StringJunky

He defended himself because he was attacked, but he went out of his way to put himself in that position...clear?

Unfortunately, I've been following it via Reuters and AP several times a day since it started. What did you mean by "bothering to watch", Sensei? Every nation has it's dubious, reprehensible underbelly and conditions are ripe for them to thrive atm... in many areas of the world as well.

That's a case of passive absorption vs active absorption, I think. Obviously, you need to periodically interject some active analysis when absorbing objective information at your own pace, and spoken video inhibits that. Don't forget, when you open your mouth, your brain shuts down.

It's use as a starting point is increasing and I dislike it for reasons you mention. When it comes to the serious or technical, text removes a lot of fluff and time. I read and absorb text much faster. Being deaf has nothing to do with it, of course. If I'm going to lip-read, I might as well read text at the faster rate.

You have four posts. Do you have any idea how much of our lives we've lost watching pointless videos? 'Wary' is the word. Even the most respected member here wouldn't expect us to watch such a long programme, they would summarize the salient points what was said. You have one more post until tomorrow. It mitigates spamming. No limits on posting after that. Welcome to the forum.

And you wish us to wade through two hours of somebody's opinion.

It's a load of codswallop.

LOL

You need to stay here a bit longer, we don't agree on everything. Your snapshot of the members positions is too short.

No, his motive. New gun... party! As we say here, he's playing the the big "I am...". He travelled 20 miles into a trouble with a gun and you call it "standing his ground".

What he said was prophetic. He clearly saw his weapon as a means to sort his problems out and be more powerful... essentially it extended his immature penis. He was/is a wannabe tough-man. "When you have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of thinking. I think this image reinforces the point. Note that he is not under attack.

Marvelous and clever movie . I wish I could write like the author.

Bit coincidental that his comments bore fruit. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't pick up this subject until now, after the trial. There would have been endless speculation. We can do a cleaner, more productive autopsy.

In this morning's AP: Yes, @iNow, asymmetric justice is what's causing much of this backlash. The guns and 2nd Amendment are aggravating factors that precipitated the ethnic inequity... the law is not colour-blind, as it should be. I couldn't believe the cops drove right by him with a rifle in his hands and arms up.

So, you are saying the re-radiated photons preferentially travel towards Earth? If photon scattering is random, half will head away and half towards the ground. By my estimation that is a 50% reduction in absorption by the ground, roughly.

If you were earning a living with it you would have a compressor and nail gun. :)

iirc James Lovelock in the 90's suggested dimming is delaying the real effects of climate change and mitigating loss of albedo on the ground. When we clean up the air the real problem starts.

Criminality doesn't fall along partisan lines, so we have to look through that particular type of noise here. E2A Although Ive asked the US guys the question, if anyone else wants to contribute, knock yourself out and do.

I didn't realise lower court judges are elected?! I'd rather avoid the subject of gun ownership in general, apart from him crossing state lines illegally with one... if it matters. We've done that subject pretty thoroughly in the past and I think we know where we stand on that. I think the takeaways from this verdict are much more than that. I think this is more about racism, in that white people can get off more easily than blacks and others as swansont noted. If it was a black person in the dock under the same circumstances, I think you would agree the judicial outcome would have been very different.

It's a symptom of a system breaking down. It's just confirmation in my mind.

I was wondering what you guys over the pond think of today's judgement?

It's not objective accuracy that matters with the naive audience, it's appearing to be confident and showing conviction. Scary really.

Egyptology is just a refined area or subset of archaeology, and all the disciplines it uses. Fundamentally, they argue with evidence, which is what scientists do.

But I think Charon's error bars are narrower than his.