I suggest you actually READ about the american history before you go insulting people.
Come on back when you know what you are talking about, because the history books say otherwise.
Yeah, you might be right about that. Seems I missed the part where the US conquered the world and enslaved its population. I really missed the part after World War II when the US probably could have done exactly that, or nearly so, and didn't.
It is dangerous to look at any nation or people and seemingly see nothing but the evil and bad in them. It is also dangerous to see nothing but good and deny all possible problems, missteps and mistakes. However, it seems that your view of the world is so disconnected from reality I'm not sure we have sufficient commonality to continue a discussion.
You're strictly right when arguing and asking why all this bullshit so called MAD, and what it's benefit into protecting the US or NATO.
Dear, it's to protect the cuddled naive, poor and weak country, Israel. Just look on the distribution pattern of MAD in Europe and middle east.
Er... you're really suggesting that the entire multi-trillion (probably) dollars spent on the various nuclear arsenals is entirely spent to protect Israel? Really?
"... a disproportionate income tax? By the Federal government?! What'll they have next? A forced monopoly on currency?"
If by that you mean that someone from that period would be shocked to learn Money is now a pure debt instrument with no hard backing and the country is in a seemingly endless spiral of debt and ever lowering values of the money, then yes I'm sure they would be rather shocked.
Also, we'd probably be much better off overall if we did some preventative medicine rather than just treating problems as they show up.
Truth.
Why should health care costs increase over time? What makes it different from computer hardware, or legal fees? Just because a company wants to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for a fancy new drug doesn't mean we need to actually pay it. Yes, it might mean that some drugs don't get invented, but it might also mean far better care for the average person.
Health care costs increase over time because as health care gets better, people live longer and instead of kicking off at age X with a severe cold they take 20 years of expensive treatment and then kick off with some far more complicated decease. Also, as treatments get better they tend to get more expensive to a degree.
You can be sure to congratulate the parents of the dead child who wasn't saved by the drug/treatment that wasn't invented that their sacrifice enabled better care for the "average person". At least you do recognize that presumably banning companies from charging those prices would probably kill R&D into new treatments. The money to do that R&D doesn't grow on trees and must come from somewhere. They oddly can't pay for it with unicorn farts.
I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let blacks and women have equal rights.
only a white guy would point to the 19th century as an example of a free society.
Well, that's a giant assumption isn't it?
I never said it was an example of utopia or anything of the like. It is undeniable that government regulation of every little bit of what was once people's private lives would be shocking to most anyone from that period as it ought to be shocking to us now. Of course, these days it seems more likely that people will just cry out for more regulation. The previous regulation fixed everything after all.
"The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain."
When your currency is used as world currency, when your troops are deployed all over the world, when you control many international mechanisms, when you menace and punish those who disagree with you, you are an empire - even if you don't call it this way.
Your premise is rejected for the following: Your source appears to be very biased with an agenda to prove. By no means a proper reference. Troops are deployed in many areas this is true. However, what you're not taking into account is that nearly all of those deployments are part of mutual defense pacts. Germany for instance does host a few large US bases, but surely you wouldn't call them conquered. The USD is the current world currency. However, that too is generally by choice as for the last few decades it was the logical choice.
Who was punished for merely disagreeing? Did we bomb Germany and the other countries for not going along with the silliness in Iraq? Clearly if they're part of the "Empire" as you seem to be saying those counties should be punished for daring to refuse to provide troops and materials, right?
You keep using that Empire word, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
If you have a "right" to healthcare (a service provided at a cost) then that implies you should have the full weight of the government to enforce your claim of that right. Thus, if no one is willing to provide the service at the price the government is willing to pay for it, measures would have to be taken to compel them to do so.
A service cannot be a Right as to declare it as such does in fact contain the idea that others will be, if necessary, compelled by force to provide that service. The comparison to lawyers in the article fails as there is a large difference between something you're supposed to have available to you under specific conditions and declaring a universal right to an on going service. Further, the "state will provide a lawyer if you can't afford one" thing came about through court cases interpreting the mentioned clause in the Constitution as requiring that.
I suppose one could construct some logic that says that: A) Health care is a Right B) If you cannot afford it, the State will provide it
But it still doesn't get around the fundamental issues: A) Health care costs, unlike the costs for lawyers, grow substantially over time. No matter how large the economy of a country is, the cost will eventually break the state or lead to significant rationing schemes B) Ultimately if Doctors/Nurses/Support staff refuse to work for whatever wage the government will pay (either directly or through medicare/medicaid or whatever), what do you do? Do you compel them to do so to provide this Right?
But the root of the Pauls' objection to the TSA isn't because of nude scans or genital gropes, but because they think the Federal Government should be shrunken to levels that would likely have shocked late 19th century Americans. Yes, I'm sure they're appalled by the nonsense that goes on, but even if the TSA was an effective and reasonable security agency, the Pauls would still want it gone.
