As I remember it the Swedish athletes stopped that practice because the government said either you pay your taxes the way you're supposed to or we won't let you compete for Sweden(and we'll block you from competing for another country for so long that your career as an athlete will pretty much be over)
Also having dual citizenship is also apparently under some regulation by the Olympic Committee or something like that(I remember some major new story a bunch of years back about a Swedish hockey star who had gotten a US citizenship so traveling would be less of a hassle was risking not being permitted to compete in the Olympic Games because of that US citizenship).
Then you probably have little to no idea of what a tactical nuclear weapon actually is. Strategical nuclear weapons is generally considered to be an nuclear weapon with a yield greater than roughly 100kT(a tactical nuclear weapon thus is anything below 100kT).The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13kT and the on that hit Nagasaki was estimated at 21kT so the only nuclear weapons ever deployed in war falls well within the tactical envelope and many of the MIRV warheads straddle the boundary and the majority of ballistic missiles use MIRV'ed warheads because they are so much harder to intercept effectively.
The distinction between strategical and tactical nukes becomes pretty moot at this point.
And considering that for example the B61 bomb has a variable yield anywhere between 0,3 and 340kT the definition of what is a tactical and what is a strategical nuke ceases to matter completely.
Personally I don't really care much whether it's a single multi-megaton nuke or several 100kT MIRVed nukes that kills, I'll be just as dead either way.
No it's not even remotely hard, as long as the service provider is not a monopoly or resides in Chile/Netherlands you can just outright block Facebook, problem solved.
Sure customers might move initially but pretty soon all the major providers will run the policy(either because of shady business practices or because other providers notice how potentially profitable it is).
A lot of service providers is currently blocking VoIP on their non-premium price plans, how is blocking Facebook any different?
Well maybe so but both administrations probably know that not playing the nice guy would have severe repercussions, the US is a signatory of the Geneva convention and therefore bound to follow it. Intentionally breaking statutes of the Geneva convention is likely to result in sanctions or other repercussions from various nations around the world.
A more important fact than winning the war is that the aftermath needs to be acceptable and you can't go around and declare war on everyone that doesn't agree with you, short of using nukes the costs for attrition would be enormous(because eventually you would piss off someone who actually have the means to cause some serious damage even if the US won in the end), something your economy cannot handle in it's current state.
For example what do you think the effect would be if EU overnight put the same restrictions on trade with the United States as it does with Iran?
That might actually be the case if one of these cases ever reached sentencing, but since it was settled out of court, thats just an agreement between two parties and I doubt Adscend would accept such an agreement because it's basically the same as the sentence and then it would be better to take their chance in court.
The question is why did the the district atourney settle with Adscend for 100k? Was the governments case THAT flimsy?
The blame for events such as this lies largely with the fact that society keeps pushing teachers to be more than suppliers and distributors of knowledge that they are supposed to be.
Society as a whole has started expecting teachers to be psychologists, parents, moral guardians, mediators, police and what not.
As long as we keep expecting teachers to do more than teach students in math, chemistry and history etc. then to be able to fulfill all these additional obligations they will need additional tools and if they are not provided these tools then they will find other ways to gain the necessary information/tools.
Well atleast EU has the REACH regulation which might not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction, does the US have any equivalent legislation?
Not really, the sources are very different different which has some pretty serious implications. "Chemical" fertilizer is manufactured from phosphate rock... which is a limited supply and at the current projected use is estimated to run out in the next 50-100 years or so.
So using natural sources and reclaiming used phosphorus would be a very good idea.
Correction, once the store manager noticed the massive return rate he's gonna ask his clerks what the hell is happening and they will probably have noticed you and your relatively small group of people with this repeating behavior or they will at least have noticed several recurring faces.
His response would be to post pictures of these people at the counter and tell the clerks to deny sale to any and all of these people.
As long as it's just a relatively small group with reoccurring habits it would be easier to target and exclude them than to start causing troubles further up the chain.
Parent also doesn't mention is that that there is no bandwidth caps(atleast I've yet to see any swedish ISPs that use bandwidth caps so far). Only mobile internet has bandwidth caps.
That has not changed, unless the HR asshole has Facebook he never had a TOS with FB so he could always(and still can) demand your account details. You would however be in breach of the TOS if you gave it to said HR asshole so you would be the one tossed in jail.
