Probes should be both. While we get a great deal of useful information from buoys and balloons, we get a great deal more from full-fledged weather research stations. There are reasons to send out small, inexpensive probes, and reasons to send larger, robotic observatories like Cassini.
I'm not sure if "design requirements" means visual appearance (like section B above), or document requirements (as titled in the 202(b)). This could mean that the Secretary (Secretary of Homeland Security) has the power to prescribe how a driver's license will visually appear, or it could mean that the Secretary can (in his/her sole discretion, as dictated by "the national security interests of the United States") determine whatever documentation requirements they want to have.
Subsection (b) defines the information that must appear on the license itself, not the documentation required to get the license. The Secretary will have the authority to require additional information. The intent of this section is to allow, for example, some visual indicator of whether the person is in the US on a visa, or if the person is a legal permanent resident/citizen -- perhaps a green dot for a resident, and a blue one for someone on visa. There may also be a color indicator for whether the ID/driver's license is issued on a temporary basis (as all such cards issued to those on visa would be) or is issued on a multi-year basis (as most cards issued to permanent residents/citizens would be) -- as a white background for mult-year, and a grey background for temporary. Note that there is some overlap to both of these -- a license issued to a young driver could be both for a permanent resident and temporary.
And it does matter that the information on the card is there, because it means someone isn't going to have to run your card -- pinning you to a particular location -- on a more casual check. Someone entering an area requiring ID may just be able to show the ID, and get past, whereas there may be a need to actually run the card on entrance to a secure facility, or when that person is suspected to be involved in an illegal activity.
Didn't McAfee get burned not too long ago on the benchmarking clause of their EULA, where they said that benchmarks could only be published with the express written consent of the company? I seem to recall that the courts found this an illegal abridgement of First Amendment freedoms, and pronounced the clause unenforceable.
The Peacekeeper MX (which is almost completely withdrawn from service, if any are left out there at all) had a CEP of 90m, as does the Trident D-5. The warheads coming off of the MX missiles are being moved to Minuteman III missiles, improving their CEP to 90m as well.
The D-5 guidance system is also due for an update in the next few years, IIRC, to shave a bit more off of that number. Even at 90m, though, that's an impressive accuracy for firing at something you can't see from 12,000km away.:)
I do like sunset provisions. I'd like to see mandatory sunset provisions, at least in first-run laws. Let the law run for five years, and then get a report of how often it was enforced. If it wasn't enforced, or if it's decided that it was a bad idea, then let it lapse. If an extension is desired, then allow another five year block, after which it could be made permanent. This almost ensures that alternate viewpoints will come into place as at least the leadership of Congress will have changed.
The F-117 does not carry defensive armament of any kind, even guns, as they would negate the stealth advantage. It relies on not being seen (and perhaps a bit of maneuvering to not get hit if it is seen) to stay in the air. It's actually pretty maneuverable as a result of its inherently high instability (as are all modern fighters, which cannot be flown without computer assistance).
The F-117 is deployed when the B-2 is not for several reasons, mostly logistical. It's expensive to move a B-2 out to a forward location because it's fairly delicate, and because it requires longer runways. It's also a lot easier to hit with visually-aided weapons if you actually do see it. The F-117 can use smaller runways, existing hangars, and smaller maintenance crews. Furthermore, it has the political advantage of not costing more than a billion dollars to replace.:)
Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts
Yeah, they're missing little points such as the fact that most of the provisions on what would be included in the licenses were passed into law last year in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Both RealID and IRATPA require specific, identical minimum data be included on the card. Both require cards to be machine-readable. Both require anti-forgery and anti-tampering technology in the cards. Both require that supporting documents be authenticated.
What RealID adds is the linking of the state databases; tying of the expiration dates of such cards to the expiration dates of a foreigner's visa; tightening of the definition of what is acceptable documentation, and that such documents must be verified for accuracy and legitimacy; the storage of submitted documents for specified periods of time; and the requirement to verify that the applicant is in the country lawfully. How are these changes bad?
