So no - I think a decision should be made, needs to be made, has to be made. In this particular case, I think 17 is old enough to make a decision.

I have to comment, it sounds to me like this is mischaracterizing the point of the law. If you follow through on your argument, for instance, that she's not mature enough to raise a child - then should children be forced to have abortions if they aren't deemed mature enough? Should their babies be removed from them…

No way is my car more comfortable. I'm 6'4", so I can't fit in the back seat. Reclining the front seats means my head rolls off the headrest and my back is uncomfortable. A tent, sleeping pad, bag, and putting a backpack under my knees is infinitely more comfy.

That physics PhD thing isn't gender-specific. I get the exact same reaction, including the douchy comment, from both women and men. (Can women be douchy or is that a gendered attribute? I'll leave it for you to decide...) It actually doesn't help when I say "at Stanford". You might think that'd make it better, but…

Yeah... I think there's no real way to do this study, that's the problem. Perception changes over time. Old mattes for photos, for instance, have the photos much higher above center than currently. So design is a form of art, but that makes it inherently subjective. So there really isn't a "correct" place to put…

Thanks... but that says nothing about optical centering, and really just says, "Do text alignment by eye." It's subjective, and probably varies from person to person - I'm hoping for something more objective, a set of principles that can be coded into an algorithm for placing things. They mention autokerning, but…

Can you point us to a typographical reference? I'd like to know how optical positioning is derived.

Yes, some people are painting Trayvon as a sort of ultimate victim that wouldn't hurt a fly, much less put up a fight.

Hey, take a breath! You said Zimmerman committed a crime by following him with a visible weapon. I thought it was concealed. You said Martin saw it. I thought he didn't. Then you kinda freaked out on me. I just didn't remember your version being accurate. But I could be wrong, so I wondered if you had a link. …

Okay... so you're saying Zimmerman may have been had the gun concealed, but Martin saw it anyways? When did Martin see the gun? I thought that was during the fight, not before. Can you link somewhere that says if Martin saw the gun before they struggled?

I think you're trying to bait me. I'm moving on.

Well, what matters in murder charges is intent and state of mind, and not so much how close you actually are to death when you kill somebody. So it doesn't matter if they were injured, but whether they thought they would be. Personally, I think this is a serious problem with carrying a gun all the time - it's always…

But Zimmerman didn't claim Stand Your Ground. And his gun was concealed, as far as I understand.

Um... that's backwards... Martin might have been justified killing Zimmerman by Stand your Ground if Zimmerman had approached Martin while Martin had a gun drawn.

Okay. We're officially at an impasse. I disagree that the author makes any tries to equate the two actions, accidentally equates the two actions, or otherwise implies the actions are equal. You disagree and say he does.

Ah yeah, I know, I'm my own worst enemy for trying to be at all reasoned about it in a place that's probably going to be hostile to anybody not at 11/10 on the outrage scale.

I think it's easy to confuse "minor" and "not severe" injuries with the fight. I doubt he or Trayvon received actual life-threatening injuries, aside from the gunshot. It takes a long time to kill somebody, it's very hard work, and it's a lot harder than people think. And I don't think he or Trayvon were probably…

So I'm with you right up to "No matter who threw the first punch, Zimmerman's initial actions place the blame squarely on his shoulders". Well - I'm not sure he or Martin "ran" or "pursued" or "chased", those are loaded words.

Again, I think you're misrepresenting the author, you're reading into what he wrote far too much. I think the author was just observing that this didn't have to happen, if either Martin or Zimmerman hadn't made the assumptions they did. "Equivalency" is about blame, and the author just isn't blaming anybody. If you…

Well, there weren't any rocks there from what I understand, just the sidewalk. I've slipped, fallen flat out on my back on concrete, concussed myself, blacked out, and not even had a scratch or a bump. I still don't agree.