Never seen Italian television, have we?

"And the important thing for American media companies to remember is that they're not American in thought, taste or outlook."

Ehhh, that's not that important to remember. You all will buy the most ridiculous, lowest-denominator American shows we make already.

Nonsense. This is finally the year of the Linux desktop! I can feel it!

"Is that problem the bad use of English?"

Trust me, if you want to solve the problem of bad English, don't go to an engineer.

Mendeley (critical for me), Theodolite, Chase's banking app (they actually used to have one but removed it), Tinder (yes, there are clones but it would be nice to have the original), Snapchat, and a decent mp3 player. Sure, if you just want file management, windows is great.

Ehh, I don't know about that. I think in terms of the interface, performance, and stability Windows Phone is the best smartphone OS around. I couldn't stick with it because of the lack of apps.

Similarly, Linux was never successful on the desktop for precisely the same reason; not enough commercial software, particularly games.

Because the military budget is particularly notorious for hugely expensive, discrete items, based purely on porkbarrel projects and pseudo-macho posturing by Congressmembers even when the military leadership tells them the spending is unnecessary.

"Where would you like to cut the US military budget? Maybe cut their medical care? That's a popular one."

Popular? Among who? Who exactly has argued that military medical care should be cut?

"Or maybe you'd like them to not have the latest high tech stuff so when we go to war more of our people die"

Maybe we stop letting chicken hawk congressmen decide what's necessary, and let the career military leaders do that?

And your example does nothing to prove your statement. I'm a graduate of public schools and I'm doing just fine.

"You'd also be able to move to cities that didn't have it"

Then why did segregation in the south exist for 100 years after slavery ended? The problem with this libertarian approach to civil rights is that we have just thousands of years of experience showing it doesn't work.

" If this was true then that would mean that two people who independently interpreted the law would come to the same conclusion."

No, that's why I said "it's hard to make that way."

Also, criminal law is overwhelmingly written in a manner where most educated people can understand it. If you don't believe, check out your state's criminal statutes.

That already happens.

Legal language has developed over hundreds of years to be as unambiguous as it can be, and even then it's hard to make that way. Starting over with non-experts and we'd end up with a lot of very vague laws with a lot more loopholes.

Annotated statutes have that (not the individual who introduced it, but that information is easy to find out).

"Case in point, recently a student was suspended for nibbling a toaster pastry into the shape of a gun."

One case does not prove anything. That's like saying nobody could plausibly leave their house because someone got struck by lightning once doing that.

No, the Supreme Court did not decide what was said is immaterial. They made a perfectly logical analysis:

1. The statute says the States can set up an exchange.

2. If a State doesn't, the federal government can set up "such Exchange" for them. Note that it doesn't say set up "an Exchange," but "SUCH Exchange." The statute is pretty clearly stating by using "such" that any Exchange set up constitutes a State Exchange under the statute. What else would "such" mean in that context?