Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1053

by Attila Dimedici (#48465767) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
Well, that is interesting. I have never before heard the word alley used to apply to a pedestrian only pathway. Everyone I know uses it according to definitions one and two from Dictionary.com

1. a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc.
2. a narrow back street.

Even by the definition you used, none of those paths were "blind alleys". As to getting out of his truck to look at a street sign, all that means is that he never paid attention to the names of the streets. It does not mean that he was lost. Being lost means that you do not know how to find your way to a destination from where you are. Zimmerman knew where he was, but as he was talking to dispatch he realized that someone not as familiar with the neighborhood would not be able to find him with the information he could give them at the moment. Your argument about him being lost would apply to me looking up google maps to give my wife directions from my house to work because I knew that she would not know the things I could think of off the top of my head to describe where to turn.
Furthermore, my comment on the preponderance of evidence was not based on what was found in court, but in what I was able to obtain by looking at various sources. The evidence in the Zimmerman case overwhelmingly failed to support a different story than the one he gave. I am not saying that it overwhelmingly supported his story, merely that there was little or no evidence that actually supported a different story. (There is a difference between not supporting an account and contradicting an account).

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1053

by Attila Dimedici (#48463917) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
As an anonymous coward pointed out your account of the Martin/Zimmerman case bears almost no resemblance to the actual case. There were no alleys, blind or otherwise, in the development where Martin was shot. Zimmerman never claimed that he was lost. Martin was never "trapped" in any sense of that word. The preponderance of the evidence presented in the Zimmerman case indicate that, although he initially followed Martin on foot, by the time the shooting had occurred he was retreating to his vehicle.

Comment: Re:I just don't understand (Score 1) 1053

by Attila Dimedici (#48456877) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
There were at least as many witnesses saying that Michael Brown was charging the officer when he was shot. Witnesses who are significantly more credible than those whom you are relying on. In addition, the evidence from the autopsy completely contradicts the idea that Michael Brown was standing with his hands up when he was shot. The evidence from the autopsy actually supports Officer Wilson's account that Michael Brown was charging him when he was shot.

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1053

by Attila Dimedici (#48456847) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well. Furthermore, forensic evidence from the scene contradicts that account of events. It is possible that Officer Wilson behaved inappropriately by shooting Michael Brown, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
This is in contrast to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case where the evidence merely failed to support the idea that George Zimmerman did anything wrong.

Comment: Re:Oh fark off (Score 1) 554

by Attila Dimedici (#48406169) Attached to: The Downside to Low Gas Prices
Yes, $53 billion was SPENT by the Highway Trust Fund, but approximately 1/4 of that was spent on things OTHER than roads and bridges (or about $14 billion). Interestingly enough the amount of tax revenue which went INTO the Highway Trust Fund was about $14 billion LESS than what was spent.
In other words, the Highway Trust Fund collected about $39 billion in tax revenues AND spent about $39 billion on roads and bridges (the rest of it being spent on things not related to highways)...Or approximately what "Snotnose" was claiming.

Comment: Re:Oh fark off (Score 1) 554

by Attila Dimedici (#48405087) Attached to: The Downside to Low Gas Prices

... but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes.

$53 billion does not equal $39 billion.

Comment: Re:Oh fark off (Score 1) 554

by Attila Dimedici (#48394105) Attached to: The Downside to Low Gas Prices
I have no idea where you got your numbers from, but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes. which means that the person you responded to was basically correct.

Comment: Re:Window Dressing. (Score 2) 258

by Attila Dimedici (#48393807) Attached to: Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality
Wow, talk about revisionist history. The Republicans had NO input in drafting PPACA. As to the reason they opposed it, it was not because they thought it would be popular, but because it was, and is, unpopular. Furthermore, the insurance companies were not, and are not, against this law. They actually supported its passage and still support the law because it forces everyone to buy health insurance and guarantees that the Federal government will bail them out if they lose money.
And it is not healthcare that millions of Americans have, it is health insurance. As to actual health care, as a result of this law, it is harder to get than it was before because it has led to many health care professionals leaving the business. Oh yeah, most of those millions with health insurance have it because Obama is illegally giving subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges.

Comment: Re:Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23? (Score 1) 60

I like the idea of Net Neutrality. However, I do not believe that the government regulation that will implement "Net Neutrality" will reflect that good idea. And of course that leaves out the question of which form of Net Neutrality? Is it:
  • A) All packets must be treated the same, no matter what protocol they are?
  • Or

  • B) All packets must be treated the same, no matter their source or destination (but different protocols can be treated differently)?
  • I am convinced that government regulators will find a third definition for Net Neutrality if they actually implement a regulation which will contain some provision which will encourage (and possibly require) ISPs to throttle data from those who represent those not politically favored.

Comment: Re:should be banned or regulated (Score 1) 237

by Attila Dimedici (#48384785) Attached to: Will Lyft and Uber's Shared-Ride Service Hurt Public Transit?

Why? Perhaps some of the regulations were enacted exactly because there were problems? Perhaps some regulations have prevented problems?

Perhaps. However, would you care to list what those problems were and which regulations eliminated them. Your answer may be correct, but without knowing what the specific issues were we cannot determine if the regulations did what they were created to do, or if they are still necessary. In addition, some of the "problems" the regulations were created to fix, may no longer be things we would consider problems.

Comment: Re: $10M isn't even a good start anymore (Score 4, Informative) 224

by Attila Dimedici (#48344961) Attached to: Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8
You really should spend some time learning about that which you speak. Citizens United was a group formed to oppose Hillary Clinton's run for President. They made a documentary about her career that they intended to distribute leading up to the primaries (and then the general election) in 2008. When the FEC told them that they were not allowed to do so within a certain number of days of the election because it violated campaign finance laws, they sued.
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...