The LHC data are beginning to impinge on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. One of the attractions of the MSSM is its "naturalness," which is beginning to seem less natural. The the lightest superparticle (LSP) of the MSSM is a dark matter candidate of the WIMP (Weakly interacting massive particle) variety, and WIMP searches are beginning to impinge on the "naturalness" of that explanation too.
Of course, after the confirmation of a non-zero cosmological constant, the arguments from naturalness seem less compelling to me...
Well, assuming that something is found that is not consistent with the standard model. There is actually something from the LHC that is not consistent with the standard model, the LHCb discovery of CP violation in charm decays. This is "only" 3.5 sigma, and needs some serious theoretical work to be sure the SM prediction is even right, but as things stand it is evidence for new physics.
Don't you know that the current Supreme Court doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to any technology not in use in 1789? How could the founders have possibly intended that?
IANAL, but I don't think no trespassing signs are enough. And, size does matter. My understanding is that the area immediately around your back door is highly likely to be viewed as in your curtilage, but, if you have 100 acres outside your back door, all of it isn't.
But, yes, a "defense in depth" (i.e., signs, fences, gates, etc.) is probably good for establishing curtilage.
I think the legal question here is not is this trespassing, but is any evidence obtained admissible or not.
Again, as always, IANAL and this is not legal advice.
A U.S. district judge sided with the Justice Department to rule that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter a property without permission or a warrant to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras.”
Again, this is a curtilage case, in that the Judge ruled that this is OK outside of your curtilage.
Based on an initial read, this sounds like a question of curtilage, although I didn't see that term in the article.
Curtilage is the legal definition of what part of your property is private, and what is not. If the dog was not on a public street, then this is a curtilage case.
My understanding of recent SCOTUS cases is that they view curtilage in a way that, shall we say, is more favorable to the way the rich typically live than the poor. If you have a fence around your property, with a gate, then the whole property is your curtilage, and the police should keep out. If not, then anything in your front yard, at least, may be fair game as the police can walk right up to your door.
This is entirely separate from my belief that police dogs react to whatever their handlers want them to react to.
Note : IANAL and this is certainly not legal advice.
I have been through Her Majesties Customs many times, and I would recommend visitors watch their speech at Customs when passing into the UK, just as for any Customs. They have a lot of power over you, and I have seen them react badly to misinterpreted humor, or just people saying the wrong thing. (The worst for me was at 1:30 AM at Gatwick. Let's just say I did not appreciate having my whole party grilled for an hour+ at that hour of the night because of something one of us said.) That is completely different from free speech in general; the arrival hall at Gatwick or Heathrow is just not the same as Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
Maybe not, but it is a struggle against foreign occupation, which is what he said. Read the whole article.
Also, his political party has a web site, where you will find this
Secondly, on the question of Taliban: again, a section of the media has distorted Imran Khan’s message. A letter does not provide the space to elaborate in totality his point of view but simply put, he does not subscribe to the militant ideology of any of the radical organisations. His point of view is that, instead of carrying out a virtual genocide in the tribal areas through a military campaign, a peace process be initiated in which the local tribes take the responsibility of maintaining peace and isolating those, who when isolated would be nothing more than criminals. Once they have been marginalised they can be dealt with.
People like Mr Ijaz are a rare variety of liberals found only in Pakistan who actually want military operations, bombings, strafing and killings on a large-scale. Imran does not believe this solves anything. Indeed, he feels it adds to militancy because of the inevitable collateral damage. He is a national leader who believes in bringing all the people together, whatever their ethnicity or ideology. This is the core reason why people like the writer himself are so anguished by his rise.
Look, I don't agree with everything I see there, or have heard about Mr. Khan, but he sure seems like someone we should be talking to, not shutting out.
If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.
Actually, he does. He is against both the Taliban and the ISI (which is the group, remember, that convinced the Reagan administration to train Osama Bin Ladin).
I am not by any means saying that he is perfect, but as far as I can tell, he is saying more of the right things than any other major Pakistani politician.
If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.
I do agree with you that the President and the Secretary of State should set diplomatic policy, not some agent at the counter. However, I don't think they would support this. This person should be our friend. This is not the way to go about achieving that.
Imran Khan (an ex-professional cricket player) is no more Al Qaeda than is Ron Paul. (He is frequently described as Pakistan's Ron Paul.) He has a fairly classic liberal agenda. (Note that classic liberalism is the basis of our system of government.) He is explicitly against the Taliban.
Yes, he is also against drone strikes. That is a widespread sentiment in Pakistan. Heck, I believe that some politicians (even, dare I say, Ron Paul) feel the same way here.
Note also that Al Qaeda is against sports and the Taliban shut down all sports in the territory they controlled, at least up until recently. Knowing that, you might even think that they would threaten to kill a Paikistani politician who played sports and espoused liberal values. You would be correct.