BUT what has not changed is the fact that if said HR asshole did access FB(with your account details) without having a contract with FB in the first place it will still be a felony.
Things gets muddy if he has his own Facebook since he would technically have legal permission to access FB's servers(just not with your account details).
No not really, it was sovereign plus a sizable geth fleet against The Alliance's 1st, 3rd, 5th fleets(The Alliance had at least 7 fleets prior to ME3) plus a sizable portion of the Citadel Fleet(not all of it though, a big part was out patroling Mass Relays). In ME2 the Alliance did not have even a single dreadnought and the citadel navy presumably had the Destiny Ascension and maybe a few others, When ME3 starts The Alliance has 8 dreadnoughts, the Turian Hedgemony has 39, the Asari Republics have 20, the Salarian Union have 16 and the Vol Protectorate has 1, no one knows how many the Geth have and the Quarian Flotilla have their liveships(of which there are 3) fitted with dreadnought class mass accelerators(but lacks the heavy armor and shielding a typical dreadnought have). Cruisers and frigates make up the bulk of the citadel races military and are much more numerous than dreadnoughts(in ME1 the Alliance had ~200 vessels)
Plus significant advances in technology have been made since the battle of the citadel in ME1 from reverse engineering stuff from Sovereign such as the Thanix cannon etc. So while the odds are very long it's not so bad that they shouldn't even be able to take down a single reaper.
No I'm pretty sure "wonderboy" only says that the chaos will begin anew eventually
In the control ending Shepard can in theory restart the cycle if the synthetics rise up to wipe out organic life.
Authors life plus anything is completely ludicrous, while I think the Chinese proposal is a bit short in span it's certainly more sane than anything we have in the west.
Pretty much all commercial copyright work is expected to make a profit within considerably less than a year or it is considered a loss, some works as much 2 years maybe.
So I'd say limit copyright to 3-4 years counting from it's creation/release date. That way the creator has ample time by today's standards to make an ample profit.
So what I would do if copyright had a strong time limit is to celebrate, copyright after all is not for the creators but for the public! Works are supposed to become public eventually, with the current scheme the "limit" is extended every once in a while to ensure that no work ever enters the public domain.
Well indoctrination theory still means that there are no actual ending(atleast not if you picked the one that is the "correct" choice) so BioWare is not completely off the hook yet if indoctrination is true.
Yes that would actually make the ending a well thought thru one but I'd still call BioWare out on being cheapskates(depending on whats actually in this new DLC and wether or not they release another one that will cost money) because if the Indoctrination theory is correct(and you picked the correct ending) the actual ending still have not been resolved, Shepard will still be at the base of that pillar of light and the reapers will still be around.
No that makes absolutely no sense, everyone knows that this is it, they have to press the advantage of having united the combined might of the entire galaxy and fight to their last breath even if the combined might of the galaxy fails they "wont go quietly into the night" and they will take enough reapers with them to give the next cycle a better chance at survival. There is no second chance, there is no beating the reapers through low intensity warfare and everyone in those fleets know it.
There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar.
i've been saying this in numerous other posts. in those posts i've said voice your criticism but lose the sense of entitlement. buy something else = vote with your dollar.
The problem with this is that as long as people are not painfully vocal about why they're not gonna buy the next BioWare game EA will just blame future failures on piracy, that is the thingsalways seems to work, either something is a huge success or it's all because of the pirates.
No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't).
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
People are not neccessarily complaining to the FCC to have the ending changed but because BioWare ever since the release of ME2 has hyped that because they don't have to worry about the next game the ending for ME3 is going to really varied and all over the place and the decisions from the previous games are gonna play a large role in the ending you get. All that hype now turns out to be blatant lies and that makes all that hype false advertisement(which is criminal and should be punished), the only thing that matter is how many war assets you managed to scrape together and the ending while yes the potential implications of Shepard's decision is big(that is not said outright but just implied), the actual ending sequences are pretty much just palette-swapped versions of each others with plot holes so big you could drive Harbinger through them.
