I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.

I guess if the virus is low key for a long time, it is detected later and retrovirals are started later, so it gets more chances to infect someone. Also, if the virus damages the body less, or the damage is slowwer, there are more chances it is not treated, so again it gets more chances to infect.

While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.

Well, I guess he means muslim countries.

Any country defined (by themselves) as "a muslim country" falls into the view: "screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like".

As a test, try to go to a "muslim country" and tell them you are gay...

There are also other countries where this happens, like Russia (recently on the news) but the point is it does happen in every muslim country.

In other news:

Cars help terrorists: they use them as a means of transport. We should add kill switches and gps units to all cars so the goverment can track every individual car and stop it if needed.

Subway helps terrorists: They use it as a means of transport. We should force every person using it to identify and keep all this data on a database.

Houses help terrorists: They use them to hide and to stay warm and to plan new attacks. We should have a camera on every house connected to a government agency so we can track who is in the house and what is he doing.

Books help terrorists: They read them and get funny ideas. We should create a system where people would identify themselves before reading a book.

Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.

This is a top to bottom, centralized way of handling the problem.
Obviously a decentralized way of organizing the flight would work a lot better, but it would require coding some protocols on the drones and governments want to keep control.

This is a stupid solution, having to file a flight path befor the flight and waiting for the government official to give you the green light.

Then please stop the surveillance. It doesn't work with the terrorists since they have changed how they communicate and you only get communications from innocent citizens.

It is clear that if the treatment has been illegal, the two patients should be executed so to return things to their normal course.

If by the original innovators you mean Occulus Rift, it doesn't exist as an independent entity anymore. It is Facebook now.

Do you really want to support Facebook?

In fact, the actual highlight should be:

In October 2013 both Ngix and Google passed struggling Microsoft in active web server market share. Netcraft confirms.

That tells a lot more. Seen from that point of view there are three types of web servers using IIS:
Parked domains,
Default Windows server installations,
Azure

Very damming for Microsoft, I think.

The day git implements subversion externals functionality so it is easy and risk free to update from and commit to external branches, I'll swich my team. Git modules functionality is close, but you can make a mess if you commit while having a module set up.

Agreed. But pointing at individual policies that can improve things and are done better in one country than in another can help to compare options.

That may be in the North. Here in the south (Spain) we have the opposite. Crowded jails, corrupt politicians and a public that doesn't trust its government at all. Not that we can get rid of them. They have us by the balls.

I did.

Well, you are mostly right, but having a robot involved, even if it is minimally autonomous, means a complex tool is being used, introducing some consistency to the part of the job it does. A bit like the difference between using an automatic plant to build a car versus doing it manually like it is still done with italian sports cars.
But this is only the beginning. I have seen reports of the next wave of medical robots becoming more autonomous, like sensing the type of tissue and refusing to go into the wrong type.

This one uses examples from the industrial revolution that are not applicable anymore because the rate of automation is far faster (and accelerating), meaning that the economy doesn't have enough time to rellocate workers to other basic tasks before they are automated as well. In fact, the way things are going, non educated people will have a hard time competing with machines in any basic job. By the time we get around to change society, we'll have so much unemployment that it will be very difficult to manage. This time is the singularity. It is not just better tools that are removing jobs, it is artificial intelligence, of the non strong variety (for now). What is left for the workers to compete?

If ten years doesn't sound like anytime soon to you, then you are right. The speed things are going, it will start about that time. Please google references to IBM Whatson. It is not a robot, and it is only labeled as an assistant to diagnostic, but it already is capable of being on top of all of the literature about cancer, and make suggestions based on that. This is something very few doctors can do, or have the time and interest of doing. In any case, I agree doctors don't need special protection. That is my point. But it is also true that they will use their collective power to try to stop technology if they see it as threating their position, so it is quite likely they will lobby for regulations using scare tactics.

From the article: "In fact, 'robotic surgery has been linked to many serious injuries and severe complications, including death.'"

Same thing goes for surgeons, but a robot has two qualities that your run of the mill surgeon doesn't: It is consistent in its results (you can end up in the hands of a drunken surgeon, someone who just lost a familiar, or it just happens to have a bad day), and it is cheaper (in the long run).

If a generation of robots have some problem or make some mistakes, next generation will improve on it, for all of the units. For a doctor, each one is different and have its own particular weaknesses, most of them having to do with emotional stuff, and they are already information overloaded, so no much room for improvement.

Also, rich people will be able to select what doctor treats them, but for the rest of the population that is not possible. The malpractice results of this are usually played down, but we all have heard about medical mistakes from friends and family.

And if you go out of the US, in poor countries "bad" but affordable care from robots is superior to "good" but inaccessible medicine from doctors.

Automation is coming to all other aspects of life, shedding jobs at its wake. I don't see why doctors need to be protected from that, as long as automation brings some benefits to society.

I am not really sure this is about Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. I think this is about the run up to the singularity. There are many riches and power to be gained by the first country or entity able to reverse engineer the human brain. Now it looks feasible and nobody wants to be out of it.

If it were about health, they would invest the same amount of resources into a cure for circulatory diseases.