Que? People have no problem with amassing wealth in intangible bank accounts, never seeing any physical coins or bills. They're happy as long as they know they can exchange those abstract numbers into tangible goods.
The fact that BitCoins are prone to deflation is a valid concern. But the problem with deflation is that it causes people to hoard the money instead of trading with it, which defeats its purpose as an exchange medium.
To put some perspective, you're protected by law with the above, not with Bitcoin. Any money stolen from individuals is certainly returned.
The difference between traditional banks and (unregulated) BitCoin banks, is that traditional banks are usually backed by the government if they should go belly-up. Outside of that, I don't see much difference. It's just as illegal to steal BitCoins as it is to steal from a traditional bank account, and the bank has the same duty to reimburse the stolen money.
Just like the Internet will never be taken seriously by governments and big businesses due to its technical nature. I mean, only a handful of geeks understand it, and how can you expect anyone to give out their credit card number over a public network that any hacker can eavesdrop on?
It hasn't happened to BitCoin, it's happened to a specific bank dealing with BitCoins.
It's no different from a traditional bank being hacked or robbed. It's not the BitCoin currency itself which has been hacked, it's just a database keeping track of how many BitCoins people have deposited into the bank.
It's not just the dividing and stamping that adds value. Gold increases in value the more people want to use it as a currency. If, one day, ten times as many people decide to store their wealth in gold, the same amount of gold needs to represent a total value that's ten times as high, and the price will increase tenfold.
If gold had no use as a currency, and was only used for practical purposes, such as jewellery and industrial applications, the value would probably be much, much lower.
At least currently. But if BitCoins turn out to be more reliable over the next few decades than the Euro and the USD, people may change their perceptions of what makes a currency credible.
Traditional fiat currencies are victims to the whims of democratically elected politicians and political maneuvering. In Europe the Euro has lost a lot of credibility after Italy and Greece joined it under false pretenses (they lied about the state of their countries' economies).
Precisely. It's not the BitCoin currency itself which has been hacked, only a bank that stored said currency. It's not different from hacking the electronic accounts in an ordinary bank. Except for the fact that this bank didn't have proper backups of people's account information.
Why would he? One witness with a clear-cut view of what happened claiming that he cold-cocked Martin would land his ass in prison for a long time. I'd be willing to believe Zimmerman might be a little hot-headed but not completely stupid. Martin, on the other hand, was a rebellious teenager. Without extenuating evidence, I'd sooner believe that Martin instigated the fight.
My impression is that Zimmerman wasn't hot-headed, but a little paranoid. Maybe he thought he was in more danger than he was, and that his attack would seem justified to an outside observer. In lack of clear evidence either way, I think the police dismissed the case too quickly.
The police need to have evidence before they put Zimmerman to trial for a crime. If they don't have evidence, he walks. And then he's protected from double jeopardy.
Maybe the police didn't have enough evidence to keep him in arrest, but I think it's strange that they were content with basing their report on one witness that they claimed supported Zimmerman's version, and who later claimed to have been asked leading questions, when there were contradicting witnesses on site.
The DA then decided to not put the case in front of a grand jury based on the police report. If people hadn't started complaining about how the case was handled, I'm not sure the police and the DA would've done anything more.
Sure, it may just be sloppy police work and not racism, like the liberal media tends to assume, but still.
The evidence suggests that the instigator was Martin. This includes the end of his phone call, which implied physical contact, with nothing to suggest that Zimmerman was the perpetrator. Nothing like "get your hands off me" or "don't touch me" or anything. Just "why are you following me".
Well, that doesn't imply physical violence. It's circumstantial, at best.
Since there's no clear evidence either way, I think it's justified to arrest both of them. Unfortunately, Martin is dead, so the only one we can arrest is Zimmerman.
I don't see why following someone at a distance is better than confronting them. The latter is more suspicious and may raise fears that you'll try to assault them when their guard is down. But that may just be me.
Good point. But there's still no proof that Martin attacked first, since witnesses are contradicting each other, and the witness who the police said supported Zimmerman's version claims to have been asked leading questions.
