I'm not quite sure where you're getting this "no questions asked" thing from. A full investigation was done. Zimmerman was brought to the police station, in hand cuffs, in a patrol car after the incident. I'm sure he was asked plenty of questions. I'm sure so were the many witnesses.
As for a confrontation ending up with a dead body, let me ask you something. If someone who had a full 6 inches in height on you, was on top of you, slamming your head into the ground, would you just let him do it? Or would you use whatever means are available to you to prevent this attacker from bashing your head in? There's a concept called disparity of force. This is a concept that comes up time and time again in cases of lethal use of force in self defense. Without using this case (I'll get to that in a bit), an example of disparity of force would be this. An 80 year old woman is attacked by a 25 year old man without weapons, just his fists. This constitutes disparity of force because there is no way that 80 year old woman can provide the same amount of force back to that man, without the use of a weapon. In this case, she would be justified pulling the.38 Special Revolver from her purse, and putting a bullet or two in the man. It would be ruled a justifiable homicide, and the woman would be allowed to go about her life.
Ok, so how does this relate to this case? If you were to put Martin in Zimmerman in the octagon, and let them go at it, they'd likely be a fairly even match. Martin is 6'3" 160lbs. Zimmerman is 5'9", and around 180lbs (the estimates that put him at around the 240-250 mark were based on the infamous mugshot that the news loved showing of Zimmerman, that was also 5 years old). However, with Martin physically on top of Zimmerman (two eyewitnesses, and Zimmerman's own story state this) and his hands on his head, there is little Zimmerman can do to stop what's going on. Slamming someone's head into the ground is lethal force. The disparity of force, assuming this version of events is true (and there is practically no evidence to suggest that it is not, at this time), is very evident, with Zimmerman left with little choice but to draw his weapon and fire.
You may believe that it doesn't matter who started the confrontation, but leaving fantasy land, and entering the real world, it actually does matter. Carrying a gun does not make you guilty, as you seem to be implying. If Zimmerman started the confrontation, and provoked Martin, he is a cold blooded murderer, and deserves to spend the rest of his years in prison. If, however, Zimmerman's only crime (which isn't a crime) was following a suspicious person, and it was Martin that instigated the confrontation, then the death of Trayvon Martin should rightly be ruled a justifiable homicide.
It's a damn shame that most people don't actually know what racial profiling is, and how it is used, everyday, legally, to fight crime. It's not what most people think it is.
Dispatchers are not Police. They likely (not always) work for the Police dept, but nothing they tell you is legally binding. Zimmerman was protecting his neighborhood, as the neighborhood watch captain. There had been a rash of burglaries in his community recently. Whether he was overzealous, paranoid, or whatever, is absolutely irrelevant to this case. He was not doing anything illegal or provoking by following Martin. You say he chose to go after the kid, "with a gun." You make it sound like he had his weapon out and a bead drawn on Martin. Here's the thing; Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, by the State of Florida. He likely had the weapon on his hip, or wherever he had it concealed. This was perfectly legal. By virtue of him following Martin, his weapon went with him. Again, this is perfectly legal. Most people, including yourself, are completely ignorant when it comes to issues and laws relating to concealed carry. Most people with permits carry all the time. They are almost never found without their weapons, except in situations where they legally aren't allowed to have them (Federal building, past airport security checkpoint, etc). The fact that he had his gun with him, again, is irrelevant, unless he was flashing it around. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support that, your entire point is moot.
What's interesting is that you're trying to argue a point that has already essentially been resolved, even by the likes of NBC. Whether Zimmerman provoked Martin, or Martin attacked Zimmerman, we don't know. However, what is conclusive is that up until the point of the confrontation itself, Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or anything at all that could be used against him in this case.
Actually, he didn't accept his story. He states that we don't know what happened, specifically, the phrase, "In this case, as far as we know..."
Reading Comprehension > You, sir.
Besides, it wasn't "Shoot First" considering Zimmerman's broken nose, gash on the back of his head, and grass stains on his shirt. Looks more like, hit in nose, throw to ground, and bash head into ground, first. But of course, we have no idea what actually happened.
I just wanted to comment to say I really feel bad for those who live in "Duty to Retreat" states. I personally call them "Duty to be shot in the back, or go to jail for defending yourself" states. It's insane to think that some states will not let you defend yourself unless you try to get away first. In those seconds you're contemplating retreat, the confrontation is over, with a clear winner, and a clear loser (dead, or dying).
