There are easier ways to hack into most phones than brute forcing the pin with a robot
For sure. Speaking in terms of a 'brute force' crack, i'd use the monkey method...
Assuming you could get past being 'locked out' after x incorrect attempts, i'd get 4-5 friends together and have one sit out and enter passwords while the rest play hold 'em or Goldeneye or w/e. You could rotate every 4 hours or whathaveyou
I know my solutions doesn't 'scale' but I don't think this robot scales any better, comparatively. That's kind of my point...they're kind of off kilter with their approach, but I am all for robots advancements...
Most of us encounter factor analysis in action in school, in the form of a weighted grading system based on distribution of scores...'grading on a curve'...
Grading on a weighted scale is still done, but the way grades are weighted is much more complex and gives better representations than the 'bell curve' used in high schools in the US in the early-mid 20th century.
Another type of usage of 'bell curve' comes from probability theory. Here it is interchanged with the term Normal Distribution.
The book 'Bell Curve' is a pop science book from 1995 that repackaged an archaic statistical reductionist idea that human behavior could be quantified on a single curvolinear datagram. That's the core idea Chomsky criticized in 1972 and re-iterated in 1995.
So there are two common usages of the term 'Bell Curve'...both are essentially the same idea, which is rooted in a flawed understanding of an actual scientific concept in probability theory: the normal distribution.
emphasis on the 'Bell Curve'...apples and oranges...
it's a popular science book from the 70s, about an anthropology/sociology concept...my original post has the link, fyi. it was popular mostly because sociology/anthropology/comm studies/semiotics/etc were having wave of influential work in the 70s and data analysis was new to them in this context.
'normal distribution' is a major tenet of probability theory...it's more than a concept...it has proofs. It's a higher level idea that is like 'Bell Curve' the same way that Freud is like Mazlow.
so comparing 'Bell Curve' and 'normal distribution' in probability theory is like...comparing apples and oranges.
Even those who would disagree with Chomsky...drop whatever school or scientist you want, the idea is defunct.
It's important to also understand *why* because it's a good introduction to high level statistical analysis and how it can be weilded incorrectly.
A good analogy is to the work of Freud. Practically everyone knows Freud in some way as a famous Psychologist...anyone who has *studied* Psychology at virtually any level can tell you his basic theories, and they'll tell you, as I'm sure you know, that most of his theories have been debunked and now sit in the history's museum of archaic science.
Archaic but foundational to be sure.
The 'Bell Curve' is a concept not a scientific law or observed phenomenon. It was constructed using the language of statistics, but an idea or concept nonetheless. It became 'popular' because of its presentation and the general emergence of data analysis in daily life due to changes in technology.
Put your three claims to a similar level of rigor...you'll see easily that they are all logical fallacies:
A. Creativity cannot be taught.
B. Talent is in the context of the time. It isn't fair, but it is true.
C. The educational system never knows how to detect --- let alone help --- talented young people.
Data and yes even test scores can tell a trained educator a lot. However...and if anything, take away this **one** truth from this post.....even the **best** data (and 'Bell Curve' is based on severely flawed methodology) is only as good as the person who is interpreting and reporting it.
It's basically a more complex version of Open Shortest Path First.
Depending on how you understand the term 'autonomous system' you can have a lot of fun with the idea. It doesn't *explain* everything about how this works, but it puts it into context, in my mind.
FTA: To approximate the solution tractably, Remy cuts back on the state that the algorithm has to keep track of. Instead of the full history of all acknowledgments received and outgoing packets sent, a Remy-designed congestion-control algorithm (RemyCC) tracks state variables...
So basically it has, in the minds of these researchers, a really, really well mapped 'routing table' it can access faster than regular TCP.
It's a network control algorythm. It optimizes network flow based on user-identified parameters which result in measurable outputs that can give the user feedback.
