's testimony against him.
She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.
Similarly, Pagliano may have known that the server setup was not secure, but may reasonably have been ignorant of the security needs the law requires. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, anything he said about the lax security of the server would be self-incrimination, and therefore protected under the Fifth Amendment. Granting him immunity removes the risk of self-incrimination, and allows him to present his evidence.
That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way". We'll find out soon enough.
No, you're getting down-voted because comments 1, 3, and 7 already said effectively the same thing and it wasn't particularly interesting or insightful those times, either.
In an emergency situation, ABS allows the brakes to be kept more firmly on while maintaining control, compared to manual pumping of the brakes while maintaining control. The ABS brakes have a higher duty cycle than manual braking, so they can effectively stop the vehicle in a shorter distance.
Since he's not a member of the military, a military trial of any kind would be very unlikely. The DoD, NSA, and other interested parties would likely be involved, along with the EFF, ACLU, and similar organizations. Unlike certain other high-profile leaks, however, he's still a civilian, and the trial would have to follow civilian rules.
In the free country of Absurdia, ruled by the just and fair Edward Snowden, reporting a crime is always legal.
If you report it to the police, it is legal. If you report it to journalists, it's legal. If you report it by written note, it is legal. If you write a note, tie it to an arrow, and shoot your neighbor with it, it is legal. If you shout a report about it before detonating a suicide bomb, it is legal. If you whisper your report into the ear of your dear friend, as he lies on the floor with your bullet in his skull, it is legal.
Pithy slogans make the world so simple, don't they?
There were other whistle blowers before Snowden who tried to get the word out about what happened. They went through the official channels, found themselves charged with "unrelated" crimes, and were told by the judges that they couldn't use "whistle blower" as a defense.
On the other hand, those who go through the official channels and don't get caught for unrelated crimes are never known, because that's the whole point of having official channels. Being a whistleblower doesn't excuse any other behavior, and it doesn't mean you won't have to defend against such allegations.
You might argue about whether what he exposed was valid whistle blowing or whether he stepped over a line, but that's what a trial should determine.
No. That is not what a trial determines. The trial seeks to answer a very narrowly-defined question: Did the accused commit the crime of which he is accused? If the criminal statute (or related changes from other laws) allow whistleblowing as a defense, then that changes the crime definition to explicitly exclude whistleblowing.
The problem with Snowden (and other public-release cases) is that such activities are not generally included in the definition of "whistleblowing" that would exclude them from the crime's definition. That's why they get told by the judges that they can't use "whistle blower" as a defense, just the same as if they tried to claim that rescuing puppies was a defense. Despite Edward Snowden's opinion, and despite the objections of his Slashdot-moderating fans, this is exactly what makes a trial fair. Strict adherence to the rule of law means that a murderer can't be acquitted just because he's a pillar of the community, when the same evidence would convict a defendant of lesser reputation. I'm not claiming that always happens, because the court is comprised of faulty humans, but that is the ideal, and I'd wager that's exactly what Snowden would receive under current conditions. There's too much attention on the case for any significant violations of protocol to go unnoticed.
Even if his actions were 100% justified as a whistle blower, the history of treatment of similar whistle blowers doesn't make it look like he'd get anything approaching a fair trial.
If his actions were 100% justified, since fleeing to Russia, he's continued to release classified information and provide support to America's enemies (even as a side effect to informing Americans). Even if Snowden had a claim to a whistleblowing defense for his initial information, he's likely doomed by his later releases that don't actually highlight his employer's unlawful activities. Spying on foreign nations (even allies) isn't illegal; it's just prohibited by treaties which would have their own recourse. Unfortunately for Snowden, the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. He's openly stated that he didn't follow official channels, and he overstepped his authority to obtain materials to release. Those are the sorts of things for which being a whistleblower isn't a defense, and he could be charged with as an "unrelated" crime.
In Edward Snowden's opinion, the government did something illegal. In Edward Snowden's opinion, his NDA, legally-binding contracts, and the applicable federal laws did not matter as much as exposing the government's problems. In Edward Snowden's opinion, the legally-mandated channels for redress were not going to get the results he wanted. In Edward Snowden's opinion, those in power don't respect the rights we have now. In Edward Snowden's opinion, a trial wouldn't be fair.