A lot of people would probably be fine with a downer ending(well there are ofcourse some people that want sunshine and rainbows etc) because that has been indicated ever since the ending of ME1(Sovereign was just a single reaper and yet it took the combined military might of much of the galaxy to bring it down and now there are hundreds or thousands of them munching up the galaxy...). But the fact that the endings breaks with or even outright contradicts much of the already established canon content is not acceptable without a reasonable explanation and BioWare provides none of that. Because of this and all the huge plot holes makes it seem completely random and tacked on at the last minute to meet a deadline(much like Kotor 2 although Obsidian did a much better job than BioWare has done).
Yes all of what you are saying as well as the fact that the ending breaks with a lot of previously established canon content. For example, the protheans re-engineered the keepers which delayed the reaper invasion, how could that matter when the citadel itself is the sentient overlord of the reapers?
Arrival also establishes that the destruction of a relay is really bad news for every living being in the same star system.
And exactly how would destroying all synthetics prevent the galaxy from just creating more(at least humanity knows how to make a true AI(EDI) and has established that it sees advanced AI/VI research to be an important part of staying current in the military space race). If you reunited the geth and the quarians there is nothing that prevents the quarians from creating them again, they know what they did wrong the first time.
The list of plotholes or contradictions could be made much longer but I'll settle with pointing out just a few.
Another thing that is surprising from a financial standpoint is that BioWare pretty much intentionally kills the entire Mass Effect franchise. Because unless the ending is invalidated the fact that regardless of ending the mass relays are destroyed meaning that galactic society is now pretty much fractured and dead since long-range interstellar travel/communication is now impossible.
Voice analysis of the 911 tapes indicates that Zimmerman was NOT the one shouting for help and at least one witness has already redacted his statement because the police was pushing for an answer and if police did it in one instance chances are they did it in the others so the witness testimonies are tainted by shoddy police work.
Trayvon's mother has identified the screams for help on the tape, she of course is not a credible source and the forensic expert who analyzed the tapes did not have a sample of Trayvon's voice but if it was not Zimmerman shouting for help then either it was Trayvon or some completely unrelated 3rd person who was close enough to be overheard on the tape but have yet to step forward as a witness...
Well if you call in enough "suspicious behaviour" calls the police will eventually stop having any "available units"(because your just that "paranoid idiot who calls as soon as someone walks down his street after 6pm") and in doing so they would actually be doing their jobs since they don't have unlimited resources and they need to prioritize the resources they have and because your overuse of their resources they just put you at the bottom of that list. You are intentionally or unintentionally squandering a limited resource.
And then when something actually happens you are shit out of luck because you've been a paranoid prick.
The safety of your own home and an open street is 2 very different locations. A stand your ground law is fine but it needs some counterbalance. Only allowing it in your home is one example because you can't bring your home with you. But allowing for it in an open street is completely unbalanced, because if you intentionally murder someone you get away with it if you can make up a believable story as long as there is no witness around to dispute your story. Another reasonable counterbalance is if the defendant has to show that his response with deadly force was reasonable for the situation.
Yes so they fought and tumbled around in the grass, that says absolutely nothing about who instigated the fight or whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life.
BUT after analysis of the 911 calls forensic experts came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was not the one screaming for help in the tapes which he claimed he was and if he has lied about one part of the chain of events...
So this means that either Trayvon or a completely unrelated third person was screaming for help, the experts don't have a voice sample of Trayvon to analyze so they can't tell if it was him but since no actual eyewitness has stepped forward it is likely that the person screaming for help was in fact Trayvon(his mother identified the screams as Trayvon but that means very little).
That still does not tell us who instigated the fight but if the one screaming for help was in fact Trayvon it is a very strong indicator that Zimmerman would not be in a situation where he should reasonably fear for his life and thus he had no justifiable reason to result to lethal force.
But Zimmerman has not yet had his day in court and until a jury tells us differently he is for all intents and purposes still innocent.
Yes the second is very different, it puts the burden of evidence on Zimmerman rather than the prosecutor.
Zimmerman has to prove has was attacked and that it really was impractical to run away or he's guilty of murder/manslaughter. In the current situation Zimmerman only needs to raise reasonable doubt which is a lot easier considering that Trayvon is the only other person who knows exactly what happened and he can't speak because he is dead.
Yeah same thing holds true here in Sweden as well with the addition that being armed with any sort of non-improvised weapon counts as instant premeditation since you're not allowed to carry weapons in public without reason such as being in route to the wilds or work(and you need the weapon, for example a knife inn your daily work).
