At 120 hours a week you don't have much time to spend any of that windfall, and by the time you do have time to go shopping you're spending it in India.

They were paid more than 3 times their original earnings. They were paid at $1.21 an hour originally and then at $8/hour as backpay. They also got a bonus for travel, and almost certainly got money for room and board.

Your airline doesn't know you are standing in the security line, and it may not even know you are at the airport. The TSA doesn't know you are there until you hit the boarding pass/id check.

Your MAC address isn't your identity any more than your IP address is. But yes, they can easily snap a photo of you and send it off to the web.

No, they know you've checked in, and they can assume you expect to be there sometime before the flight. They don't know you are there because you don't have to be there to check in.

Dangit, I clicked on the comments hoping for some good "+5, Funnies" about "Michael Jordan," and all I got was a stupid on-topic, well-researched, and educational comment on what the real Michael Jordan thinks about the challenges of "big data." And the best we could do on the name is "A man of many talents"? That does it. Slashdot is dead. (Netcraft confirms it.)

Words like "entrapment" change meanings all the time. The specific word "entrapment" already has, by your own admission, at least three meanings, one of which includes the example of someone being entrapped by their emotions. If you think the law should simply use "the dictionary", then you really must think that the law should prohibit people being entrapped by their emotions just as it prohibits the government entrapping them in criminal activity.

In the law, entrapment should be a simple term without room for negotiating intricate meanings, and it can only achieve that by leaving the Webster's or OED behind and defining it in simple terms to mean exactly what is intended.

That's nonsense. "Everyone else" cannot be guilty of entrapment because entrapment can only apply to a government agent because that is how it is defined by law. If I convince you to go rob a bank, you can't point at me and say I'm guilty of entrapment, you can only claim I'm a co-conspirator and should go to jail too. Were I to "entrap" you to rob that bank by appealing to your emotions, I may have "entrapped" you according to one dictionary definition, but you aren't going to avoid jail by arguing that there was "entrapment".

Were I a government agent doing that, neither of us would go to jail. Since entrapment is still an affirmative defense, why you think the government can do it without repercussions is a mystery. Entrapment is a concept that applies ONLY to the government, and is prohibited to them, so how you can say that they can do it while others cannot is, well, I don't really care why you think such an obviously silly thing.

No, I am arguing exactly the point I am trying to make, and which is based on a statement you made in response to someone who pointed out that legal terms often have a very specific meaning. It was the first sentence of your first paragraph (which is called the "topic sentence"), which was:

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

You, yourself, pointed out that "entrapment" already has multiple meanings, only one of which should be used in a legal context, and which is why the legal use needs to have a specific limited definition.

So yes, they should have different definitions, because to simply use the dictionary would create laws that are too broad and too open to change as the language changes. That's the point. It's not "two forms of justice", it's one form, well defined.

Except Dish didn't brick just pirate hardware. They bricked my personally owned Dish network box about fifteen minutes after I called up to cancel service. My personal property, which I should have been able to sell to someone else so they could get Dish service if they wanted it, useless. It would be exactly like Comcast bricking your personally owned cable modem scant minutes after you cancel their service, preventing you from selling it to someone else to use with their cable provider.

Words change meaning all the time, and you cannot predict which ones will or will not in advance, dude. See what I did there? I used a word which has changed meaning.

But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.

This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses, it should use common usage definitions. But in any case, no, that's not what the court said. It is not illegal for the police to entrap you, but it is an affirmative defense against the charge they have entrapped you into.

Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice", just the part where you claimed that legal definitions should be based on the standard dictionary, you're just resorting to ad hominem when you got caught with your pants down. Yep, I called you a nutter, but that wasn't part of my argument why you were wrong. I went ahead and said explicitly why you are wrong. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that.

You're projecting, now.

And you can buy Chinese copycat crap from mainstream vendors, too. So what does the customer do? He walks into Fry's, sees a USB to serial adapter on the rack, and asks a Fry's droid "is this Chinese copycat crap?" The Fry's droid is going to know? I've asked such people what the chip in such devices is (so I can avoid Prolific) and most of them have zero clue. They wouldn't know how to spell FTDI if it was written on the box. So what do they say? "Why no, sir, we don't sell Chinese copycat crap here." And you get a bricked adapter when you plug it in.

I've done this same thing with other devices, notably firewire cards where I want only Agere and never VIA or whatever. I've asked, and then had to open the box and sometimes pull the firmware version sticker off the chip to see ... because the sales people have no clue what's inside the magic boxes, they just know the magic boxes are great and good and you should buy many of them.

There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.

The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.

Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.

I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.

So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".

Yes it is sort of

It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.

However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.

But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.

Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.

They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.

You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?

If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.

Sorry, but when someone, no matter their gender, asks me a question as vague as 'what is that' while pointing at my phone I'm not gonna assume they're asking which version of Android the phone is running. Instead I will assume lcd status of the questioner in regards to the object in question.