That's an awful lot of weight to pile on one person's opinions. The whole reason we declared independence from a monarchy was that too much was riding on a single person's opinion. That's why every aspect of our government today is based on checks and balances across multiple groups with conflicting interests. They represent the opinions of the public, ensuring that everyone has their voice, however small.
Now, in Edward Snowden's opinion, we are supposed to throw away all attempts at equality under the law, and somehow rig a trial to be "fair" in his opinion? Has he even codified any criteria for what "fair" is supposed to mean, if not a trial using the same process and judgement as established by every precedent-setting case before this?
When a child doesn't get what he wants, he screams that "it's not fair". Real fairness is where everyone receives the same justice under the same laws.
"Over 1,900 Free Staters already are there and we've reported here at Reason on some of what they're already accomplished, from getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty...
Wait, is that a typo? Is it French for "to go to excess"? I'm not sure religious liberty counts a being particularly "unconventional" in this country
...winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically...
Well, that's rather subjective.
paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists."
Ah, yes, well... I'm sure when their pants dry, they'll be quite happy to accept your views as the well-reasoned path toward an ideal civilization.
The "first-to-file" rule only applies if there is a dispute as to which invention happened first. If you can find an example of such art that was first described after July 7, 2015, it would not be "prior" to this patent. Under the "first-to-invent" rule, art that was described after July 7, 2015 could still be considered "prior art" if it could be shown that it was invented before this patented art was invented. Of course, that involves a lengthy discovery process, which ends up being ridiculously expensive, and it runs contrary to the goal of the patent system, which is to make technology public knowledge.
Project Ara has components that plug into a baseboard. This patent covers a stack of components, notably beginning with a hinged display. While it's possible for Microsoft to argue that Ara infringes on some of the claims (namely #19, which lacks the hinged display but covers toolless swappable components), the earlier release of Project Ara's details makes such a lawsuit unlikely to succeed.
1. A computing device comprising: a display modular component including a housing, a display device physically and communicatively coupled to the housing via a hinge, and one or more display hardware elements disposed within the housing and configured to output a display for display the display device; and a computing modular component including a housing that is physically and communicatively coupled to the display modular component, a processing system disposed within the housing, and memory disposed within the housing, the processing system configured to execute instructions stored by the processing system to generate a user interface for display by the display device of the display modular component, the processing system and the memory being swappable within the housing of the computing modular component.
17. A modular computing system comprising: a plurality of modular components forming a stackable arrangement one to another, wherein: each of the modular components has a respective housing and is interchangeable into and out of the stackable arrangement in a swappable manner; the stackable arrangement forms a communicative and removable physical coupling between the plurality of modular components; and the plurality of modular components include at least: a processing system housing including a processing system disposed therein; and a memory housing including the memory disposed therein.
19. A method comprising: obtaining a plurality of modular components, each of the modular components having a respective housing configured to form a stackable arrangement, one to another; stacking the plurality of modular components to form a computing device; and swapping at least one of a plurality of housings disposed within at least one of the respective modular components without using tools, the plurality of housings including: a processing system housing including a processing system within the housing of the at least one of the respective modular components; and a memory housing including a memory within the housing of the at least one of the respective modular components.
Microsoft's patent covers devices that are contained in a housing. Replacing the housing components could easily be argued to fall outside the patent's scope.
None of those are actually prior art for this patent. They're similar in concept, but don't actually come close to the implementation that Microsoft is patenting. A closer instance would be Project Ara, but even that's quite the stretch to say it would invalidate this patent, as Ara involves multiple components attached to a single surface, and this patent describes stacking components.
Remember, folks: Patents are specific. Just naming a bunch of similar ideas is not "prior art".
Slashdotters are a bunch of cranky old farts who can't handle anything moving around on them, even if it looks exactly the same and only moved 15 pixels to the left. I expect there's at least one of us who reads the site on a VT100.
Now that I said that, I realize I have a brand-new VT220 in a box in my closet, and I have a Raspberry Pi that needs a new job... Slashdotters are a bunch of mad engineers...
Changing something that hasn't happened yet isn't prohibited.
If a work entered public domain, and someone published it as such, then a copyright extension put it back under protection, the public-domain publisher could not be sued for infringement during the time that the work was in the public domain. If they keep publishing it once it was protected again, that'd be a separate offense.