A version without the rider was voted on. The entire bill as passed by the House was struck out and replaced with basically the entire bill minus RealID. RealID was then added back on in committee as compromise, as amendments sometimes have been for the last couple hundred years to avoid having to vote and get a deadlock everytime one side of Congress or the other wanted a wording change.
There's a fine line between "a bit of drama and chest thumping" and making a point on principle. I've held the line in things that I knew would happen anyway just to make a particular point.
Just for quick reference, here is the law itself. The fifth one is the code that was passed, while the sixth has a little more easily-read version of the same text.
So you would have the budget bills blocked by this? Excluding the signature section, your idea would limit bills to ~4635 words, or ~7445 words if you count the amendments.
The text of RealID really wasn't all that long (under 9000 words). The bill to which it was attached... well, that's different. But spending bills, by necessity, get fairly long, even without adding in prodigiously porcine pieces.
States frequently have these kind of provisions in their constitutions, barring provisions that have nothing to do with one another. In California, we recently had an initiative on the ballot that was split into two parts (A and B) because it had already been numbered when it was decided that it could not go forth as one item.
Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)
Because you don't want to put that technology at risk. It's safer here.
Not entirely sure if this was in jest, but this excuse has been used before in a way that cost American (and Allied) lives. The Browning Automatic Rifle was not sent to WWI battlefields because it was feared that if the Germans got it, they could come up with something as good or better to use on American troops. Meanwhile, one of America's biggest advantages (the ability to move quickly with an automatic weapon that didn't require lengthy setup times) was completely nullified, turning US troops into Yet More Targets.
Eventually, BARs did go over, though in small numbers IIRC, and those units that got them did extremely well with the additional firepower.
If you're able to steal a plane from Canada, you'll have Canadian and American fighters looking for you with orders to make sure that you don't crash into anything intentionally.
Canadians don't like terrorists using their soil to launch attacks any more than we do.
It doesn't cross states' rights, because there is no requirement that any state change its ID cards to conform to this standard. You're still free to get a passport and use that for all of the listed uses, including travel, opening accounts, and so forth. States will probably want to change their licenses so that their residents won't have to go through the need for a passport.
Personally, I back this. There's been a serious push on the part of some to allow driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in California, on the theory that this will allow more of them to get insurance, and that more will get the training and take the tests to get the license. This is ignoring that there are already hundreds of thousands, if not a couple of million of them, in the state driving without legal licenses to begin with.
The bill requires that all documentation submitted to check for accuracy be checked against US records. Social Security numbers must be checked against a federal database, for example. Licenses expire when visas expire, for the case of foreigners on visits here. These kind of checks will help to put pressure on those who are in the country illegally (whether they came here on visa or not). The bill also, IIRC, authorizes the construction of the final three miles of border fence in California to get to the ocean, something that has been blocked by the California Coastal Commission.
Slowly but surely, the nation's leaders are coming around to realize that a lot of the ideas presented by the 9/11 Commission were accurate and need to be put in place. Maybe later this year, the authorization for the training of the additional 2000-3000 Border Patrol agents for the Mexico border will get through even the president's head, so that the border can be adequately secured.
I've been watching Kojak for some mindless enjoyment, but I cringed physically when someone started talking about IP addresses. They were tracking a suspect's IP address (244.x.x.x) from the old home, to a series of internet cafes -- the suspect was taking the address with him wherever he went.
I ended up giving them a point for not assigning an octet above 255.:-\
The max velocity achieved by SS1 was about 1km/sec. The velocity required to reach low earth orbit (LEO) is about 8km/sec. The total energy required to reach LEO is more than 30 times what SS1 achieved.
SS1 was not even remotely close to making it to LEO.
Slashdot Mirror
Probes should be both. While we get a great deal of useful information from buoys and balloons, we get a great deal more from full-fledged weather research stations. There are reasons to send out small, inexpensive probes, and reasons to send larger, robotic observatories like Cassini.
