"It appears that GameStop has a guilty conscience." Simple answer is that, they do not have a conscience. The reason for this is not out of guilt but out of profit. This has always been about profit. Why did they remove the coupons in the beginning? Because it was aiding their competition, in other words their potential profit. And why did they decide to offer the $50? Obvious reason, profit in the long run. They realized the sheer amount of backlash from this and attempting to win people's hearts. All this is going to do is give people who decided to stop going to GS, to continue not going and get a $50 giftcard.

Since 9/11, it has been made quite clear that the liberties and freedoms people take for granted can and will most likely be hindered by threats. The government has already shown that it is willing to step on freedoms and grey areas (such as the internet) in attempts to secure the "safety" of its people. And I think what Lulz has been doing with these sporadic attacks will lead to some unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances. Tread lightly; something that is not being used. It might be too late though. The government may respond, and the response may be limitations. And from those limitations will come more hackavist like activities and attacks which will lead to more limitations. Lulz most likely bit off more than they can chew at this point.

So long as the drones are used to create only hatcheries and no sunken colonies, I will be ok. But in all seriousness, I do believe that the aerial drones can play a vital role to Law Enforcement. So long as they are quite secure (so not to be used by a third party) and that they have enough red tape in their use so at least minimize abuse, I am all for them. I will not be so idealistic in believing that there would be enough regulation in their uses that their will be absolutely zero abuses. I hate to be a consequentialist, but I think their uses outweigh the potential harm in some people's liberties. Granted, it is a slipper slope. But for me, I do realize that nothing in life is free. With freedom comes responsibility, and with protection comes restrictions on said freedoms freedoms. There is no perfect balance, nor is is perfect with either extreme. Just hope it is regulated enough to where it creates some form of balance.

I am not sure why Twitter is seeking out other social networks to see whether they have been contacted or not. I know for at least Facebook, they have worked and aided the FBI and other organizations in the past to catch or aid in the capture of criminals. For myself at least, it makes sense. But Twitter, I do not get why they sought out twitter. I mean, in terms of information, I can't imagine criminalizing 'tweets' have been sent. Facebook maybe, but not twitter. It is as if either the government is simply grasping for straws, trying to make themselves seem like they can do what they want, or simply, they have lost their minds. Either way, be careful of what you 'tweet'!!! They government is watching you!

That is probably the best way I can view North Korea now, simply crying wolf. We all know of their lack of abilities when it comes to nuclear armament. We also know that they lack the ballistics to reach the US or anywhere of real interest. I think the ballistic they test fired (which had the potential to reach Japan) failed miserably. I they have the potential to make something go boom, but in the end, no real means on delivering on it. In regard to the whole war games we (US) participated in, and the threat that followed. I predicted (correctly) what would happen. And I wonder if it will happen again. It is quite simple, NK hates to tarnish its own name. So when it makes a threat and does not follow through, it must distract the people with some news so they forget about the threats. For example, they threatened to initiate war and kill all of us (as usual). Well, obviously they did not follow through with the plan (especially suicidal since we had the Washington carrier there) so they needed a distraction. So what did they do, they announce they had nuclear weapons. It is like trying to hold something shiny in front of NK's people to distract them. I really hate NK though... I hate them because I have mix feelings and the blame is on them. I hate the idea of war and thousands if not millions of people dying. But at the same time, I really wish garbage like them would be wiped from the planet. We have like what, 60,000 troops over there now. They live there, that is there home. Imagine if we did not have to have them over there. Imagine if some of the troops in the middle east no longer have to go for another tour because of us bringing the troops back from the DMZ. In the end, I think a nuclear war would be bad against NK. They will have all the important people hiding like rats underground while the poor and rest of the people would suffer above ground. Bunker busters are the way to go! P.S. I curse Starcraft because when I read this, the first thing that went through my mind was: "Nuclear Launch Detected".

Morality if a very iffy area, not quite as black and white as many would believe. Take for example Ozymandias, to some degree, he was a moral person. Granted, he was an consequentialist which led him to believe the ends justify the means. His approach may not be accepted by everyone, but he did do something which in the end, brought everyone together. Also, I do value intelligence, I also value logic and rationality. But in the end, the heroes rely heavily on arbitrary concepts such as 'justice' and 'honor' for which most could not truly explain or describe. Lastly, villains (for me at least) tend to look so much cooler. Villains and dark heroes (who tend to not be so pure) tend to look the best.

For myself, I would want to be the villain since they tend to be more intelligent. Granted, they time to time do stupid things like killing the hero slowly and explaining all their plans.

It really is a lose lose situation at this point. Because of the swift action by the government, they would be accused of overreacting and the airlines will demand compensation. On the other hand, if they had done nothing, they would be accused of taking too big a risk without any really evidence either way. It comes down to this, it is all about risk. Without adequate information, was it a good idea or halt flights for the 'possibility' of things going wrong? I would say yes, I'd rather stand by their side then take the risk of people's lives being lost.