Of course you can use jQuery to do what you want. Or at least parts of what you want.
that's fine...see, and I really want you to understand this, this next part you explain the whole problem:
I would recommend learning the library on lesser projects though. That will give you a better idea of what to do and what is and isn't possible.
never...taking the time to learn then make a program with JQuery just to **decide** if I should use it?
that's ridiculous...I don't care if that's what all developers do, I'll never work like that...that's like if I build a house just to see if the my floor joist should made of 2x4's or 4x4's...
it's insane, I don't want any part of it in my professional life
Saw this once posted in a Gentoo/Linux discussion here on/. back in ~2001, posted to a self professed 'noob' who wanted to learn about Linux,
"Hi, I used to be like you and I suggest trying Gentoo. Gentoo/Linux is very well supported with all the necessary documentation online for you to download"
You can't **make** JQuery be 'easy for a geek off the street to use' just by referring me to some website and telling me any developer will find it useful in using JQuery.
I'm trying to make a website that lets users design their own tshirt. Yes it's been 'done' and examples are out there (customink.com, zazzle.com, etc) but they all suck.
I know basic HTML and CSS and have ALOT of CLI experience from my academic and IT work.
I get the concepts.
Now, given what I know, what would this 'API docs that any developer could read'...what would they tell me about *IF* I could even use JQuery to make what I want?
I can't believe the old 'read the docs' trope is still around....
well I'm not new to networking and database stuff at all (part of my problem) but I am new to using crap like Javascript and JQuery, and web development in general.
I call it 'crap' because in my mind so much of CSS, JScript, Javaquery, JQ, etc blah blah is pure bullshit. I'm used to database queries and networking command line server stuff, and that I'm not what I'd call an expert. I used to be a hell of a data scientists and research methodologist however.
For me it is JavaScript.
I've read the discussion and I can comment on what I've seen trying to do basic Drupal and Wordpress installs and customization.
I look at the codebase of websites to learn and when I see JQuery it is used to do some flashy 'thing' that the mid-sized 'web development' company likes to show off with...and the site still has JavaScript as well.
Trying to research how to use JQuery as a geek off the street is a nightmare. So many different builds and in-house versions that go along with other do-dads that add abstraction layer upon abstraction layer in the design.
It kills me, the abstraction layers. It kills computer cycles too...just think of all the energy used to auto-play flash ads since just 2008!
From reading this discussion and limited personal experience my initial reaction to JQuery (shiny bullshit) was correct. I still don't know what to do...no programing language will work like I think it should I think.
benefit from special protection from certain environments
So taking away freedoms and making them into an out-group. With no behavioral basis just a reading on a machine.
It won't work because it never has worked. It just alienates and causes resentment and anger...things that *definitely* cause a person to be more 'at-risk'...
'special protection from certain environments'......indeed
I'm saying **no one knows** and neither party can prove who started the fight, but we know a random innocent person was killed.
believes Zimmerman should have been assumed guilty and had to prove his innocent.
Nope. I'm saying he has to prove his *affirmative defense*...that's legalspeak for proving he did it in self defense.
You can't just have the cops show up to a scene with one dead person and another just says "Eh, self defense" and call it a day! The police, you know, investigate the veracity of the 'self defense' claim.
That's the whole point, his claims that he had to kill Trayvon b/c of self defense are in question.
He could have said anything to the cops. He could have said it was an accident that the gun went off. That he really regretted it and it was unfortunately his last resort b/c the kid went postal with nerd rage. He could have not said anything at all.
He claimed a specific defense, that he needed lethal force in self defense. That's 'stand your ground' (which I don't want to debate the law at all).
you don't give a shit about the truth
Again that's where you are wrong. I'm trying to get you to look at it beyond this binary set of assumptions. The 'truth' in my mind exists in the sense that one sequence of events happened when Trayvon was shot. We all may use different language to describe what happened, and that language may signify serious actions involving Zimmerman's personal freedom.
It is a consensus, in this case of the jury, that decides. Language matters. The wording of the charges, the specifics of the instructions to the jury, etc.
I do not think 'justice' was done in the sense that the deciders (jury) seem to not have had a correct notion of the greatest source of tension between two opposing narratives...what I mean is, who started the fight and who was attacking whom.
They seem to have bought into the Defense's controversy over who was 'screaming for help' on the phone as an indication of who started the fight (or escalated it to physicality vs who was just defending themself).
