Just be careful... These parts are from Zimmerman's testimony.
Noticed you have a holstered gun and has attempted to grab it, and Threatened you.
The beating was observed by an eyewitness and it was a world class beating with blows "raining" down on zimmerman in a "ground and pound" MMA type maneuver. The eye witness's story hasn't changed since the night of Martin's death (unlike some of the other witnesses) and he said then and now that Martin was on top of Zimmerman (specifically the guy in the hoodie was on top of the guy in the red sweatshirt).
I don't trust zimmerman but I do trust that when in attempt to break him, he was told there was a video of the entire event he said, "thank god" and was relieved.
And I trust the 911 tape which shows that zimmerman stopped for close to 2 minutes after losing Martin. Martin had ample time to go home yet 3 minutes later he's on top of zimmerman delivering a beating.
Sounds to me like he got mad and went back to confront his follower.
Yup, about 200' to travel in just under 3 minutes between when Zimmerman stopped and the fight started yet Martin ended back with Zimmerman.
We also have testimony (and a statement taken the night of the incident) from a neighbor who opened the door and observed Martin, on top of Zimmerman, doing a "ground and pound" on Zimmerman and "raining down blows" on him.
You have a right to walk around your neighborhood. Same right applies to both of them. I can follow you all over the neighborhood and your correct option is to call the police- not to start beating me.
We also have testimony from Deedee that she lied in her statement to protect the mother's feelings because the prosecution picked her up- took her to the mother's house and took her statement in front of the mother. In what world does the prosecution take witnesses to the victim's mother's house to make their official statements?
And as for the shadow outside- you kinda make my point there. You don't' sit outside of theaters for hours missing any potential calls. And there are many other causes of cell phone shadow areas.
I think it should be easy and legal for theaters to say, "If you want to enter this theater, you won't get a cell signal while watching a film". Past there, I say let the free market decide. Make some theaters cell phone proof and see if people prefer them or not.
It could be that lots of people want their cell phones to work and they will avoid the deadened theaters. However, in my experience it's about 1% of people who are the problem in the theater. Most people do NOT get calls, do NOT call their friends and tell them about the movie while it's showing, do NOT play video games, etc.
And yet large parking garages do just this and there isn't a complaint there. A huge mound of concrete with steel rebar does quite a number on cell phone signals.
You walk behind or past them and accidentally spill your super large 64 oz big gulp and then apologize profusely for the accident, never recognizing that they were using a cell phone in any way.
I don't think of robots as having intelligence but as simple expert systems implementing at most 50 rules.
Over half of human jobs do not require more intelligence and the people working those jobs won't be qualified to work jobs requiring intelligence and creativity.
I expect systemic unemployment over 35% once the boomer retirement is absorbed and probably sooner than that (after 2024)..
Automation and robotics have been cheaper than even chinese workers for several years now.
Yes, some humans get better jobs. Way under 20%. The other 80% are screwed.
When one company automates, it makes a huge profit. When every company automates, it's a collapse of the market as we know it.
People don't see that this time really is different. There wont' be work for a quarter or more of the population. It's being covered by boomers going on social security on the top end but unemployment among young workers is very high (25 to 50%). This is new.
On a TED talk, the speaker said electrons travel the speed of spreading honey in wires. Is that related to your point and the benefits of this technique?
With the current high level of interdiction, imprisonment, etc.. a friend of mine told me they were paying $3 a joint back in 2009. Haven't spoken to them sense but if anything it's probably gotten cheaper.
At $3 a joint- that's cheaper than booze for purposes of intoxication.
It's late but here are the people ADDED to social security after 1935 with dates (its from the wiki).
1935 All workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65.
1939 Age restriction eliminated; seamen, bank employees added; additional domestic workers and food-processing workers removed
1946 Railroad and Social Security earnings combined to determine eligibility for and amount of survivor benefits.
1950 Regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Nonfarm self-employed (except professional groups). Federal civilian employees not under retirement system. Americans employed outside United States by American employer. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. At the option of the State, State and local government employees not under retirement system. Nonprofit organizations could elect coverage for their employees (other than ministers).
1951 Railroad workers with less than 10 years of service, for all benefits. (After October 1951, coverage is retroactive to 1937.)
1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-employed except lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical groups. Additional regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firemen and policemen) under retirement system if agreed to by referendum. Ministers could elect coverage as self-employed.
