Before or after Zimmerman got out of the car to attack Trayvon, against the advice of the dispatcher?
If he wasn't out to attack the black kid, there's no way Trayvon could have even touched Zimmerman. Yes, black guys run fast, and american trucks are slow. But the truck is still fast enough to get away.
I get so tired of this absolute bullshit spin on the order of events it's not funny. Trayvon supporters invariably get the facts wrong and utterly fail simple logic.
1) Zimmerman was already outside of his truck when the dispatcher advised him he did not need to follow. The dispatcher testified this was to avoid legal liability on himself in the event Zimmerman was harmed. This was not a command and not legally binding. Just as Trayvon had a right to be out in public, Zimmerman had a right to be where he wanted. It was his home. And no, it wasn't Trayvon's home. He was a guest.
2) Beyond your own fantasy world, there is no evidence that Zimmerman "got out of his car to attack" anyone.
I watched the entire trial live over Internet streaming.
Please,show me the law that justifies physical assault under provocation of stalking while in a public area. Show me the legal definition of stalking and explain how it applies in this context. And finally explain how assault is justified under the statutes in this case. Clearly, you know more than the judges, prosecutors, and jury. You ought to run for judge.
And BTW, the self defense claim requires the claimant to believe an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. I figured I'd give you a head start.
I have found without exception that the most vehement of Trayvon supporters are the most ignorant of the actual facts and events of the incident. Unfortunately, they are usually the most vocal as well.
If I goad someone into a fight I should not be allowed to kill them. It makes getting away with murder too easy. In most states he would have had a duty to retreat.
I am reading exactly what you are saying. Your contention that by following someone it is "goading" them into a fight is wrong. period. If Zimmerman had not been armed and was still being beaten when the police arrived 45 seconds after the time that the shooting would have occurred, Martin would have been arrested for felony assault and battery at the minimum, and attempted murder (or murder) in the maximum. There would not have been any "self defense" claim. It is not justifiable. It is not reasonable. It is not excusable.
I would call him a stupid thug kid. Like I said, I am not an apologist I think both of them were royal shitheads. One was punished too harshly the other not enough.
Zimmerman should be punished for what exactly? Should he be punished for defending his life against a "stupid thug kid" (your words) who attacked him for the crime of following to see what he was doing? This is why I call you an apologist. You are angry at the outcome, not the events. Direct your anger where it belongs. The problem is those who will violently attack at the slightest perceived provocation.
When Zimmerman screamed for help and begged his neighbor to pull Trayvon off, when he left to call 911, did that qualify as expressing a desire to withdraw? Although Florida does not even require the duty to retreat, Zimmerman tried to disengage before shooting.
Fact is, Zimmerman was within the law. He was in the right. Martin, made a very bad decision and it cost him his life. For all the outrage, it probably would have happened sooner or later anyway. For individuals whose first tool is violence when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, it is just a matter of time before they choose the wrong victim.
It does not give them permission to assault you...
Okay. Stop right there. Nothing more needs to be said. There is no need for "but" . Assaulting someone for following you makes you a criminal. Period. If you are frightened, call 911. Trayvon did have a cell phone. He was using it during the event. It was found in the vicinity of the body. Or, you know, he could have just finished walking home. He was only a few doors away.
The situation was not over, or he would have left the area. At least gotten into his locked vehicle. If he called 911 they could get his location from his phone. He could have driven to the nearest intersection.
As most of the Trayvon apologists have harped upon, Zimmerman had every right to be where he was too. He was not under any legal obligation to "leave the area" to placate apologists like you. Or hide in his locked vehicle. Trayvon, on the other hand, was under a legal obligation not to attack Zimmerman. This is clear in the law, custom, and societal norms. Trayvon just had the bad judgment to put the smackdown on a cracker who happened to be armed.
You want to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante. What do you call Trayvon? If you want to know what a vigilante is, look no further. He decided to attack based solely upon the fact that someone was following him. Try doing that next time a plain clothes store detective follows you in the mall. See if your consequences work out better than Trayvon.
That's what's usually called "marginal costs", which is why it is by no means called "fixed costs" by anyone (well, by anyone who knows what he's talking about).
In economics, fixed costs are business expenses that are not dependent on the level of goods or services produced by the business.[1] They tend to be time-related, such as salaries or rents being paid per month, and are often referred to as overhead costs.
GP claimed there are additional fixed costs for production of the ebook. This is independent of marginal costs of an ebook which are essentially zero.
Why? You got the point he was trying to make, didn't you? The ability to string together sentences with perfect grammar doesn't make you special, you [expletive deleted].
Not grammar. It's the wrong word. It makes the sentence have the wrong meaning, error correction abilities of the reader notwithstanding. It has nothing to do with grammar (or spelling for that matter).
Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.
