"Or you do it right, and let states decide what, when and how they should do it. Instead of faceless bureaucrats in washington."

Where does this delusion that the states are better at handling things than the federal government come from? The bureaucrats in my state capital are just as faceless as those in Washington, and are far more susceptible to corruption than federal employees because they're under far less scrutiny.

Any movie that focuses on non-combatants dealing with the results of war has the potential to be an exception to Truffaut's statement, but I think it's still true of just about any depiction of combat on the screen

The irony is that it doesn't take an idealized portrayal to increase recruitment. Full Metal Jacket may or may not be considered an "anti-war" film, but it's certainly not idealized. Yet, I've seen Marines cite it as an influence on their decision to join the Corps.

As François Truffaut said, "there is no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen."

I used to play a lot of games on my Xbox 360, but when we got Netflix a few years ago it moved from my study to the living room and now my wife monopolizes it to watch Netflix, and I'm playing my games on the PC. A console can only be used for one thing at a time, and when you keep adding more things it can do, it ends up spending less time being used to play games.

The UN as a whole does not work the same way that the UN Security Council does. Veto power only works on decisions of the Security Council. Decisions of the ITU would not be subject to veto should they gain power over the internet.

They failed to found the Film Industry Association of America, which could have then lobbied Congress to either outlaw digital photography, or attach a special tax on all digital cameras that would be used to subsidize companies that provide traditional film cameras and supplies.

I wish I had some mod points, because this should be +5 Insightful! Locking the cabin doors would have prevented 9/11 and will prevent further 9/11s from happening should someone try again. The most anyone could do now given pre-9/11 security measures combined with a locked cabin door is to try to blow up the plane. That's a bad outcome, but an unlikely one, and one that's really no less likely with post-9/11 security measures.

I guess installing and using locks on the cabin doors was TOO simple a solution. It didn't spend enough money or generate enough visibility to let the politicians say that they were doing something.

That's not entirely true, Interpol is not supposed to get involved with any cases that are of a "political, military, religious or racial character." This was obviously of a religious character, and is why the agency is being taken to task.

One problem with the way things work now is that some companies use deceptive means to get "likes." For example, Duracell sponsors ads saying "Love Star Wars? Click 'like' here!," with "sponsored by Duracell" in small type at the bottom. I'm sure if someone clicks that they'll soon show up on their friends page in ads that imply that they are endorsing Duracell.

I'm not sure where the original quote is from, but I've seen variations of it before in reference to the US Army in Europe. My information is from a variety of sources that I've read over the years, both books and articles. On the superiority of the Soviet T-34, I can point to Robert J. Kershaw's War Without Garlands, which includes a quote from a German officer that "our tanks were able to defeat tanks that were quite superior in firepower and armour" due to each tank having a radio and a crewman to operate it, allowing for more coordinated tactics. The main deficiency of the T-34 being a small crew and lack of a radio in most tanks.

A similar quote that DOES refer to the Soviets is "quantity has a quality all its own."

Actually, the quote was about America. While the Soviets had lopsided tank kill ratios against the Germans, it was due to the quality of their organization and tactics, not their tanks. Their tanks were in many ways superior to the German tanks. In fact, the Panther and Tiger tanks of Germany were developed in response to Soviet T-34s and KVs (the Panther being in many ways a copy of the T-34).

American tanks were designed to be superior to the German tanks that began the war, but by the time they actually saw combat Germany was fielding tanks that were far superior in terms of armor and armament. This was a surprise to the tankers, but not to the production planners, who were well aware that the Germans were fielding heavier tanks, but they made a conscious decision to go with quantity over quality, as switching to heavier tank production would have led to manufacturing delays as factories were re-tooled. That in turn could have delayed the invasion of Europe, something that the US wanted to achieve at the earliest possible date.

"Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote 'because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions.'"

A discussion, by definition, requires the participation of more than one person. So, Justice Corbin is incorrect. The juror made a public statement, but did not engage in a public discussion. It may be mostly a matter of semantics, but in this case it's also the difference between something that could have changed the outcome of the verdict and something which obviously did not.

The juror behaved inappropriately, but not in such a way that could have influenced the outcome of a verdict, so the verdict should have been upheld.

That's like saying that the thief wouldn't rob you if you simply gave them all your stuff to begin with!

Exactly, because we all know that it took martial law to break the backs of the mafia in post-prohibition America!

It's true that the cartels wouldn't disappear overnight, but they would eventually follow the same path as the mafia. The smart ones would diversify into legitimate businesses and eventually leave most of their more disreputable past behind. The dumb ones would either fail to diversify, or else attempt to apply their violent methods to legitimate business. Either way, they would present a problem that could be more easily handled by law enforcement given that there would be fewer of them, and they would be, by definition, dumber.

This is essentially what happened in post-prohibition America, which is the best model we have for what would happen should drugs be legalized.

Why should they then get the benefits of tax revenue generated from California citizens? North Dakota is one of the biggest beneficiary states when it comes to the ratio of Federal spending to taxes, while California is one of the biggest losers. The reason? It's the UNITED States of America. We're in it together.