Er, what makes you think that the levels they'd like to shrink the Leviathan down to would shock 19th century Americans? I suspect they'd be far far more shocked by the run away fed.gov than they would by any attempt to shrink it.
"You mean there are entire federal agencies devoted to nothing but saying what you can and cannot eat/drink/smoke?!" "What the hell do you mean you can't build a house on land you own because some bureaucrat in Washington has declared it a wetland?!" "The Federal government largely dictate what is taught in schools?! Where is that in the Constitution?!"
I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let the boot get so heavy and just where all these powers fed.gov has came from.
":I guess you assume that Americans are salvage barbarians since it would take one to even contemplate a first strike that would take out all of Russian missiles, bombers and submarines,"
we are a warmongering country. WE have been at war more than They have. Hell we go to war at the drop of a hat. Why not assume that our past will predict our future.
You need to put down the crack pipe. The US does not randomly start wars nor do we go to war at the drop of a hat. The way you're speaking you'd think the US spent half its history, or more, conquering the planet and subjugating millions of people. Given our current lack of World Empire I'm just going to presume that isn't the case.
If any rogue state launches a missle that gets anywhere near Poland, they will have flown over Russia and China.. And they AIN'T gonna wait for a UN resolution before going after the rogue state.
The only country this threatens is Russia.
You think that if Country X suddenly lobs a missile at NOT_FRIEND_OF_RUSSIA_OR_CHINA that Russia or China would go to war over there or even bother to shoot it down? Really?
They'd likely just sit back and do exactly nothing. Look at the history of their actions regarding NK and Iran. Further, if you really think a handful of interceptors of questionable reliability is a threat to Russia then clearly you don't really know what is being discussed. The only way this system could threaten Russia in any meaningful way is if Russia is nothing but a paper tiger.
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Why is this marked Insightful, let alone +5? The system being built is absolutely incapable of any credible defense against a Russian attack. There is a very very far cry from a system able to (probably) shoot down a handful of relatively crude missiles (of the type Iran/NK would likely be able to produce on their own in the short to midterm) and the top of the line Russian missiles, never mind the sheer volume of them. Additionally, this system would do exactly nothing against a strike against North America.
The way Russia is freaking out publicly you'd think the system was capable of 100% full interception of any Russian launch anywhere in the world. Even if this system were capable of fully neutralizing their land based assets that says nothing for their non-trivial sea launched weapons.
In short, based on the information available I can't see how this system presents a credible threat to them nor how it could reasonably be used to allow a first strike. That doesn't even address the question of why the hell NATO would want to do a first strike against Russia in the first place.
None of what I said should be taken to mean I think building this system is a good use of resources. If Iran or NK (or whoever) is going to be able to have the ability to launch such an attack I imagine they would have it far sooner than the 8 years it is going to take to build this silly thing.
The evidence that you seem to ignore that he is dangerous is the dead boy. He didn't just carry a gun he used it. Or are you claiming that is in dispute.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I dispute it is evidence that he is dangerous. There is a difference between a person who is dangerous, a more or less constant quality of the person, and what may be a dangerous act. One doesn't prove the other and as such isn't evidence. Side note, at 17 you're within days of being legally a man and am very far away from being a boy. Words mean something. Constantly calling Martin a boy is only logical if you're attempting to paint a particular picture. A more accurate term would be young man, or teenager (at best).
"The Orange County Clerk of Courts website shows a man named George Zimmerman, 28, was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped." I guess that wasn't enough to refuse Zimmerman a gun permit.
It is possible you don't follow these types of things closely. As such, you may not realize just how ridiculously easy it is to get charged with that in the US these days. A cop approaches me, doesn't like what I'm doing for whatever reason, attempts to arrest me and I shove him. Bam, resisting arrest with violence and battery. Happens all the time to protestors. That he wasn't convicted and charges were dropped both says a lot and answers your question as to his carry (not a gun permit, we don't have those in the US) permit. Some what unrelated, I get the feeling you're not from the US. Is that the case?
Zimmerman could have held the boy at gun point, If someone was pointing a gun at you and you were unarmed, would you resist. I doubt it since you appear to be aware of the damage a bullet can do.
Well, that depends on what is going on. If a person wasn't doing anything wrong and someone else pulled a gun on them, I would absolutely expect them to resist in some manner or other. As to what Zimmerman should have or could have done, we don't really know as we don't really know the circumstances around the time of the shooting. As I've noted before, we are only speculating. The available facts are pretty thin at this point.
Zimmerman isn't convicted yet however the decision on what to charge him with has been made and presumable that decision is based on supporting Evidence not on a whim.