No it wouldn't. You fall into the same logic trap as the Jersey judge thinking that more laws/liability will fix human behavior that we don't like. It's already illegal to text and drive in my state, and every day I see at least 3 drivers on my four mile work commute doing it. Every other driver is talking on the phone at 5:00 during their drive home.
Does anybody seriously think the answer to all life's problems is more laws? Must we always advocate yet another statute on the books every time we see something we don't agree with or don't like? Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens.
The law and order crowd is turning our world into a police state.
It might be of interest to note that Fox News' website has a prominent article regarding the drive destruction on their home page, while CNN has absolutely no mention of it at all on their home page that I could find. Hmmmm. Nothing on MSNBC either. CNN and MSBNBC both have deemed it newsworthy to have articles on Prince George's new royal portrait though. I guess that's what's important.
Remember that next time you feel the need to complain about Fox News.
It must be an awful life to wake up every morning pissing in your boots afraid that those eeeevvviiilll terrorists are going to come and blow you up in your home....so afraid that you will let your elected officials and their minions violate the very Constitution they swore to protect and defend...so afraid that you will denounce your betters as scumbags...so afraid that you repeatedly post as an anonymous coward all over Slashdot to avoid your betters' (I can't really say peers') condemnation over your ignorance and cowardice.
Those of us that are educated enough to remember Watergate know what life was like when Americans had the backbone to rein in governmental excess. And those of us educated enough to remember McCarthy know what bogeyman witch hunts do to the civil rights and liberties of the people. I wouldn't expect your education level to be high enough to understand either.
Zingers suck! They sucked when Dolly Madison made 'em and they suck coming from Little Debbie. The red coconut mystery flavor ones were the worse, but the chocolate ones were inedible too. What you call "icing" is a some kind of cocoa based plastic compound. As a kid, I would literally peel it off and drop it in the can. It always came off in one piece. Fresh from the store,they were always stale and dry. That's why Zingers were always cheaper than anything with a Hostess name on it.
When I was a kid, and the parents brought home Zingers, you could always guarantee they would still be there when it was time to go shopping the next week. Twinkies never made it past a couple days before us kids wiped them out.
What a crock of drivel, the citation is right there, the US has it punishable by a $250,000 fine and 20 years' imprisonment. Do all the hand waving you like, the truth is the law is much more oppressive in the USA than it is in the UK in this matter.
Every day, I am more and more convinced that Dianne Feinstein (the author of the amendment) is by far the greatest danger to freedom in the United States Congress. Apparently, neither the 1st nor the 4th amendment mean anything to her.
It is interesting to note as was posted earlier that this particular law is not being enforced. The executive knows it will be thrown out by the courts if tested.
Another thing to consider is that revenue isn't profit. Revenue doesn't include, for example, the cost of the tablet itself that was sold in each transaction, but rather how much they sold the tablet for.
I suspect you meant to say exclude the cost of the tablet itself which is closer related to profit as you alluded. By itself, revenue has no direct bearing at all on the cost of the transaction and is as you phrased it, "how much they sold the tablet for."
Personally, I always like Hudson's "game over, man" line. And, the group I hung around with would invariably follow any "that's just game over" with "why don't we build a fire...sing some songs?" And then there's "they can bill me".
Yeah, I loved Hudson too. Years ago, "Game Over" was my Windows98 shutdown sound. Although, I always thought his best line was, "Why don't you put her in charge." I still crack up when I watch it.
I've been a Bill Paxton fan since Weird Science. My siblings still call me Chet.
You left out all the Monty Pythons for movies and TV. And the Matrix and of course Aliens. The usual Aliens quote is in reference to nuking something from orbit. "It's the only way." Or mostly coming at night.
Only the first Matrix movie is quoted. Curiously, none of the other Alien movies seem to have made the cut. Even the first one...
This is EXACTLY the issue. As long as there is a financial incentive to upgrade via contracts, since you pay the same anyway, people walk the upgrade treadmill. As more and more subscribers leave contracts, the financial incentive is not to upgrade. You upgrade when the timing is right. I suspect all these "sell your old smartphone" businesses will fade away as well.
It depends on what your needs are. Apples mail client and calendar app are VASTLY superior to Android. You have to go all the way back to IOS ver 2 to have a worse mail client than Android 4.22. However, Firefox (and plugins) rock on Android. And Swype is a killer app.
For me, the decision to abandon my investment in IOS apps was easy when I went to a prepay phone. My Nexus 4 was half the cost of a new iPhone. The iPhone certainly is not twice as good.
Slashdot Mirror
Before or after Zimmerman got out of the car to attack Trayvon, against the advice of the dispatcher?
If he wasn't out to attack the black kid, there's no way Trayvon could have even touched Zimmerman. Yes, black guys run fast, and american trucks are slow. But the truck is still fast enough to get away.