The entire notion that the answer to that question can then determine 'who started it' or who is the attacker is wrong.
It was a false dichotomy. We can't know for sure who's voice that is, and even if we could, we'd still have *no idea* who started it....who was the instigator and attacker.
Which means that deciding if self defense is an affirmative defense in this case rests elsewhere. The 'truth' has to be uncovered elsewhere.
IMHO, the phone evidence (all the phone calls) and the defense's own testimony (wimpy at the gym) make it virtually certain that Trayvon entered the situation afraid and on the defense, unarmed, not looking for a fight, in a place he had every legal right to be.
Zimmerman entered with intent to confront and be an aggressor. By his own defense he was kind of a wannabe. Which to me sinks his claim of self defense.
To me that indicates Trayvon's killing was manslaughter.
we're talking about the Zimmerman case, right? Shooting of Trayvon Martin...b/c what you describe here is different completely:
if I am beating your head against a concrete sidewalk...
and
Remember, you are stating one that slamming someone's head repeatedly into the ground
Not what happened.
We **do not know** who laid hands on whom first and **all of you** are making assumptions about that.
We *do* know what injuries were sustained and it was *not* injuries that you get from having your head...what's the words you used..."slammed repeatedly"
Let me push you down on the concrete and lets see if you bang your head when you fall...
Then let me **repeatedly slam your head into the concrete** and we'll see if there is a, you know, medical difference...
cranial fractures, bruises, contusions...that's what **repeatedly slamming** a person's head into concrete with **intent to kill** looks like.
because your life isn't in danger
Zimmerman's wasn't...he's a wannabe cop who killed a boy in a fight because he wanted to act tough...
Zimmerman shot and killed a man for a scratch on the head, one that may have come from a fight he started.
You're honestly wrong if that's your impression. Human behavior, and 'self defense' doesn't work like you describe, and you can't justify a killing on a 'probably'
I strongly doubt you've ever been in a real fight. If you have you would understand that hitting someone, or knocking their head into concrete is not 'life threatening'...people can want to hurt another human *very badly* yet not have any intent to kill.
Your test for 'self defense' is way too weak to be used consistently across other cases.
I am not expecting you to agree with me, although you should. I want you to have seen what i'm saying, to be exposed to the idea.
We have a generation of men like you who are over-sensitive and under-experienced physically.
I don't care if you're a former cop or military special forces or w/e, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fights between humans operate and what constitutes a 'threat' to a life
the jury decided based on the facts; there was simply no other decision they could have reached if they did their job.
was Zimmerman's life in danger?
that's the question...who was 'on top' and if either was a racist is immaterial to his guilt
answer my question, was Zimmerman's life under threat?
i'd like to hear your answer...based on reported facts...you don't have to link to everything I've been up on the trial...answer my question if you'd like to talk further
nice job windbag...you typed a book defending something I didn't attack...
this, for me, is about Zimmerman's claim of 'self defense'
get it? the question is, 'Was this shooting in self-defense?'
if you have half the military experience you claim you should know about how interpersonal scrums like this work...
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity...
Zimmerman had *no reason* to use deadly force...no matter who was 'on top' or whatever...he was playing the injured party as an excuse to be a jerk and pull the trigger.
Do you get it? This is about Zimmerman's life or personal effects being in danger...enough to warrant deadly force.
No matter what, deadly force was not warranted, even if you go on just the facts the defense and prosecution agree upon.
it's all about Zimmerman's reason for shooting and killing Trayvon.
he said it was 'self defense'
but his *life was not in danger*
see that? his life wasn't in danger so 'self defense' is no defense
he has *absolutely* no reason, given the reported facts, to think his life was in danger...
just because he may be sub-moronic enough to *think* his life was in danger, or that in 2013 jurors are dumb enough to be convinced of the same means nothing to the question...
given the reported facts, his life was not in danger and he had no reason to think so
The level of cognitive bias required to believe that the state proved murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt is staggering
wrong man...seriously from experience you're wrong about the whole thing
This isn't a geometry proof, this is human behavior. Your analysis is exactly the kind of disconnected, isolated thinking that squirmy defense attorney's play to.
