See the "W" column in each section. They legend is at the bottom under the Annotation section. There is also a special section for vehicular homicide.

It looks like the first few comments have already been about guns and the second amendment, so I want to throw this out there. There have been spree killings all over the world, even in countries with more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Most of these killings were done with firearms, but many were done with other weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

I think that rather than arguing about gun-rights in general, we would be better served by working to identify the kind of people that feel they need to resort to this type of violence and getting them the help they need before they snap.

The map rates how many entities control external connections. China is heavy handed with how they control the internet internally, but they probably have many entities controlling different external connections to the wider internet. The map is showing the danger of how easy it would be for a country to sever its connection to the outside world, not control it.

The only moral thing to do would be to program the car to protect its passengers at all costs. IMO it would be immoral for a car to make the "decision" to sacrifice its passenger when the passenger is unwilling no matter how altruistic it seems.

How about this thing?

http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/14/tablet-newspaper-1994.html

This is probably the best example that I have seen. Go to Amazon and search for "black lcd tv." They're all almost exactly the same.

Apple made their tablet at a time when there was a void in the market that it could fill. They made it at a time when the appropriate technology had (relatively) recently become available at a low enough price to make a tablet with a good mix of functionality and affordability (basically they beat everyone else to the punch.) Then they tied it to a line of already-successful products (iPod and iPhone) and marketed the hell out of it. It was business genius, but the tablet concept was not new.

I'm concerned that Facebook could end up flagging something as illegal that is really an inside joke between friends. I make lots of jokes about illegal activities with friends. They're usually about violent crimes or hard drugs rather than sex crimes, but still... We know each other well enough to catch the sarcasm. But sarcasm doesn't always show through very well in text when being read by strangers.

The whole argument about "gateway" drugs is pointless. People are going to try what's available and what they're comfortable with (what their friends use) first and move on from there. There is no "gateway" as much as a natural progression.

But they were also lucky enough to have been gifted with exceptional intelligence and raised in situations that allowed them access to computer hardware, software, and similarly gifted peers. They were/are all exceptional people. I think that the point of the article is that the vast majority of us aren't going to be able to accomplish what they did in the same way that they did.

The scenario mentioned above isn't as much a myth as it is an oversimplification. None of the people who accomplished this were average college students who simply had a good idea. They all had some sort of foundation for success started before they ever entered college.

I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.

This would be ideal for certain situations where you need to contact the police but where it would be ill-advised to draw attention to yourself by making a phone call.