So are in Torino (Turin for the non-italian people). You were saying?

You are forgetting that you are trying to defend an asshole by demonizing the victim.

Greater London (which includes 31 boroughs) actually has 8.3 million people. The largest borough is Croydon, with about 370,000 inhabitants. The City of London is rather small with less than 8,000 inhabitants.

In the grey ages of the late 1980ies and early 1990ies, there was LPC, which had ducktyping to the extreme. If you called a method in an object which didn't implement that method, you just got 0 as result.

But the people that regard jury nullification as necessary are ignoring the fact that it facilitates despotism of a majority against a minority, because it voids juridical safeguards. Jury nullification enables mob rule, it considers current moods more important than justice.

Yes, there have been cases where an obviously unjust accusation or a trial that tried to establish or protect powerful interests was derailed by jury nullification (John Lilburne comes to mind). His defenses and his treatises about justice and law are important documents, and they are still quoted. But jury nullification didn't help him avoid unjust imprisonation, and with his rhetorical talent and the immense support he had in the population, any conviction would probably have been overturned or nullified anyway for political reasons.

There are people who would argue that jury nullification itself is a problem, as it disturbs a fair justice. If a law is upheld in one case but not in another case because of jury nullification, then the two defendants in each case are not treated equal before the law. If a law is considered unjust, it should not be used and nullified in general, not just in single cases, where the defendant won over the sympathies of the juriy.

There is no problem with a defense during a trial. Making the trial impossible is a problem. US citizens going free after they commited crimes against non-US-citizens is a problem, and the reluctance of the US to either try them on US soil or have them tried somewhere else is a big problem.

On the other hand, International Law is just some agreement between nations and large interest groups, which sometimes gives one side moral superiority. International Law was invented as a kind of playground rules for the European powers to replace the Pax Romana after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was used sometimes, it was ignored sometimes, it was able to stir up some strong emotions, but in general, it's more like general guidelines. There is no legal or executive power that is both able to and tasked with actually enforcing International Law, while at the same time being impartial in the conflicts like an international court system or an international police force.

Hm. I have a four cylinder that goes 120 mph. Barely yes, but it does. It's listed with a top speed of 191 kph, which is about 119 mph. And it's a plain station wagon, nothing fancy.

This is a little bit ahistorical, as road signs and other traffic regulation is older than horseless cars. In the second half of the 19th century, London had the first road signs put up because of the increasing number of accidents involving bicyclists. When Carl Benz had his first horseless carriage ready, he immediately got handed down the first speed limits by the City of Mannheim: 4 mph within city limits, 8 mph outside. He later got the limits lifted by inviting some people from the city council for a ride on his carriage, and when even a milk carriage began to overtake his horseless one, they asked him to go faster, and when he objected because of the speed limits, they lifted it while still on the carriage.

Greenland was never green, and even through the warmest period since the early Middle Age, it wasn't warmer than today.

In the Graenlandinga Saga, Bjarni Herjulfsson travels to Greenland, and the description in the Saga fits today: Mighty glaciers, mightier than those of Iceland, cover much of the land, and only a few green stripes were to be seen at the Western coast. The name Greenland is called bogus and chosen as an euphemism in the saga.

Columbus' travel never was about the world being flat or not. That's a made up story from the late 18th century. There is no evidence in Middle Age scholar's writing that the Earth was considered being flat at all. The only sources are two obscure byzanthine scholars from the 4th and 6th century, but they are never quoted in later writings.

Columbus' travel was about the circumfence of the Earth. While most scholars in the 15th century estimated the circumfence to be about 26,000 miles, quite close to reality, Columbus was convinced it was only 15,000, making a travel westward to India to seem actually feasible and shorter than the Portuguese way around the Cape of Good Hope.

The evidence is so good, that sofar, we don't have any evidence about them ever being in the Americas in the first place.

A 4.5 is similar in intensity to an heavy truck driving along your home.

So cups in the US are 250 ml? I have a selection of cups here which have between 150 ml and 500 ml. Which of them is the "baking cup"? Cup is a quite confusing measuring unit.