One would hope. That said, it is entirely possible they charged him whether or not they thought they could get a conviction. Right or wrong, absent clear evidence that a conviction was impossible I don't think they had a practical choice the minute this became a (inter)national news story.
I started out this conversation by pointing out that it could be the case Zimmerman did want to kill someone and escape the consequences of the law. Where your claiming i am presuming guilt you are presuming innocence. neither conclusion can be reached without examination of the actual evidence.
Quite right. However, it is more accurate to say that I'm presuming innocence until proven guilty combined with the fact that I have a hard time believing someone would come up with such a convoluted plan to commit such a grievous act. Of course, there's a first time for anything, no?
The 3 statements you made regarding the requirements for murder1 could be met in this case however largely it is a thought crime, without a witness to the killing it is pretty much impossible to prove. Only Zimmerman could say if it was the case or not and he isn't likely to confess.
It could only be met if we presume your original supposition is correct. Either way, you're right in that it cannot be proven either way without a witness or a very unlikely confession. Thus, all we can do is theorize.
Zimmerman seems to have seen himself as some kind o
An armed man goes looking for trouble in his neighbourhood streets, what was going to happen once he found it?
If he had no intent on killing someone then why carry the gun in the first place?
This is yet another huge presumption on your part. I carry a gun every day. I'm damned sure not "looking for trouble". On what basis do you say he was automatically "looking for trouble"? Was it his job to patrol the neighborhood? Probably not. Was it wrong of him to do so? Also, probably not. Looking out for your neighbors isn't inherently evil or bad nor is it "looking for trouble". We don't have any evidence saying he was intending to do anything else. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
He was armed and dangerous and looking for trouble, the facts speak for themselves he killed the boy!
This is the same presumption as above. Do you have any evidence that he was dangerous as opposed to merely armed? The facts we know are these:
He was out in the neighborhood "patrolling" or whatever one wants to call it
There have been reports of breakins in the neighborhood
He reported seeing someone who may have been up to no good to the police
For reasons currently not proven he followed this person on foot (not a decision I agree with, but not inherently evil/bad)
Some kind of confrontation occurred. We don't know by way of evidence who started it for certain.
The end result is that Martin was shot
Those are the known facts. Practically everything else is presumption or assumption on our parts. You seem intent on presuming evil intent where there is little to no evidence to support that at the moment. Why is that?
Even if he had been found holding the boy at gunpoint would the Police have said good job Zimmerman thats one more scumbag off the streets or arrested Zimmerman?
Presuming there really was a reason to hold Martin at gun point that would have been vastly preferred by everyone. If it turned out there was no reason to do so, Zimmerman would have been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.
When it comes to determining premeditated murder you need hard evidence to convict but as the evidence largely exists in the head of Zimmerman it is unlikely he will admit to it so murder 2 is likely to be the maximum he can reasonably be convicted of. Just because the evidence available is insufficient to gain a conviction doesn't mean the motivation and planning wasn't there.
25 to life is a pretty hefty sentence , murder 1 would only add eventual state sponsored euthanasia assuming you can get the death penalty in florida.
Yeah, just because there is no evidence of motivation and planning lets just assume that's what happened and "convict" based on that. Who needs little things like evidence and logic before forming opinions and deciding guilt, right?
Thanks sounds good. I don't quite see your list as being authoritative, however there seem to be cases where planning isn't required.
Correct. As noted by others below there are certain special cases where what would otherwise be Murder Two or some other related charge becomes Murder One due to aggravating factors. I was merely speaking in general and classic terms.
I normally hesitate to respond in such a way.. but... are you smoking crack?
Your point one presumption is a bloody huge presumption with exactly no evidence to back it up. As to your second point, are you really trying to say that Zimmerman intentionally set out to kill someone and then just hope that he could stand behind the non-existent shield of "Hold your ground"? That is a mind numbing huge gamble, wouldn't you say? Contrary to what some people of limited knowledge and intelligence on the subject say, you can't just shoot a person and then throw up your hands and yell "He was coming right at me!" Nor could you provoke a minor assault and "carry out the plan". No one is going to buy that you were in serious danger of death or grievous injury absent non-trivial wounds to yourself or at the least arms on the part of the other person.
This also fails Occam's Razor.
Which is more likely and simpler? A) That Zimmerman hatched a complicated plan to allow himself to "legally" kill someone at great risk of serious physical injury and/or jail time. or B) Under what could likely be called questionable judgement he decided to follow Martin around the neighborhood, and then for currently unknown/uncertain reasons got out of his car and followed an undetermined distance on foot. At which point either Martin or Zimmerman (facts in dispute) started a physical altercation, of which Zimmerman was getting the worse of. Fearing for his life Zimmerman shot Martin.