1956 Members of the uniformed services. Remainder of professional self-employed except doctors. By referendum, firemen and policemen in designated States.
1965 Interns. Self-employed doctors. Tips.
1967 Ministers (unless exemption is claimed on grounds of conscience or religious principles). Firemen under retirement system in all States.
1972 Members of a religious order subject to a vow of poverty.
1983 All federal civilian employees hired after 1983; members of Congress, the President and Vice-President and federal judges; all employees of nonprofit organizations. Covered state and local government employees prohibited from opting out of Social Security.
1990 Employees of state and local governments not covered under a retirement plan.[57]
It was around 1980 (after 20% increases to benefits passed in the 1970's) that they realized social security would go bankrupt in the 21st century.
And in the 30 years since then, the boomers have fixed nothing. note: I'm a boomer.
It's clear to me that the boomers promised themselves too much benefits and that the benefits can't be paid for. We have to cut benefits for those who are well off so we can actually afford to offer them to those who are penniless.
To be fair tho-- on researching it again-- most of the horrible changes occurred in the 1970s 20% benefit increases were recognized as unsustainable within 10 years in the 1980s). We boomers were in high school until 1978.
All we've done was not really fix the problem from 1980 (really 1988ish) to 2013. (lots of half measures and quite a few means testing type changes).
The program passed in 1935 was a much smaller benefit and tax. The benefits were dramatically increased later. Also... back then a lot of old people basically died from poverty and lack of medical care (which is why social security was put in place).
If you have a pension and investment income and you are making $100,000 a year-- then ironically, you are among those MOST likely to be getting the maximum benefits ($29000 a year for me- but scaling up to $36,000 for a younger friend of mine).
Its the people who do NOT have a pension or investment income who are also most likely to be getting $12,000 in benefits.
The "deal for you" doesn't work.
Listen- unless you are willing (and the rest of society is willing) to watch you bleed out beside the hospital or die on the street from starvation or exposure, then IF you get robbed, or scammed, or make a bad financial decision (extremely likely after 65 by the way) THEN the rest of us are expected to pay your freight through higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.
You assume (like Madof'fs victims) that you'd be different. You'd make tons of money in your investments of that roughly $120,000 bucks. And that you'd even be able to live 90 years on that money. But social security is a shared insurance. There is no way you can save enough to make it to age 99 (much less 110). But most people don't make it that long.
If every person got just their own money, over half would run out of money long before they died. (and most likely over 75%).
Again- the only way this concept works is if we REALLY mean it when we say, "If you don't save enough- then you die." And heck, we don't even refuse people without insurance emergency medical care without payment.
Yea-- but unfortunately, within the last 50 years China AND Russia AND several other countries were all our enemies at the same time. So I get the need to spend at least that much. We are grossly overspending right now tho. It's way up just since 2009 even.
5 million people who are making over $100,000 a year without social security or 70 million people living on $12,000 to $29,000 a year?
Do we cut all their benefits "equally" -- reducing one person from $129,000 a year to $122,000 a year and the other person from $12,000 a year to $9,000 a year?
Each person making $129,000 year saves 10 other people from starving to death.
It's unfortunate but the baby boomers made a bigger commitment to themselves than their kids and grandkids can afford.
Right now- if we do nothing the above case is exactly what is slated to happen- across the board 25% cuts for all recipients of social security. It will be devastating to the poor elderly.
The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves and put the bill on a group of people who were not even born yet. When you get down to it, that doesn't even seem legal to me.
(and most boomers will collect way more- even adjusting for inflation-- than they contributed). (I agree a few lucky ones who invested wisely would have had more money but most wouldn't have-- which is why it's social security *insurance*. I bet NONE of the people Bernie Madoff ripped off expected they would be 100% dependent on social security. They thought they were smart and luckier than average and probably scoffed at the idea of social security.).
Just keep in mind that a government at 1990's prices would provide half the defense and services that it did in the 1990's due to 20 years worth of inflation.
Also- if you don't pay the promised social security bills you are going to have a lot of starving and dying old people. Some might get violent.
I could see means testing social security more (we already means test it some). Then you only take it away from people who have so much savings or such good pensions that they don't need it (it's just a cherry on top of their retirement income).
And I could definitely see cutting defense ALL the way back to inflation adjusted 2001 levels (it would still be more than the next 15 nations combined).
