So I hear it was an inside job, how did NK get a spy infiltrated into Sony so quickly? Does NK really have that many spy assets all over the U.S. that they can whistle up as needed? Or was this an elaborate operation set up when the movie was first announced and they managed to infiltrate a NK citizen into Sony pictures in the time it took the make the movie? How does this all actually go down? FYI, NK is pretty computer illiterate over all compared to most countries and nearly every country on the planet is better positioned than NK to pull this stunt off along with a whole bunch of independent yahoos. Unless there is U.S. born traitor working for NK, seems that the possible suspects could be narrowed down pretty quickly. I am NOT saying NK was framed, but I AM saying there are a lot a people out there to do stuff for reasons I wouldn't and more real data is needed.

That is what is meant by more efficient, if it took more effort to do something it wouldn't be a technological advancement What happens is that now you find you can do more and new things that were impossible or at least unfeasible before. Technology IS very disruptive, lots of people get displaced and of necessity the values of jobs change drastically. Basically jobs that can be done by robots should, it is a losing proposition to try and work cheaper than a robot, while jobs that still require a human need to be recognized as comparably more expensive. The key to our future is understanding that this disruption is a real effect and that it helps people both individually and as a whole to aid this transition and to ensure that people have the money to buy the new products being produced, after all if one has the money to buy chairs neither people OR robots will be making chairs. Unions probably have the most important role in this change, though Government and Business need to participate also.

Actually one reason I bring this up is I have wondered if one way to prevent many diseases is to ensure the ecological niche they want to take is already occupied by a much more benign organism. So it would simply be harder for the pest to gain a foothold in the first place. Probably not totally particle with viruses, they are inherently predatory on cells, but maybe bacteria...

Well, kind off, I admit to overstating my case. None the less even carnivores, which of course eat their prey, can still have a symbiotic relationship with another species. In addition, recent research seems to indicate HIV and Ebola are recent mutations and basically maladapted viruses. Well adapted organisms tend to a beneficial equilibrium.

Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.

I think the major mistake you are making, which is a mistake of so many people who to try to make cultural/ethnics arguments, is a failure to understand how fast the modern era is moving and how quickly changes have occurred. If you look at the situations in these countries, they aren't really all that dissimilar (accounting for cultural differences) to situations in European nations not all that long ago. I would say they are factually a couple hundred years behind in some places, but compared to the whole of human history, that is a very small percentage behind. Basically the proven increase in IQ over the last hundred years in "modern" nations proves that we lack the ability to really know what can and can not be accounted for by culture.

The flaw in their logic is this, we don't really care I if works every time, just most of the time. So if the robot can do the right thing more often than not, rather like people, to such a degree that we view it as being a net benefit, we are willing to accept the occasional mistake or failure for a net overall viewed good. So they would have to prove the program would fail more often than succeed, which they probably can't. That said, I DID wish it were possible enforce Asimov's laws of robotics. Maybe some day..

What nonsense, who would vote this up? To be sure, younger voters were less pro Democrat in the last election (not unexpected as all voting segments were less pro Democrat), but they were still majority Democrat by a wide margin. So I hardly think Democrats would want to suppress Facebook voting efforts because the young aren't pro Democrat enough, how does that even make sense?

There is no doubt that there is a dark matter "effect", it is just that we don't really know we will every find a particle that is "Dark Matter". I kind of dislike the name for that reason, maybe scientist are affected by this but your common layman seem to think one day we will have bottles full of "Dark Matter" we can use in some future technology. We simply know very little about what is causing the dark matter effect and we have much more knowledge about what it isn't than what is might be. The key is to keep an open mind about what we might be looking for.

People in the U.S. are factually at a disadvantage here. English, like it or not, sure has seem to become the international language. MOST counties have very developed programs for teaching English and there is often a tangible benefit to leaning it. For English speakers in the U.S., it is simply very rare for them to need, benefit from or really have the opportunity to practice other languages. It is simply nice when someone makes the attempt.

LoL, I love that quote. I have often said America is basically the Borg, we will take the uniqueness of other cultures and assimilate them in to our collective to benefit ourselves. We borrow (steal?) cultural ideas freely from other countries with no real concern for "authenticity", either theirs or ours. To an extent that is the thing I love most about English and the U.S., I wouldn't change either. You will never hear me complain about corruption of the Queen's English, and based on history the Queen shouldn't either.

You are factually wrong. Iraq was buying what they needed not just from the Europeans, but all over the world *INCLUDING* the U.S. That the U.S. only contributed non military items is a right wing myth. Further, I simply don't believe the intelligence communities didn't know what was going on. You can start reading about it in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

...because Reagan sold them to them. This has been reported in left wing media for years, I am glad the right wing media if finally on to this story also. Perhaps because they hope by giving misleading headlines they can confuse people into thinking Iraq had an active WMD program, which they didn't, and to worry people about ISIS now having access to these weapons. On the bright side these weapons are decades old and poorly maintained, so other than the shock value of being able to say "ISIS has chemical weapons stolen from Iraq", don't be surprised if you see limited or no use of them. ISIS *MAY* find some use, but it won't greatly affect their combat effectiveness.

While the benefits of anonymous speech are often promoted, I have come to believe the dangers of it, more specifically the dangers of trusting anonymous information, are too often overlooked by our society. It seems people are too willing to give credence to rumors and anonymous tips. It isn't that I would eliminate anonymous speech, rather I wish there were forums for open speech where people actually stand behind their words and people could then decide for themselves which story seems to have a more credible backing. There are plenty of examples of both men and women being very unfairly and wrongly harassed and accused online (how on earth did the discussion go down that rabbit hole anyway). I just wish people would put a little more effort into checking out a story before believing it.

Is this a technology site or some kind of political blog. What has happened?