At no point am I addressing whether following Martin around was a good idea, what his motivations were beyond being suspicious of him or any of the rest. The fact is, we don't know any of that so anything any of us say is speculation at best. Either way, your scenario is silly and braindead and even if point B isn't the way it went down it damned sure wasn't point A.
Murder Two at best/worst and even that only if it can be proven that Zimmerman attacked Martin and was in no serious danger himself.
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
I'm going to presume this is a serious question...
First degree murder requires that you:
1) Wanted to kill someone 2) Planned to do it 3) Executed the plan
If you didn't mean to kill someone and planned to do it, it isn't first degree murder. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin around for a month, it wouldn't be first degree murder if *something* happens and Martin ends up dead. That planning it bit is pretty damned important.
But how many Instagram users are NOT already on Facebook?
*raises hand*
Well, at least I used to be an Instagram user. Just got it when they debuted it for Android. Since I can't fucking stand Facebook, I guess that means I'm now done with Instagram, since even if they do keep it as a stand alone product, they'll probably require a Facebook account.
/sigh...
Any recommendations anyone have for a good free Android alternative for something to take quick snapshots, apply a basic filter, and share them with people? Tried Vignette and Retro Camera and they both sucked compared to Instagram.
I presume you mean without having to do the two or three whole extra clicks required to do it using the native tools?
1. Take picture 2. Tap it in the upper right hand side 3. Tap it again to go to the gallery 4. Tap the tri-button thing in the upper right handside 5. Edit to your hearts desire 6. Post to the universe.
I get that Instagram and kin eliminated a few clicks. I suppose everyone who ever shares to it always applies filters. Otherwise, the workflow collapses to:
1. Take picture 2. Tap it in the upper right hand side 3. Post it 4. Have cake 5. Enjoy cake
At least a member of your family is probably guilty of: - downloading something - using prohibited agricultural products - and if less than 21 and living in the US, using other also prohibited agricultural liquids.
And that's just for starters...
And the real "looser" in this equation, is that disconnect between law and ethics...
how can a parent educate their children when many laws prohibits actions that are hard to describe as unethical, and
many unethical actions are totally legal.
And if you have enough power, you can make illegal actions legal in your special case...
The right wing is pushing the morals out of the window... (and I'm not speaking of the operating system....)
The disconnect between laws and ethics, vice morals, is in fact a terrible thing. It leads to, among other things, a contempt for the law and a loss of faith in the system in general. So we're totally in agreement up to that point.
However, you do go off the rails when implying this is a purely right wing thing. The left is just a guilty of this as the so-called right. Yet, we all keep voting for the same bastards.
When you think you're doing something for somebody's own good without consulting them, you can essentially be seen as doing it in their name and/or infantilizing them. Not only did this potentially cause danger to many of China's citizens, as your motto says, but they likely didn't appreciate it in form at all. You don't see reports of similar incidents on the mainland done by nationals. Just totally counterproductive and it embarrassed me.
I see what you're saying and in general agree with the idea that such actions could be taken to infantilize those who are ostensibly being helped. I also agree that such actions on the part of Anonymous are rarely productive and at best fall in the category of "look at me!". That said, how would this cause danger to China's citizens? Unless you're referring to the possibility of a general reaction on the part of the government?
If you didn't get paid for that Plantronics video, you got ripped off. If we're going from a company about their products, we want to hear from techies about the inner workings of the products. Not from a PR/Marketing flack about how their "products make our lives easier". That's pretty much the definition of an ad, not news for nerds.
This, this right here. If a video/"story" reads like an advertisement, then it is going to be interpreted as one no matter what. The Plantronics one is a perfect example of that. "Here, look at this thing that will make your life easier and this is why! Also, buy from us!"
If one saw that anywhere else, what would one think it was? A deeply thoughtful article, or a paid-to-place advertisement? Right or wrong, the impression is buried deeply, no?
also, everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but when a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man...
People assume he is a child because of... more media bias. Despite the fact that he was 17, nearly every media source used a five year old picture of him when he was twelve.
Precisely. There is exactly dick for reliable information on this story. Practically everything that has been put out by the mainstream media, a phrase I'm reluctant to use, has been heavily spun in a particular direction ever since the story went national. It has been an extremely consistent, dare I say blatant, narrative that has been drilled in regardless of any facts or information available later. This picture thing is yet another example of it in addition to the subject of this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you actually READ about the american history before you go insulting people.
Come on back when you know what you are talking about, because the history books say otherwise.
Yeah, you might be right about that. Seems I missed the part where the US conquered the world and enslaved its population. I really missed the part after World War II when the US probably could have done exactly that, or nearly so, and didn't.