We should probably apologize to the guy, and should certainly welcome him into the country. One does not have to agree with everything a friend says to recognize them as a friend.
I suspect that the DHS has no idea how this will play in Pakistan. It would not surprise me much if people from the State Department are going to have a little talk with the DHS about this early next week (assuming Sandy doesn't get in the way).
For an analogy, imagine Ron Paul was detained a few hours in Lahore over his views on cutting Defense spending...
What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?
The US and Canada have the system set up so that you pass through US Customs in Canada if you are leaving by air. That means that your flight goes to the domestic gates in the US (and can go to small airports without any customs at all). It is actually a very useful system if you are transferring to another flight in the US; as long as you make your flight in Canada, you should have no trouble changing planes in the US.
By the way, it has an interesting legal corollary - they can't arrest you, not being in the US. They can tell Canadian police to arrest you, but they can't do it themselves. That may not help you if they find pot on you, and it certainly won't help you if they find a bomb on you, but it does mean that someone like Khan is not going to just get carted off to Guantanamo without Canadian involvement. (I suspect that he wasn't technically "detained" either, but that is probably a fine line, and he may well have felt like it was a detention.)
So, the bad guys (junior grade) have to go out and buy aluminum foil to shield their gear.
The bad guys, senior grade, are worried about Tempest and already have shielding. (Note - if a missile can knock your monitor out, and that is a worry to you, you should also assume that a drone can pick up what the monitor is displaying.)
Why ? I don't consider it unlikely at all. We know that Mars in the early days had a thicker atmosphere and a fair amount of liquid water. (Note, BTW, that life, including spores and various forms of dormant life, is specifically what is meant by biological material.)
Please don't forget that Mars has strong obliquity / orbit driven climate cycles. There are times when the atmospheric pressure (and probably even the humidity) are considerably higher than at present. We are talking about many tons of material being exchanged, over a long period of time. As j00r0m4nc3r points out, a lot can happen in a billion years of experimental trials.
At any rate, this gives a very specific prediction : any Martian life will share DNA with terrestrial extremophiles. Why do you think the SETG is building their sequencer? Exactly to test this. My money would be on it succeeding.
Why? What happened in 1492? (Assuming Columbus didn't secretly go to Mars.)
You are assuming that there is no current life on Mars. If there ever was life on Mars, it is highly likely to be extant now. The deep biosphere on Earth shows this.
Now, will you be able to find it on the surface landing in some random spot ? That is another matter; I suspect that just having a 3 kg sequencer may not be enough. A rover with an oil derrick attached is going to weigh a bit more...
Biological material has been interchanged back and forth between the Earth and Mars for billions of years. Based on that, I would bet that there is Martian life, and that it and terrestrial life evolved together.
Countries allow this sort of abuse because the right people (or entities) have been bribed. Of that, you can be sure. The real question is, is it legal bribery (AKA "foreign aid," or other forms of government money), quasi-legal bribery ($13,000 sex parties paid for by lobbyists, anyone?), or the good, old-fashioned, illegal sort ?
The event horizon and the innermost stable orbit have a band of space between them. What happens if you go there?
First, these regions near a black hole tend to be very nasty for our kind of life. Lot's of radiation, and the tidal stresses will kill you for a solar mass black hole. So, suppose you have a multi-billion solar mass black hole to play with, lots of shielding, and a super rocket as well. The ISCO orbit will be about 2 days in that case.
Could you make a regular orbit inside the ISCO? Yes, in principle, down to the Innermost _Unstable_ circular orbit, AKA the "photon orbit," as this is (at 1.5 Schwarzchild radii) where photons would orbit. It's unstable, so you will need to maneuver frequently to not fall into the black hole.
Below the IUCO, you have to fire your rockets constantly to avoid being sucked in. Better not run out of fuel !
Orbits outside the ISCO are slowly inspiraling into the black hole, under the effects of gravitational radiation (and in the real world also other things, like tidal deformations and accretion disk drag.)
Inside the ISCO, the orbit becomes unstable to perturbations and there is a "plunge" into the black hole. However, these objects are visible to the outside as long as they haven't crossed the event horizon. The thing is, that won't take long, and so they won't be visible for long.
Slashdot Mirror
The LHC data are beginning to impinge on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. One of the attractions of the MSSM is its "naturalness," which is beginning to seem less natural. The the lightest superparticle (LSP) of the MSSM is a dark matter candidate of the WIMP (Weakly interacting massive particle) variety, and WIMP searches are beginning to impinge on the "naturalness" of that explanation too.
Of course, after the confirmation of a non-zero cosmological constant, the arguments from naturalness seem less compelling to me...
