Ever since the 1970's, there were myths that the USA was losing it's position and that other countries were overtaking it.

For a while people thought Japan would take over, then later on China became the boogeyman. Someone even made this wierd commercial pretending to be the future where China was America's master.

Some decided that speaking Chinese would give you the same kind of benefits in the future that non-Americans currently get for speaking English. That is, being able to talk with the large, wealthy, powerful nation that has a disproportionate political power.

That myth has lost it's luster. With China's economic downturn, people no longer think that the US is doomed to become China's servant.

With India landing on the Moon, they have in many ways taken over China's old position as the up and coming nation. If India did not already have a large English speaking population, I suspect that college kids would now be told to learn Hindu.

Mainly because their opponents will talk about them violating the law and use it against them.

Also, they should outlaw the trading of stock options as well. But allow the purchase of mutual funds that are available to the general public. If they have no control at all and everyone else gains the same benefit, that is fair.

The reasons the judge doesn't mention it is that IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

It's the main reason juries do not convict police officers. They ignore the law because they think the "criminal' deserved it. Same thing happened inthe 50s and 60s when juries let white men go for murdering black people.

And it happens today (From this study: Black, Robert C. (1997â"1998), FIJA: Monkeywrenching the Justice System, 66 UMKC L. Rev., p. 11):

Juries acquit about 19% of the time when judges would convict. The study claimed about 1 in 5 of those acquitals were outright jury nullification. This does not counting the times they downgrade the charges.

Other studies have claimed that jury nullification happens in about 3-4% of the all criminal cases.

IT is NOT an automatic mistrial if a defendant brings it up, particularly if they are careful. In fact, the ninth court has determined that there is such a thing a valid jury nullification.

You are cynical and have falsely believed that juries are morons. They are not. They may not know the law, but they do now what justice is.

Any lawyer worth their salt would demand a jury trial and win.

While a judge might be willing to ignore the facts and go with a literal interpretation of the law, no jury would.

One of the main advantages of the US legal system is the right to a jury of your peers. It stops the government from doing stupid crap.

One of the main disadvantages is when the government decides you do not get a jury trial - for example immigration cases and civil asset forfeiture.

Same story all the time. When some want to ban and others disagree, TAX it.

Devote the tax to remediation while the mere presence of the tax discourages non-essential use of the item.

The summary did not say, but the article did clearly state that the financial institutions were UNDERESTIMATING the risk, not over-estimating the risk.

They were not accounting for secondary risks, including but not limited to migration, war, and increased chance of stronger natural disasters.

This is extremely important in a world where people deny science etc, some one could read this summary and think the banks were over-spending to account for non-existent risk, rather than underspending.

There are several reasons not to do this, among others that a slight dip in power will drop the ballast.

But they do have multiple safety mechanisms that can be operated without electricity to do this kind of thing. If they have hull integrity and air, they should be able to get to the surface.

The human tries to make money by telling the truth.

The bot tries to get investors by saying whatever they want to hear.

Not surprising that the bot gets funded more. What would be surprising is if the bot makes more money.

Cut off half the paragraph.
Basically anyone that thinks more than 5% of the homeless deserve it (for any reason) is an uncaring jerk.
Then the real answer is to give them free housing and base utilities, for less than we currently spend on them (tiny houses and studios condos not granite countertop homes).

Also, those couch surfing people? They usually end up on the streets. It's hard to cobble together friends based housing for more than 6 months. Easy for the first couple of months, but eventually it ends.

The most common reasons for homelessness in America are:
Illness,Sexual Abuse, Low intelligence/skills (no you do not get to insult people because they happen to be stupid. Everyone deserves a home, even those in the bottom percentile), and ,Low social skills.

Note, drugs are NOT on that list. Drugs happen after homeless, not before. But the inability to live in the modern world - whether because stupidity or being an asshole does not mean you deserve to be homeless.

Nowhere on the list is the desire to be homeless. That is less than 1%

Your post explicitedly demonstrates you are the uncarring jerk.

The idea that somehow, people (or some - implying many despite the real answer being FOR LESS THAN WE CURRENTLY SPEND on the homeless. The difference is we spend it on housing and utilities rather than cops, emergency room visits, jail and lawsuits. (Always makes me laugh when some shmuck is willing to arrest a homeless person putting them in four walls, bed, food, shower and guards, but won't give them a home without the guards)

Yes, those damn homeless need to be ordered about to do things we want them to.

We know better.

They don't need access to entertainment, emails and social media - despite the fact that emails and social media are the main ways to get jobs. And children are homeless so screw them over, make them miserable with no entertainment.

When some shmuck thinks they know better and wants to tell others what they can do, the proper response is to make them live by the rules they want to enforce on others, with those others in charge.

Funny, drugs are bad because they are addictive. So for some reason people that use drugs cannot simply decide to stop just because some hateful person says they cant get housing unless they quit cold turkey. But if you give them housing and let them continue to use drugs, then it becomes possible for them to quit.

The people that ended the wifi the ones committing the category error. They assumed that moving the homeless by making their life harder solved the problem. NOPE. The problem was not homeless people near the library, but crime caused by homelessness. Very unlikely that turning off the wifi reduced total crimes. It is quite possible that it INCREASED crime, just in other areas where they drove the homeless too. Oh, crime went up, but not in my neighborhood, so I don't care, NIMBY fools.

First of all, Donald Trump would have immediately posted photos on twitter if we had anything like that. Whether you like or dislike the man, he is not known for maintaining secrets. No, the US government would not hold the secret back from him, we have no mechanism to keep secrets from the President. While you could try, other people that did not know your secret would realize you were keeping something from the President and get you fired/arrested/de-funded/shot.

Second of all, it makes no sense to keep that a secret. The trope of 'avoiding panic' is freaking stupid, US news and politics is all about CAUSING panic. That is how you get votes and views. This is not China or Russia, where they care more about panic than freedom. In the US, we want the freedom to break into the husband of the Speaker of the House and then have other people lie about him letting you in.

Third of all, there have been enough leaks by enough people - pentagon papers, Snowden, wikileaks, Reality Winner (yes, that is the actual name), and of course the Teixeira leaks, that we know anything that big would have been leaked already. When someone has torn down all your walls and looked at everything, it becomes obvious we have no big secrets left.