It's quite possible that Martin turned back to teach Zimmerman a lesson. but it seems just as possible that Zimmerman attacked first because he was overly suspicious and overreacted to the angry black guy.
Anyway, I'm not saying anyone should be judged in the court of public opinion, just that the police didn't show much interest in investigating a possible homicide before the media started hounding them...
Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing is not a crime either. There's nothing on the phone call suggesting who attacked first, as far as I know.
No reason to start a fight? A nosy white dude was following him. Martin's girlfriend had the right advice: run away. He'd have been free and clear if he'd have stayed away, but he decided more macho actions were in order.
Ok, I don't know your culture. Where I live, people (black or white) usually aren't so offended by someone following them that they go and start a fight with them. Sure, it happens, but it's not the default assumption. Is it so common in Florida (or in the USA in general) that everybody assumes it's what must have happened?
You forget that the witnesses, so far, contradict each other, and that the one who supported Zimmerman's version claims to have been asked leading questions by the police... There's no proof yet of who attacked first.
There's no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word for it, and he (obviously) has an interest in sticking to that story. The witness who the police claimed supported Zimmerman's version, later denied it and claimed to have been asked leading questions.
Considering Martin had no motive to attack Zimmerman (why would you jump on a random white guy when you're on your way with junk food to visit some friends in the neighbourhood?), and Zimmerman had a motive to harass Martin (he was overly suspicious of strangers, and assumed Martin was up to something), I think it's more likely Zimmerman attacked first.
Please note that if Zimmerman, for example, went up to Martin and tried to hold him or acted threatningly, Martin was in his full rights to assume Zimmerman was a mugger and defend himself using force. If Zimmerman believed himself to be the victim and responded with force, that makes him guilty of assault. If he responded with lethal force, that's manslaughter or homicide.
You don't become some kind of authority figure that people have to obey because you appoint yourself to a one-man neighbourhood watch. Unless you have an official badge, people can't tell you from any mugger, serial killer or crazy person.
So, basically, it's Martin's fault for turning around and confronting the man with the gun (assuming he did)? And the man who came after Martin with a gun in the first place and tried to confront him, has no blame at all?
The lengths some people will go to to put the blame on Martin is baffling.
There's not media attention just because the victim was black. It's in combination with the police being so quick to release Zimmerman when, at face value, the facts of the case seemed to go against him. Plus, the victim who supposedly supported Zimmerman's version now claims she was being asked leading questions, and so on.
Aren't you making a huge assumption that blacks (not "people of color", other colors such as "yellow" don't have the same problem) don't commit crimes at higher rates?
The GP is talking about conviction rates. If a white and a black person stands trial for the same crime, the black person is more likely to get convicted. You can't explain that away by pointing at crime rates.
I don't have the energy to go through the other facts over again...
If Zimmerman's account is accurate (which sadly we may never know for sure), Martin was absolutely at fault for instigating contact, and then feloniously assaulting Zimmerman.
Zimmerman loses a lot of credibility for having a history of needlessly reporting "suspicious" people, and by being the one who followed Martin around for no good reason in the first place.
I sort of see it as a traffic accident. Regardless of who was right or wrong in being there, the person who had the last opportunity to avoid the collision is at fault.
Except that in a criminal case, BOTH parties can be held responsible for causing harm to the other, not just the one who had the last opportunity to avoid the "collision".
Martin is dead, so he's already got his punishment, deserved or not. It remains to see how much blame should be placed on Zimmerman's shoulders, if any. Which is why there should be a trial, judge's son or not.
Martin was in his rights to defend himself if he was threatened by the unknown white man who was following him around on the dark street. That includes bashing the assailant's head into the ground. For all he knew, Zimmerman was a mugger, or looking for an excuse to start a fight. Which actually seems to have been the case.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that Zimmerman was the one who went after Martin, for no good reason, and created the situation in the first place. It amazes me how some people go out of their way to apply one standard to Martin and another to Zimmerman.
Slashdot Mirror
But BitCoins have increased in value...
Que? People have no problem with amassing wealth in intangible bank accounts, never seeing any physical coins or bills. They're happy as long as they know they can exchange those abstract numbers into tangible goods.
