Who needs social networks online?

Facebook solves a very serious problem. Are you too happy? Is it uncomfortable being happier than everyone else? Facebook is the answer. Read Facebook use predicts declines in happiness, new study finds. Or download the scientific paper.

People were talking about organized crime in japan. So... do you think organized crime in japan has any trouble getting all the guns they "WANT"... the answer is obviously. They smuggle more then that all the time.

Regardless... on the issue printed weapons... we can already pump out plastic weapons from printers that print plastic.

What happens when the public has printers that can print metal?

The metal printers can already print production grade weapons. One of the printing companies printed a 1911 pistol.

Now you can control that to some extent by controlling the sale of ammunition. But it really depends on what you're printing.

I would print a shotgun. Mostly because the ammo is really easy to make yourself.

Here is the thing. You can't stop a psychopath by controlling weapons. You can change the way that organized crime deals with people. But a mass killer is going to find a way. Keep in mind you can make a powerful bomb with fertilizer. Keep in mind you can make poison gas with cleaning supplies.

At a certain point, there is substitute for simply trusting people. And that means that if you really want to control this issue you need to know who is crazy and who is not.

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.

This seems like circular logic. First one has to define what a "Neanderthal" is before answering that question.

Yep. A lot of taxonomy is like that.

In the process of classifying things they're trying to find or define sharp boundaries on a subject matter that is actually a continuum.

I recall, in my first encounters with the subject, trying to get a coherent definition of the distinctions between species, genus, family etc.. The instructor was utterly uanble to provide one. (Of course this WAS at the junior-high level.)

DNA technology is also substantially revamping the whole field. Previously they had to infer what genes various organisms had by observing their expressions in morphology - which makes it hard to track genes that are there but "turned off". Now that they can actually sequence the DNA (or the expressed protiens when the sample is too old for DNA and RNA to survive) a lot of the classifications are getting rearranged.

Was Neanderthal a species, or something more akin to a colorform? What constitutes extinction when a branch that once interbred with another dies out, but leaves behind a substantial amount of its DNA? Did the two branches actually "speciate", i.e. separate to the point where the COULDN'T interbreed, or at least couldn't produce viable crossbreed offspring that could produce offspring of their own in turn? Or was it just that they mostly DIDN'T interbreed? Were they like the races of the current human species (clusters of different traits but one big gene pool), like horses and donkeys (where crossbreeds are easy but mostly infertile), or like fully-speciated organisms that might try but just can't produce offspring? Did they go extinct, or did most of their traits just gradually (or suddenly, as in a near-extinction event where all the copies of a gene were in the places where everybody died off) get lost from the geneome of the one big human family?

Seems to me it's mostly a matter of definition and partly a subject for more research.

Don't ask me for an authoritative definition. I'm just another observer, not a taxonimist. B-)

In the case of a general social networking tool, there kinda can be only one. People won't check every site every day, and the one they check most often will be the one with most of their friends. If you have "Ello friends" and "Facebook friends", odds are you'll visit one site much less, and your friends there will drift further away.

There's room for various niche sites, but they need a differentiator. I can imagine Ello wanting to be the social networking site for those who want privacy, but strikes me as being kind of counter to the point of social networking. People go to Facebook *because* it violates their privacy. It does so a bit more than most realize, perhaps, but really they only seem to notice the monetization of their lack of privacy, rather than the lack of privacy itself.

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.