You're falling for used-car salesman level B.S.
Forget 'Stand your ground' and your interpretations of what you think a jury would do and all that and look at this at a simple human level.
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. He admitted it. That's guilt unless...
Self defense.
Was Zimmerman's life in danger?
If you answer 'yes' or 'a reasonable person might think so' then you're still looking at it with half of your brain.
Given the circumstances which were well reported, no matter who was 'on top' or had weed in their system or was a 'racist'...Zimmerman's life was **not in danger**
Just because he might be sub-moronic enough to somehow think his life was in danger, or because jurors are more easily manipulated in 2013 has no bearing. We are talking about if he should be guilty, not what we think others will/could/should decide. We are deciding here in this discussion.
He definitely shot and killed Trayvon and self-defense is no defense.
Everyone feels they are right, and everyone feels strongly. Is it possible for commenters to keep that in mind?
yes...but that doesn't mean you won't see valid controversy...
Racism is a problem in techie circles and it shows in overt and subtle ways. The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is outrage. Yes, of course that is 'IMHO' but my point is that we have to evolve beyond just identifying options and snarkily championing our favorite when it come to social issues (it will help make better designs and more money too;)
These boards are full of trolls and general sociopathic behavior, and racism is part of it.
Just accept it...the right thing to be is angry at Zimmerman's acquittal. Middle class white people have gotten *more* racist and less nuanced in their worldview in the last 15 years and it's a shame.
The judge tells them what evidence they can consider, and what is required for a charge, and they usually listen to that, at least reasonably well.
I've seen cases where the Defendent gets false confidence b/c of a great performance from his attorney and good non-verbal feedback from the jury only to be sent away b/c of exactly what you describe.
Sometimes, the judges are just morons who behave essentially as librarians or middle managers and they just give the bare minimum of instructions (basically what they are told).
Also, State law can sometimes *mandate* the judge read a form of instructions.
We think of the courts as a safety valve to overrule democracy when it gets crazy, but really they are subject to the will of the people just the same, only usually on a longer timeline...you can't just fire a judge for incompetence.
Just because one of the 5 talking heads on a panel was irrationally pro-Trayvon, doesn't mean you have a point.
It's obvious that the media was either 1) Stupid or 2) Complicit with racism.
Even choosing the subject to discuss, it's so easy to see the bias towards Zimmerman (b/c the gun lobby and conservatives in general say him as a bellwether).
Ex: a news panel discussing the decision not to allow blood test results showing Trayvon had used marijuana in the last 60 days before his killing.
That's racist b/c the whole notion is absolutely immaterial. First, the discussion should have been about **ZIMMERMAN's** blood contents, b/c oh, **he wasn't tested for drugs/alcohol** until much later if at all. Second, weed does not cause aggression and never has been claimed or evidence shown in scientific tests that it causes aggression.
Everyone knows that the "scary doped-up black man" trope has been used as a cultural Jim Crow since the '30s.
If these concepts are new to you, shame on you. This is part of American history and our daily struggle as humans living in a community.
surprised that they couldn't get him on manslaughter charges
In hindsight it was either a full conviction or acquittal, really. That jury was fully of closet racist middle class women. Seriously the suburbs are *more* racist than 15 years ago IMHO.
Any sane, mentally culpable human can see Zimmerman was on a power trip and his white wannabe thoughts got the better of him. They might give other reasons but this was about racism. The whole damned thing...
Zimmerman's a murderer. Not premeditated, but he killed Travon.
b/c that's you one level up basically saying the same thing...
you're trolling...the only reason I have responded is b/c I got downmodded somehow which means you've successfully confused anyone who made the mistake of reading your comments
let's just jump to conclusions because the pilots are foreigners
I get it...yep...a race-troll.
I said specifically that the tendency wasn't race related or specific to Korean culture, or Asian culture...I said, in my GP comment, that you could see the same deference to hierarchy at **microsoft**
So your whole line of logic, everything you type after this that isn't an apology is proven wrong...
Slashdot Mirror
For sure. Speaking in terms of a 'brute force' crack, i'd use the monkey method...