I'm not sure if "design requirements" means visual appearance (like section B above), or document requirements (as titled in the 202(b)). This could mean that the Secretary (Secretary of Homeland Security) has the power to prescribe how a driver's license will visually appear, or it could mean that the Secretary can (in his/her sole discretion, as dictated by "the national security interests of the United States") determine whatever documentation requirements they want to have.
Subsection (b) defines the information that must appear on the license itself, not the documentation required to get the license. The Secretary will have the authority to require additional information. The intent of this section is to allow, for example, some visual indicator of whether the person is in the US on a visa, or if the person is a legal permanent resident/citizen -- perhaps a green dot for a resident, and a blue one for someone on visa. There may also be a color indicator for whether the ID/driver's license is issued on a temporary basis (as all such cards issued to those on visa would be) or is issued on a multi-year basis (as most cards issued to permanent residents/citizens would be) -- as a white background for mult-year, and a grey background for temporary. Note that there is some overlap to both of these -- a license issued to a young driver could be both for a permanent resident and temporary.
And it does matter that the information on the card is there, because it means someone isn't going to have to run your card -- pinning you to a particular location -- on a more casual check. Someone entering an area requiring ID may just be able to show the ID, and get past, whereas there may be a need to actually run the card on entrance to a secure facility, or when that person is suspected to be involved in an illegal activity.
Didn't McAfee get burned not too long ago on the benchmarking clause of their EULA, where they said that benchmarks could only be published with the express written consent of the company? I seem to recall that the courts found this an illegal abridgement of First Amendment freedoms, and pronounced the clause unenforceable.
The Peacekeeper MX (which is almost completely withdrawn from service, if any are left out there at all) had a CEP of 90m, as does the Trident D-5. The warheads coming off of the MX missiles are being moved to Minuteman III missiles, improving their CEP to 90m as well.
:)
The D-5 guidance system is also due for an update in the next few years, IIRC, to shave a bit more off of that number. Even at 90m, though, that's an impressive accuracy for firing at something you can't see from 12,000km away.
I do like sunset provisions. I'd like to see mandatory sunset provisions, at least in first-run laws. Let the law run for five years, and then get a report of how often it was enforced. If it wasn't enforced, or if it's decided that it was a bad idea, then let it lapse. If an extension is desired, then allow another five year block, after which it could be made permanent. This almost ensures that alternate viewpoints will come into place as at least the leadership of Congress will have changed.
The F-117 does not carry defensive armament of any kind, even guns, as they would negate the stealth advantage. It relies on not being seen (and perhaps a bit of maneuvering to not get hit if it is seen) to stay in the air. It's actually pretty maneuverable as a result of its inherently high instability (as are all modern fighters, which cannot be flown without computer assistance).
:)
The F-117 is deployed when the B-2 is not for several reasons, mostly logistical. It's expensive to move a B-2 out to a forward location because it's fairly delicate, and because it requires longer runways. It's also a lot easier to hit with visually-aided weapons if you actually do see it. The F-117 can use smaller runways, existing hangars, and smaller maintenance crews. Furthermore, it has the political advantage of not costing more than a billion dollars to replace.
Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts
Yeah, they're missing little points such as the fact that most of the provisions on what would be included in the licenses were passed into law last year in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Both RealID and IRATPA require specific, identical minimum data be included on the card. Both require cards to be machine-readable. Both require anti-forgery and anti-tampering technology in the cards. Both require that supporting documents be authenticated.
What RealID adds is the linking of the state databases; tying of the expiration dates of such cards to the expiration dates of a foreigner's visa; tightening of the definition of what is acceptable documentation, and that such documents must be verified for accuracy and legitimacy; the storage of submitted documents for specified periods of time; and the requirement to verify that the applicant is in the country lawfully. How are these changes bad?
If there was a fine and/or community service for it, then it wouldn't be legal now, would it? :)
A version without the rider was voted on. The entire bill as passed by the House was struck out and replaced with basically the entire bill minus RealID. RealID was then added back on in committee as compromise, as amendments sometimes have been for the last couple hundred years to avoid having to vote and get a deadlock everytime one side of Congress or the other wanted a wording change.
There's a fine line between "a bit of drama and chest thumping" and making a point on principle. I've held the line in things that I knew would happen anyway just to make a particular point.