I feel very safe knowing that I live in a "Castle Law" state that allows law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection. In essence, if anyone ever tries to hurt me or my family, they'll get nine 00 buck pellets, or two.45 JHP's in the chest...and I won't run away from you first.
The police didn't tell him to do ANYTHING. The dispatcher (no badge, no authority, except to relay information) told him to not interfere. What Zimmerman did by following Martin, and not doing what the dispatcher said was not breaking any law at all. He had a legal right to everything he was doing, up to the point of the physical altercation. It was at that point that we don't know exactly what happened.
Also, you are incredibly ignorant of how the "stand your ground" law works. If someone initiates or provokes a fight, and the other person is killed as a result, the "stand your ground" law cannot be used. It does not "...basically mean you can start a fight as long as the other person is mad enough, then you can shoot them." If Zimmerman started, or provoked the fight, he would be guilty of murder.
Another area you are ignorant of the law is a weapon isn't necessary for justifiable use of lethal force. Anytime where you are in a situation where serious injury or death is imminent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If Zimmerman's side of the story is true, and the evidence we do have at least supports it, Martin had him on his back, after breaking his nose, and was bashing his head into the ground. We could argue whether that constitutes serious injury or imminent death (I tend to believe that having your head smashed into the ground multiple times falls under that category), and if it does, he was in the right to defend himself the way he did.
Of course, the real problem is that we do no have any idea what led to the actual confrontation. And anything we speculate on is just that, speculation. Zimmerman may very well have provoked Martin, but without evidence, and a trial, we cannot state that he is a murderer.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't provoke the altercation that led to Martin's death. What I'm saying is, we don't know what led to that. Following Martin around, is not provocation.
If only more people were like you and didn't believe everything they watch on the 6 o'clock news, we'd live in a much better place. What was written here is essentially what we know, which isn't enough to put a man on trial.
All we know for a fact is that there was some kind of physical confrontation (evidenced by Zimmerman's injuries, and grass stains on his back) and that an unarmed person was shot as a result of said confrontation. We do not know what caused the confrontation, and who started the confrontation. Those are absolutely crucial pieces of information in order for a Grand Jury to indict Zimmerman for murder. Without that information, and evidence showing that Zimmerman started the confrontation, this case cannot, and will not ever go to trial.
Here's something to consider, coming from Trey Ratcliff.
https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1#105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1
In a nutshell, in 5-10 years, DSLR's will be looked on the same way we look at VHS. It was a great technology for it's time, but it had to go. Theoretically, the only real difference between a DSLR and a MILC (or whatever you want to call them) is that a DSLR has a mirror box and the MILC doesn't. You might say that the viewfinder is different, but in reality, there is no difference. Live view on a DSLR looks like crap compared to the electronic viewfinder of, say the Olympus EP-3.
True, today there are no full frame MILC (unless you count the Leica M9, which will set you back $7k), but I doubt the OP would want to spend the money on a full frame DSLR either. The Olympus EP-3 is getting absolutely rave reviews throughout the photography community. Scott Bourne, for instance has pretty much switched from DSLR's to the EP-3 and only uses his D3 and/or 5dmkii for action and wildlife photography.
It's tough to think about this kind of huge paradigm change within photography, especially those who've spent tens of thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but in 5-10 years, those who are still shooting a huge clunky DSLR will be looked on like those who today are still shooting film...as very quaint.
I for one will not be buying anymore lenses or accessories for my DSLR. I plan to gradually make the switch to something similar to the EP-3 over the next few years.
I've looked and looked at Apple's information about iCloud, and no where have I seen any of these features mentioned. iCloud is simply a personal, lightweight backup/sync solution for users. It's not meant to be an enterprise level doc sharing interface. Considering that there were very few solutions available that do what iCloud does before it was introduced, I'd call it a pretty amazing product. There are plenty of enterprise level backup solutions that have the features mentioned in the article. Why would Apple even bother messing with that? What they did makes perfect sense, and it's the perfect product for what it's intended for. Let's also not forget that it's brand new. Features can ALWAYS be added.
I'd mod this up if I could. A single bad decision can make or break a company. If Jobs didn't really have any contributions, then how come his return to Apple coincided with their comimg back from the brink of bankruptcy? Regardless of what you think of the man, without him, the state of our technology wouldn't be where it is today. That's the contributions of a single man.
...hire someone who actually knows the job you've been hired for. The fact that you have to ask these questions tells me you are the wrong person for the job.
