The flight manual (now available online) has a graph of permissible speed vs. outside temperature. Unless the stratosphere is really cold, you can't even get to the Mach 3.3 maximum in the manual. The chart ends at 3.5.
When the program was coming to an end and they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory by setting an official speed record, they asked about exceeding Mach 3.3 and Lockheed told them that they couldn't guarantee survival in the event of an unstart above Mach 3.3.
Reading the memoirs of Habu veterans with a critical eye that looks for what's not being said, what jumps out is that the intelligence customers were by and large not going to bat for the SR-71 program. The only exception was the Navy's sub tracking.
> Wouldn't you want them arrested BEFORE they killed you?
There are things more important than my life.
From _A Man For All Seasons_:
WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Iâ(TM)d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned â(TM)round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Manâ(TM)s laws, not Godâ(TM)s! And if you cut them down, and youâ(TM)re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, Iâ(TM)d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safetyâ(TM)s sake!
Icelandic journalists complain of losing libel cases when all they've done is to publish court records, of fear of retaliation, and of a climate of self-censorship.
One broadcaster was hit with an injunction to prevent them from publishing details about banking misconduct.
Iceland was one of the top-rated countries in that report.
I can't remember who came up with this thought experiment:
- How many lives are being saved by the current system? - How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?
And the government doesn't have the right to do "searches" that contribute nothing to security. One of the scanner makers admitted that their equipment wouldn't have caught Captain Underpants. Top Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela called the scanners "expensive and useless".
The EvilCorp Public Education Fund runs "issue ads" which, by some odd coincidence, benefit a particular candidate. Or attack that candidate's opponent.
Courts also look at legislative history to judge legislative intent. "... an effort to amend section 1021 to exempt citizens failed in the Senate. If, in the future, judges decide to refer to the statuteâ(TM)s legislative history to help ascertain its scope, the lack of such an exemption may be determinative." (http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained).
The provision you quote is so deceptive that I suspect that to have been its intent.
Courts have rules to follow when a statute contradicts itself. Among others, there's a rule that the specific overrides the general. There's also a rule that they have to interpret the statute in such a way that it makes sense.
A court will then notice: - the provisions allowing extrajudicial detention of "covered persons" (look it up) are more specific than the weaselly worded clause many people cite as reassuring. - it doesn't make sense to pass a law that doesn't change existing law. Reassuring clause goes away. - that if the weaselly clause were intended to exempt citizens from arbitrary detention, it would have said so in so many words.
Look up Jose Padilla for examples of "existing law".
During the Westmann Islands eruption, they froze the leading edge of the lava flow to divert it from blocking a harbor. The lava just goes somewhere else.
They estimate that geothermal fields are good for 50-100 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The flight manual (now available online) has a graph of permissible speed vs. outside temperature. Unless the stratosphere is really cold, you can't even get to the Mach 3.3 maximum in the manual. The chart ends at 3.5.
When the program was coming to an end and they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory by setting an official speed record, they asked about exceeding Mach 3.3 and Lockheed told them that they couldn't guarantee survival in the event of an unstart above Mach 3.3.
Reading the memoirs of Habu veterans with a critical eye that looks for what's not being said, what jumps out is that the intelligence customers were by and large not going to bat for the SR-71 program. The only exception was the Navy's sub tracking.
> Wouldn't you want them arrested BEFORE they killed you?
There are things more important than my life.
From _A Man For All Seasons_:
WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Iâ(TM)d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned â(TM)round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Manâ(TM)s laws, not Godâ(TM)s! And if you cut them down, and youâ(TM)re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, Iâ(TM)d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safetyâ(TM)s sake!
Icelandic journalists complain of losing libel cases when all they've done is to publish court records, of fear of retaliation, and of a climate of self-censorship.
One broadcaster was hit with an injunction to prevent them from publishing details about banking misconduct.
Iceland was one of the top-rated countries in that report.
Canada has civilized regulation, as far as I know. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims
I can't remember who came up with this thought experiment:
- How many lives are being saved by the current system?
- How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?
And the government doesn't have the right to do "searches" that contribute nothing to security. One of the scanner makers admitted that their equipment wouldn't have caught Captain Underpants. Top Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela called the scanners "expensive and useless".
Loophole, a technique already in use:
The EvilCorp Public Education Fund runs "issue ads" which, by some odd coincidence, benefit a particular candidate. Or attack that candidate's opponent.
Trying to feed seven billion people doesn't leave much margin to accommodate change in rainfall patterns or pest distribution.
Point 1: there are low-tech ways to spot whether someone's carrying a concealed gun, and there are training materials for police which teach those.
Point 2: how often is this technology going to be aimed at white people, given the huge racial disparity of the current stop-and-frisk program?
I know that's what the right wing says. Maybe I haven't seen it for myself because I've been looking in the wrong places.
Global cooling:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
Copyright comes into being when the work is "fixed into tangible form", e.g. written down or recorded.
Research "Optimal Currency Area". Try to have a single currency across a heterogeneous region, and you get a train wreck like the Euro.
People aren't going to give up their native languages, either.
Sound point, but how common are the critical thinking skills necessary to avoid the large amount of damaging nonsense on the Internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac
Oh, and in addition to my other reply:
Courts also look at legislative history to judge legislative intent. "... an effort to amend section 1021 to exempt citizens failed in the Senate. If, in the future, judges decide to refer to the statuteâ(TM)s legislative history to help ascertain its scope, the lack of such an exemption may be determinative." (http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained).
The provision you quote is so deceptive that I suspect that to have been its intent.
OK, suppose it get to court.
Courts have rules to follow when a statute contradicts itself. Among others, there's a rule that the specific overrides the general. There's also a rule that they have to interpret the statute in such a way that it makes sense.
A court will then notice:
- the provisions allowing extrajudicial detention of "covered persons" (look it up) are more specific than the weaselly worded clause many people cite as reassuring.
- it doesn't make sense to pass a law that doesn't change existing law. Reassuring clause goes away.
- that if the weaselly clause were intended to exempt citizens from arbitrary detention, it would have said so in so many words.
Look up Jose Padilla for examples of "existing law".
"Existing law" includes the Fourth Circuit ruling about Padilla.
Nobody passes an act of Congress to leave the law unchanged.
Make an appointment to visit their office. Then they know you're not just someone who dashed off an email casually.
I wonder if visiting their campaign staff would have more effect.
Required annual training for all DoD employees required them to identify protests as "low level terrorism".
During the Westmann Islands eruption, they froze the leading edge of the lava flow to divert it from blocking a harbor. The lava just goes somewhere else.
They estimate that geothermal fields are good for 50-100 years.
Getting into a gunfight over an insured car is not good security thinking.
Anyone who rejects scientific knowledge can do good in office only by accident, and should be anathema to people in science-based industries.