However, without estate taxes and rolling back the bush tax cuts we are going to become an oligarchy even faster than we are now. And that path always ends badly for the countries that went down it. (if you are worried, the oligarchs usually get away just fine with all the money-- they don't care about the country anyway).
Hey, I ragged on the GOP the same as most others for making that ludicrous comment and generally being the party that doesn't take rape seriously.
But in this case, with CIA operatives and others involved, the huge amounts of money being spent, I consider this to be a rare case where the term may actually apply.
And I start to wonder if either you are part of a government smear group yourself or you had someone you know raped so it's a hot button the government can use to turn your brain off.
This case STINKS to high heaven. Something is ROTTEN in denmark here.
For one thing- this is money and time that could have been spent capturing multiple other bonafide violent rapists. How many crimes went unpunished while the officers sat on a multi year stake out? How many more will go unpunished over the next several years?
A lot of cultures have different noise standards than traditional US standards.
I have a friend who regularly is run out of her house by noise so loud you can hear it inside wearing gun headsets and the county police can't legally do anything.
So she comes to my house inside the city limits where we have noise limits after midnight.
For me, the point was that I *knew* they were intelligent and I never gave it a second thought before today. The characters talked to them like they were intelligent. They took independent actions and displayed free will. They lied. It was obvious they were intelligent.
In the clone wars, similar behavior extended to many other drones.
Slipped right in my blind side. To be fair, I first saw them before I was 16.
Slashdot Mirror
Just be careful...
These parts are from Zimmerman's testimony.
Noticed you have a holstered gun and has attempted to grab it, and
Threatened you.
The beating was observed by an eyewitness and it was a world class beating with blows "raining" down on zimmerman in a "ground and pound" MMA type maneuver. The eye witness's story hasn't changed since the night of Martin's death (unlike some of the other witnesses) and he said then and now that Martin was on top of Zimmerman (specifically the guy in the hoodie was on top of the guy in the red sweatshirt).
I don't trust zimmerman but I do trust that when in attempt to break him, he was told there was a video of the entire event he said, "thank god" and was relieved.
And I trust the 911 tape which shows that zimmerman stopped for close to 2 minutes after losing Martin. Martin had ample time to go home yet 3 minutes later he's on top of zimmerman delivering a beating.
Sounds to me like he got mad and went back to confront his follower.
Yup, about 200' to travel in just under 3 minutes between when Zimmerman stopped and the fight started yet Martin ended back with Zimmerman.
We also have testimony (and a statement taken the night of the incident) from a neighbor who opened the door and observed Martin, on top of Zimmerman, doing a "ground and pound" on Zimmerman and "raining down blows" on him.
You have a right to walk around your neighborhood. Same right applies to both of them. I can follow you all over the neighborhood and your correct option is to call the police- not to start beating me.
We also have testimony from Deedee that she lied in her statement to protect the mother's feelings because the prosecution picked her up- took her to the mother's house and took her statement in front of the mother. In what world does the prosecution take witnesses to the victim's mother's house to make their official statements?
That's a fair point.
And as for the shadow outside- you kinda make my point there. You don't' sit outside of theaters for hours missing any potential calls. And there are many other causes of cell phone shadow areas.
I think it should be easy and legal for theaters to say, "If you want to enter this theater, you won't get a cell signal while watching a film". Past there, I say let the free market decide. Make some theaters cell phone proof and see if people prefer them or not.
It could be that lots of people want their cell phones to work and they will avoid the deadened theaters. However, in my experience it's about 1% of people who are the problem in the theater. Most people do NOT get calls, do NOT call their friends and tell them about the movie while it's showing, do NOT play video games, etc.
And yet large parking garages do just this and there isn't a complaint there.
A huge mound of concrete with steel rebar does quite a number on cell phone signals.
You walk behind or past them and accidentally spill your super large 64 oz big gulp and then apologize profusely for the accident, never recognizing that they were using a cell phone in any way.
I don't think of robots as having intelligence but as simple expert systems implementing at most 50 rules.
Over half of human jobs do not require more intelligence and the people working those jobs won't be qualified to work jobs requiring intelligence and creativity.
I expect systemic unemployment over 35% once the boomer retirement is absorbed and probably sooner than that (after 2024)..
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/europes-record-youth-unemployment-the-scariest-graph-in-the-world-just-got-scarier/276423/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/youth-unemployment-rate
http://now.msn.com/youth-unemployment-rate-twice-that-of-any-other-age-group
Perhaps you are not looking in the right place.
go to the singularity hub and look at the robots out there today like the baxter.