The fact that BitCoins are prone to deflation is a valid concern. But the problem with deflation is that it causes people to hoard the money instead of trading with it, which defeats its purpose as an exchange medium.
To put some perspective, you're protected by law with the above, not with Bitcoin. Any money stolen from individuals is certainly returned.
The difference between traditional banks and (unregulated) BitCoin banks, is that traditional banks are usually backed by the government if they should go belly-up. Outside of that, I don't see much difference. It's just as illegal to steal BitCoins as it is to steal from a traditional bank account, and the bank has the same duty to reimburse the stolen money.
Just like the Internet will never be taken seriously by governments and big businesses due to its technical nature. I mean, only a handful of geeks understand it, and how can you expect anyone to give out their credit card number over a public network that any hacker can eavesdrop on?
Oh wait, sorry. I confused today with 1992.
It hasn't happened to BitCoin, it's happened to a specific bank dealing with BitCoins.
It's no different from a traditional bank being hacked or robbed. It's not the BitCoin currency itself which has been hacked, it's just a database keeping track of how many BitCoins people have deposited into the bank.
Right. Because we regulate traditional banks, they're never hacked or robbed.
Oh wait...
It's not just the dividing and stamping that adds value. Gold increases in value the more people want to use it as a currency. If, one day, ten times as many people decide to store their wealth in gold, the same amount of gold needs to represent a total value that's ten times as high, and the price will increase tenfold.
If gold had no use as a currency, and was only used for practical purposes, such as jewellery and industrial applications, the value would probably be much, much lower.
At least currently. But if BitCoins turn out to be more reliable over the next few decades than the Euro and the USD, people may change their perceptions of what makes a currency credible.
Traditional fiat currencies are victims to the whims of democratically elected politicians and political maneuvering. In Europe the Euro has lost a lot of credibility after Italy and Greece joined it under false pretenses (they lied about the state of their countries' economies).
Precisely. It's not the BitCoin currency itself which has been hacked, only a bank that stored said currency. It's not different from hacking the electronic accounts in an ordinary bank. Except for the fact that this bank didn't have proper backups of people's account information.
Why would he? One witness with a clear-cut view of what happened claiming that he cold-cocked Martin would land his ass in prison for a long time. I'd be willing to believe Zimmerman might be a little hot-headed but not completely stupid. Martin, on the other hand, was a rebellious teenager. Without extenuating evidence, I'd sooner believe that Martin instigated the fight.
My impression is that Zimmerman wasn't hot-headed, but a little paranoid. Maybe he thought he was in more danger than he was, and that his attack would seem justified to an outside observer. In lack of clear evidence either way, I think the police dismissed the case too quickly.
The police need to have evidence before they put Zimmerman to trial for a crime. If they don't have evidence, he walks. And then he's protected from double jeopardy.
Maybe the police didn't have enough evidence to keep him in arrest, but I think it's strange that they were content with basing their report on one witness that they claimed supported Zimmerman's version, and who later claimed to have been asked leading questions, when there were contradicting witnesses on site.
The DA then decided to not put the case in front of a grand jury based on the police report. If people hadn't started complaining about how the case was handled, I'm not sure the police and the DA would've done anything more.
Sure, it may just be sloppy police work and not racism, like the liberal media tends to assume, but still.
The evidence suggests that the instigator was Martin. This includes the end of his phone call, which implied physical contact, with nothing to suggest that Zimmerman was the perpetrator. Nothing like "get your hands off me" or "don't touch me" or anything. Just "why are you following me".
Well, that doesn't imply physical violence. It's circumstantial, at best.
Since there's no clear evidence either way, I think it's justified to arrest both of them. Unfortunately, Martin is dead, so the only one we can arrest is Zimmerman.
... now my mother will finally have Internet in her computer!
I don't see why following someone at a distance is better than confronting them. The latter is more suspicious and may raise fears that you'll try to assault them when their guard is down. But that may just be me.
Good point. But there's still no proof that Martin attacked first, since witnesses are contradicting each other, and the witness who the police said supported Zimmerman's version claims to have been asked leading questions.
