Here's the thing: if Zimmerman is right that his head was slammed into the sidewalk or the road, the EMTs would have put him on a stretcher and driven him to an ER. Standard protocol for ANY head injury is to be at least stretchered, if not collared, and given a thorough examination by doctors. This is regardless of whether there is any visible trauma on the head.
This means that Zimmerman's injuries were so light that they had left no trace AND he didn't tell the EMTs about his head hitting concrete or asphalt. Which makes the current story of him bleeding from the head completely untrustworthy.
I'd like to see the court system handle this issue. But quite frankly, the more I hear about the story, the more I am shocked that anyone thought there was not enough evidence to at least warrant an arrest. That, to me, is the far bigger story. That there are self-important assholes in the world who think they're hot shit and have a quick trigger, I can deal with. That the police and the DA are clearly supporting Zimmerman is far more shocking, because this means that the Zimmermans of the world get a free ride, and are free to leave a body count behind.
Keep living off of the achievements of your parents, grand-parents and great-grand-parents. The reality right now is that there are too many morons running too many facets of the US government and private sector for anyone to take the US seriously as a whole.
So yes, the US ought to be fucking off TODAY. Not 70 years ago, but today.
Because, dear AC, bandwidth is measured at the house, not in total capacity. Therefore, the bandwidth per square mile is a completely useless statistic. And even then, the US fails.
At least compare the US to the EU, which has a comparable size and population. But since that doesn't work in your favor, you ignore it. You do realize that reality doesn't care about your mental gymnastics, right?
Actually, even your useless metric of comparing a country the size of the US to much smaller European states is wrong. Germany beats the pants off of the US in solar generation as does Italy, wind power per square mile or per capita is pityful compared to the rest of the world, and biomass statistics include wood burning, which can be a very bad idea.
Conservatives: where facts are created from the gut.
One reason I didn't continue my career as an Astrophysicist (besides not being nearly smart enough to compete with the real physicists) was that I realized how politicized Physics - and by extension, any Science - actually was. I figured that if I had to put up with political bullshit, I might as well get paid for it.
It's useful to keep in mind that scientists are human, despite their grand aspirations. There are good people, bad people, people with delusions of grandeur, just like in any other field.
I should vote for them, because the main tenets of the official republican platform are exactly that. I don't vote for them, because the reality is that the republican actions are almost the exact opposite of what their platform is. In other words, I'm calling republican politicians pathological liars. Note for any Ron Paul fans: I don't really consider him to be part of the Republican Party. They certainly don't see m to.
A boom based on unsustainable tax and credit policies. Yes, giving free money to people can make it look like the economy is booming. Until people realize that the money actually doesn't exist, at which point it comes crashing down. Which is exactly what happened in the summer of 2008.
So unless you want to argue that the fake money boom happened in exactly the space of one year, stop your dreaming. Bush and the Republican-led congress believed that deficits didn't matter, and spent money on tax rebates and two wars accordingly. Funny how deficits started to matter only when there were Democrats running the show.
I fail to see the difference between those countries and the more-official Soviet Republics. In both cases, they're nations being governed by an authoritarian government. The people in them had no hand in choosing their government. So whether they were officially part of the USSR, or just a puppet government run by the USSR, seems to make little difference to me.
Eh, what? Come again? You don't see the difference between a group of people that are being forced to follow someone they don't like, never liked, and who they'd ditch the instant they don't have guns pointed at them, and a group of people that doesn't like the people in power, but they're part of the same collective, so they just have another shot of Vodka?
Or, alternatively, you could just ask the people in the Eastern Bloc countries and in Russia what they thought about the Iron Curtain era.
Sometimes, you might want to actually research what's going on, rather than just making guesses on gut feeling.
OTOH, many conservatives and real republicans fully support science, logic, etc. and what can be learned from it. Sadly, they are now a minority of the republican party. Many of them are driven out with the neo-cons screaming that those ppl are RINOs and are actually liberals. Sad that America has sunk this low.
This. Technically, I should vote republican every time. I believe in a balanced budget, frugal spending priorities, and a limited government. However, what I get from republican candidates is God, wars on xxx, politically motivated spending projects and the attitude that if you're not with us, you're a terrorist.
I always love hearing that scientists are somehow not trustworthy because they have agendas and are getting paid for their opinions. The alternatives are, as you said, politicians, think tanks and joe's on the street who are either only paid to say what someone else thinks, or who don't get paid for their opinion because they don't research their opinion.
In other words, it's the chunk of coal calling a slightly used pot black.
Really? I'm pretty sure you don't understand what each of the words mean.