Slashdot Mirror
As I remember it the Swedish athletes stopped that practice because the government said either you pay your taxes the way you're supposed to or we won't let you compete for Sweden(and we'll block you from competing for another country for so long that your career as an athlete will pretty much be over)
Also having dual citizenship is also apparently under some regulation by the Olympic Committee or something like that(I remember some major new story a bunch of years back about a Swedish hockey star who had gotten a US citizenship so traveling would be less of a hassle was risking not being permitted to compete in the Olympic Games because of that US citizenship).
Then you probably have little to no idea of what a tactical nuclear weapon actually is. Strategical nuclear weapons is generally considered to be an nuclear weapon with a yield greater than roughly 100kT(a tactical nuclear weapon thus is anything below 100kT).The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13kT and the on that hit Nagasaki was estimated at 21kT so the only nuclear weapons ever deployed in war falls well within the tactical envelope and many of the MIRV warheads straddle the boundary and the majority of ballistic missiles use MIRV'ed warheads because they are so much harder to intercept effectively.
The distinction between strategical and tactical nukes becomes pretty moot at this point.
And considering that for example the B61 bomb has a variable yield anywhere between 0,3 and 340kT the definition of what is a tactical and what is a strategical nuke ceases to matter completely.
Personally I don't really care much whether it's a single multi-megaton nuke or several 100kT MIRVed nukes that kills, I'll be just as dead either way.
No it's not even remotely hard, as long as the service provider is not a monopoly or resides in Chile/Netherlands you can just outright block Facebook, problem solved. Sure customers might move initially but pretty soon all the major providers will run the policy(either because of shady business practices or because other providers notice how potentially profitable it is).
A lot of service providers is currently blocking VoIP on their non-premium price plans, how is blocking Facebook any different?
Well maybe so but both administrations probably know that not playing the nice guy would have severe repercussions, the US is a signatory of the Geneva convention and therefore bound to follow it. Intentionally breaking statutes of the Geneva convention is likely to result in sanctions or other repercussions from various nations around the world.
A more important fact than winning the war is that the aftermath needs to be acceptable and you can't go around and declare war on everyone that doesn't agree with you, short of using nukes the costs for attrition would be enormous(because eventually you would piss off someone who actually have the means to cause some serious damage even if the US won in the end), something your economy cannot handle in it's current state.
For example what do you think the effect would be if EU overnight put the same restrictions on trade with the United States as it does with Iran?
That might actually be the case if one of these cases ever reached sentencing, but since it was settled out of court, thats just an agreement between two parties and I doubt Adscend would accept such an agreement because it's basically the same as the sentence and then it would be better to take their chance in court.
The question is why did the the district atourney settle with Adscend for 100k? Was the governments case THAT flimsy?
The blame for events such as this lies largely with the fact that society keeps pushing teachers to be more than suppliers and distributors of knowledge that they are supposed to be.
Society as a whole has started expecting teachers to be psychologists, parents, moral guardians, mediators, police and what not.
As long as we keep expecting teachers to do more than teach students in math, chemistry and history etc. then to be able to fulfill all these additional obligations they will need additional tools and if they are not provided these tools then they will find other ways to gain the necessary information/tools.
Well atleast EU has the REACH regulation which might not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction, does the US have any equivalent legislation?
Not really, the sources are very different different which has some pretty serious implications. "Chemical" fertilizer is manufactured from phosphate rock... which is a limited supply and at the current projected use is estimated to run out in the next 50-100 years or so.
So using natural sources and reclaiming used phosphorus would be a very good idea.
Correction, once the store manager noticed the massive return rate he's gonna ask his clerks what the hell is happening and they will probably have noticed you and your relatively small group of people with this repeating behavior or they will at least have noticed several recurring faces.
His response would be to post pictures of these people at the counter and tell the clerks to deny sale to any and all of these people.
As long as it's just a relatively small group with reoccurring habits it would be easier to target and exclude them than to start causing troubles further up the chain.
Parent also doesn't mention is that that there is no bandwidth caps(atleast I've yet to see any swedish ISPs that use bandwidth caps so far). Only mobile internet has bandwidth caps.
That has not changed, unless the HR asshole has Facebook he never had a TOS with FB so he could always(and still can) demand your account details. You would however be in breach of the TOS if you gave it to said HR asshole so you would be the one tossed in jail.