I wouldn't call matte painting, especially by hand, an easy or quick technique. Even people who are good at the technique would likely rather use these content aware tools, I would imagine.
If you've ever used photoshop, you would understand what it takes just to get to that part. Ever try removing a tree from an image in PS? Then have the sky look natural? That's almost impossible for the average user, and probably at least an hour (or more) of work from someone who knows what they are doing. Fixing the mistakes at that point is easy. This is could possibly be one of the most revolutionary tools in photoshop since the clone stamp.
'Google's new Latitude Web app for iPhone is so hamstrung that Apple customers may be wishing they had a BlackBerry or Android handset instead.'
Yes, because one crippled app is going to make me wish I had a Blackberry or Android...
I agree, but I'm kinda wondering what $1 Trillion in public funds going to the people who 'fucked up' has to do with peeing in a cup.
Somebody having a bad day?:(
And how come the world seems full of heroes, but there's not many peasants or normal people? And the boat rides only take 2 minutes to cross an entire ocean. And I can fly across the continent on a griffon in 10 minutes. And when I die, well, I don't really die! When I fall off a 50 foot ledge, it either kills me, or I can run off like nothing really happened, no injury at all! And why does my riding crop make my clockwork Flying Machine faster? It's pretty amazing that I can just give a class trainer some money, and I can learn completely new talents when the original ones took me lots of time to learn!
The realism argument is old and tired. Realism doesn't always make a game fun. Completely persistant worlds wouldn't be much fun unless there was a way to ensure everyone could experience the same basic content ans everyone else. Does anyone remember Sleeper's Tomb in Everquest? One guild on each server got to see the sleeper released. If you happened to be in the right zone at the right time, you would get to be killed by the sleeper after he was released. Then the good loot became rare to get out of the tomb, and the event never happened again. Sure it was an epic accomplishment, but the only people who really cared were those who did it. Most everyone else was just kinda pissed off because the event was ruined and they wouldn't ever get a chance to see it. The idea of a multiplayer game is for everyone to have the opportunity to experience the content, not just an elite few who can afford to spend hours a day playing. If you want a persistant world, there's plenty of table top RPGs to play, and many single player computer based RPGs. Everyone pays the same $15 a month. Doesn't that afford them the right to experience the same content as everyone else?
Take a look at my post above yours. It's clear that the framers original intent with the 2nd amendment was for the individual's rights to keep and bear arms. The original wording had the "keep and bear arms" clause first, and the "well regulated militia" clause, second. Both of those statements were seperated by a semi-colon. In other words, contrary to your liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, they intended for both of those statements to be seperate, complete thoughts. Why they ended up changing the wording, well, the proceedings of the commitee were never disclosed. It's also interesting to note that originally what was to become the bill of rights was going to simply be put into the Constitution. And the 2nd amendment was originally slated to be put in Article 1, Section 9, as a limit to congressional power.
To expand on this, it's actually very interesting to look at the history of this amendment. The most confusing part about the amendment for people was that it started with the clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," and ended with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People seem to think that the right to keep and bear arms means within a regulated militia. However, the original wording was much different. According to Wikipedia, the original wording is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Creation):
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
There is absolutely no way to interpret that as anything other than the individual right of gun ownership. Of course, this argument is now moot since the 2nd Amendment is definitively about individual rights.
And how could I forget one of the biggest changes of all. Everyone has the ability to heal themselves, no need for a dedicated healer. I personally like this because it always sucked saying, well, Jim is the new guy, and we need a cleric, so Jim gets to be a cleric.
-No more wizards/clerics/etc saying, "Crap, I just blew all my spells in that one encounter, I need to rest for 8 hours!" -Much simplified rules for DMs creating encounters and adventures, as well as putting rewards in those encounters. (This is a complete overhaul, and hard to really give too many examples) -No more random hit point amounts every level, in addition, a larger hit point total at level 1. (No more fighters rolling a 1 at first level, etc) -New death/dying system, that scales as you level. (ie. no more -10 hp and you're dead crap)
Honestly, if you're curious, go to http://www.enworld.com/ and look around. They have put together a full preview PHB based on pre-release information. Should give you a good idea of what to expect. 4e is definately not an expansion. It's almost completely overhauled from 3.5.
