In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
--------
Question: So many hours of talks, so little progress. Despite two days of intensive negotiations, Iran and six world powers "remain far apart" on Tehran's controversial nuclear program, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Saturday in Kazakhstan. Her words dashed hopes that the deadlock might be broken after what had seemed more promising talks back in February, also in the Kazakh city of Almaty. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, acknowledged there was "some distance" between Iran and the six powers but seemed more positive in his assessment. "Good negotiations" had taken place in this round of talks, Jalili said, which he described as "substantive, expansive and comprehensive." But in a sign that progress was limited, no date or location has been set for new talks. This round was just the latest in a decade-long attempt to resolve differences between Iran and the international community over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The first day of talks proved inconclusive. By the end of Saturday, despite "long and intensive discussions," the two sides were no closer on agreeing on confidence-building measures, Ashton told reporters. "It became clear that the positions of (the world powers) and Iran remain far apart on the substance," she said. "We therefore agreed all sides will go back to their capitals to evaluate where we stand on the process." Ashton said she would be in touch with Jalili "very soon in order to see how to go forward." While Ashton said these were the most detailed discussions that the two sides had had, with "a real back-and-forward between us," she also made clear that she was disappointed by the lack of progress made. A senior U.S. administration official said Jalili directly engaged him in a 30- to 40-minute question-and-answer exchange in the middle of Saturday's plenary meeting. "The quality of the discussion was different because there was this back and forth, this Q and A," the official said. "We just went back and forth with him." Still, the official expressed disappointment, saying that Iran had "put forward some minimal ideas and expected great return, and quite disproportionate return." Britain, too, took a hard line after the talks. "The UK went to Kazakhstan ready with our partners to negotiate in good faith with Iran," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement. "Iran's current position falls far short of what is needed to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough." When negotiators from the diplomatic bloc of six nations -- the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia -- last sat down with Iran's envoy in Almaty in February, they delivered what they characterized as a "fair and balanced offer" to defuse tensions over the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of delivering the "concrete response" Western governments had expected, Iran announced it was making its own proposal to the negotiating parties. 'Two-way street' Jalili said Iran had tabled a proposal based on the discussions in Almaty and a previous meeting in Moscow -- and that it is now down to the six world powers to respond and show their "willingness to take appropriate confidence-building steps in the future." He repeated Tehran's position that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. "Creating confidence is a two-way street," he said. Now, after many proposals put forward by Iran, it's the turn of the six world powers to respond, he said. Jalili's comments on Iran's enrichment of uranium -- one of the most contentious issues at stake -- reaffirmed Tehran's right to pursue that track but also appeared to leave the door open to some kind of negotiation. "Enrichment is part of the rights of the Iranian people, whether we're talking about 5% or 20% ... however, this can be an issue that can create further confidence," he said. Jalili added that "hostile behaviors" directed toward Iran were detrimental to building confidence. This was presumably a reference to the draconian sanctions imposed by Western governments against Tehran, which are crippling the Iranian economy. Oil exports have plummeted over the past several years, as has the value of Iran's currency. "The purpose of any sanctions is to put pressure in order to get this process to work," said Ashton. "And I believe we should continue to work as hard as we possibly can to make sure we are successful and we reach a satisfactory resolution." Questions fly around any plan to attack Iran . The so-called P5+1 governments are demanding that Iran come clean about its nuclear program, which they suspect includes covert development of nuclear weapons. Iran consistently denies those charges, arguing it is enriching uranium and building nuclear reactors only for peaceful civilian energy needs. Details of last February's offer from the six countries represented across the negotiating table from Iran have not yet been made public. Last month, technical experts from Iran and the P5+1 countries met for more than 12 hours in Istanbul to discuss the proposal. Iran's deputy chief negotiator said the Iranian proposal tabled Friday was based on a previous PowerPoint presentation that the Iranian delegation submitted during a round of talks in Moscow in June 2012. "The Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a practical method to implement the Moscow plan in a smaller scale," Ali Baghery said in a statement issued to journalists Friday. The offer, he said, was aimed at establishing "a new bedrock of cooperation." A call for 'concrete actions' Washington has vowed it will continue to put pressure on Tehran. "As long as Iran does not take concrete steps to address the concerns of the international community about its nuclear program, the dual-track process continues. And that pressure only will increase if Iran does not begin to take concrete steps and concrete actions," said a senior U.S. administration official in a telephone briefing to journalists this week. The official spoke on condition of anonymity. Iran argues that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, development of nuclear technology is an inalienable right. On the eve of the two-day talks in Kazakhstan, Jalili repeated this position in a speech given at a university in Almaty. "It is the right of the Iranian people to peaceful nuclear energy and most importantly to enrichment," Jalili said. A report recently published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concluded that sanctions are unlikely to force Tehran to give up its nuclear program. The report, titled "Iran's Nuclear Odyssey," highlighted the fact that Tehran's quest for a nuclear program has been going on for more than half a century, beginning under the rule of the pro-American shah, Reza Pahlavi, and continuing under the revolutionary Islamic republic that overthrew him. "The program's cost -- measured in lost foreign investment and oil revenue -- has been well over $100 billion," Carnegie said.