It is dangerous to look at any nation or people and seemingly see nothing but the evil and bad in them. It is also dangerous to see nothing but good and deny all possible problems, missteps and mistakes. However, it seems that your view of the world is so disconnected from reality I'm not sure we have sufficient commonality to continue a discussion.
You're strictly right when arguing and asking why all this bullshit so called MAD, and what it's benefit into protecting the US or NATO.
Dear, it's to protect the cuddled naive, poor and weak country, Israel. Just look on the distribution pattern of MAD in Europe and middle east.
Er... you're really suggesting that the entire multi-trillion (probably) dollars spent on the various nuclear arsenals is entirely spent to protect Israel? Really?
"... a disproportionate income tax? By the Federal government?! What'll they have next? A forced monopoly on currency?"
If by that you mean that someone from that period would be shocked to learn Money is now a pure debt instrument with no hard backing and the country is in a seemingly endless spiral of debt and ever lowering values of the money, then yes I'm sure they would be rather shocked.
I'm going to address the part I agree with first:
Also, we'd probably be much better off overall if we did some preventative medicine rather than just treating problems as they show up.
Truth.
Why should health care costs increase over time? What makes it different from computer hardware, or legal fees? Just because a company wants to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for a fancy new drug doesn't mean we need to actually pay it. Yes, it might mean that some drugs don't get invented, but it might also mean far better care for the average person.
Health care costs increase over time because as health care gets better, people live longer and instead of kicking off at age X with a severe cold they take 20 years of expensive treatment and then kick off with some far more complicated decease. Also, as treatments get better they tend to get more expensive to a degree.
You can be sure to congratulate the parents of the dead child who wasn't saved by the drug/treatment that wasn't invented that their sacrifice enabled better care for the "average person". At least you do recognize that presumably banning companies from charging those prices would probably kill R&D into new treatments. The money to do that R&D doesn't grow on trees and must come from somewhere. They oddly can't pay for it with unicorn farts.
"You can't duel some fool to death because he touched your wife's socks?! Good heavens, man, what heathens!!"
I agree with you on all of your points, but I couldn't resist.
LoL.
You win some.. you lose some.. It wasn't all roses and wine even then, no? :D
I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let blacks and women have equal rights.
only a white guy would point to the 19th century as an example of a free society.
Well, that's a giant assumption isn't it?
I never said it was an example of utopia or anything of the like. It is undeniable that government regulation of every little bit of what was once people's private lives would be shocking to most anyone from that period as it ought to be shocking to us now. Of course, these days it seems more likely that people will just cry out for more regulation. The previous regulation fixed everything after all.
Given our current lack of World Empire
"The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain."
Link
When your currency is used as world currency, when your troops are deployed all over the world, when you control many international mechanisms, when you menace and punish those who disagree with you, you are an empire - even if you don't call it this way.
Your premise is rejected for the following:
Your source appears to be very biased with an agenda to prove. By no means a proper reference. Troops are deployed in many areas this is true. However, what you're not taking into account is that nearly all of those deployments are part of mutual defense pacts. Germany for instance does host a few large US bases, but surely you wouldn't call them conquered. The USD is the current world currency. However, that too is generally by choice as for the last few decades it was the logical choice.
Who was punished for merely disagreeing? Did we bomb Germany and the other countries for not going along with the silliness in Iraq? Clearly if they're part of the "Empire" as you seem to be saying those counties should be punished for daring to refuse to provide troops and materials, right?
You keep using that Empire word, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Agreed. I lost a lot of respect for him when he opined that Universal health care is equivalent to slavery
Actually, what is incorrect in his analysis?
If you have a "right" to healthcare (a service provided at a cost) then that implies you should have the full weight of the government to enforce your claim of that right. Thus, if no one is willing to provide the service at the price the government is willing to pay for it, measures would have to be taken to compel them to do so.
A service cannot be a Right as to declare it as such does in fact contain the idea that others will be, if necessary, compelled by force to provide that service. The comparison to lawyers in the article fails as there is a large difference between something you're supposed to have available to you under specific conditions and declaring a universal right to an on going service. Further, the "state will provide a lawyer if you can't afford one" thing came about through court cases interpreting the mentioned clause in the Constitution as requiring that.
I suppose one could construct some logic that says that:
A) Health care is a Right
B) If you cannot afford it, the State will provide it
But it still doesn't get around the fundamental issues:
A) Health care costs, unlike the costs for lawyers, grow substantially over time. No matter how large the economy of a country is, the cost will eventually break the state or lead to significant rationing schemes
B) Ultimately if Doctors/Nurses/Support staff refuse to work for whatever wage the government will pay (either directly or through medicare/medicaid or whatever), what do you do? Do you compel them to do so to provide this Right?