1) Fiscally conservative: don't spend what you don't have. Spend money on things with an ROI. Do not spend money on shiny baubles. 2) Socially liberal: don't judge people for how they like to live, as long as that life doesn't directly impact me. That means homosexuals can do whatever heterosexuals do, that what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business, and that the only time the government gets involved in the personal life of people is when they start coercing others to do things they don't want to do.
Notice how there is no overlap between 1 and 2.
On the other hand, what is an oxymoron is being fiscally and socially conservative. Being socially conservative requires you to spend government money on enforcing your personal beliefs on others, regardless of whether there's an ROI on it or not.
It is therefore not surprising that pretty much all social conservative ideas and politicians have directly lead to an unbalanced budget.
If liberals continue to say "Reality (or truth) has a liberal bias," they are going to end up believing it and doing some really stupid things some day.
You do know where it is coming from, right? Yes, it is important to remember that this was a dig at a Republican president who clearly substituted feelings for rational analysis. But at the same time, it brilliantly encapsulates how a lot of people feel any time a conservative talks politics or science (is there anything left? Maybe grocery lists): that they make up their own reality, and that they call anyone a dirty liberal if they dare to point out the complete lack of facts in their position.
The quickest way to let that phrase die is by having conservatives stop embodying it.
Point taken. I'm sure there are plenty of Obama supporters who are guilty of supporting some of the things I listed.
However, to argue that there is no difference in how Obama or Santorum would govern - or Romney, or Perry, or Gingrich - is facile to the point of dangerous. I can guarantee you that there will be differences. The main problem is that a lot of those differences only appear once the politicians are in power. At this point, we can only make educated guesses. The only known entity here is Obama - the rest are currently just saying what they think will get them the Republican nomination.
You're right, the general population doesn't control the actions. However, keep two things in mind: the FBI answers to the executive, and the attitude of the executive does color the actions of the FBI. Secondly, the FBI is comprised of parts of the population. To argue that the FBI is somehow an entity that is separate of the public is disingenuous. They vote, they have families, they talk to their neighbors in the private sectors, and live a completely normal life outside of the FBI. The reason that nothing stands in the way of their objectives is that the general public in supports their actions.
You know what the biggest problem was in any terror regime? The fact that it had broad support among the population. Next time there's some horrific abuse of civil liberties going on, ask yourself which one of your positions contributed to it. Chances are, there are at least a few of them.
You're absolutely right. Obama is the FBI's boss, and it happened on his watch. As a result, he bears some responsibility for this.
You're forgetting the Obama supporters too.
I think you might have forgotten to take off your party-glasses. Nowhere did I mention a party, political leaning or special interest group.That's because the US government is the product of a lot of things, all of which contribute in one way or another. And the mess we're in the result of the interaction of all the various parties.
I see a ton of these comments recently. However, I see the practical application of this theory only in a few, select areas: shooting people who look suspicious, shooting people who perform a legal action you disagree with, and shooting people who disagree with your statement that you're not a cult.
In theory, you have a noble sentiment. In practice, it is nothing but a call for others to bear the burden of armed conflict.
We send our men and women overseas to fight for our freedoms every day, and they have the same attitude; They do everything possible to avoid violence, but if the enemy is intent upon it, then by god we give it to them.
Your naivety is cute and adorable. I hope you one day learn how the world and the people in it work. Or, alternatively, that you never have to learn it. Reality is a cold-hearted bitch. Sometimes, delusion is a nice coping mechanism.
And you know why there are no repercussions? Because a significant chunk of the population - look no further than Santorum supporters - believe that Trayvon had it coming, drones will make us safer (from unsafe things - the details are never specified), SWAT teams killing some retired woman is a fair price to pay for getting tough on drugs, bankers are better people than blue-collar workers, and whistleblowers are a threat to National Security.
We are the problem. We, the collective of the American Voter, are the reason why these types of transgressions keep happening, and are being condoned by the government we elect.
You might think that you are in the majority with your opinion, but if you are, it is a very slim majority. Slim enough that many politicians, and bureaucrats answerable to politicians, don't care about you or others like you.
Welcome to Democracy. We get the government we deserve.
Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you. Please shoot the officers arresting your friend. I'll bring the popcorn. In the meantime, I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.
Someone mod this guy up. This is exactly what this is all about. It is about the central core of network neutrality, it is about making sure that no one can ever threaten the business model of the incumbent telcos, and it is about turning the Internet into TV. And it is the entire reason behind the marriage of content and ISPs.
The Internet is dead. Long live TV.
