Like the law says, they don't need to be sure Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, they only need probable cause.
IMHO, the fact that 1) Zimmerman was the one stalking Martin, not the other way around, 2) Zimmerman had the upper hand, as he was much heavier and carrying a gun, and 3) Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, should be more than enough to establish probably cause.
The GP is not declaring judgement on Zimmerman, he's declaring judgement on the police and the prosecutor's actions.
There's a huge difference between saying "Zimmerman is obviously guilty" and saying "there's obviously enough suspicious circumstances to warrant a trial, so the jury can decide if he's guilty".
The jury is the arbitrator of fact in the American justice system. The police collects evidence, the prosecutor presents it, but the jury decides what should be believed and what shouldn't.
The suspect is usually arrested before the evidence is collected, when there's only probable cause.
I understand you're worried that Zimmerman won't get a fair trial, but that's a future danger. That Zimmerman will slip between the cracks in the justice system is a danger that's already happening.
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser [slashdot.org] was innocent before all the facts were in? How many people signed the anti-Apple-FoxConn [mashable.com] petition before the basis was found to be a hoax [slashdot.org]?
Aren't those protesting -- asking for "justice" (code word for arrest and conviction) -- engaged in the same sort of vigilante justice that got Trayvon killed?
I think most people here are just asking for a fair trial. Don't you think it's a teeny weeny bit off that Zimmerman doesn't even have to explain his actions to a jury?
Not quite... when Zimmerman was told he didn't need to follow Martin, he did anyway. It wasn't until he lost track of Martin he returned to his vehicle. Then the call was disconnected, so we don't know exactly what happened after that.
Personally, I find it far-fetched that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason. It's conceivable that Martin was upset for being treated like a criminal with no reason, and they got in a fight where Zimmerman felt threatened. It's also conceivable that Martin simply defended himself against the unknown assailant with a gun who was stalking him, and that's how Zimmerman got the minor wounds on his head.
In any case, I think it's strange that the prosecutor won't even bring this to trial.
Let's assume a large black man follows a 17-year-old white boy into an alley, claiming the boy looks suspicious. There, the black man shoots the white boy. The black man emerges with minor wounds to his head and claims that he, for unknown reasons, was attacked by the white boy, who, it turns out, had done nothing wrong and wasn't carrying anything suspicious. The prosecutor decides to not prosecute because they have no proof the black man didn't act in self-defence.
Would people be so quick to jump to the black man's defence?
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
If you're pursuing someone with a gun, you shouldn't be surprised if they use potentially lethal force to end the threat you're posing to them and their life.
The kid acted in self defence against the larger man with a gun who was pursuing him, and pushed him onto the ground?
We can't hear the kid's version, but it seems strange that he would attack a larger man without reason, when he hadn't committed any crime and all he was carrying was junk food.
While other eye witnesses claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and (according to TFA) the recording shows he was not the one calling for help.
I agree that this isn't an open and shut case. That's why it needs to go to trial. The reason people are outraged is because the prosecutor won't even do that. I don't think you need to bring race into the case at all to think something's strange about it.
If Zimmerman's head was "banged" into the concrete, there should be more damage than just a scratch that's barely visible an hour later. It sounds to me like an exaggeration, at least.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, just that there's a lot that's unclear about this case, which is why it makes sense to have a trial.
That 's a very bad idea. Evidence should be made public whenever possible, to prevent corruption (for example, police and prosecutors protecting their friends).
Lynch mobs appear because people don't trust the system to punish the guilty. Making the evidence public is the only way to build trust.
Unless, of course, the police really is hiding something. Then there may be lynch mobs when the evidence is revealed.
The purpose of patents is to promote the publication of useful technical solutions. An inventor describes their solution in their patent application, which then becomes public, and in return for making it public gets a time-limited monopoly on it.
When someone constructs a special connector to prevent interoperability, the connector itself isn't valuable. Patenting (and publishing) it doesn't make society richer, since its main purpose is to *prevent* devices from working together. Once the patent has run out and the connector becomes available for anyone to manufacture, it becomes useless, since it can no longer be used to prevent competition. Patenting it only has a cost for society (decreased competition), not any benefit.
There's still the problem of using patents as a way to prevent interoperability. E.g, a cellphone manufacturer wants to prevent competitors from making accessories to their phones, so they patent the connector.
Sure, but it's not anecdotal evidence of a specific instance. The two studies I mentioned systematically examine the sales of a large number of songs and albums.