Human level replacements for non-thinking jobs for under $25,000 and it 'll work 3 shifts.
Automation and robotics have been cheaper than even chinese workers for several years now.
Yes, some humans get better jobs. Way under 20%. The other 80% are screwed.
When one company automates, it makes a huge profit.
When every company automates, it's a collapse of the market as we know it.
People don't see that this time really is different. There wont' be work for a quarter or more of the population. It's being covered by boomers going on social security on the top end but unemployment among young workers is very high (25 to 50%). This is new.
I think you missed the point of the "Outer Limits".
See, if you are mean to the aliens, it turns out they were nice but you've blown it and now you are screwed.
So you should be nice to aliens, except when you are it turns out they were mean and you've blown it and now you are screwed.
Pretty much whatever answer you choose, you lose (oh, sorry, you "loose").
On a TED talk, the speaker said electrons travel the speed of spreading honey in wires.
Is that related to your point and the benefits of this technique?
With the current high level of interdiction, imprisonment, etc.. a friend of mine told me they were paying $3 a joint back in 2009. Haven't spoken to them sense but if anything it's probably gotten cheaper.
At $3 a joint- that's cheaper than booze for purposes of intoxication.
It's late but here are the people ADDED to social security after 1935 with dates (its from the wiki).
1935 All workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65.
1939 Age restriction eliminated; seamen, bank employees added; additional domestic workers and food-processing workers removed
1946 Railroad and Social Security earnings combined to determine eligibility for and amount of survivor benefits.
1950 Regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Nonfarm self-employed (except professional groups). Federal civilian employees not under retirement system. Americans employed outside United States by American employer. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. At the option of the State, State and local government employees not under retirement system. Nonprofit organizations could elect coverage for their employees (other than ministers).
1951 Railroad workers with less than 10 years of service, for all benefits. (After October 1951, coverage is retroactive to 1937.)
1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-employed except lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical groups. Additional regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firemen and policemen) under retirement system if agreed to by referendum. Ministers could elect coverage as self-employed.
1956 Members of the uniformed services. Remainder of professional self-employed except doctors. By referendum, firemen and policemen in designated States.
1965 Interns. Self-employed doctors. Tips.
1967 Ministers (unless exemption is claimed on grounds of conscience or religious principles). Firemen under retirement system in all States.
1972 Members of a religious order subject to a vow of poverty.
1983 All federal civilian employees hired after 1983; members of Congress, the President and Vice-President and federal judges; all employees of nonprofit organizations. Covered state and local government employees prohibited from opting out of Social Security.
1990 Employees of state and local governments not covered under a retirement plan.[57]
It was around 1980 (after 20% increases to benefits passed in the 1970's) that they realized social security would go bankrupt in the 21st century.
And in the 30 years since then, the boomers have fixed nothing. note: I'm a boomer.
Firstly, if its using standard character values and this font is laid over it, then you just look at the character value.
Secondly, If this is only for display documents, there's OCR and the NSA is unlikely to get a sneaker net hard copy anyway.
So if you limit it to electronic documents, then the only way to make it unreadable is
a) the underlying character values are goofy ( the letter 'z' displays as "A").
So the unicode character values
zd% ne@erkaw $ekkew
is actually display as
"The terrorist network."
And then you might as well use stenography.
I'm a late boomer and I'm already retired.
I saved hard.
It's clear to me that the boomers promised themselves too much benefits and that the benefits can't be paid for. We have to cut benefits for those who are well off so we can actually afford to offer them to those who are penniless.
To be fair tho-- on researching it again-- most of the horrible changes occurred in the 1970s 20% benefit increases were recognized as unsustainable within 10 years in the 1980s).
We boomers were in high school until 1978.
All we've done was not really fix the problem from 1980 (really 1988ish) to 2013. (lots of half measures and quite a few means testing type changes).
The program passed in 1935 was a much smaller benefit and tax.
The benefits were dramatically increased later.
Also... back then a lot of old people basically died from poverty and lack of medical care (which is why social security was put in place).
If you have a pension and investment income and you are making $100,000 a year-- then ironically, you are among those MOST likely to be getting the maximum benefits ($29000 a year for me- but scaling up to $36,000 for a younger friend of mine).