Pretty much, every field has the ability to create multimillionaire success stories, given the right combination of luck, inspiration, and hard work. Of course, it's more difficult to copy the chemistry of dynamite than it is to copy a written work, which is why we still know of Alfred Nobel's work, but very few know about Arthur Brooke, whose most famous work (if it was even his) predates the first copyright law.
Especially when they show so little regard for us.
it's well beyond the point where we should care about them.
That's entirely beside the point.
If the FBI, NSA, DHS, or any other government agency broke the law, that's a problem. It shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten. It should be the subject of debate, lawsuits, impeachment, and ultimately an election ending the career of those responsible. Those are all things that the law allows.
There's an awful lot of anger over the fact that law enforcement has taken the attitude of we'll do whatever we can get away with. So, are they entitled to expect anything different?
The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry. That's not a good reason, and it's what makes those hackers criminals. They crossed a legal line, and it really doesn't matter that you can understand why they did it. They still broke the law, and now they're putting people in harm's way unnecessarily.
Let's reframe the argument... People in prison are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They're well past the point where we should care about them, so it's fine when facilities aren't maintained and inmates are abused, right? Since they showed so little regard for their victims' well-being, are they entitled to expect anything different? The reasons these people want to be treated humanely are their own problem.
You're advocating a brutal world of vigilantism and rule of force, rather than rule of law. I don't think anybody has claimed that the government agencies are perfectly innocent, but today they are the victims, and should be regarded as such in this context.
The same as it's always been... full integration with the entire line of business-oriented Microsoft products (including Exchange) and support for the vital third-party software that requires Windows.
For many years, Microsoft's business model has been to promote a Microsoft-centric universe. If you use Office, you'll get the best service with an Exchange server, which must run on Windows Server, and really needs Active Directory, which supports your Windows workstations, which integrate with Office. It's not just that Windows is a GUI-based OS. Microsoft products are a part of a whole tangled mess of dependencies, and for years we've been stuck dealing with the downside of that glorious integration.
Every IT admin has a story about the vital business process that involved a human robot. Every day a human logs in, and runs an Excel macro to generate a spreadsheet, that he saves as a CSV file and loads into a third-party program, which generates a RTF document, that needs to be renamed to.txt and moved to a different folder for another program to find and render into a PDF, which the human has to open and read the third line on the fifth page to determine which managers need the report emailed to them. This is a GUI-based process, because the software runs on a GUI-based OS. It can't be automated, because the software doesn't support it. For decades, automation has been a "nice to have" feature, because it never fit into the Microsoft business model, so there was never a good framework to support it built into Windows.
Sure, we had some old tricks... Batch files, DDE, COM, OLE, WSH, VBA... but they never really enjoyed full support from Microsoft. They were supported features, but not supported enough that third-party vendors would feel pressure to support any automation.
Now, with PowerShell and the Core offering of Windows Server, there's the notion that everything should be able to be automated. Sure, we've had that idea from the very first days of Unix, and *nix has embraced the concept to maturity, but *nix still doesn't run every piece of business-critical third-party software. For those of us who are already firmly entrenched in that Microsoft-centric world, this is a much-needed good omen.
The utility of humans in space is the long list of minor things that didn't make it onto your list of headlines. Crystallography, metallurgy, chemistry, biology, physiology, and materials science, to name a few, are all fields that have benefited from research on the ISS.
For having so many small experiments and projects to maintain, a human presence is really not that much more effort compared to building robotic versions of each experiment. The human is also far more adaptable, able to repair and rebuild systems as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a different crime. The FBI's investigation is still just an investigation. They've removed the option of using Pagliano's testimony against him, but they haven't formally charged Clinton with anything yet. I'd be surprised if they didn't ultimately find something worth prosecuting, but at this point, she's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
About 90% of your statements are outright factually incorrect. Yes, I've worked for the government before, and different programs have different rules, depending on exactly what information is protected and the operational requirements of the program. The most glaring omission from your rant is the existence of composite information, where multiple pieces of information are unclassified individually, but when present in the same container (like a document or a server's hard disk) become classified. Two separate emails could have been unclassified when sent, but their presence on the same system makes them classified upon receipt.
It's not possible to twist the situation in anyway that makes what she did with her server legal.