I just hope Sonic.net can grow their network fast enough so that I can get more than a 1.5 Mbit connection from them.
In other news, HR people find out that when people are judged against a specific metric, those people will work towards that metric and disregard their actual job. HR and management is particularly shocked, and wants to know what metrics they can use to make sure people don't game their system.
The border exclusion has been a long-standing tradition: the understanding is that in order to control your borders, you need to be able to stop and search people indiscriminately, and without a search warrant. Or at least, the search warrant is implied in the fact that someone wants to cross the border.
So you are essentially using the old argument that we shouldn't do something because it won't have any benefit until many years down the road.
I said nothing of that sort. However, I'll be happy to elaborate: we shouldn't do something that has a tiny benefit when the costs outweigh the benefits. In other words, drilling in ANWAR for a few cents off of the gas price in about 10-15 years is an unwise use of resources.
As for "show your work", to meet your level of proof would require interviewing all those who purchased oil futures during that time period and ascertain their state of mind.
Yep. The alternative is that you're talking out of your ass.
You could just use what common sense you may have and look at the situation.
Also known as talking out of your ass. I'm not surprised.
Men are ridiculed, dumped on, stereotyped, sexually abused (kicked in the balls/slapped), depicted as pedophiles, rapists, idiots, etc for their traits in almost every TV show and commercial.
You might want to look into confirmation bias. I think there's even a support group for that.
No, I am able to read scientific studies, rather than worry about how I suddenly have to compete on an even playing field.
#1 [Citation needed]. Specifically, citation from feminists, rather than from people who build up strawmen about who is a feminist and what they're saying. #2 No, the glass ceiling and the monetary compensation numbers refer to identical job descriptions. For example, just the first study on this: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf
raging ivy league feminazis
Oh..... I thought you were actually interested in a real conversation. instead, you're just a bitter man who is pissed that he now has to compete with creatures with vaginas for his job. I missed this gem in my first read through. #3 Depends on how you define consensus. Consensus at all cost? Definitely bad. Consensus by weighting opinions and listening to people outside your trusted circle? Definitely good.
this mentality in high places is what destroys businesses, and even whole societies.
Oh, we have a culture warrior here. I should have guessed by the feminazi comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the thing: if Zimmerman is right that his head was slammed into the sidewalk or the road, the EMTs would have put him on a stretcher and driven him to an ER. Standard protocol for ANY head injury is to be at least stretchered, if not collared, and given a thorough examination by doctors. This is regardless of whether there is any visible trauma on the head.
This means that Zimmerman's injuries were so light that they had left no trace AND he didn't tell the EMTs about his head hitting concrete or asphalt. Which makes the current story of him bleeding from the head completely untrustworthy.
I'd like to see the court system handle this issue. But quite frankly, the more I hear about the story, the more I am shocked that anyone thought there was not enough evidence to at least warrant an arrest. That, to me, is the far bigger story. That there are self-important assholes in the world who think they're hot shit and have a quick trigger, I can deal with. That the police and the DA are clearly supporting Zimmerman is far more shocking, because this means that the Zimmermans of the world get a free ride, and are free to leave a body count behind.
Fuck that.
Keep living off of the achievements of your parents, grand-parents and great-grand-parents. The reality right now is that there are too many morons running too many facets of the US government and private sector for anyone to take the US seriously as a whole.
So yes, the US ought to be fucking off TODAY. Not 70 years ago, but today.
Because, dear AC, bandwidth is measured at the house, not in total capacity. Therefore, the bandwidth per square mile is a completely useless statistic. And even then, the US fails.
At least compare the US to the EU, which has a comparable size and population. But since that doesn't work in your favor, you ignore it. You do realize that reality doesn't care about your mental gymnastics, right?
Actually, even your useless metric of comparing a country the size of the US to much smaller European states is wrong. Germany beats the pants off of the US in solar generation as does Italy, wind power per square mile or per capita is pityful compared to the rest of the world, and biomass statistics include wood burning, which can be a very bad idea.
Conservatives: where facts are created from the gut.
One reason I didn't continue my career as an Astrophysicist (besides not being nearly smart enough to compete with the real physicists) was that I realized how politicized Physics - and by extension, any Science - actually was. I figured that if I had to put up with political bullshit, I might as well get paid for it.
It's useful to keep in mind that scientists are human, despite their grand aspirations. There are good people, bad people, people with delusions of grandeur, just like in any other field.