Slashdot Mirror
As for a confrontation ending up with a dead body, let me ask you something. If someone who had a full 6 inches in height on you, was on top of you, slamming your head into the ground, would you just let him do it? Or would you use whatever means are available to you to prevent this attacker from bashing your head in? There's a concept called disparity of force. This is a concept that comes up time and time again in cases of lethal use of force in self defense. Without using this case (I'll get to that in a bit), an example of disparity of force would be this. An 80 year old woman is attacked by a 25 year old man without weapons, just his fists. This constitutes disparity of force because there is no way that 80 year old woman can provide the same amount of force back to that man, without the use of a weapon. In this case, she would be justified pulling the .38 Special Revolver from her purse, and putting a bullet or two in the man. It would be ruled a justifiable homicide, and the woman would be allowed to go about her life.
Ok, so how does this relate to this case? If you were to put Martin in Zimmerman in the octagon, and let them go at it, they'd likely be a fairly even match. Martin is 6'3" 160lbs. Zimmerman is 5'9", and around 180lbs (the estimates that put him at around the 240-250 mark were based on the infamous mugshot that the news loved showing of Zimmerman, that was also 5 years old). However, with Martin physically on top of Zimmerman (two eyewitnesses, and Zimmerman's own story state this) and his hands on his head, there is little Zimmerman can do to stop what's going on. Slamming someone's head into the ground is lethal force. The disparity of force, assuming this version of events is true (and there is practically no evidence to suggest that it is not, at this time), is very evident, with Zimmerman left with little choice but to draw his weapon and fire.
You may believe that it doesn't matter who started the confrontation, but leaving fantasy land, and entering the real world, it actually does matter. Carrying a gun does not make you guilty, as you seem to be implying. If Zimmerman started the confrontation, and provoked Martin, he is a cold blooded murderer, and deserves to spend the rest of his years in prison. If, however, Zimmerman's only crime (which isn't a crime) was following a suspicious person, and it was Martin that instigated the confrontation, then the death of Trayvon Martin should rightly be ruled a justifiable homicide.
There is plenty of evidence that damn near proves that Zimmerman did NOT suffer any substantial injury.
Wait, wait, wait...
Soooooo, in order to use lethal force to defend myself, I have to wait until AFTER I have sustained substantial injury?
Are you fucking stupid? Or just insane?
"Derp, derp, derp, Imma let you bash my head in a few more times before I try to defend myself, derp."
So it's impossible for a person to kill another person without using a weapon?
Only with lasers, as far as I know.
It's a damn shame that most people don't actually know what racial profiling is, and how it is used, everyday, legally, to fight crime. It's not what most people think it is.
Dispatchers are not Police. They likely (not always) work for the Police dept, but nothing they tell you is legally binding. Zimmerman was protecting his neighborhood, as the neighborhood watch captain. There had been a rash of burglaries in his community recently. Whether he was overzealous, paranoid, or whatever, is absolutely irrelevant to this case. He was not doing anything illegal or provoking by following Martin. You say he chose to go after the kid, "with a gun." You make it sound like he had his weapon out and a bead drawn on Martin. Here's the thing; Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, by the State of Florida. He likely had the weapon on his hip, or wherever he had it concealed. This was perfectly legal. By virtue of him following Martin, his weapon went with him. Again, this is perfectly legal. Most people, including yourself, are completely ignorant when it comes to issues and laws relating to concealed carry. Most people with permits carry all the time. They are almost never found without their weapons, except in situations where they legally aren't allowed to have them (Federal building, past airport security checkpoint, etc). The fact that he had his gun with him, again, is irrelevant, unless he was flashing it around. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support that, your entire point is moot.
What's interesting is that you're trying to argue a point that has already essentially been resolved, even by the likes of NBC. Whether Zimmerman provoked Martin, or Martin attacked Zimmerman, we don't know. However, what is conclusive is that up until the point of the confrontation itself, Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or anything at all that could be used against him in this case.
Actually, he didn't accept his story. He states that we don't know what happened, specifically, the phrase, "In this case, as far as we know..."
Reading Comprehension > You, sir.
Besides, it wasn't "Shoot First" considering Zimmerman's broken nose, gash on the back of his head, and grass stains on his shirt. Looks more like, hit in nose, throw to ground, and bash head into ground, first. But of course, we have no idea what actually happened.
In your case, ignorance is not bliss...
I just wanted to comment to say I really feel bad for those who live in "Duty to Retreat" states. I personally call them "Duty to be shot in the back, or go to jail for defending yourself" states. It's insane to think that some states will not let you defend yourself unless you try to get away first. In those seconds you're contemplating retreat, the confrontation is over, with a clear winner, and a clear loser (dead, or dying).
.45 JHP's in the chest...and I won't run away from you first.