Well, assuming that something is found that is not consistent with the standard model. There is actually something from the LHC that is not consistent with the standard model, the LHCb discovery of CP violation in charm decays. This is "only" 3.5 sigma, and needs some serious theoretical work to be sure the SM prediction is even right, but as things stand it is evidence for new physics.
Don't you know that the current Supreme Court doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to any technology not in use in 1789? How could the founders have possibly intended that?
IANAL, but I don't think no trespassing signs are enough. And, size does matter. My understanding is that the area immediately around your back door is
highly likely to be viewed as in your curtilage, but, if you have 100 acres outside your back door, all of it isn't.
But, yes, a "defense in depth" (i.e., signs, fences, gates, etc.) is probably good for establishing curtilage.
I think the legal question here is not is this trespassing, but is any evidence obtained admissible or not.
Again, as always, IANAL and this is not legal advice.
This article says that
A U.S. district judge sided with the Justice Department to rule that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter a property without permission or a warrant to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras.”
Again, this is a curtilage case, in that the Judge ruled that this is OK outside of your curtilage.
Based on an initial read, this sounds like a question of curtilage, although I didn't see that term in the article.
Curtilage is the legal definition of what part of your property is private, and what is not. If the dog was not on a public street, then this is a curtilage case.
My understanding of recent SCOTUS cases is that they view curtilage in a way that, shall we say, is more favorable to the way the rich typically live than the poor. If you have a fence around your property, with a gate, then the whole property is your curtilage, and the police should keep out. If not, then anything in your front yard, at least, may be fair game as the police can walk right up to your door.
This is entirely separate from my belief that police dogs react to whatever their handlers want them to react to.
Note : IANAL and this is certainly not legal advice.
I have been through Her Majesties Customs many times, and I would recommend visitors watch their speech at Customs when passing into the UK, just as for any Customs. They have a lot of power over you, and I have seen them react badly to misinterpreted humor, or just people saying the wrong thing. (The worst for me was at 1:30 AM at Gatwick. Let's just say I did not appreciate having my whole party grilled for an hour+ at that hour of the night because of something one of us said.) That is completely different from free speech in general; the arrival hall at Gatwick or Heathrow is just not the same as Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
Touche.
Maybe not, but it is a struggle against foreign occupation, which is what he said. Read the whole article.
Also, his political party has a web site, where you will find this
Secondly, on the question of Taliban: again, a section of the media has distorted Imran Khan’s message. A letter does not provide the space to elaborate in totality his point of view but simply put, he does not subscribe to the militant ideology of any of the radical organisations. His point of view is that, instead of carrying out a virtual genocide in the tribal areas through a military campaign, a peace process be initiated in which the local tribes take the responsibility of maintaining peace and isolating those, who when isolated would be nothing more than criminals. Once they have been marginalised they can be dealt with.
People like Mr Ijaz are a rare variety of liberals found only in Pakistan who actually want military operations, bombings, strafing and killings on a large-scale. Imran does not believe this solves anything. Indeed, he feels it adds to militancy because of the inevitable collateral damage. He is a national leader who believes in bringing all the people together, whatever their ethnicity or ideology. This is the core reason why people like the writer himself are so anguished by his rise.
Look, I don't agree with everything I see there, or have heard about Mr. Khan, but he sure seems like someone we should be talking to, not shutting out.
If Khan really wants this solved, then he should do the right thing and push his gov's intel world to stop supporting them.
Actually, he does. He is against both the Taliban and the ISI (which is the group, remember, that convinced the Reagan administration to train Osama Bin Ladin).
I am not by any means saying that he is perfect, but as far as I can tell, he is saying more of the right things than any other major Pakistani politician.
Please, don't spoil my visual humor with trifling facts !
QC may not be major, but it is not tiny.
I do understand that cost-benefit analyses must be made, but I was surprised to see a Provincial Capital not included in the system.
If Americans really don't want to let this guy in there are diplomatic ways to do so. They should've declared him a persona non grata before the incident. That would've been an honest way of dealing with the situation, most people would've understood that they don't want an Al-Qaeda supporter in their country, and the guy wouldn't have got free popularity back at home out of it.
I do agree with you that the President and the Secretary of State should set diplomatic policy, not some agent at the counter. However, I don't think they would support this. This person should be our friend. This is not the way to go about achieving that.
Imran Khan (an ex-professional cricket player) is no more Al Qaeda than is Ron Paul. (He is frequently described as Pakistan's Ron Paul.) He has a fairly classic liberal agenda. (Note that classic liberalism is the basis of our system of government.) He is explicitly against the Taliban.
Yes, he is also against drone strikes. That is a widespread sentiment in Pakistan. Heck, I believe that some politicians (even, dare I say, Ron Paul) feel the same way here.
Note also that Al Qaeda is against sports and the Taliban shut down all sports in the territory they controlled, at least up until recently. Knowing that, you might even think that they would threaten to kill a Paikistani politician who played sports and espoused liberal values. You would be correct.