I should vote for them, because the main tenets of the official republican platform are exactly that. I don't vote for them, because the reality is that the republican actions are almost the exact opposite of what their platform is. In other words, I'm calling republican politicians pathological liars. Note for any Ron Paul fans: I don't really consider him to be part of the Republican Party. They certainly don't see m to.
A boom based on unsustainable tax and credit policies. Yes, giving free money to people can make it look like the economy is booming. Until people realize that the money actually doesn't exist, at which point it comes crashing down. Which is exactly what happened in the summer of 2008.
So unless you want to argue that the fake money boom happened in exactly the space of one year, stop your dreaming. Bush and the Republican-led congress believed that deficits didn't matter, and spent money on tax rebates and two wars accordingly. Funny how deficits started to matter only when there were Democrats running the show.
I fail to see the difference between those countries and the more-official Soviet Republics. In both cases, they're nations being governed by an authoritarian government. The people in them had no hand in choosing their government. So whether they were officially part of the USSR, or just a puppet government run by the USSR, seems to make little difference to me.
Eh, what? Come again? You don't see the difference between a group of people that are being forced to follow someone they don't like, never liked, and who they'd ditch the instant they don't have guns pointed at them, and a group of people that doesn't like the people in power, but they're part of the same collective, so they just have another shot of Vodka?
Or, alternatively, you could just ask the people in the Eastern Bloc countries and in Russia what they thought about the Iron Curtain era.
Sometimes, you might want to actually research what's going on, rather than just making guesses on gut feeling.
Don't ask me - do your research yourself. This is part of the problem. People just don't research their votes anymore.
OTOH, many conservatives and real republicans fully support science, logic, etc. and what can be learned from it. Sadly, they are now a minority of the republican party. Many of them are driven out with the neo-cons screaming that those ppl are RINOs and are actually liberals. Sad that America has sunk this low.
This. Technically, I should vote republican every time. I believe in a balanced budget, frugal spending priorities, and a limited government. However, what I get from republican candidates is God, wars on xxx, politically motivated spending projects and the attitude that if you're not with us, you're a terrorist.
No thanks.
I always love hearing that scientists are somehow not trustworthy because they have agendas and are getting paid for their opinions. The alternatives are, as you said, politicians, think tanks and joe's on the street who are either only paid to say what someone else thinks, or who don't get paid for their opinion because they don't research their opinion.
In other words, it's the chunk of coal calling a slightly used pot black.
Really? I'm pretty sure you don't understand what each of the words mean.
1) Fiscally conservative: don't spend what you don't have. Spend money on things with an ROI. Do not spend money on shiny baubles.
2) Socially liberal: don't judge people for how they like to live, as long as that life doesn't directly impact me. That means homosexuals can do whatever heterosexuals do, that what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business, and that the only time the government gets involved in the personal life of people is when they start coercing others to do things they don't want to do.
Notice how there is no overlap between 1 and 2.
On the other hand, what is an oxymoron is being fiscally and socially conservative. Being socially conservative requires you to spend government money on enforcing your personal beliefs on others, regardless of whether there's an ROI on it or not.
It is therefore not surprising that pretty much all social conservative ideas and politicians have directly lead to an unbalanced budget.
If liberals continue to say "Reality (or truth) has a liberal bias," they are going to end up believing it and doing some really stupid things some day.
You do know where it is coming from, right? Yes, it is important to remember that this was a dig at a Republican president who clearly substituted feelings for rational analysis. But at the same time, it brilliantly encapsulates how a lot of people feel any time a conservative talks politics or science (is there anything left? Maybe grocery lists): that they make up their own reality, and that they call anyone a dirty liberal if they dare to point out the complete lack of facts in their position.
The quickest way to let that phrase die is by having conservatives stop embodying it.
Point taken. I'm sure there are plenty of Obama supporters who are guilty of supporting some of the things I listed.
However, to argue that there is no difference in how Obama or Santorum would govern - or Romney, or Perry, or Gingrich - is facile to the point of dangerous. I can guarantee you that there will be differences. The main problem is that a lot of those differences only appear once the politicians are in power. At this point, we can only make educated guesses. The only known entity here is Obama - the rest are currently just saying what they think will get them the Republican nomination.
You're right, the general population doesn't control the actions. However, keep two things in mind: the FBI answers to the executive, and the attitude of the executive does color the actions of the FBI. Secondly, the FBI is comprised of parts of the population. To argue that the FBI is somehow an entity that is separate of the public is disingenuous. They vote, they have families, they talk to their neighbors in the private sectors, and live a completely normal life outside of the FBI. The reason that nothing stands in the way of their objectives is that the general public in supports their actions.
