But here around (Austria in Europe), we have providers that actually offer such services: An hotspot device hooked on LTE and a quite generous data plan. The device itself is not supposed to be mobile (needs a wall socket for power), but all the other components are there: see this or that.

If they are so cheap, why do they need subsidies not only for the capital to built (which would cover the initial costs), but also for the energy they produce (which would cover operating cost)? Appearently, nuclear power is only cheap in theory, but not in practice. And we are talking here about a chinese-french partnership, both nations which don't have many issues with nuclear power in general, and they are building in the UK, a country with not much of an opposition to nuclear power.

It has nothing to do with the U.S. in this case. Take this new nuclear power plant slated to be built in the UK:

The subsidaries necessary to get this project off ground include a 17 billion pound warranty by the government and a guaranteed price for the energy about 50% above the current market prices.

I use the 100 EUR bill all the time. My average weekend shopping tops 100 EUR easily (we are a family of four), and then paying with the 100 EUR bill and additional cash just makes sense. And yes, I prefer paying cash. Maybe you are the exception?

It is also very interesting that coal and nuke plants only spring up where there are subsidies. Deal with it: negotiations about the site of large industry projects are always influenced by local or global subsidies.

As a matter of fact: many birds of prey are pretty bad at avoiding obstacles. Not only wind farms are a danger to them, also solitary trees, towers or even large rocks. Because of the wind noise of the rotary wings, wind turbines actually are less dangerous to birds than for instance telegraph poles.

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.