Answer: "Iran's current position falls far short of what is needed," says British official .
Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but negotiation may be possible, Saeed Jalili suggests .
It's clear the two sides "remain far apart" on substance, EU foreign policy chief says .
No date or location is agreed upon for new talks between world powers and Iran .


Question: (CNN) -- Films have altered the course of human history before. The rise of Nazism would not have been as rapid and absolute had it not been for the Reich's potent command of propaganda, including Leni Riefenstahl's monumental glorification of the fascist regime, "Triumph of the Will." And D.W. Griffith's celebration of white supremacy, "The Birth of a Nation," helped to resurrect the Ku Klux Klan. Both these films are repellent, yet are judged to be masterpieces of world cinema, and their directors among the greatest of all time. So it's hard to imagine that a movie as slight and crude as "The Interview" could serve as a similar kind of historical watershed. And yet, future generations may well look to it as marking the emergence of a new chapter in geopolitics, dominated by a fresh set of actors and wildly different forms of conflict. If the attacks of September 11 taught us to fear insurgent groups using improvised weapons against civilians -- al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS -- what we've learned from the "Interview" fiasco is that even nation states and "traditional" terror organizations can now find themselves to be nothing more than blindsided bystanders in strange battles between entities with hidden (or purposely misleading) agendas. Corporations. Mysterious ad hoc hacker networks. Even motivated individuals. And these struggles will play out in the dark, with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. Was the hacker attack that crippled media titan Sony insider sabotage, an attempt at extortion, a terrorist strike or, as more hawkish types have suggested, the overture to formal war? Were its perpetrators disgruntled employees, Internet pranksters, black hat mercenaries or the shadowy digital armies of rival nations? Perhaps the most frightening thing is that, months after the assaults, we still don't know exactly when they began, what their true objective was and, of course, who was actually behind them. Sony was quick to assign blame to North Korea, based on the conclusions of federal investigators. President Barack Obama issued a condemnation of the hermit kingdom's "cybervandalism" and promised to "respond proportionately." And, in a gesture of profound corporate cowardice, Sony yanked "The Interview" after a number of movie theater chains said they would not screen the movie. Since then, other researchers have raised serious questions about North Korea's real role in the hacks, pointing to the fact that while North Korea might have had a clear motive -- suppressing the release of a work that might embarrass its supreme leader -- early messages to Sony reportedly did not focus on "The Interview," and instead sought vague "monetary compensation." Meanwhile, publicly released evidence of North Korean involvement seems flimsy, the country itself has hotly denied it is behind the hacks, and more recent theories have pointed instead to a possible inside job, or to hackers from other countries with greater resources and more ambiguous aims. The results of independent linguistic analyses performed on the messages sent by hackers make their North Korean origin questionable, and even suggest they were translated from Russian. (It's also worth noting that Russia's Foreign Ministry this week held a press conference slamming "The Interview" as "aggressively scandalous," while also denouncing the U.S. accusations against North Korea as being without "direct evidence." As these theories and allegations have circulated, the playing field has continued to shift. A group claiming to be members of the enigmatic hacker coalition Anonymous vowed vague reprisal against North Korea. A few days later, North Korea's Internet access was shut down by a denial of service attack. As all this occurred, Sony changed its mind about releasing "The Interview," allowing 300 theaters to screen the film despite warnings of physical attacks on moviegoers, while putting it on Google's Play store and YouTube. But the fact that it instantly leapt to the top of the popularity charts on both platforms has led some conspiracy minded people to wonder whether the entire episode wasn't a PR stunt (albeit one that got out of hand -- the revelations from the email leaks were far too damaging to have been released intentionally). And this is where things get oddly meta. I mentioned that "The Interview" comes off as a trivial work of frat-boy comedy, full of the toilet humor, misogyny, gay-panic japery and racial stereotypes that have marked other Franco/Rogen collaborations. (However, unlike others who've criticized it, I don't think it is any worse than, say, "Pineapple Express.") But the movie's last scene (spoiler alert!), consciously or not, turns it into something with a darker kind of self-awareness. Franco's character, celebrity talk show host Dave Skylark, is shown reading the last page of his best-selling book about their madcap assassination adventure in North Korea to a huge and rapt crowd. He begins as follows: "It was the beginning of a revolution. A revolution Aaron [Rappaport, Skylark's producer, played by Rogen] and I started." They continue by noting that this "revolution" was not one waged with ordinary weapons, but with the power of the media -- and with what can only be defined as trollery. "This was a revolution," he continues, "ignited with nothing more than a camera and some questions. Questions that led a man once revered as a god among mortals to cry and sh*t his pants. The end." It's a concise summary of the new era in which we live, where the ability to manipulate media and technology has increasingly become a critical strategic resource, where combat is conducted not just on battlefields but on servers and screens and social networks, and where it's increasingly impossible to tell the difference between pranks, crimes and acts of war. Welcome to the Troll Age. Buckle your seat belts -- and change your passwords.