I get so tired of this absolute bullshit spin on the order of events it's not funny. Trayvon supporters invariably get the facts wrong and utterly fail simple logic.
1) Zimmerman was already outside of his truck when the dispatcher advised him he did not need to follow. The dispatcher testified this was to avoid legal liability on himself in the event Zimmerman was harmed. This was not a command and not legally binding. Just as Trayvon had a right to be out in public, Zimmerman had a right to be where he wanted. It was his home. And no, it wasn't Trayvon's home. He was a guest.
2) Beyond your own fantasy world, there is no evidence that Zimmerman "got out of his car to attack" anyone.
3) You are an idiot.
I watched the entire trial live over Internet streaming.
Please,show me the law that justifies physical assault under provocation of stalking while in a public area. Show me the legal definition of stalking and explain how it applies in this context. And finally explain how assault is justified under the statutes in this case. Clearly, you know more than the judges, prosecutors, and jury. You ought to run for judge.
And BTW, the self defense claim requires the claimant to believe an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. I figured I'd give you a head start.
I have found without exception that the most vehement of Trayvon supporters are the most ignorant of the actual facts and events of the incident. Unfortunately, they are usually the most vocal as well.
I am reading exactly what you are saying. Your contention that by following someone it is "goading" them into a fight is wrong. period. If Zimmerman had not been armed and was still being beaten when the police arrived 45 seconds after the time that the shooting would have occurred, Martin would have been arrested for felony assault and battery at the minimum, and attempted murder (or murder) in the maximum. There would not have been any "self defense" claim. It is not justifiable. It is not reasonable. It is not excusable.
Zimmerman should be punished for what exactly? Should he be punished for defending his life against a "stupid thug kid" (your words) who attacked him for the crime of following to see what he was doing? This is why I call you an apologist. You are angry at the outcome, not the events. Direct your anger where it belongs. The problem is those who will violently attack at the slightest perceived provocation.
If the firearm would have been on the other hand, Martin would have been convicted of Second Degree Murder.
Scenario
Zimmerman follows
Trayvon attacks
Trayvon shoots
Martin guilty
The moral of the story is that following someone in a public area is NOT an invitation or legal license to cause harm, attack, or assault.
When Zimmerman screamed for help and begged his neighbor to pull Trayvon off, when he left to call 911, did that qualify as expressing a desire to withdraw? Although Florida does not even require the duty to retreat, Zimmerman tried to disengage before shooting.
Fact is, Zimmerman was within the law. He was in the right. Martin, made a very bad decision and it cost him his life. For all the outrage, it probably would have happened sooner or later anyway. For individuals whose first tool is violence when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, it is just a matter of time before they choose the wrong victim.
Okay. Stop right there. Nothing more needs to be said. There is no need for "but" . Assaulting someone for following you makes you a criminal. Period. If you are frightened, call 911. Trayvon did have a cell phone. He was using it during the event. It was found in the vicinity of the body. Or, you know, he could have just finished walking home. He was only a few doors away.
As most of the Trayvon apologists have harped upon, Zimmerman had every right to be where he was too. He was not under any legal obligation to "leave the area" to placate apologists like you. Or hide in his locked vehicle. Trayvon, on the other hand, was under a legal obligation not to attack Zimmerman. This is clear in the law, custom, and societal norms. Trayvon just had the bad judgment to put the smackdown on a cracker who happened to be armed.
You want to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante. What do you call Trayvon? If you want to know what a vigilante is, look no further. He decided to attack based solely upon the fact that someone was following him. Try doing that next time a plain clothes store detective follows you in the mall. See if your consequences work out better than Trayvon.
That's what's usually called "marginal costs", which is why it is by no means called "fixed costs" by anyone (well, by anyone who knows what he's talking about).
"fixed costs"
In economics, fixed costs are business expenses that are not dependent on the level of goods or services produced by the business.[1] They tend to be time-related, such as salaries or rents being paid per month, and are often referred to as overhead costs.
GP claimed there are additional fixed costs for production of the ebook. This is independent of marginal costs of an ebook which are essentially zero.
How about creating an economy so dependent on fossil fuels that we destroy our children's ability to live on Earth?
My children are living pretty well on Earth.
Why? You got the point he was trying to make, didn't you? The ability to string together sentences with perfect grammar doesn't make you special, you [expletive deleted].
Not grammar. It's the wrong word. It makes the sentence have the wrong meaning, error correction abilities of the reader notwithstanding. It has nothing to do with grammar (or spelling for that matter).
Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.
No it wouldn't. You fall into the same logic trap as the Jersey judge thinking that more laws/liability will fix human behavior that we don't like. It's already illegal to text and drive in my state, and every day I see at least 3 drivers on my four mile work commute doing it. Every other driver is talking on the phone at 5:00 during their drive home.