But the root of the Pauls' objection to the TSA isn't because of nude scans or genital gropes, but because they think the Federal Government should be shrunken to levels that would likely have shocked late 19th century Americans. Yes, I'm sure they're appalled by the nonsense that goes on, but even if the TSA was an effective and reasonable security agency, the Pauls would still want it gone.
Er, what makes you think that the levels they'd like to shrink the Leviathan down to would shock 19th century Americans? I suspect they'd be far far more shocked by the run away fed.gov than they would by any attempt to shrink it.
"You mean there are entire federal agencies devoted to nothing but saying what you can and cannot eat/drink/smoke?!"
"What the hell do you mean you can't build a house on land you own because some bureaucrat in Washington has declared it a wetland?!"
"The Federal government largely dictate what is taught in schools?! Where is that in the Constitution?!"
I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let the boot get so heavy and just where all these powers fed.gov has came from.
":I guess you assume that Americans are salvage barbarians since it would take one to even contemplate a first strike that would take out all of Russian missiles, bombers and submarines,"
we are a warmongering country. WE have been at war more than They have. Hell we go to war at the drop of a hat. Why not assume that our past will predict our future.
You need to put down the crack pipe. The US does not randomly start wars nor do we go to war at the drop of a hat. The way you're speaking you'd think the US spent half its history, or more, conquering the planet and subjugating millions of people. Given our current lack of World Empire I'm just going to presume that isn't the case.
We need a middle defense base in Poland why?
If any rogue state launches a missle that gets anywhere near Poland, they will have flown over Russia and China.. And they AIN'T gonna wait for a UN resolution before going after the rogue state.
The only country this threatens is Russia.
You think that if Country X suddenly lobs a missile at NOT_FRIEND_OF_RUSSIA_OR_CHINA that Russia or China would go to war over there or even bother to shoot it down? Really?
They'd likely just sit back and do exactly nothing. Look at the history of their actions regarding NK and Iran. Further, if you really think a handful of interceptors of questionable reliability is a threat to Russia then clearly you don't really know what is being discussed. The only way this system could threaten Russia in any meaningful way is if Russia is nothing but a paper tiger.
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Why is this marked Insightful, let alone +5? The system being built is absolutely incapable of any credible defense against a Russian attack. There is a very very far cry from a system able to (probably) shoot down a handful of relatively crude missiles (of the type Iran/NK would likely be able to produce on their own in the short to midterm) and the top of the line Russian missiles, never mind the sheer volume of them. Additionally, this system would do exactly nothing against a strike against North America.
The way Russia is freaking out publicly you'd think the system was capable of 100% full interception of any Russian launch anywhere in the world. Even if this system were capable of fully neutralizing their land based assets that says nothing for their non-trivial sea launched weapons.
In short, based on the information available I can't see how this system presents a credible threat to them nor how it could reasonably be used to allow a first strike. That doesn't even address the question of why the hell NATO would want to do a first strike against Russia in the first place.
None of what I said should be taken to mean I think building this system is a good use of resources. If Iran or NK (or whoever) is going to be able to have the ability to launch such an attack I imagine they would have it far sooner than the 8 years it is going to take to build this silly thing.
The evidence that you seem to ignore that he is dangerous is the dead boy. He didn't just carry a gun he used it. Or are you claiming that is in dispute.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I dispute it is evidence that he is dangerous. There is a difference between a person who is dangerous, a more or less constant quality of the person, and what may be a dangerous act. One doesn't prove the other and as such isn't evidence. Side note, at 17 you're within days of being legally a man and am very far away from being a boy. Words mean something. Constantly calling Martin a boy is only logical if you're attempting to paint a particular picture. A more accurate term would be young man, or teenager (at best).
"The Orange County Clerk of Courts website shows a man named George Zimmerman, 28, was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped." I guess that wasn't enough to refuse Zimmerman a gun permit.
It is possible you don't follow these types of things closely. As such, you may not realize just how ridiculously easy it is to get charged with that in the US these days. A cop approaches me, doesn't like what I'm doing for whatever reason, attempts to arrest me and I shove him. Bam, resisting arrest with violence and battery. Happens all the time to protestors. That he wasn't convicted and charges were dropped both says a lot and answers your question as to his carry (not a gun permit, we don't have those in the US) permit. Some what unrelated, I get the feeling you're not from the US. Is that the case?
Zimmerman could have held the boy at gun point, If someone was pointing a gun at you and you were unarmed, would you resist. I doubt it since you appear to be aware of the damage a bullet can do.
Well, that depends on what is going on. If a person wasn't doing anything wrong and someone else pulled a gun on them, I would absolutely expect them to resist in some manner or other. As to what Zimmerman should have or could have done, we don't really know as we don't really know the circumstances around the time of the shooting. As I've noted before, we are only speculating. The available facts are pretty thin at this point.