Assuming you could get past being 'locked out' after x incorrect attempts, i'd get 4-5 friends together and have one sit out and enter passwords while the rest play hold 'em or Goldeneye or w/e. You could rotate every 4 hours or whathaveyou
I know my solutions doesn't 'scale' but I don't think this robot scales any better, comparatively. That's kind of my point...they're kind of off kilter with their approach, but I am all for robots advancements...
Yes that's right. He responded directly in 1995 here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm
Also, let's clear up the term 'Bell Curve' a bit.
Most of us encounter factor analysis in action in school, in the form of a weighted grading system based on distribution of scores...'grading on a curve'...
Also known as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_curve_grading">'Bell Curve'...
Grading on a weighted scale is still done, but the way grades are weighted is much more complex and gives better representations than the 'bell curve' used in high schools in the US in the early-mid 20th century.
Another type of usage of 'bell curve' comes from probability theory. Here it is interchanged with the term Normal Distribution.
The book 'Bell Curve' is a pop science book from 1995 that repackaged an archaic statistical reductionist idea that human behavior could be quantified on a single curvolinear datagram. That's the core idea Chomsky criticized in 1972 and re-iterated in 1995.
So there are two common usages of the term 'Bell Curve'...both are essentially the same idea, which is rooted in a flawed understanding of an actual scientific concept in probability theory: the normal distribution.
2 bells 1 curve ;)
emphasis on the 'Bell Curve'...apples and oranges...
it's a popular science book from the 70s, about an anthropology/sociology concept...my original post has the link, fyi. it was popular mostly because sociology/anthropology/comm studies/semiotics/etc were having wave of influential work in the 70s and data analysis was new to them in this context.
'normal distribution' is a major tenet of probability theory...it's more than a concept...it has proofs. It's a higher level idea that is like 'Bell Curve' the same way that Freud is like Mazlow.
so comparing 'Bell Curve' and 'normal distribution' in probability theory is like...comparing apples and oranges.
Hold on there cowboy...I got this far into your response...
Yeah see, the Bell Curve is not accepted in modern science, especially by people like Chomsky.
Even those who would disagree with Chomsky...drop whatever school or scientist you want, the idea is defunct.
It's important to also understand *why* because it's a good introduction to high level statistical analysis and how it can be weilded incorrectly.
A good analogy is to the work of Freud. Practically everyone knows Freud in some way as a famous Psychologist...anyone who has *studied* Psychology at virtually any level can tell you his basic theories, and they'll tell you, as I'm sure you know, that most of his theories have been debunked and now sit in the history's museum of archaic science.
Archaic but foundational to be sure.
The 'Bell Curve' is a concept not a scientific law or observed phenomenon. It was constructed using the language of statistics, but an idea or concept nonetheless. It became 'popular' because of its presentation and the general emergence of data analysis in daily life due to changes in technology.
Put your three claims to a similar level of rigor...you'll see easily that they are all logical fallacies:
Data and yes even test scores can tell a trained educator a lot. However...and if anything, take away this **one** truth from this post.....even the **best** data (and 'Bell Curve' is based on severely flawed methodology) is only as good as the person who is interpreting and reporting it.
It's basically a more complex version of Open Shortest Path First.
Depending on how you understand the term 'autonomous system' you can have a lot of fun with the idea. It doesn't *explain* everything about how this works, but it puts it into context, in my mind.
FTA: To approximate the solution tractably, Remy cuts back on the state that the algorithm has to keep track of. Instead of the full history of all acknowledgments received and outgoing packets sent, a Remy-designed congestion-control algorithm (RemyCC) tracks state variables...
So basically it has, in the minds of these researchers, a really, really well mapped 'routing table' it can access faster than regular TCP.
It's a network control algorythm. It optimizes network flow based on user-identified parameters which result in measurable outputs that can give the user feedback.