We should probably apologize to the guy, and should certainly welcome him into the country. One does not have to agree with everything a friend says to recognize them as a friend.
That's OK, it wasn't mentioned in the Foreign Policy Debate, even as Pakistan, so it clearly must be of no real significance.
Most (if not all) major Canadian airports host US Customs & Immigration for flights destined for US ports.
Not all. Last year when I left Quebec City going to Detroit, I had to pass through customs in Detroit.
I suspect that the DHS has no idea how this will play in Pakistan. It would not surprise me much if people from the State Department are going to have a little talk with the DHS about this early next week (assuming Sandy doesn't get in the way).
For an analogy, imagine Ron Paul was detained a few hours in Lahore over his views on cutting Defense spending...
What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?
The US and Canada have the system set up so that you pass through US Customs in Canada if you are leaving by air. That means that your flight goes to the domestic gates in the US (and can go to small airports without any customs at all). It is actually a very useful system if you are transferring to another flight in the US; as long as you make your flight in Canada, you should have no trouble changing planes in the US.
By the way, it has an interesting legal corollary - they can't arrest you, not being in the US. They can tell Canadian police to arrest you, but they can't do it themselves. That may not help you if they find pot on you, and it certainly won't help you if they find a bomb on you, but it does mean that someone like Khan is not going to just get carted off to Guantanamo without Canadian involvement. (I suspect that he wasn't technically "detained" either, but that is probably a fine line, and he may well have felt like it was a detention.)
Note: IANA and this is not legal advice.
The OS was horribly insecure. That it took them a decade to (more or less) fix that is their fault, not the fault of their market-share.
So, the bad guys (junior grade) have to go out and buy aluminum foil to shield their gear.
The bad guys, senior grade, are worried about Tempest and already have shielding. (Note - if a missile can knock your monitor out, and that is a worry to you, you should also assume that a drone can pick up what the monitor is displaying.)
Why ? I don't consider it unlikely at all. We know that Mars in the early days had a thicker atmosphere and a fair amount of liquid water. (Note, BTW, that life, including spores and various forms of dormant life, is specifically what is meant by biological material.)
Please don't forget that Mars has strong obliquity / orbit driven climate cycles. There are times when the atmospheric pressure (and probably even the humidity) are considerably higher than at present. We are talking about many tons of material being exchanged, over a long period of time. As j00r0m4nc3r points out, a lot can happen in a billion years of experimental trials.
At any rate, this gives a very specific prediction : any Martian life will share DNA with terrestrial extremophiles. Why do you think the SETG is building their sequencer? Exactly to test this. My money would be on it succeeding.
Why? What happened in 1492? (Assuming Columbus didn't secretly go to Mars.)
You are assuming that there is no current life on Mars. If there ever was life on Mars, it is highly likely to be extant now. The deep biosphere on Earth shows this.
Now, will you be able to find it on the surface landing in some random spot ? That is another matter; I suspect that just having a 3 kg sequencer may not be enough. A rover with an oil derrick attached is going to weigh a bit more...
Biological material has been interchanged back and forth between the Earth and Mars for billions of years. Based on that, I would bet that there is Martian life, and that it and terrestrial life evolved together.
Countries allow this sort of abuse because the right people (or entities) have been bribed. Of that, you can be sure. The real question is, is it legal bribery (AKA "foreign aid," or other forms of government money), quasi-legal bribery ($13,000 sex parties paid for by lobbyists, anyone?), or the good, old-fashioned, illegal sort ?
The event horizon and the innermost stable orbit have a band of space between them. What happens if you go there?
First, these regions near a black hole tend to be very nasty for our kind of life. Lot's of radiation, and the tidal stresses will kill you for a solar mass black hole. So, suppose you have a multi-billion solar mass black hole to play with, lots of shielding, and a super rocket as well. The ISCO orbit will be about 2 days in that case.
Could you make a regular orbit inside the ISCO? Yes, in principle, down to the Innermost _Unstable_ circular orbit, AKA the "photon orbit," as this is (at 1.5 Schwarzchild radii) where photons would orbit. It's unstable, so you will need to maneuver frequently to not fall into the black hole.
Below the IUCO, you have to fire your rockets constantly to avoid being sucked in. Better not run out of fuel !
A movie is worth a lot of words, so here are some movies of orbiting a back hole ISCO.
Orbits outside the ISCO are slowly inspiraling into the black hole, under the effects of gravitational radiation (and in the real world also other things, like tidal deformations and accretion disk drag.)
Inside the ISCO, the orbit becomes unstable to perturbations and there is a "plunge" into the black hole. However, these objects are visible to the outside as long as they haven't crossed the event horizon. The thing is, that won't take long, and so they won't be visible for long.
For more details, see this paper : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvD..47.3281K