Zimmerman isn't convicted yet however the decision on what to charge him with has been made and presumable that decision is based on supporting Evidence not on a whim.
One would hope. That said, it is entirely possible they charged him whether or not they thought they could get a conviction. Right or wrong, absent clear evidence that a conviction was impossible I don't think they had a practical choice the minute this became a (inter)national news story.
I started out this conversation by pointing out that it could be the case Zimmerman did want to kill someone and escape the consequences of the law. Where your claiming i am presuming guilt you are presuming innocence. neither conclusion can be reached without examination of the actual evidence.
Quite right. However, it is more accurate to say that I'm presuming innocence until proven guilty combined with the fact that I have a hard time believing someone would come up with such a convoluted plan to commit such a grievous act. Of course, there's a first time for anything, no?
The 3 statements you made regarding the requirements for murder1 could be met in this case however largely it is a thought crime, without a witness to the killing it is pretty much impossible to prove. Only Zimmerman could say if it was the case or not and he isn't likely to confess.
It could only be met if we presume your original supposition is correct. Either way, you're right in that it cannot be proven either way without a witness or a very unlikely confession. Thus, all we can do is theorize.
Zimmerman seems to have seen himself as some kind o
Are you on crack?
An armed man goes looking for trouble in his neighbourhood streets, what was going to happen once he found it?
If he had no intent on killing someone then why carry the gun in the first place?
This is yet another huge presumption on your part. I carry a gun every day. I'm damned sure not "looking for trouble". On what basis do you say he was automatically "looking for trouble"? Was it his job to patrol the neighborhood? Probably not. Was it wrong of him to do so? Also, probably not. Looking out for your neighbors isn't inherently evil or bad nor is it "looking for trouble". We don't have any evidence saying he was intending to do anything else. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
He was armed and dangerous and looking for trouble, the facts speak for themselves he killed the boy!
This is the same presumption as above. Do you have any evidence that he was dangerous as opposed to merely armed? The facts we know are these:
Those are the known facts. Practically everything else is presumption or assumption on our parts. You seem intent on presuming evil intent where there is little to no evidence to support that at the moment. Why is that?
Even if he had been found holding the boy at gunpoint would the Police have said good job Zimmerman thats one more scumbag off the streets or arrested Zimmerman?
Presuming there really was a reason to hold Martin at gun point that would have been vastly preferred by everyone. If it turned out there was no reason to do so, Zimmerman would have been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.
When it comes to determining premeditated murder you need hard evidence to convict but as the evidence largely exists in the head of Zimmerman it is unlikely he will admit to it so murder 2 is likely to be the maximum he can reasonably be convicted of. Just because the evidence available is insufficient to gain a conviction doesn't mean the motivation and planning wasn't there.
25 to life is a pretty hefty sentence , murder 1 would only add eventual state sponsored euthanasia assuming you can get the death penalty in florida.
Yeah, just because there is no evidence of motivation and planning lets just assume that's what happened and "convict" based on that. Who needs little things like evidence and logic before forming opinions and deciding guilt, right?
Thanks sounds good. I don't quite see your list as being authoritative, however there seem to be cases where planning isn't required.
Correct. As noted by others below there are certain special cases where what would otherwise be Murder Two or some other related charge becomes Murder One due to aggravating factors. I was merely speaking in general and classic terms.
Conspiracy much?
I normally hesitate to respond in such a way.. but... are you smoking crack?
Your point one presumption is a bloody huge presumption with exactly no evidence to back it up. As to your second point, are you really trying to say that Zimmerman intentionally set out to kill someone and then just hope that he could stand behind the non-existent shield of "Hold your ground"? That is a mind numbing huge gamble, wouldn't you say? Contrary to what some people of limited knowledge and intelligence on the subject say, you can't just shoot a person and then throw up your hands and yell "He was coming right at me!" Nor could you provoke a minor assault and "carry out the plan". No one is going to buy that you were in serious danger of death or grievous injury absent non-trivial wounds to yourself or at the least arms on the part of the other person.
This also fails Occam's Razor.
Which is more likely and simpler?
A) That Zimmerman hatched a complicated plan to allow himself to "legally" kill someone at great risk of serious physical injury and/or jail time.
or
B) Under what could likely be called questionable judgement he decided to follow Martin around the neighborhood, and then for currently unknown/uncertain reasons got out of his car and followed an undetermined distance on foot. At which point either Martin or Zimmerman (facts in dispute) started a physical altercation, of which Zimmerman was getting the worse of. Fearing for his life Zimmerman shot Martin.
At no point am I addressing whether following Martin around was a good idea, what his motivations were beyond being suspicious of him or any of the rest. The fact is, we don't know any of that so anything any of us say is speculation at best. Either way, your scenario is silly and braindead and even if point B isn't the way it went down it damned sure wasn't point A.