Depends - in many places, the law explicitly allows making copies that are necessary in order to use the software (such as the copy which is created when the software is loaded into RAM). I'm not sure if installing the software on the hard drive counts as an allowed copy, though.
Anyway, I was thinking more about reverse-engineering - he can analyse the code contained on the installation disc without copying it to the hard drive.
They're specially ordained to pick up people from the street and lock them up, and are required to follow strict codes and regulations. That may be abused every so often, but it's still a lot better than a band of common citizens trying to make citizen's arrests.
We can't punish people for making mistakes in their work. That just causes people to do as little as possible so they won't have to take responsibility for anything. Punish the organisation or the higher-ups.
Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.
Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. We are unable to find evidence of any relationship between P2P file-sharing and purchases of electronically-delivered music tracks (e.g., songs from iTunes). With respect to the other effects, roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs and roughly one quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase. Our results indicate that only the effect capturing songs downloaded because they were not available for purchase influenced music purchasing, a 1 percent increase in such downloads being associated with nearly a 4 percent increase in CD purchases.
Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
No, this is not the same as patronage. A patron is someone who contributes to the arts because of idealism, or because they enjoy what the artist is producing, or because it gives them social status, or any number of reasons, EXCEPT financial gain. Giving an artist money in exchange for the rights to what they produce is not patronage, it's just an investment.
Modern patronage works by asking for donations on a web site, and offering symbolic perks like your name in the credits. Asking for money in exchange for a portion of the profits might also be a viable method to fund art, but in that case it's not patronage, it's an investment.
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars under an agency system, that's my choice. As soon as people who aren't creating content start dictating how content should be distributed, we have a problem.
Nobody but the media corporations are trying to dictate how content should be distributed.
If we abolish copyright, it means the artist can choose to distribute their work as they want (and people are free to copy it as they want), or the artist can choose to keep the work to themselves and not be copied.
I'm not advocating a total abolisment of copyright, just pointing out that weakening copyright means less dictating, not more.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the law says, they don't need to be sure Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, they only need probable cause.
IMHO, the fact that 1) Zimmerman was the one stalking Martin, not the other way around, 2) Zimmerman had the upper hand, as he was much heavier and carrying a gun, and 3) Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, should be more than enough to establish probably cause.
The GP is not declaring judgement on Zimmerman, he's declaring judgement on the police and the prosecutor's actions.
There's a huge difference between saying "Zimmerman is obviously guilty" and saying "there's obviously enough suspicious circumstances to warrant a trial, so the jury can decide if he's guilty".
The jury is the arbitrator of fact in the American justice system. The police collects evidence, the prosecutor presents it, but the jury decides what should be believed and what shouldn't.
The suspect is usually arrested before the evidence is collected, when there's only probable cause.
I understand you're worried that Zimmerman won't get a fair trial, but that's a future danger. That Zimmerman will slip between the cracks in the justice system is a danger that's already happening.
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser [slashdot.org] was innocent before all the facts were in? How many people signed the anti-Apple-FoxConn [mashable.com] petition before the basis was found to be a hoax [slashdot.org]?
Aren't those protesting -- asking for "justice" (code word for arrest and conviction) -- engaged in the same sort of vigilante justice that got Trayvon killed?
I think most people here are just asking for a fair trial. Don't you think it's a teeny weeny bit off that Zimmerman doesn't even have to explain his actions to a jury?
Not quite... when Zimmerman was told he didn't need to follow Martin, he did anyway. It wasn't until he lost track of Martin he returned to his vehicle. Then the call was disconnected, so we don't know exactly what happened after that.
Personally, I find it far-fetched that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason. It's conceivable that Martin was upset for being treated like a criminal with no reason, and they got in a fight where Zimmerman felt threatened. It's also conceivable that Martin simply defended himself against the unknown assailant with a gun who was stalking him, and that's how Zimmerman got the minor wounds on his head.
In any case, I think it's strange that the prosecutor won't even bring this to trial.
Let's assume a large black man follows a 17-year-old white boy into an alley, claiming the boy looks suspicious. There, the black man shoots the white boy. The black man emerges with minor wounds to his head and claims that he, for unknown reasons, was attacked by the white boy, who, it turns out, had done nothing wrong and wasn't carrying anything suspicious. The prosecutor decides to not prosecute because they have no proof the black man didn't act in self-defence.
Would people be so quick to jump to the black man's defence?
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
If you're pursuing someone with a gun, you shouldn't be surprised if they use potentially lethal force to end the threat you're posing to them and their life.
