There's photos here. The damage is pretty serious.

They burned too many customers with "enterprise" devices that'd fail almost immediately, then treating the customers like shit when they did.

They bet too heavily on high performance, while not maintaining the kind of behavior that would bring back the customers who want devices like that.

The reason Dell and HP can get away with burning customers is simple: there's always another person who needs a cheap laptop.

Not many people need a new PCIe SSD.

Good riddance.

Generally speaking, if you call the host and say "I need a line without caps, can you quote me a price," they will.

Oftentimes you'll have to call it a business line though.

Verizon FIOS caps are so far in the sky that you're unlikely ever to hit them.

Would be nice if they'd work on getting their service working instead.

Six months of having to use Google DNS because they can't run a goddamned DNS server.

Don't see anything terrible there. You are talking out your ass.

Emotions are just really,really bad stuff to use to make law.

Frustratingly, the same thing can be said of the law which started this whole mess in the first place.

If this was self defense rather than "stand your ground," the whole thing would have been far simpler.

it is an insistence that Zimmerman's right to presumption of innocence be taken to absolutist heights of absurdity

Sorry, no. In the United States, if there is not proof, you are not guilty, no matter how often you might use begging words like "absurdity."

There is a legitimate, plausible alternative explanation, and the medical examiner said that Zimmerman was one or two skull-whacks from dead.

That *is* reasonable doubt, whether you agree or not, according to a jury of his peers. .

Zimmerman's rights must be weighed against Martin's

RIghts weighting happens in civil cases. Never, ever in criminal cases. .

Martin's right to life is treated in such relativist terms

You're just mis-using legal sounding words and waving your hands around. Court operates by strict rules. There was only one question on the docket: can we prove that Zimmerman did this? The answer came back "no."

There is no question of a dead man's right to life in a murder trial until intent is established. .

Otherwise, we would have to conclude that courts can cherrypick when the different rights of people come into conflict.

My opinion is that you have shown no adequate logic which leads to this conclusion. .

If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what...

I'm guessing, since it depends on who prosecuted, what quality of job they did, whether Martin swayed them at all, whether the judge permitted the age to be taken into account, and probably most compellingly, just how bad the assault was.

Since the medical examiner said two more of those whacks and Zimmerman would be dead, I feel that it's quite likely that Zimmerman now has brain damage. Now I don't know about Florida, but I think in California that's an automatic upgrade to PC 245(a)(1) Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and then it's state felony $10k + 2-4 years per count (that is, every time he smashes his head into the ground, it's another 2-4 years) plus restitution (which, for brain injuries, can easily be six or seven figures.)

So what do you figure, four before Zimmerman got the gun pointed the right way? I mean, it's completely hypothetical.

But that's 8-16 for the head to concrete alone. Then there's all the other missteps along the way, and if they're out for blood, they'll charge each one.

It doesn't really matter if Zimmerman is credible.

Innocent until proven guilty. It's a pithy slogan until you have to apply it; then it's gut wrenching to stay austere.

Can you prove guilt?

The way the law reads, lethal force is allowed if a reasonable person in his position would think that their life is in danger.

I am not disputing you. However, I have never liked this; it legitimizes fear without evidence as a reason to attack, and lets after the fact judgment of others be an excuse for why.

Yes, I realize a hard line to be taken on this is impractical; how do you know whether you're stopping a rape or two consenting adults in edge play, etc.

But it still makes me uncomfortable, and seems almost certain in my opinion to cause far more harm than it prevents.

This should, in my opinion, fall under "I was being attacked and thought I was in self defense." That's really quite different than standing one's ground; Zimmerman was doing no such thing.

This means, for instance, that if someone has every appearance of intending to beat you to death, you have a right to use lethal force, regardless of what his actual plans were.

Someday, the tragic punchline to this sentence will be "Happy Halloween."

Actually, in most of America it's quite illegal to follow people at night with a loaded firearm.

there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas

I wonder why you think this is new.

For context, these people generally do not make impacts on history, and are as such forgotten. Next generation won't know about most of our creeps, just like we don't know about most of the previous generation's creeps.

Similarly, people who think classic rock is better than today's music are forgetting everything but the really good stuff. When's the last time you listened to Mott the Hoople?

I think you might be missing his point. Jury selection is not a random sampling, nor is it supposed to be. That jury is supposed to be representative, and it was not.

I think what he meant was "what is the chance that two professional lawyers in a high profile case could go through voir dire and produce a jury this likely to cause later racially toned misapprehension?"

The prosecution should have ensured at least one man, at least one black person, and at least one person from that neighborhood on the jury. The defense should have had at least one man and at least one white person. As much as most Americans (I myself am one) will react poorly to that as if it's a form of discriminatory deck stacking, that's actually how the system is supposed to work; these are the people who, in the decision making process, are supposed to bring germane context to the proceeding. This is why jury nullification is ever a topic in America - in a "queer bashing" there should be a gay person there to explain to the others what it's like to be in the victim's shoes, etc.