Network control algorythm.
that's fine...see, and I really want you to understand this, this next part you explain the whole problem:
never...taking the time to learn then make a program with JQuery just to **decide** if I should use it?
that's ridiculous...I don't care if that's what all developers do, I'll never work like that...that's like if I build a house just to see if the my floor joist should made of 2x4's or 4x4's...
it's insane, I don't want any part of it in my professional life
I appreciate the insight, genuinely, but I have to comment on this:
You mean this thing, right: http://api.jquery.com/
Saw this once posted in a Gentoo/Linux discussion here on /. back in ~2001, posted to a self professed 'noob' who wanted to learn about Linux,
"Hi, I used to be like you and I suggest trying Gentoo. Gentoo/Linux is very well supported with all the necessary documentation online for you to download"
You can't **make** JQuery be 'easy for a geek off the street to use' just by referring me to some website and telling me any developer will find it useful in using JQuery.
I'm trying to make a website that lets users design their own tshirt. Yes it's been 'done' and examples are out there (customink.com, zazzle.com, etc) but they all suck.
I know basic HTML and CSS and have ALOT of CLI experience from my academic and IT work.
I get the concepts.
Now, given what I know, what would this 'API docs that any developer could read'...what would they tell me about *IF* I could even use JQuery to make what I want?
I can't believe the old 'read the docs' trope is still around....
well I'm not new to networking and database stuff at all (part of my problem) but I am new to using crap like Javascript and JQuery, and web development in general.
I call it 'crap' because in my mind so much of CSS, JScript, Javaquery, JQ, etc blah blah is pure bullshit. I'm used to database queries and networking command line server stuff, and that I'm not what I'd call an expert. I used to be a hell of a data scientists and research methodologist however.
For me it is JavaScript.
I've read the discussion and I can comment on what I've seen trying to do basic Drupal and Wordpress installs and customization.
I look at the codebase of websites to learn and when I see JQuery it is used to do some flashy 'thing' that the mid-sized 'web development' company likes to show off with...and the site still has JavaScript as well.
Trying to research how to use JQuery as a geek off the street is a nightmare. So many different builds and in-house versions that go along with other do-dads that add abstraction layer upon abstraction layer in the design.
It kills me, the abstraction layers. It kills computer cycles too...just think of all the energy used to auto-play flash ads since just 2008!
From reading this discussion and limited personal experience my initial reaction to JQuery (shiny bullshit) was correct. I still don't know what to do...no programing language will work like I think it should I think.
So taking away freedoms and making them into an out-group. With no behavioral basis just a reading on a machine.
It won't work because it never has worked. It just alienates and causes resentment and anger...things that *definitely* cause a person to be more 'at-risk'...
'special protection from certain environments'......indeed
see, you're just wrong here:
I'm saying **no one knows** and neither party can prove who started the fight, but we know a random innocent person was killed.
Nope. I'm saying he has to prove his *affirmative defense*...that's legalspeak for proving he did it in self defense.
You can't just have the cops show up to a scene with one dead person and another just says "Eh, self defense" and call it a day! The police, you know, investigate the veracity of the 'self defense' claim.
That's the whole point, his claims that he had to kill Trayvon b/c of self defense are in question.
He could have said anything to the cops. He could have said it was an accident that the gun went off. That he really regretted it and it was unfortunately his last resort b/c the kid went postal with nerd rage. He could have not said anything at all.
He claimed a specific defense, that he needed lethal force in self defense. That's 'stand your ground' (which I don't want to debate the law at all).
Again that's where you are wrong. I'm trying to get you to look at it beyond this binary set of assumptions. The 'truth' in my mind exists in the sense that one sequence of events happened when Trayvon was shot. We all may use different language to describe what happened, and that language may signify serious actions involving Zimmerman's personal freedom.
It is a consensus, in this case of the jury, that decides. Language matters. The wording of the charges, the specifics of the instructions to the jury, etc.
I do not think 'justice' was done in the sense that the deciders (jury) seem to not have had a correct notion of the greatest source of tension between two opposing narratives...what I mean is, who started the fight and who was attacking whom.
They seem to have bought into the Defense's controversy over who was 'screaming for help' on the phone as an indication of who started the fight (or escalated it to physicality vs who was just defending themself).
The entire notion that the answer to that question can then determine 'who started it' or who is the attacker is wrong.
It was a false dichotomy. We can't know for sure who's voice that is, and even if we could, we'd still have *no idea* who started it....who was the instigator and attacker.
Which means that deciding if self defense is an affirmative defense in this case rests elsewhere. The 'truth' has to be uncovered elsewhere.
IMHO, the phone evidence (all the phone calls) and the defense's own testimony (wimpy at the gym) make it virtually certain that Trayvon entered the situation afraid and on the defense, unarmed, not looking for a fight, in a place he had every legal right to be.
Zimmerman entered with intent to confront and be an aggressor. By his own defense he was kind of a wannabe. Which to me sinks his claim of self defense.
To me that indicates Trayvon's killing was manslaughter.
we're talking about the Zimmerman case, right? Shooting of Trayvon Martin...b/c what you describe here is different completely:
and
Not what happened.
We **do not know** who laid hands on whom first and **all of you** are making assumptions about that.
We *do* know what injuries were sustained and it was *not* injuries that you get from having your head...what's the words you used..."slammed repeatedly"
Let me push you down on the concrete and lets see if you bang your head when you fall...
Then let me **repeatedly slam your head into the concrete** and we'll see if there is a, you know, medical difference...
cranial fractures, bruises, contusions...that's what **repeatedly slamming** a person's head into concrete with **intent to kill** looks like.
Zimmerman's wasn't...he's a wannabe cop who killed a boy in a fight because he wanted to act tough...
Zimmerman shot and killed a man for a scratch on the head, one that may have come from a fight he started.
You're honestly wrong if that's your impression. Human behavior, and 'self defense' doesn't work like you describe, and you can't justify a killing on a 'probably'
I strongly doubt you've ever been in a real fight. If you have you would understand that hitting someone, or knocking their head into concrete is not 'life threatening'...people can want to hurt another human *very badly* yet not have any intent to kill.
Your test for 'self defense' is way too weak to be used consistently across other cases.
I am not expecting you to agree with me, although you should. I want you to have seen what i'm saying, to be exposed to the idea.
We have a generation of men like you who are over-sensitive and under-experienced physically.
I don't care if you're a former cop or military special forces or w/e, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fights between humans operate and what constitutes a 'threat' to a life
You are too sensitive man.
that's the question...
was his life in danger?
that's the question I posed, but somehow it brought out all the gun right's trolls...
notice I am not, at all, in any way, shape or form, discussing or questioning or assailing gun rights...
i'm asking if Zimmerman's life was in danger when he killed Trayvon...was his life in danger?
was Zimmerman's life in danger?
that's the question...who was 'on top' and if either was a racist is immaterial to his guilt
answer my question, was Zimmerman's life under threat?
i'd like to hear your answer...based on reported facts...you don't have to link to everything I've been up on the trial...answer my question if you'd like to talk further
nice job windbag...you typed a book defending something I didn't attack...
this, for me, is about Zimmerman's claim of 'self defense'
get it? the question is, 'Was this shooting in self-defense?'
if you have half the military experience you claim you should know about how interpersonal scrums like this work...
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity...
Zimmerman had *no reason* to use deadly force...no matter who was 'on top' or whatever...he was playing the injured party as an excuse to be a jerk and pull the trigger.
Do you get it? This is about Zimmerman's life or personal effects being in danger...enough to warrant deadly force.
No matter what, deadly force was not warranted, even if you go on just the facts the defense and prosecution agree upon.
it's all about Zimmerman's reason for shooting and killing Trayvon.
he said it was 'self defense'
but his *life was not in danger*
see that? his life wasn't in danger so 'self defense' is no defense
he has *absolutely* no reason, given the reported facts, to think his life was in danger...
just because he may be sub-moronic enough to *think* his life was in danger, or that in 2013 jurors are dumb enough to be convinced of the same means nothing to the question...
given the reported facts, his life was not in danger and he had no reason to think so
n/t
wrong man...seriously from experience you're wrong about the whole thing
This isn't a geometry proof, this is human behavior. Your analysis is exactly the kind of disconnected, isolated thinking that squirmy defense attorney's play to.
You're falling for used-car salesman level B.S.
Forget 'Stand your ground' and your interpretations of what you think a jury would do and all that and look at this at a simple human level.