BUT what has not changed is the fact that if said HR asshole did access FB(with your account details) without having a contract with FB in the first place it will still be a felony.
Things gets muddy if he has his own Facebook since he would technically have legal permission to access FB's servers(just not with your account details).
IANAL
No not really, it was sovereign plus a sizable geth fleet against The Alliance's 1st, 3rd, 5th fleets(The Alliance had at least 7 fleets prior to ME3) plus a sizable portion of the Citadel Fleet(not all of it though, a big part was out patroling Mass Relays). In ME2 the Alliance did not have even a single dreadnought and the citadel navy presumably had the Destiny Ascension and maybe a few others, When ME3 starts The Alliance has 8 dreadnoughts, the Turian Hedgemony has 39, the Asari Republics have 20, the Salarian Union have 16 and the Vol Protectorate has 1, no one knows how many the Geth have and the Quarian Flotilla have their liveships(of which there are 3) fitted with dreadnought class mass accelerators(but lacks the heavy armor and shielding a typical dreadnought have). Cruisers and frigates make up the bulk of the citadel races military and are much more numerous than dreadnoughts(in ME1 the Alliance had ~200 vessels)
Plus significant advances in technology have been made since the battle of the citadel in ME1 from reverse engineering stuff from Sovereign such as the Thanix cannon etc. So while the odds are very long it's not so bad that they shouldn't even be able to take down a single reaper.
No I'm pretty sure "wonderboy" only says that the chaos will begin anew eventually
In the control ending Shepard can in theory restart the cycle if the synthetics rise up to wipe out organic life.
Authors life plus anything is completely ludicrous, while I think the Chinese proposal is a bit short in span it's certainly more sane than anything we have in the west.
Pretty much all commercial copyright work is expected to make a profit within considerably less than a year or it is considered a loss, some works as much 2 years maybe.
So I'd say limit copyright to 3-4 years counting from it's creation/release date. That way the creator has ample time by today's standards to make an ample profit.
So what I would do if copyright had a strong time limit is to celebrate, copyright after all is not for the creators but for the public! Works are supposed to become public eventually, with the current scheme the "limit" is extended every once in a while to ensure that no work ever enters the public domain.
Well indoctrination theory still means that there are no actual ending(atleast not if you picked the one that is the "correct" choice) so BioWare is not completely off the hook yet if indoctrination is true.
Yes that would actually make the ending a well thought thru one but I'd still call BioWare out on being cheapskates(depending on whats actually in this new DLC and wether or not they release another one that will cost money) because if the Indoctrination theory is correct(and you picked the correct ending) the actual ending still have not been resolved, Shepard will still be at the base of that pillar of light and the reapers will still be around.
No that makes absolutely no sense, everyone knows that this is it, they have to press the advantage of having united the combined might of the entire galaxy and fight to their last breath even if the combined might of the galaxy fails they "wont go quietly into the night" and they will take enough reapers with them to give the next cycle a better chance at survival. There is no second chance, there is no beating the reapers through low intensity warfare and everyone in those fleets know it.
There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar.
i've been saying this in numerous other posts. in those posts i've said voice your criticism but lose the sense of entitlement. buy something else = vote with your dollar.
The problem with this is that as long as people are not painfully vocal about why they're not gonna buy the next BioWare game EA will just blame future failures on piracy, that is the thingsalways seems to work, either something is a huge success or it's all because of the pirates.
No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't).
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
People are not neccessarily complaining to the FCC to have the ending changed but because BioWare ever since the release of ME2 has hyped that because they don't have to worry about the next game the ending for ME3 is going to really varied and all over the place and the decisions from the previous games are gonna play a large role in the ending you get. All that hype now turns out to be blatant lies and that makes all that hype false advertisement(which is criminal and should be punished), the only thing that matter is how many war assets you managed to scrape together and the ending while yes the potential implications of Shepard's decision is big(that is not said outright but just implied), the actual ending sequences are pretty much just palette-swapped versions of each others with plot holes so big you could drive Harbinger through them.
