Not necessarily. The least elegant way to create strong AI is probably to brute force simulate a whole brain down to nearly every neurotransmitter molecule, something which futurists argue will be doable by supercomputers around 2020.
This is a worst case solution since it would imply that the brain is not understood yet and instead of having a simpler model that can provide the same level of strong AI we just throw raw power at it.
In this case, the AI would theoritically emerge out of the complexity of the system and although malicious intent wouldn't be programmed in (neither would anything else) the system might learn it by himself.

This is a solved problem. One of my friends doing a masters in microbiology is working on a functionally similar problem where a colony of yeast isolated by an osmotic membrane is used to filter certain nutrients in a liquid stream... I won't go into details but according to his explanations this seemed like the easy part, what is hard is managing to insure an environment where yeast can survive (there is a buildup of dead yeast cells that cannot go through the membrane and undermine the efficiency of the apparatus)

If it were, time to go back to raiding. 2 birds with one stone :)

lol (posting only for april fool's achievement)

Now talk about anal retentive.

Arguably free speech zones would disagree with you.

This is a lot less subtle, yet americans (shame on you, really) actually put up with it.

Can't say whether such an abhorrent concept would push me to extreme civil disobedience if I was american, but I like to think that it would.

Indeed.
Muhammad can lick my sweaty, salty balls.
The right not to be offended does not exist.

Not at all. It isn't anybody's fault that the individual's religion doesn't hold up to the slightest logical scrutiny or that other people are vocal about disagreeing with him.

That is the only definition of obscenity. It is completely subjective and thus should never have been referred to in legal matters.

From wikipedia:
Obscenity (in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable"), is a term that is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time.

A couple hundred years ago it was tolerable for 10 years old to marry and have sex; 12-13 years old (and even younger) marrying is still tolerable in many cultures today.

Pray tell, what is the prevalent sexual moralities of our modern, global times?