It's depth charges.

There are ASW torps and things too, of course. But I don't think you can drop them off the back of a ferry.

Most kids who join up at eighteen do so because they think it's their best option, which generally means they're not that educated with good college as a prospect. There are some brilliant marines, but the marines are a service people join young, and with joining up optional, most people who join up aren't the best typists in class. Doesn't seem like a thing to be mocked for.

I have heard that in the early days of the space program, they flushed human waste out of the ships. Subsequently, one day when they were working in the space shuttle, they found grime (from the waste) basically lining the cargo hold. Of course, that wasn't in a pressurized cabin at temperatures conducive to bacterial growth...

Global jurisdiction would imply that jurisdiction C can claim jurisdiction, and you don't operate there at all. The US Constitution doesn't allow that, and even the international criminal court (probably as close to global jurisdiction as it gets) is technically complementary jurisdiction IIRC, since countries still have jurisdiction to try their own war criminals--the ICC only does it if they don't. And it generally only applies to countries which are party to the Rome Statute, so they've consented.

If it really were global jurisdiction, people like Kaderov would not be protected just because they do whatever Putin wants.

Actually, service members are *more* likely, not less, to do so. (Based on anecdotal evidence).

If someone is willing to kill over an offensive movie, ask them to stop.

If they don't, that's what marines are for.

I'm opposed to oppression of offensive speech because it is so bad that intelligent people learn better why they shouldn't use it when they see it.

It seems odd to question the legitimacy of a person's faith on the basis of whether they translate a phrase a certain way. Kind of like you can't be Jewish if you turned on a light on Shabbat, or you can't be Catholic if you failed to read the Pope's latest proclamation.

If all prospects are equal, sure. But (1) nobody can hire the disbarred attorney as an attorney, even if they want to, and (2) it is a crime for him to work as an attorney. Felons who work in other fields can be hired, it's just hard for them to find a job, and they are rarely legally prohibited from working in a profession they've dedicated their lives to.

Actually, lawyer face more punishment. Not only can they go to jail and get disbarred, but after they get out of jail, it will be much harder for them to get a job again--actually, it will be illegal for them to work as lawyers unless the bar re-admits them.

Much less common in Ontario than they used to be, but still available.

The US has lots of health-care systems, including some that are funded by The federal government. In fact, we are going broke in part because of those programs. We also have quite a few great docs and medical centers. If you are sick and your insurance is good enough (or you are wealthy enough, or the doc is also nice), and you know how to find the right doc, it is some of the best care in the world.

We also have bad medical care, on a par with or below what most Canadians get, for example, in a lot of our Podunk hospitals. (Their fedgov has just dropped the ball on a huge portion of the bill for health, so the delay times are going to get even longer).

What we lack is complete coverage of the population, coverage that makes it possible to be a rational economic actor, or good preventative care. We also have a really phenomenally stupid way of coupling health care to employment.

Juries can pretty much do what they want, and then they only get overturned if it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to come out the way they did. I don't even thinks that it will matter if they were all high and determined their votes by flipping coins; so long as it is *possible* that a reasonable jury would come out with the verdict they picked. The exceptions lie for things like reading about the trial in the media rather than only learning about it from the witnesses and other evidence.

NASA employs great people and okay people, just like other places. They're not magical.

Witness testimony is bad, but courts pretend it isn't. Overturn on appeal isn't guaranteed, the question on appeal would be whether any reasonable jury could conclude the driver was drunk--fifteen witnesses say yes, one test says no, an appeals panel could say a reasonable jury was entitled to weigh the testimony of fifteen witnesses above the test.

The question in criminal law is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" in light of all the evidence. That includes drug tests AND testimony. If you have a drug test that showed a BAC of 0.0 and fifteen priests lined up to say they smelled alcohol on a driver's breath after he killed dear old Mrs. Compton, a guilty verdict is not an impossibility.