Just for quick reference, here is the law itself. The fifth one is the code that was passed, while the sixth has a little more easily-read version of the same text.
So you would have the budget bills blocked by this? Excluding the signature section, your idea would limit bills to ~4635 words, or ~7445 words if you count the amendments.
The text of RealID really wasn't all that long (under 9000 words). The bill to which it was attached... well, that's different. But spending bills, by necessity, get fairly long, even without adding in prodigiously porcine pieces.
States frequently have these kind of provisions in their constitutions, barring provisions that have nothing to do with one another. In California, we recently had an initiative on the ballot that was split into two parts (A and B) because it had already been numbered when it was decided that it could not go forth as one item.
Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)
What filibuster? I don't recall any filibuster on this bill.
Because you don't want to put that technology at risk. It's safer here.
Not entirely sure if this was in jest, but this excuse has been used before in a way that cost American (and Allied) lives. The Browning Automatic Rifle was not sent to WWI battlefields because it was feared that if the Germans got it, they could come up with something as good or better to use on American troops. Meanwhile, one of America's biggest advantages (the ability to move quickly with an automatic weapon that didn't require lengthy setup times) was completely nullified, turning US troops into Yet More Targets.
Eventually, BARs did go over, though in small numbers IIRC, and those units that got them did extremely well with the additional firepower.
If you're able to steal a plane from Canada, you'll have Canadian and American fighters looking for you with orders to make sure that you don't crash into anything intentionally.
Canadians don't like terrorists using their soil to launch attacks any more than we do.
It's not even completely unfunded. There are provisions to allow DHS to provide grants to states to fund the implementation of the program.
It doesn't cross states' rights, because there is no requirement that any state change its ID cards to conform to this standard. You're still free to get a passport and use that for all of the listed uses, including travel, opening accounts, and so forth. States will probably want to change their licenses so that their residents won't have to go through the need for a passport.
Personally, I back this. There's been a serious push on the part of some to allow driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in California, on the theory that this will allow more of them to get insurance, and that more will get the training and take the tests to get the license. This is ignoring that there are already hundreds of thousands, if not a couple of million of them, in the state driving without legal licenses to begin with.
The bill requires that all documentation submitted to check for accuracy be checked against US records. Social Security numbers must be checked against a federal database, for example. Licenses expire when visas expire, for the case of foreigners on visits here. These kind of checks will help to put pressure on those who are in the country illegally (whether they came here on visa or not). The bill also, IIRC, authorizes the construction of the final three miles of border fence in California to get to the ocean, something that has been blocked by the California Coastal Commission.
Slowly but surely, the nation's leaders are coming around to realize that a lot of the ideas presented by the 9/11 Commission were accurate and need to be put in place. Maybe later this year, the authorization for the training of the additional 2000-3000 Border Patrol agents for the Mexico border will get through even the president's head, so that the border can be adequately secured.
This wasn't an official service. This was just some network guys not wanting to see a good customer tank because of some dickless wonder.
Dow-Corning should never have been sued in the first place, though that's admittedly beside the point.
And many of Enron's subsidiaries are actually very legit and continued functioning pretty much as they were when Enron was riding high.
I've been watching Kojak for some mindless enjoyment, but I cringed physically when someone started talking about IP addresses. They were tracking a suspect's IP address (244.x.x.x) from the old home, to a series of internet cafes -- the suspect was taking the address with him wherever he went.
:-\
I ended up giving them a point for not assigning an octet above 255.
Apple Release Mega Patch to Fix 19 Flaws
Slashdot Editor Grammar Still Not Get Better
Yeah. I made the same mistake a bit earl-- I mean, the same transmission error as happened earlier must have happened again.
A little push?
The max velocity achieved by SS1 was about 1km/sec. The velocity required to reach low earth orbit (LEO) is about 8km/sec. The total energy required to reach LEO is more than 30 times what SS1 achieved.
SS1 was not even remotely close to making it to LEO.
Isn't "Ride the Beast" a pr0n title?