If they had meant only nuclear weapons, they would have SAID nuclear weapons. They meant WMDs, including chemical weapons. The Bush Administration was condemned because they said Saddam had WMDs, and supposedly none were found when the U.S. invaded. Yet, now ISIS is reported to have WMDs they obtained from storage facilities in Iraq. Of course, all of this overlooks the fact that the primary reason which the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam was egregiously violating almost every aspect of the agreement which ended Gulf War I.

You appear to have missed recent news reports stating that ISIS is using chemical weapons they obtained from storage locations in Iraq, where they had been put by the Saddam regime.

A DMCA takedown request is a statement that the person submitting the request owns the copyright on the material in question and that they have not given permission for it to be shared at the location in question. Most false takedown requests are submitted by someone other than the copyright owner, which means the person submitting them is falsely claiming to be the copyright owner.

Actually, it does not matter that it was not called for. The key fact is that, without the hard drive, there is no evidence that there was a crime committed. Or to word it another way, the plaintiff was unable to prove that there was any evidence to destroy.

Perhaps not, but should someone get fired because people think a word they used is related to a racial epitaph, when it isn't?

Your story would be believable, except for the fact that strawberries do not grow on trees.

No, "political correctness" is a thing. It is where someone gets in trouble for using the word "niggardly" because it sounds like another word.

So, if you had $30K and were in the market for a car, you would buy a driverless car that cost a lot more than $30K? I think what you are really saying is that if there were driverless cars available, you would not buy one, since you are not in the market for a car, and you cannot afford a car....which is more or less what the writer of the article said.

How much would you pay for that driverless car? $100,000 for one which, other than being driverless, had the same characteristics as one you could get for $20,000?

No, Sony is getting right on securing PSN as soon as it is economically rewarding to do so. Medical care providers on the other hand have a wide spectrum of motivations. While all of them are motivated to some degree or another by economic self-interest (as is every one else), the primary motivation varies widely. Some are primarily motivated by what they believe is best for their patients. Some are primarily motivated by ego, they want to be seen as great care givers (or other aspect of the field). And some of them are motivated primarily by greed.
Besides that, the interest in technology mirrors the educated populace in general. Some are early adopters, some are even computer geeks. And some intensely dislike computers.

That is not true. There were medical care providers who were making the transition to EMR. The problem was that not enough were making the transition as fast as the companies which had decided to make a business out of transitioning them to EMR had anticipated. Since the people who had invested in these companies based on that anticipated rate of transition were politically connected the government was used to speed up the transition.

Yes, EMR was a "thing" before it was mandated by law. The key difference was/is that without the government mandate it would have happened as medical care providers found it economically valuable. That is, they would have seen value in making the transition and would have been invested in making the change. Instead we have a system where they have to do it and do not see the value in doing so. This means that instead of something which they see as being a way to improve either their bottom line, or improve patient care, or otherwise something of value to themselves, they see it as an imposition.

I just re-read the article. It says that the eruptions began before the "extinction event", but do not say when the asteroid struck relative to either the eruptions or the "extinction event."

Actually, studies have shown that those who truly control their temper are less likely to get angry and less likely to suffer the negative consequences of anger (And this was not the ones that are inflicted by others, but the negative changes which happen to the body as a result of anger).

Haven't they already published several of his books?