I've never suggested that what she did was legal or not. I'm suggesting the apparently-preposterous idea that the FBI's investigation is actually following procedures established by the Constitution and legal precedent. This grant of immunity doesn't actually mean anything at all as far as Clinton's guilt or innocence is concerned. It just means the government isn't going to use Pagliano's testimony against him.
It means there are questions that Pagliano won't answer because he thinks there was wrongdoing.
That does not imply that wrongdoing actually occurred, or that a court of law will find Clinton responsible for it.
She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.
Similarly, Pagliano may have known that the server setup was not secure, but may reasonably have been ignorant of the security needs the law requires. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, anything he said about the lax security of the server would be self-incrimination, and therefore protected under the Fifth Amendment. Granting him immunity removes the risk of self-incrimination, and allows him to present his evidence.
That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way". We'll find out soon enough.
"Obvious" and "proven in a court of law" are very different things.
No, you're getting down-voted because comments 1, 3, and 7 already said effectively the same thing and it wasn't particularly interesting or insightful those times, either.
In an emergency situation, ABS allows the brakes to be kept more firmly on while maintaining control, compared to manual pumping of the brakes while maintaining control. The ABS brakes have a higher duty cycle than manual braking, so they can effectively stop the vehicle in a shorter distance.
Can you name any particular cases where the law wasn't followed during proceedings?
Since he's not a member of the military, a military trial of any kind would be very unlikely. The DoD, NSA, and other interested parties would likely be involved, along with the EFF, ACLU, and similar organizations. Unlike certain other high-profile leaks, however, he's still a civilian, and the trial would have to follow civilian rules.
In the free country of Absurdia, ruled by the just and fair Edward Snowden, reporting a crime is always legal.
If you report it to the police, it is legal. If you report it to journalists, it's legal. If you report it by written note, it is legal. If you write a note, tie it to an arrow, and shoot your neighbor with it, it is legal. If you shout a report about it before detonating a suicide bomb, it is legal. If you whisper your report into the ear of your dear friend, as he lies on the floor with your bullet in his skull, it is legal.
Pithy slogans make the world so simple, don't they?
There were other whistle blowers before Snowden who tried to get the word out about what happened. They went through the official channels, found themselves charged with "unrelated" crimes, and were told by the judges that they couldn't use "whistle blower" as a defense.
On the other hand, those who go through the official channels and don't get caught for unrelated crimes are never known, because that's the whole point of having official channels. Being a whistleblower doesn't excuse any other behavior, and it doesn't mean you won't have to defend against such allegations.
You might argue about whether what he exposed was valid whistle blowing or whether he stepped over a line, but that's what a trial should determine.
No. That is not what a trial determines. The trial seeks to answer a very narrowly-defined question: Did the accused commit the crime of which he is accused? If the criminal statute (or related changes from other laws) allow whistleblowing as a defense, then that changes the crime definition to explicitly exclude whistleblowing.
The problem with Snowden (and other public-release cases) is that such activities are not generally included in the definition of "whistleblowing" that would exclude them from the crime's definition. That's why they get told by the judges that they can't use "whistle blower" as a defense, just the same as if they tried to claim that rescuing puppies was a defense. Despite Edward Snowden's opinion, and despite the objections of his Slashdot-moderating fans, this is exactly what makes a trial fair. Strict adherence to the rule of law means that a murderer can't be acquitted just because he's a pillar of the community, when the same evidence would convict a defendant of lesser reputation. I'm not claiming that always happens, because the court is comprised of faulty humans, but that is the ideal, and I'd wager that's exactly what Snowden would receive under current conditions. There's too much attention on the case for any significant violations of protocol to go unnoticed.
Even if his actions were 100% justified as a whistle blower, the history of treatment of similar whistle blowers doesn't make it look like he'd get anything approaching a fair trial.
If his actions were 100% justified, since fleeing to Russia, he's continued to release classified information and provide support to America's enemies (even as a side effect to informing Americans). Even if Snowden had a claim to a whistleblowing defense for his initial information, he's likely doomed by his later releases that don't actually highlight his employer's unlawful activities. Spying on foreign nations (even allies) isn't illegal; it's just prohibited by treaties which would have their own recourse. Unfortunately for Snowden, the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. He's openly stated that he didn't follow official channels, and he overstepped his authority to obtain materials to release. Those are the sorts of things for which being a whistleblower isn't a defense, and he could be charged with as an "unrelated" crime.