The kid acted in self defence against the larger man with a gun who was pursuing him, and pushed him onto the ground?
We can't hear the kid's version, but it seems strange that he would attack a larger man without reason, when he hadn't committed any crime and all he was carrying was junk food.
While other eye witnesses claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and (according to TFA) the recording shows he was not the one calling for help.
I agree that this isn't an open and shut case. That's why it needs to go to trial. The reason people are outraged is because the prosecutor won't even do that. I don't think you need to bring race into the case at all to think something's strange about it.
If Zimmerman's head was "banged" into the concrete, there should be more damage than just a scratch that's barely visible an hour later. It sounds to me like an exaggeration, at least.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, just that there's a lot that's unclear about this case, which is why it makes sense to have a trial.
That 's a very bad idea. Evidence should be made public whenever possible, to prevent corruption (for example, police and prosecutors protecting their friends).
Lynch mobs appear because people don't trust the system to punish the guilty. Making the evidence public is the only way to build trust.
Unless, of course, the police really is hiding something. Then there may be lynch mobs when the evidence is revealed.
The purpose of patents is to promote the publication of useful technical solutions. An inventor describes their solution in their patent application, which then becomes public, and in return for making it public gets a time-limited monopoly on it.
When someone constructs a special connector to prevent interoperability, the connector itself isn't valuable. Patenting (and publishing) it doesn't make society richer, since its main purpose is to *prevent* devices from working together. Once the patent has run out and the connector becomes available for anyone to manufacture, it becomes useless, since it can no longer be used to prevent competition. Patenting it only has a cost for society (decreased competition), not any benefit.
There's still the problem of using patents as a way to prevent interoperability. E.g, a cellphone manufacturer wants to prevent competitors from making accessories to their phones, so they patent the connector.
No, it's an ellipsis.
Of course they can't mention "creatures from outer space". That would upset our benevolent alien overlords.
Sure, but it's not anecdotal evidence of a specific instance. The two studies I mentioned systematically examine the sales of a large number of songs and albums.
Depends - in many places, the law explicitly allows making copies that are necessary in order to use the software (such as the copy which is created when the software is loaded into RAM). I'm not sure if installing the software on the hard drive counts as an allowed copy, though.
Anyway, I was thinking more about reverse-engineering - he can analyse the code contained on the installation disc without copying it to the hard drive.
They're specially ordained to pick up people from the street and lock them up, and are required to follow strict codes and regulations. That may be abused every so often, but it's still a lot better than a band of common citizens trying to make citizen's arrests.
We can't punish people for making mistakes in their work. That just causes people to do as little as possible so they won't have to take responsibility for anything. Punish the organisation or the higher-ups.
Nothing like sharing the consequences to make sure the honest cops keep the lesser ones in line.
That's a textbook example of collective punishment, which is generally banned or frowned upon in civilised countries.
Sealand is no Argentina, though.
Also, Kim Dotcom provides a useful service to the public by making copyrighted works available for a very low cost.
Sorry, "provided".
It appears they waited for SOPA to give them a stronger case, but when that failed, they used the second best solution.
The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis:
Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.
The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada:
Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. We are unable to find evidence of any relationship between P2P file-sharing and purchases of electronically-delivered music tracks (e.g., songs from iTunes). With respect to the other effects, roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs and roughly one quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase. Our results indicate that only the effect capturing songs downloaded because they were not available for purchase influenced music purchasing, a 1 percent increase in such downloads being associated with nearly a 4 percent increase in CD purchases.
Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
No, this is not the same as patronage. A patron is someone who contributes to the arts because of idealism, or because they enjoy what the artist is producing, or because it gives them social status, or any number of reasons, EXCEPT financial gain. Giving an artist money in exchange for the rights to what they produce is not patronage, it's just an investment.
Modern patronage works by asking for donations on a web site, and offering symbolic perks like your name in the credits.
Asking for money in exchange for a portion of the profits might also be a viable method to fund art, but in that case it's not patronage, it's an investment.
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars under an agency system, that's my choice. As soon as people who aren't creating content start dictating how content should be distributed, we have a problem.
Nobody but the media corporations are trying to dictate how content should be distributed.
If we abolish copyright, it means the artist can choose to distribute their work as they want (and people are free to copy it as they want), or the artist can choose to keep the work to themselves and not be copied.
I'm not advocating a total abolisment of copyright, just pointing out that weakening copyright means less dictating, not more.