I thought they already did.

And home of the lawyers and their overly litigious legal system. If one single attack occurred, somebody would surely file suit against Sony, knowing this country. They're probably hedging their financial bets, even as silly as the whole thing is. Same reason we have idiot warning labels on stuff like Playdoh, saying not to shove the the whole can's contents up both nostrils or something.

and you just know this, how? Bottom line is, something like this that actually works (for a change) would be a cash cow. Like a real cure for baldness. Everyone ages. It's not like only a few selective people will want it. A bit like the undertaker business, you don't have to worry about running out of customers. Nearly everyone will want this, and the more affordable it is, the more people can and will buy it - economies of scale.

Yes, that's a great reason to adopt a child, to use him or her as a social experiment. That'll teach 'em humanity.

LOL.. - sorry, that's a pointless cliche, but I literally really did. I hadn't caught that when I first read the comment. Kinda made my day. What a difference the order of two words makes.

No, the thing is people are saying Sony has no right or grounds to sue or anything. But if employee medical records are released, those are pretty good grounds. I don't think they'll be able to do a whole lot now about the opinionated emails though.

Excellent point. Various cultures sometimes have unique concepts that another culture's language may not. And some concepts just seem better expressed by a certain language. For example, "je ne sais quoi" sums it up better than saying, "she has a certain something about her", IMO. There are additional intangible elements of expression there.

Who said anything about 'murican? Though I disagree with him if he advocates trashing other languages. I think some languages are fascinating and/or pleasant to hear: Gaelic, Brythonic, French, German, I even like Old English (Anglo Saxon) and Norse. Finiish and Russian are interesting. For some reason though, I don't like Spanish or Italian much, even though I like old Latin. I know, it makes little sense. But anyway, language is a part of culture, they can't be so readily separated.

No it's really not. Read number two again. That's not an absolute. Everything *should* be private unless it's the owning party wants it distributed, or , if the owning party does not want it public, but there is criminal content.
I have no right to distribute your personal email, unless you want me to, or there is something illegal in it. Corporations shouldn't be "a person" , BUT, they are made up of people who still retain some of their individual rights, and not all correspondence is necessarily strictly business related to the corporation. Would you be okay with it if your own email inbox/outbox where you work was hacked and released? ...assuming you work for a company.
The main point is, we can't advocate for privacy, and then immediately toss that principle in the trash the moment it's somebody we don't like.

" unless the owning party wishes it distributed or is under criminal investigation" .. those are conditions, not absolutes. Therefore, it's not a real dichotomy.
But you can't decide that when it's you, it's private; but when it's Amy Pascal or Scott Rudin personally disparaging Angelina Jolie (whether you agree or not), it's public.
Also, medical records of employees, not fair game.
Now, If verifiable revelations of law breaking come out, that's different. But just because it's a group of people working for a corporation doesn't mean they're not still people when you're looking at individual emails that express personal opinions, not company policies or actions.

Fucking calm down. I'm sick of people trash talking. I'm talking about the emails between Amy Pascal and Scott Rudin where they trash Obama, and Jolie, the release of private employee health records and info, and payscales. You don't have any right to see their employees medical records and history. I'm looking at http://www.cnet.com/news/13-re... and so far I see nothing of this bribe you're talking about.

How are Sony's private memos, emails, and employee information a "matter of public importance" ??
So, when J-Law's photos are leaked, or juicy Sony private emails are leaked, those leaks are to be protected under the first amendment-?, but if the NSA does it in the context of looking for matters that actually *are* of public importance (possible criminal activity, technically), suddenly these same people scream about their privacy being violated.
This seems rather hypocritical.
1) Either nothing is private, or
2) Everything is private unless the owning party wishes it distributed or is under criminal investigation.

Personally I prefer the latter.

This. We've lost a lot of good people, they rarely get replaced, while new projects and systems keep piling on.

It's just a little, tiny bit easier to handle the robber in the store when you're in your own country//township/jurisdiction, and can call for police backup, and not have the locals shooting at you, throwing rocks, and trying to aid the target. Entirely different situation.

It's really not that difficult for the purposes of normal discussion.. No definition for terrorist is perfect but getting semantic or pedantic over it serves no useful purpose other than paralysis by analysis.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the colonies became a nation state. Al Queda is not a nation state, nor has it ever deemed itself one. The Taliban is/was. But we went after them due to their harboring OBL.

An innocent person is a non-soldier or non-military personnel, a civilian who has no direct ties to to weapon deployment against enemies. Our soldiers wear clearly discerning uniforms, as outlined in the Geneva convention. Terrorists dress like and hide behind civilians. It can get a little foggy, sure.. like defense contractors who build the things but don't deploy them, or CIA operatives.. but the people in the towers and on the planes were just businessmen, going about a normal day, not planning on harming others. I did say that I consider the Pentagon a valid military target, including the non-soldiers there.

Police could be combatants yes, but their role during 9-11 was to assist people, not engage anyone.. the terrorists were already dead.

Intent.. you're kidding, right? It's no different from a court of law, like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Did they intend to kill those people, or just destroy a building without hurting anyone inside, but the people got hurt "by accident"? I think we all know they wanted to cause as much death and mayhem as possible. Their intent and desire was to kill as many Westerners as possible (not just americans in those towers), and do as much property damage as possible too. Maximum destruction and death.

Mongols would probably fit the definition of terrorist. They did horrible things. Were they a "nation state", or a very large tribe? Did they have an official government, or a chieftain with some cronies? That was many, many centuries ago. The world order is a bit different today, why are discussing ancient irrelevant civilizations?.
BR Are you referring to Psyops? (Psychological Operations) How often do they target nonmilitary personnel (let's just carpet bomb a school or bank) for assassination?