So let me get this straight...
In Edward Snowden's opinion, the government did something illegal. In Edward Snowden's opinion, his NDA, legally-binding contracts, and the applicable federal laws did not matter as much as exposing the government's problems. In Edward Snowden's opinion, the legally-mandated channels for redress were not going to get the results he wanted. In Edward Snowden's opinion, those in power don't respect the rights we have now. In Edward Snowden's opinion, a trial wouldn't be fair.
That's an awful lot of weight to pile on one person's opinions. The whole reason we declared independence from a monarchy was that too much was riding on a single person's opinion. That's why every aspect of our government today is based on checks and balances across multiple groups with conflicting interests. They represent the opinions of the public, ensuring that everyone has their voice, however small.
Now, in Edward Snowden's opinion, we are supposed to throw away all attempts at equality under the law, and somehow rig a trial to be "fair" in his opinion? Has he even codified any criteria for what "fair" is supposed to mean, if not a trial using the same process and judgement as established by every precedent-setting case before this?
When a child doesn't get what he wants, he screams that "it's not fair". Real fairness is where everyone receives the same justice under the same laws.
We start out fairly professional...
"Over 1,900 Free Staters already are there and we've reported here at Reason on some of what they're already accomplished, from getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty...
Wait, is that a typo? Is it French for "to go to excess"? I'm not sure religious liberty counts a being particularly "unconventional" in this country
...winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically...
Well, that's rather subjective.
paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists."
Ah, yes, well... I'm sure when their pants dry, they'll be quite happy to accept your views as the well-reasoned path toward an ideal civilization.
It doesn't need to be revolutionary to be patented. It just needs to advance the state of the art.
No, this is a common misconception.
The "first-to-file" rule only applies if there is a dispute as to which invention happened first. If you can find an example of such art that was first described after July 7, 2015, it would not be "prior" to this patent. Under the "first-to-invent" rule, art that was described after July 7, 2015 could still be considered "prior art" if it could be shown that it was invented before this patented art was invented. Of course, that involves a lengthy discovery process, which ends up being ridiculously expensive, and it runs contrary to the goal of the patent system, which is to make technology public knowledge.
Project Ara has components that plug into a baseboard. This patent covers a stack of components, notably beginning with a hinged display. While it's possible for Microsoft to argue that Ara infringes on some of the claims (namely #19, which lacks the hinged display but covers toolless swappable components), the earlier release of Project Ara's details makes such a lawsuit unlikely to succeed.
1. A computing device comprising: a display modular component including a housing, a display device physically and communicatively coupled to the housing via a hinge, and one or more display hardware elements disposed within the housing and configured to output a display for display the display device; and a computing modular component including a housing that is physically and communicatively coupled to the display modular component, a processing system disposed within the housing, and memory disposed within the housing, the processing system configured to execute instructions stored by the processing system to generate a user interface for display by the display device of the display modular component, the processing system and the memory being swappable within the housing of the computing modular component.
17. A modular computing system comprising: a plurality of modular components forming a stackable arrangement one to another, wherein: each of the modular components has a respective housing and is interchangeable into and out of the stackable arrangement in a swappable manner; the stackable arrangement forms a communicative and removable physical coupling between the plurality of modular components; and the plurality of modular components include at least: a processing system housing including a processing system disposed therein; and a memory housing including the memory disposed therein.
19. A method comprising: obtaining a plurality of modular components, each of the modular components having a respective housing configured to form a stackable arrangement, one to another; stacking the plurality of modular components to form a computing device; and swapping at least one of a plurality of housings disposed within at least one of the respective modular components without using tools, the plurality of housings including: a processing system housing including a processing system within the housing of the at least one of the respective modular components; and a memory housing including a memory within the housing of the at least one of the respective modular components.
Microsoft's patent covers devices that are contained in a housing. Replacing the housing components could easily be argued to fall outside the patent's scope.
This patent's components include housings.
None of those are actually prior art for this patent. They're similar in concept, but don't actually come close to the implementation that Microsoft is patenting. A closer instance would be Project Ara, but even that's quite the stretch to say it would invalidate this patent, as Ara involves multiple components attached to a single surface, and this patent describes stacking components.
Remember, folks: Patents are specific. Just naming a bunch of similar ideas is not "prior art".