You know what the biggest problem was in any terror regime? The fact that it had broad support among the population. Next time there's some horrific abuse of civil liberties going on, ask yourself which one of your positions contributed to it. Chances are, there are at least a few of them.
You're absolutely right. Obama is the FBI's boss, and it happened on his watch. As a result, he bears some responsibility for this.
You're forgetting the Obama supporters too.
I think you might have forgotten to take off your party-glasses. Nowhere did I mention a party, political leaning or special interest group.That's because the US government is the product of a lot of things, all of which contribute in one way or another. And the mess we're in the result of the interaction of all the various parties.
Liberty has historically been paid for in blood.
I see a ton of these comments recently. However, I see the practical application of this theory only in a few, select areas: shooting people who look suspicious, shooting people who perform a legal action you disagree with, and shooting people who disagree with your statement that you're not a cult.
In theory, you have a noble sentiment. In practice, it is nothing but a call for others to bear the burden of armed conflict.
We send our men and women overseas to fight for our freedoms every day, and they have the same attitude; They do everything possible to avoid violence, but if the enemy is intent upon it, then by god we give it to them.
Your naivety is cute and adorable. I hope you one day learn how the world and the people in it work. Or, alternatively, that you never have to learn it. Reality is a cold-hearted bitch. Sometimes, delusion is a nice coping mechanism.
And you know why there are no repercussions? Because a significant chunk of the population - look no further than Santorum supporters - believe that Trayvon had it coming, drones will make us safer (from unsafe things - the details are never specified), SWAT teams killing some retired woman is a fair price to pay for getting tough on drugs, bankers are better people than blue-collar workers, and whistleblowers are a threat to National Security.
We are the problem. We, the collective of the American Voter, are the reason why these types of transgressions keep happening, and are being condoned by the government we elect.
You might think that you are in the majority with your opinion, but if you are, it is a very slim majority. Slim enough that many politicians, and bureaucrats answerable to politicians, don't care about you or others like you.
Welcome to Democracy. We get the government we deserve.
Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you. Please shoot the officers arresting your friend. I'll bring the popcorn. In the meantime, I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.
Someone mod this guy up. This is exactly what this is all about. It is about the central core of network neutrality, it is about making sure that no one can ever threaten the business model of the incumbent telcos, and it is about turning the Internet into TV. And it is the entire reason behind the marriage of content and ISPs.
The Internet is dead. Long live TV.
I just hope Sonic.net can grow their network fast enough so that I can get more than a 1.5 Mbit connection from them.
In other news, HR people find out that when people are judged against a specific metric, those people will work towards that metric and disregard their actual job. HR and management is particularly shocked, and wants to know what metrics they can use to make sure people don't game their system.
The border exclusion has been a long-standing tradition: the understanding is that in order to control your borders, you need to be able to stop and search people indiscriminately, and without a search warrant. Or at least, the search warrant is implied in the fact that someone wants to cross the border.
So you are essentially using the old argument that we shouldn't do something because it won't have any benefit until many years down the road.
I said nothing of that sort. However, I'll be happy to elaborate: we shouldn't do something that has a tiny benefit when the costs outweigh the benefits. In other words, drilling in ANWAR for a few cents off of the gas price in about 10-15 years is an unwise use of resources.
As for "show your work", to meet your level of proof would require interviewing all those who purchased oil futures during that time period and ascertain their state of mind.
Yep. The alternative is that you're talking out of your ass.
You could just use what common sense you may have and look at the situation.
Also known as talking out of your ass. I'm not surprised.
Men are ridiculed, dumped on, stereotyped, sexually abused (kicked in the balls/slapped), depicted as pedophiles, rapists, idiots, etc for their traits in almost every TV show and commercial.
You might want to look into confirmation bias. I think there's even a support group for that.
No, I am able to read scientific studies, rather than worry about how I suddenly have to compete on an even playing field.
#1 [Citation needed]. Specifically, citation from feminists, rather than from people who build up strawmen about who is a feminist and what they're saying.
#2 No, the glass ceiling and the monetary compensation numbers refer to identical job descriptions. For example, just the first study on this: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf
raging ivy league feminazis
Oh..... I thought you were actually interested in a real conversation. instead, you're just a bitter man who is pissed that he now has to compete with creatures with vaginas for his job. I missed this gem in my first read through.
#3 Depends on how you define consensus. Consensus at all cost? Definitely bad. Consensus by weighting opinions and listening to people outside your trusted circle? Definitely good.
this mentality in high places is what destroys businesses, and even whole societies.
Oh, we have a culture warrior here. I should have guessed by the feminazi comment.