Answer: Jeff Yang: Films have often helped shape course of history .
Uncertainty still surrounds Sony hack, Yang says .
But it may mark the emergence of a new chapter in geopolitics, he says .


Question: (CNN) -- The sudden death of Academy Award-winning actor and comedian Robin Williams has sent shock waves throughout the world. The 63-year-old was not only known for bringing laughter to so many throughout his career but for bringing compassion to his philanthropic causes as well. Impact Your World remembers Williams' generosity by looking at some charities with which he worked. Robin Williams' legacy: A big heart for charity . The United Service Organization (USO) was a perfect fit for the comedian. The goal of the organization is to lift the spirits of American troops, and that's exactly what Williams did. During his USO tours, the "Good Morning, Vietnam" star traveled to war zones entertaining troops from Afghanistan to Kuwait. The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, which is dedicated to curing spinal cord injuries, tweeted: . The entertainer and Christopher Reeve were very close friends. They formed an inseparable bond as roommates while studying at New York's Julliard School. Williams was the first to bring a smile to his college buddy's face after Reeve's 1995 horseback riding accident left him paralyzed from the neck down. In Reeve's autobiography "Still Me," he wrote how Williams made a surprise hospital visit impersonating a Russian proctologist and was going to perform an exam on him! The comedic actor was a friend to people of all ages. Just like his "Patch Adams" character, Williams brought smiles and laughter to sick children. He visited kids battling cancer one-on-one and signed autographs at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. In 2006, the father of three was honored with the Muhammad Ali Humanitarian Award at Celebrity Fight Night. The annual event raises money primarily for the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center in Phoenix. Reba McEntire has emceed the benefit dinner and auction for the past nine years and recalled her favorite memory of Williams. She added, "I will miss Robin so much, as we all will. Thank God we have so many wonderful memories of him, his wit, talent, big heart and generosity." The late actor was also involved with Comic Relief to raise money for those in need, especially America's homeless. He hosted a series of HBO TV specials with comedian friends Billy Crystal and Whoopi Goldberg. Comic Relief founder Bob Zmuda remembered Williams' generosity on CNN's "New Day": "Robin was the one from the get-go that was really insistent that we would raise funds for the homeless community. Robin was kind of born with a silver spoon in his mouth. ... I think he felt that he was given so much and that he needed to give back and he truly did." Complete coverage of Robin Williams . Videos: The world according to Robin Williams .

Answer:
Robin Williams was involved in several charitable causes .
He toured with the USO and volunteered with St. Jude Children's Hospital .
The comedian also served on the board of The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation .