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. He admitted it. That's guilt unless...
Self defense.
Was Zimmerman's life in danger?
If you answer 'yes' or 'a reasonable person might think so' then you're still looking at it with half of your brain.
Given the circumstances which were well reported, no matter who was 'on top' or had weed in their system or was a 'racist'...Zimmerman's life was **not in danger**
Just because he might be sub-moronic enough to somehow think his life was in danger, or because jurors are more easily manipulated in 2013 has no bearing. We are talking about if he should be guilty, not what we think others will/could/should decide. We are deciding here in this discussion.
He definitely shot and killed Trayvon and self-defense is no defense.
yes...but that doesn't mean you won't see valid controversy...
Racism is a problem in techie circles and it shows in overt and subtle ways. The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is outrage. Yes, of course that is 'IMHO' but my point is that we have to evolve beyond just identifying options and snarkily championing our favorite when it come to social issues (it will help make better designs and more money too ;)
These boards are full of trolls and general sociopathic behavior, and racism is part of it.
Just accept it...the right thing to be is angry at Zimmerman's acquittal. Middle class white people have gotten *more* racist and less nuanced in their worldview in the last 15 years and it's a shame.
Your advice might keep someone out of prison.
I've seen cases where the Defendent gets false confidence b/c of a great performance from his attorney and good non-verbal feedback from the jury only to be sent away b/c of exactly what you describe.
Sometimes, the judges are just morons who behave essentially as librarians or middle managers and they just give the bare minimum of instructions (basically what they are told).
Also, State law can sometimes *mandate* the judge read a form of instructions.
We think of the courts as a safety valve to overrule democracy when it gets crazy, but really they are subject to the will of the people just the same, only usually on a longer timeline...you can't just fire a judge for incompetence.
Just because one of the 5 talking heads on a panel was irrationally pro-Trayvon, doesn't mean you have a point.
It's obvious that the media was either 1) Stupid or 2) Complicit with racism.
Even choosing the subject to discuss, it's so easy to see the bias towards Zimmerman (b/c the gun lobby and conservatives in general say him as a bellwether).
Ex: a news panel discussing the decision not to allow blood test results showing Trayvon had used marijuana in the last 60 days before his killing.
That's racist b/c the whole notion is absolutely immaterial. First, the discussion should have been about **ZIMMERMAN's** blood contents, b/c oh, **he wasn't tested for drugs/alcohol** until much later if at all. Second, weed does not cause aggression and never has been claimed or evidence shown in scientific tests that it causes aggression.
Everyone knows that the "scary doped-up black man" trope has been used as a cultural Jim Crow since the '30s.
If these concepts are new to you, shame on you. This is part of American history and our daily struggle as humans living in a community.
In hindsight it was either a full conviction or acquittal, really. That jury was fully of closet racist middle class women. Seriously the suburbs are *more* racist than 15 years ago IMHO.
Any sane, mentally culpable human can see Zimmerman was on a power trip and his white wannabe thoughts got the better of him. They might give other reasons but this was about racism. The whole damned thing...
Zimmerman's a murderer. Not premeditated, but he killed Travon.
And you seem to be trolling. My response to your comment above, particularly your passive/aggressive insinuations and trolling can be found here-----> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3967229&cid=44266809
See you 'round the bend :D
For other readers, please refer to the GP post for discussion of Gladwell's flight crash theory and its critics.
Your comment was most certainly 'directed' at me, even if it wasn't in direct reply to me (more on that in a minute)...
btw, you're trolling, attacking me with no foundation while ignoring my non-trollface commment
But back to being 'directed' at me...do you mean, like this---> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3967229&cid=44263121
b/c that's you one level up basically saying the same thing...
you're trolling...the only reason I have responded is b/c I got downmodded somehow which means you've successfully confused anyone who made the mistake of reading your comments
I get it...yep...a race-troll.
I said specifically that the tendency wasn't race related or specific to Korean culture, or Asian culture...I said, in my GP comment, that you could see the same deference to hierarchy at **microsoft**
So your whole line of logic, everything you type after this that isn't an apology is proven wrong...