I feel very safe knowing that I live in a "Castle Law" state that allows law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection. In essence, if anyone ever tries to hurt me or my family, they'll get nine 00 buck pellets, or two
The police didn't tell him to do ANYTHING. The dispatcher (no badge, no authority, except to relay information) told him to not interfere. What Zimmerman did by following Martin, and not doing what the dispatcher said was not breaking any law at all. He had a legal right to everything he was doing, up to the point of the physical altercation. It was at that point that we don't know exactly what happened.
Also, you are incredibly ignorant of how the "stand your ground" law works. If someone initiates or provokes a fight, and the other person is killed as a result, the "stand your ground" law cannot be used. It does not "...basically mean you can start a fight as long as the other person is mad enough, then you can shoot them." If Zimmerman started, or provoked the fight, he would be guilty of murder.
Another area you are ignorant of the law is a weapon isn't necessary for justifiable use of lethal force. Anytime where you are in a situation where serious injury or death is imminent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If Zimmerman's side of the story is true, and the evidence we do have at least supports it, Martin had him on his back, after breaking his nose, and was bashing his head into the ground. We could argue whether that constitutes serious injury or imminent death (I tend to believe that having your head smashed into the ground multiple times falls under that category), and if it does, he was in the right to defend himself the way he did.
Of course, the real problem is that we do no have any idea what led to the actual confrontation. And anything we speculate on is just that, speculation. Zimmerman may very well have provoked Martin, but without evidence, and a trial, we cannot state that he is a murderer.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't provoke the altercation that led to Martin's death. What I'm saying is, we don't know what led to that. Following Martin around, is not provocation.
If only more people were like you and didn't believe everything they watch on the 6 o'clock news, we'd live in a much better place. What was written here is essentially what we know, which isn't enough to put a man on trial.
All we know for a fact is that there was some kind of physical confrontation (evidenced by Zimmerman's injuries, and grass stains on his back) and that an unarmed person was shot as a result of said confrontation. We do not know what caused the confrontation, and who started the confrontation. Those are absolutely crucial pieces of information in order for a Grand Jury to indict Zimmerman for murder. Without that information, and evidence showing that Zimmerman started the confrontation, this case cannot, and will not ever go to trial.
Here's something to consider, coming from Trey Ratcliff. https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1#105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1 In a nutshell, in 5-10 years, DSLR's will be looked on the same way we look at VHS. It was a great technology for it's time, but it had to go. Theoretically, the only real difference between a DSLR and a MILC (or whatever you want to call them) is that a DSLR has a mirror box and the MILC doesn't. You might say that the viewfinder is different, but in reality, there is no difference. Live view on a DSLR looks like crap compared to the electronic viewfinder of, say the Olympus EP-3. True, today there are no full frame MILC (unless you count the Leica M9, which will set you back $7k), but I doubt the OP would want to spend the money on a full frame DSLR either. The Olympus EP-3 is getting absolutely rave reviews throughout the photography community. Scott Bourne, for instance has pretty much switched from DSLR's to the EP-3 and only uses his D3 and/or 5dmkii for action and wildlife photography. It's tough to think about this kind of huge paradigm change within photography, especially those who've spent tens of thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but in 5-10 years, those who are still shooting a huge clunky DSLR will be looked on like those who today are still shooting film...as very quaint. I for one will not be buying anymore lenses or accessories for my DSLR. I plan to gradually make the switch to something similar to the EP-3 over the next few years.
I've looked and looked at Apple's information about iCloud, and no where have I seen any of these features mentioned. iCloud is simply a personal, lightweight backup/sync solution for users. It's not meant to be an enterprise level doc sharing interface. Considering that there were very few solutions available that do what iCloud does before it was introduced, I'd call it a pretty amazing product. There are plenty of enterprise level backup solutions that have the features mentioned in the article. Why would Apple even bother messing with that? What they did makes perfect sense, and it's the perfect product for what it's intended for. Let's also not forget that it's brand new. Features can ALWAYS be added.
I'd mod this up if I could. A single bad decision can make or break a company. If Jobs didn't really have any contributions, then how come his return to Apple coincided with their comimg back from the brink of bankruptcy? Regardless of what you think of the man, without him, the state of our technology wouldn't be where it is today. That's the contributions of a single man.
...hire someone who actually knows the job you've been hired for. The fact that you have to ask these questions tells me you are the wrong person for the job.
I wouldn't call matte painting, especially by hand, an easy or quick technique. Even people who are good at the technique would likely rather use these content aware tools, I would imagine.