Look, we warned you when you arrived...
Slashdotters are a bunch of cranky old farts who can't handle anything moving around on them, even if it looks exactly the same and only moved 15 pixels to the left. I expect there's at least one of us who reads the site on a VT100.
Now that I said that, I realize I have a brand-new VT220 in a box in my closet, and I have a Raspberry Pi that needs a new job... Slashdotters are a bunch of mad engineers...
Changing something that hasn't happened yet isn't prohibited.
If a work entered public domain, and someone published it as such, then a copyright extension put it back under protection, the public-domain publisher could not be sued for infringement during the time that the work was in the public domain. If they keep publishing it once it was protected again, that'd be a separate offense.
Chemistry, software engineering, and whatever led to these things.
Pretty much, every field has the ability to create multimillionaire success stories, given the right combination of luck, inspiration, and hard work. Of course, it's more difficult to copy the chemistry of dynamite than it is to copy a written work, which is why we still know of Alfred Nobel's work, but very few know about Arthur Brooke, whose most famous work (if it was even his) predates the first copyright law.
Especially when they show so little regard for us.
it's well beyond the point where we should care about them.
That's entirely beside the point.
If the FBI, NSA, DHS, or any other government agency broke the law, that's a problem. It shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten. It should be the subject of debate, lawsuits, impeachment, and ultimately an election ending the career of those responsible. Those are all things that the law allows.
There's an awful lot of anger over the fact that law enforcement has taken the attitude of we'll do whatever we can get away with. So, are they entitled to expect anything different?
The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry. That's not a good reason, and it's what makes those hackers criminals. They crossed a legal line, and it really doesn't matter that you can understand why they did it. They still broke the law, and now they're putting people in harm's way unnecessarily.
Let's reframe the argument... People in prison are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They're well past the point where we should care about them, so it's fine when facilities aren't maintained and inmates are abused, right? Since they showed so little regard for their victims' well-being, are they entitled to expect anything different? The reasons these people want to be treated humanely are their own problem.
You're advocating a brutal world of vigilantism and rule of force, rather than rule of law. I don't think anybody has claimed that the government agencies are perfectly innocent, but today they are the victims, and should be regarded as such in this context.
The same as it's always been... full integration with the entire line of business-oriented Microsoft products (including Exchange) and support for the vital third-party software that requires Windows.
For many years, Microsoft's business model has been to promote a Microsoft-centric universe. If you use Office, you'll get the best service with an Exchange server, which must run on Windows Server, and really needs Active Directory, which supports your Windows workstations, which integrate with Office. It's not just that Windows is a GUI-based OS. Microsoft products are a part of a whole tangled mess of dependencies, and for years we've been stuck dealing with the downside of that glorious integration.
Every IT admin has a story about the vital business process that involved a human robot. Every day a human logs in, and runs an Excel macro to generate a spreadsheet, that he saves as a CSV file and loads into a third-party program, which generates a RTF document, that needs to be renamed to .txt and moved to a different folder for another program to find and render into a PDF, which the human has to open and read the third line on the fifth page to determine which managers need the report emailed to them. This is a GUI-based process, because the software runs on a GUI-based OS. It can't be automated, because the software doesn't support it. For decades, automation has been a "nice to have" feature, because it never fit into the Microsoft business model, so there was never a good framework to support it built into Windows.
Sure, we had some old tricks... Batch files, DDE, COM, OLE, WSH, VBA... but they never really enjoyed full support from Microsoft. They were supported features, but not supported enough that third-party vendors would feel pressure to support any automation.
Now, with PowerShell and the Core offering of Windows Server, there's the notion that everything should be able to be automated. Sure, we've had that idea from the very first days of Unix, and *nix has embraced the concept to maturity, but *nix still doesn't run every piece of business-critical third-party software. For those of us who are already firmly entrenched in that Microsoft-centric world, this is a much-needed good omen.
The utility of humans in space is the long list of minor things that didn't make it onto your list of headlines. Crystallography, metallurgy, chemistry, biology, physiology, and materials science, to name a few, are all fields that have benefited from research on the ISS.
For having so many small experiments and projects to maintain, a human presence is really not that much more effort compared to building robotic versions of each experiment. The human is also far more adaptable, able to repair and rebuild systems as needed.