Does anybody seriously think the answer to all life's problems is more laws? Must we always advocate yet another statute on the books every time we see something we don't agree with or don't like? Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens.
The law and order crowd is turning our world into a police state.
It is on the Reuters front page though.
Which is even more telling of CNN and MSNBC. It was a conscious decision to not report it.
It might be of interest to note that Fox News' website has a prominent article regarding the drive destruction on their home page, while CNN has absolutely no mention of it at all on their home page that I could find. Hmmmm. Nothing on MSNBC either. CNN and MSBNBC both have deemed it newsworthy to have articles on Prince George's new royal portrait though. I guess that's what's important.
Remember that next time you feel the need to complain about Fox News.
It must be an awful life to wake up every morning pissing in your boots afraid that those eeeevvviiilll terrorists are going to come and blow you up in your home. ...so afraid that you will let your elected officials and their minions violate the very Constitution they swore to protect and defend. ..so afraid that you will denounce your betters as scumbags. ..so afraid that you repeatedly post as an anonymous coward all over Slashdot to avoid your betters' (I can't really say peers') condemnation over your ignorance and cowardice.
Those of us that are educated enough to remember Watergate know what life was like when Americans had the backbone to rein in governmental excess. And those of us educated enough to remember McCarthy know what bogeyman witch hunts do to the civil rights and liberties of the people. I wouldn't expect your education level to be high enough to understand either.
Zingers suck! They sucked when Dolly Madison made 'em and they suck coming from Little Debbie. The red coconut mystery flavor ones were the worse, but the chocolate ones were inedible too. What you call "icing" is a some kind of cocoa based plastic compound. As a kid, I would literally peel it off and drop it in the can. It always came off in one piece. Fresh from the store,they were always stale and dry. That's why Zingers were always cheaper than anything with a Hostess name on it.
When I was a kid, and the parents brought home Zingers, you could always guarantee they would still be there when it was time to go shopping the next week. Twinkies never made it past a couple days before us kids wiped them out.
"When it's caught early, women have a five-year survival rate of 90 percent" - this is true for nearly all cancers even if there is no treatment.
Yeah, but now you get more time to worry about it before you croak.
For some reason, this makes me think of Rodney Dangerfield.
What a crock of drivel, the citation is right there, the US has it punishable by a $250,000 fine and 20 years' imprisonment. Do all the hand waving you like, the truth is the law is much more oppressive in the USA than it is in the UK in this matter.
Every day, I am more and more convinced that Dianne Feinstein (the author of the amendment) is by far the greatest danger to freedom in the United States Congress. Apparently, neither the 1st nor the 4th amendment mean anything to her.
It is interesting to note as was posted earlier that this particular law is not being enforced. The executive knows it will be thrown out by the courts if tested.
Another thing to consider is that revenue isn't profit. Revenue doesn't include, for example, the cost of the tablet itself that was sold in each transaction, but rather how much they sold the tablet for.
I suspect you meant to say exclude the cost of the tablet itself which is closer related to profit as you alluded. By itself, revenue has no direct bearing at all on the cost of the transaction and is as you phrased it, "how much they sold the tablet for."
Personally, I always like Hudson's "game over, man" line. And, the group I hung around with would invariably follow any "that's just game over" with "why don't we build a fire...sing some songs?" And then there's "they can bill me".
Yeah, I loved Hudson too. Years ago, "Game Over" was my Windows98 shutdown sound. Although, I always thought his best line was, "Why don't you put her in charge." I still crack up when I watch it.
I've been a Bill Paxton fan since Weird Science. My siblings still call me Chet.
You left out all the Monty Pythons for movies and TV. And the Matrix and of course Aliens. The usual Aliens quote is in reference to nuking something from orbit. "It's the only way." Or mostly coming at night.
Only the first Matrix movie is quoted. Curiously, none of the other Alien movies seem to have made the cut. Even the first one...
This is EXACTLY the issue. As long as there is a financial incentive to upgrade via contracts, since you pay the same anyway, people walk the upgrade treadmill. As more and more subscribers leave contracts, the financial incentive is not to upgrade. You upgrade when the timing is right. I suspect all these "sell your old smartphone" businesses will fade away as well.
That's you cable company's commercial overplay equipment getting confused. If you notice, they're always local commercials.
Which is better, iPhone or Android?
It depends on what your needs are. Apples mail client and calendar app are VASTLY superior to Android. You have to go all the way back to IOS ver 2 to have a worse mail client than Android 4.22. However, Firefox (and plugins) rock on Android. And Swype is a killer app.
For me, the decision to abandon my investment in IOS apps was easy when I went to a prepay phone. My Nexus 4 was half the cost of a new iPhone. The iPhone certainly is not twice as good.
[...] and so far Windows Defender and MS Internet Essentials have blocked everything.
That you know about...