If you've ever used photoshop, you would understand what it takes just to get to that part. Ever try removing a tree from an image in PS? Then have the sky look natural? That's almost impossible for the average user, and probably at least an hour (or more) of work from someone who knows what they are doing. Fixing the mistakes at that point is easy. This is could possibly be one of the most revolutionary tools in photoshop since the clone stamp.
"Why is iPod better than Zune?"
Go ahead, you know you want to try...
'Google's new Latitude Web app for iPhone is so hamstrung that Apple customers may be wishing they had a BlackBerry or Android handset instead.' Yes, because one crippled app is going to make me wish I had a Blackberry or Android...
*shrugs*
I accidently dropped my wifes Dell laptop from at least 4 feet. It survived and still runs just fine.
Stevens (I'm guessing you mean Ted Stevens?) was a Senator. Alaska's one and only congressman is Don Young.
I agree, but I'm kinda wondering what $1 Trillion in public funds going to the people who 'fucked up' has to do with peeing in a cup. Somebody having a bad day? :(
And how come the world seems full of heroes, but there's not many peasants or normal people? And the boat rides only take 2 minutes to cross an entire ocean. And I can fly across the continent on a griffon in 10 minutes. And when I die, well, I don't really die! When I fall off a 50 foot ledge, it either kills me, or I can run off like nothing really happened, no injury at all! And why does my riding crop make my clockwork Flying Machine faster? It's pretty amazing that I can just give a class trainer some money, and I can learn completely new talents when the original ones took me lots of time to learn!
The realism argument is old and tired. Realism doesn't always make a game fun. Completely persistant worlds wouldn't be much fun unless there was a way to ensure everyone could experience the same basic content ans everyone else. Does anyone remember Sleeper's Tomb in Everquest? One guild on each server got to see the sleeper released. If you happened to be in the right zone at the right time, you would get to be killed by the sleeper after he was released. Then the good loot became rare to get out of the tomb, and the event never happened again. Sure it was an epic accomplishment, but the only people who really cared were those who did it. Most everyone else was just kinda pissed off because the event was ruined and they wouldn't ever get a chance to see it. The idea of a multiplayer game is for everyone to have the opportunity to experience the content, not just an elite few who can afford to spend hours a day playing. If you want a persistant world, there's plenty of table top RPGs to play, and many single player computer based RPGs. Everyone pays the same $15 a month. Doesn't that afford them the right to experience the same content as everyone else?
Take a look at my post above yours. It's clear that the framers original intent with the 2nd amendment was for the individual's rights to keep and bear arms. The original wording had the "keep and bear arms" clause first, and the "well regulated militia" clause, second. Both of those statements were seperated by a semi-colon. In other words, contrary to your liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, they intended for both of those statements to be seperate, complete thoughts. Why they ended up changing the wording, well, the proceedings of the commitee were never disclosed. It's also interesting to note that originally what was to become the bill of rights was going to simply be put into the Constitution. And the 2nd amendment was originally slated to be put in Article 1, Section 9, as a limit to congressional power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
To expand on this, it's actually very interesting to look at the history of this amendment. The most confusing part about the amendment for people was that it started with the clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," and ended with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People seem to think that the right to keep and bear arms means within a regulated militia. However, the original wording was much different. According to Wikipedia, the original wording is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Creation):
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
There is absolutely no way to interpret that as anything other than the individual right of gun ownership. Of course, this argument is now moot since the 2nd Amendment is definitively about individual rights.
And how could I forget one of the biggest changes of all. Everyone has the ability to heal themselves, no need for a dedicated healer. I personally like this because it always sucked saying, well, Jim is the new guy, and we need a cleric, so Jim gets to be a cleric.
Let's see:
-No more wizards/clerics/etc saying, "Crap, I just blew all my spells in that one encounter, I need to rest for 8 hours!"
-Much simplified rules for DMs creating encounters and adventures, as well as putting rewards in those encounters. (This is a complete overhaul, and hard to really give too many examples)
-No more random hit point amounts every level, in addition, a larger hit point total at level 1. (No more fighters rolling a 1 at first level, etc)
-New death/dying system, that scales as you level. (ie. no more -10 hp and you're dead crap)
Honestly, if you're curious, go to http://www.enworld.com/ and look around. They have put together a full preview PHB based on pre-release information. Should give you a good idea of what to expect. 4e is definately not an expansion. It's almost completely overhauled from 3.5.