Its the people who do NOT have a pension or investment income who are also most likely to be getting $12,000 in benefits.
The "deal for you" doesn't work.
Listen- unless you are willing (and the rest of society is willing) to watch you bleed out beside the hospital or die on the street from starvation or exposure, then IF you get robbed, or scammed, or make a bad financial decision (extremely likely after 65 by the way) THEN the rest of us are expected to pay your freight through higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.
You assume (like Madof'fs victims) that you'd be different. You'd make tons of money in your investments of that roughly $120,000 bucks. And that you'd even be able to live 90 years on that money. But social security is a shared insurance. There is no way you can save enough to make it to age 99 (much less 110). But most people don't make it that long.
If every person got just their own money, over half would run out of money long before they died. (and most likely over 75%).
Again- the only way this concept works is if we REALLY mean it when we say, "If you don't save enough- then you die." And heck, we don't even refuse people without insurance emergency medical care without payment.
Yea-- but unfortunately, within the last 50 years China AND Russia AND several other countries were all our enemies at the same time. So I get the need to spend at least that much. We are grossly overspending right now tho. It's way up just since 2009 even.
Sure.
The government overpromised.
So who to break the promise to?
5 million people who are making over $100,000 a year without social security or
70 million people living on $12,000 to $29,000 a year?
Do we cut all their benefits "equally" -- reducing one person from $129,000 a year to $122,000 a year and the other person from $12,000 a year to $9,000 a year?
Each person making $129,000 year saves 10 other people from starving to death.
It's unfortunate but the baby boomers made a bigger commitment to themselves than their kids and grandkids can afford.
Right now- if we do nothing the above case is exactly what is slated to happen- across the board 25% cuts for all recipients of social security. It will be devastating to the poor elderly.
The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves and put the bill on a group of people who were not even born yet. When you get down to it, that doesn't even seem legal to me.
(and most boomers will collect way more- even adjusting for inflation-- than they contributed). (I agree a few lucky ones who invested wisely would have had more money but most wouldn't have-- which is why it's social security *insurance*. I bet NONE of the people Bernie Madoff ripped off expected they would be 100% dependent on social security. They thought they were smart and luckier than average and probably scoffed at the idea of social security.).
What ever makes you feel better man. No one is reading this anyway at this point.
Besides, I didn't back away from anything. If you review the thread it's clear.
Nice try tho.
Just keep in mind that a government at 1990's prices would provide half the defense and services that it did in the 1990's due to 20 years worth of inflation.
Also- if you don't pay the promised social security bills you are going to have a lot of starving and dying old people. Some might get violent.
I could see means testing social security more (we already means test it some). Then you only take it away from people who have so much savings or such good pensions that they don't need it (it's just a cherry on top of their retirement income).
And I could definitely see cutting defense ALL the way back to inflation adjusted 2001 levels (it would still be more than the next 15 nations combined).
However, without estate taxes and rolling back the bush tax cuts we are going to become an oligarchy even faster than we are now. And that path always ends badly for the countries that went down it. (if you are worried, the oligarchs usually get away just fine with all the money-- they don't care about the country anyway).
Hey, I ragged on the GOP the same as most others for making that ludicrous comment and generally being the party that doesn't take rape seriously.
But in this case, with CIA operatives and others involved, the huge amounts of money being spent, I consider this to be a rare case where the term may actually apply.
And I start to wonder if either you are part of a government smear group yourself or you had someone you know raped so it's a hot button the government can use to turn your brain off.
This case STINKS to high heaven. Something is ROTTEN in denmark here.
For one thing- this is money and time that could have been spent capturing multiple other bonafide violent rapists. How many crimes went unpunished while the officers sat on a multi year stake out? How many more will go unpunished over the next several years?
A lot of cultures have different noise standards than traditional US standards.
I have a friend who regularly is run out of her house by noise so loud you can hear it inside wearing gun headsets and the county police can't legally do anything.
So she comes to my house inside the city limits where we have noise limits after midnight.
Grevious is a full on cyborg.
Still has a few organs and a brain.
Are you thinking of the "Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?
For me, the point was that I *knew* they were intelligent and I never gave it a second thought before today. The characters talked to them like they were intelligent. They took independent actions and displayed free will. They lied. It was obvious they were intelligent.
In the clone wars, similar behavior extended to many other drones.
Slipped right in my blind side. To be fair, I first saw them before I was 16.