It's quite possible that Martin turned back to teach Zimmerman a lesson. but it seems just as possible that Zimmerman attacked first because he was overly suspicious and overreacted to the angry black guy.
Anyway, I'm not saying anyone should be judged in the court of public opinion, just that the police didn't show much interest in investigating a possible homicide before the media started hounding them...
Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing is not a crime either. There's nothing on the phone call suggesting who attacked first, as far as I know.
No reason to start a fight? A nosy white dude was following him. Martin's girlfriend had the right advice: run away. He'd have been free and clear if he'd have stayed away, but he decided more macho actions were in order.
Ok, I don't know your culture. Where I live, people (black or white) usually aren't so offended by someone following them that they go and start a fight with them. Sure, it happens, but it's not the default assumption. Is it so common in Florida (or in the USA in general) that everybody assumes it's what must have happened?
You forget that the witnesses, so far, contradict each other, and that the one who supported Zimmerman's version claims to have been asked leading questions by the police... There's no proof yet of who attacked first.
There's no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word for it, and he (obviously) has an interest in sticking to that story. The witness who the police claimed supported Zimmerman's version, later denied it and claimed to have been asked leading questions.
Considering Martin had no motive to attack Zimmerman (why would you jump on a random white guy when you're on your way with junk food to visit some friends in the neighbourhood?), and Zimmerman had a motive to harass Martin (he was overly suspicious of strangers, and assumed Martin was up to something), I think it's more likely Zimmerman attacked first.
Please note that if Zimmerman, for example, went up to Martin and tried to hold him or acted threatningly, Martin was in his full rights to assume Zimmerman was a mugger and defend himself using force. If Zimmerman believed himself to be the victim and responded with force, that makes him guilty of assault. If he responded with lethal force, that's manslaughter or homicide.
You don't become some kind of authority figure that people have to obey because you appoint yourself to a one-man neighbourhood watch. Unless you have an official badge, people can't tell you from any mugger, serial killer or crazy person.
So, basically, it's Martin's fault for turning around and confronting the man with the gun (assuming he did)? And the man who came after Martin with a gun in the first place and tried to confront him, has no blame at all?
The lengths some people will go to to put the blame on Martin is baffling.
There's not media attention just because the victim was black. It's in combination with the police being so quick to release Zimmerman when, at face value, the facts of the case seemed to go against him. Plus, the victim who supposedly supported Zimmerman's version now claims she was being asked leading questions, and so on.
Aren't you making a huge assumption that blacks (not "people of color", other colors such as "yellow" don't have the same problem) don't commit crimes at higher rates?
The GP is talking about conviction rates. If a white and a black person stands trial for the same crime, the black person is more likely to get convicted. You can't explain that away by pointing at crime rates.
I don't have the energy to go through the other facts over again...
If Zimmerman's account is accurate (which sadly we may never know for sure), Martin was absolutely at fault for instigating contact, and then feloniously assaulting Zimmerman.
Zimmerman loses a lot of credibility for having a history of needlessly reporting "suspicious" people, and by being the one who followed Martin around for no good reason in the first place.
I sort of see it as a traffic accident. Regardless of who was right or wrong in being there, the person who had the last opportunity to avoid the collision is at fault.
Except that in a criminal case, BOTH parties can be held responsible for causing harm to the other, not just the one who had the last opportunity to avoid the "collision".
Martin is dead, so he's already got his punishment, deserved or not. It remains to see how much blame should be placed on Zimmerman's shoulders, if any. Which is why there should be a trial, judge's son or not.
Martin was in his rights to defend himself if he was threatened by the unknown white man who was following him around on the dark street. That includes bashing the assailant's head into the ground. For all he knew, Zimmerman was a mugger, or looking for an excuse to start a fight. Which actually seems to have been the case.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that Zimmerman was the one who went after Martin, for no good reason, and created the situation in the first place. It amazes me how some people go out of their way to apply one standard to Martin and another to Zimmerman.
Hey, I earned my egotistic sense of superiority the hard way!
How do you know Martin didn't stop, and Zimmerman caught up with him?
There are any number of possibilities.