A lot of people would probably be fine with a downer ending(well there are ofcourse some people that want sunshine and rainbows etc) because that has been indicated ever since the ending of ME1(Sovereign was just a single reaper and yet it took the combined military might of much of the galaxy to bring it down and now there are hundreds or thousands of them munching up the galaxy...). But the fact that the endings breaks with or even outright contradicts much of the already established canon content is not acceptable without a reasonable explanation and BioWare provides none of that. Because of this and all the huge plot holes makes it seem completely random and tacked on at the last minute to meet a deadline(much like Kotor 2 although Obsidian did a much better job than BioWare has done).
*SPOILER ALERT*
Yes all of what you are saying as well as the fact that the ending breaks with a lot of previously established canon content. For example, the protheans re-engineered the keepers which delayed the reaper invasion, how could that matter when the citadel itself is the sentient overlord of the reapers?
Arrival also establishes that the destruction of a relay is really bad news for every living being in the same star system.
And exactly how would destroying all synthetics prevent the galaxy from just creating more(at least humanity knows how to make a true AI(EDI) and has established that it sees advanced AI/VI research to be an important part of staying current in the military space race). If you reunited the geth and the quarians there is nothing that prevents the quarians from creating them again, they know what they did wrong the first time.
The list of plotholes or contradictions could be made much longer but I'll settle with pointing out just a few.
Another thing that is surprising from a financial standpoint is that BioWare pretty much intentionally kills the entire Mass Effect franchise. Because unless the ending is invalidated the fact that regardless of ending the mass relays are destroyed meaning that galactic society is now pretty much fractured and dead since long-range interstellar travel/communication is now impossible.
Voice analysis of the 911 tapes indicates that Zimmerman was NOT the one shouting for help and at least one witness has already redacted his statement because the police was pushing for an answer and if police did it in one instance chances are they did it in the others so the witness testimonies are tainted by shoddy police work.
Trayvon's mother has identified the screams for help on the tape, she of course is not a credible source and the forensic expert who analyzed the tapes did not have a sample of Trayvon's voice but if it was not Zimmerman shouting for help then either it was Trayvon or some completely unrelated 3rd person who was close enough to be overheard on the tape but have yet to step forward as a witness...
Well if you call in enough "suspicious behaviour" calls the police will eventually stop having any "available units"(because your just that "paranoid idiot who calls as soon as someone walks down his street after 6pm") and in doing so they would actually be doing their jobs since they don't have unlimited resources and they need to prioritize the resources they have and because your overuse of their resources they just put you at the bottom of that list. You are intentionally or unintentionally squandering a limited resource.
And then when something actually happens you are shit out of luck because you've been a paranoid prick.
The safety of your own home and an open street is 2 very different locations. A stand your ground law is fine but it needs some counterbalance. Only allowing it in your home is one example because you can't bring your home with you. But allowing for it in an open street is completely unbalanced, because if you intentionally murder someone you get away with it if you can make up a believable story as long as there is no witness around to dispute your story. Another reasonable counterbalance is if the defendant has to show that his response with deadly force was reasonable for the situation.
Yes so they fought and tumbled around in the grass, that says absolutely nothing about who instigated the fight or whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life.
BUT after analysis of the 911 calls forensic experts came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was not the one screaming for help in the tapes which he claimed he was and if he has lied about one part of the chain of events...
So this means that either Trayvon or a completely unrelated third person was screaming for help, the experts don't have a voice sample of Trayvon to analyze so they can't tell if it was him but since no actual eyewitness has stepped forward it is likely that the person screaming for help was in fact Trayvon(his mother identified the screams as Trayvon but that means very little).
That still does not tell us who instigated the fight but if the one screaming for help was in fact Trayvon it is a very strong indicator that Zimmerman would not be in a situation where he should reasonably fear for his life and thus he had no justifiable reason to result to lethal force.
But Zimmerman has not yet had his day in court and until a jury tells us differently he is for all intents and purposes still innocent.
Yes the second is very different, it puts the burden of evidence on Zimmerman rather than the prosecutor.
Zimmerman has to prove has was attacked and that it really was impractical to run away or he's guilty of murder/manslaughter. In the current situation Zimmerman only needs to raise reasonable doubt which is a lot easier considering that Trayvon is the only other person who knows exactly what happened and he can't speak because he is dead.
Yeah same thing holds true here in Sweden as well with the addition that being armed with any sort of non-improvised weapon counts as instant premeditation since you're not allowed to carry weapons in public without reason such as being in route to the wilds or work(and you need the weapon, for example a knife inn your daily work).