Murder Two at best/worst and even that only if it can be proven that Zimmerman attacked Martin and was in no serious danger himself.
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
I'm going to presume this is a serious question...
First degree murder requires that you:
1) Wanted to kill someone
2) Planned to do it
3) Executed the plan
If you didn't mean to kill someone and planned to do it, it isn't first degree murder. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin around for a month, it wouldn't be first degree murder if *something* happens and Martin ends up dead. That planning it bit is pretty damned important.
But how many Instagram users are NOT already on Facebook?
*raises hand*
Well, at least I used to be an Instagram user. Just got it when they debuted it for Android. Since I can't fucking stand Facebook, I guess that means I'm now done with Instagram, since even if they do keep it as a stand alone product, they'll probably require a Facebook account.
/sigh...
Any recommendations anyone have for a good free Android alternative for something to take quick snapshots, apply a basic filter, and share them with people? Tried Vignette and Retro Camera and they both sucked compared to Instagram.
I presume you mean without having to do the two or three whole extra clicks required to do it using the native tools?
1. Take picture
2. Tap it in the upper right hand side
3. Tap it again to go to the gallery
4. Tap the tri-button thing in the upper right handside
5. Edit to your hearts desire
6. Post to the universe.
I get that Instagram and kin eliminated a few clicks. I suppose everyone who ever shares to it always applies filters. Otherwise, the workflow collapses to:
1. Take picture
2. Tap it in the upper right hand side
3. Post it
4. Have cake
5. Enjoy cake
Was Instagram really that bloody cool?
At least a member of your family is probably guilty of:
- downloading something
- using prohibited agricultural products
- and if less than 21 and living in the US, using other also prohibited agricultural liquids.
And that's just for starters...
And the real "looser" in this equation, is that disconnect between law and ethics...
how can a parent educate their children when many laws prohibits actions that are hard to describe as unethical, and
many unethical actions are totally legal.
And if you have enough power, you can make illegal actions legal in your special case...
The right wing is pushing the morals out of the window... (and I'm not speaking of the operating system....)
The disconnect between laws and ethics, vice morals, is in fact a terrible thing. It leads to, among other things, a contempt for the law and a loss of faith in the system in general. So we're totally in agreement up to that point.
However, you do go off the rails when implying this is a purely right wing thing. The left is just a guilty of this as the so-called right. Yet, we all keep voting for the same bastards.
When you think you're doing something for somebody's own good without consulting them, you can essentially be seen as doing it in their name and/or infantilizing them. Not only did this potentially cause danger to many of China's citizens, as your motto says, but they likely didn't appreciate it in form at all. You don't see reports of similar incidents on the mainland done by nationals. Just totally counterproductive and it embarrassed me.
I see what you're saying and in general agree with the idea that such actions could be taken to infantilize those who are ostensibly being helped. I also agree that such actions on the part of Anonymous are rarely productive and at best fall in the category of "look at me!". That said, how would this cause danger to China's citizens? Unless you're referring to the possibility of a general reaction on the part of the government?
If you didn't get paid for that Plantronics video, you got ripped off. If we're going from a company about their products, we want to hear from techies about the inner workings of the products. Not from a PR/Marketing flack about how their "products make our lives easier". That's pretty much the definition of an ad, not news for nerds.
This, this right here. If a video/"story" reads like an advertisement, then it is going to be interpreted as one no matter what. The Plantronics one is a perfect example of that. "Here, look at this thing that will make your life easier and this is why! Also, buy from us!"
If one saw that anywhere else, what would one think it was? A deeply thoughtful article, or a paid-to-place advertisement? Right or wrong, the impression is buried deeply, no?
Yeah.. but the difference is that is a story with information and this is just an advertisement trying to look like a story.
They're the same in that they both contain words. Much like a Boeing 777 is the same as a piper cub. They both have wings, right?
Have you checked the "Disable Advertisement" box yet? (Have you even gotten one yet?)
Had one for as long as I can remember. It doesn't block "stories" as they aren't "Advertisements". Thus, entirely useless in this case.
So... half the "stories" today are just bloody slashvertisements?!?
also, everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but when a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man ...
People assume he is a child because of ... more media bias. Despite the fact that he was 17, nearly every media source used a five year old picture of him when he was twelve.
Precisely. There is exactly dick for reliable information on this story. Practically everything that has been put out by the mainstream media, a phrase I'm reluctant to use, has been heavily spun in a particular direction ever since the story went national. It has been an extremely consistent, dare I say blatant, narrative that has been drilled in regardless of any facts or information available later. This picture thing is yet another example of it in addition to the subject of this thread.