Trading this fast brings the market closer to optimal economic efficiency, where prices at any instant accurately reflect value. Latency contributes to the very inefficiencies that you blame these "large investment firms" from profiting off of. These high-speed arbitrage and "quant" investors may make a profit without creating a product (though collectively their track record is not very good financially), but their profit margins are vanishingly small and they serve a critical role in equalizing prices between markets and keeping prices up to date as market conditions change. In short, your complaint about these trading practices smacks of jealousy and sour grapes, and it ignores the valuable role they serve in the markets.
Am I strange? I quite like the idea oif my remains being eaten by badgers. Its part of the circle of life. I have always thought that the Native American tree burials and Zoroastrian towers of silence are somehow very satisfying and symbolic of our return to nature.
Well, the badgers aren't so much eating your body as food. Really they're just pulling your remains out of the way of their excavation project. Rather than participating in the circle of life by providing nutrition to critters, your body is just annoying them by getting in the way of their homebuilding.
In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule,"
The exclusionary rule does not apply to this type of instance. This information would be admissible in the US. The exclusionary rule only bars the admission of evidence which was obtained illegally BY THE GOVERNMENT or someone working on the government's behalf. When evidence is obtained due to a third party's criminal act (which was not induced by the government), it is not barred. For example, if I undertook my own independent investigation of a murder case and committed criminal acts to obtain evidence, then turned that over to the state, it would not be barred by the exclusionary rule unless it could be shown that I was cooperating with or induced by the state to violate the defendant's rights.
IANAL, but I am a 3rd year law student.
No, a print edition would not be better. In order to use evidence to impeach an expert, the evidence must be recognized as more reliable than the expert's own opinion. The only ways to demonstrate this are to have the court independently recognize the inherent authority of the source ("judicial notice", uncommon in this context), or for the expert himself to acknowledge the validity of the source, or to convince the court that your source is more reliable than the expert. No encyclopedia would ever meet these standards. Ever. To even consider that it might is ridiculous.
I am lucky enough to have a Scopemeter 199C. It rules. If you can possibly swing the cost, I'd highly recommend it. This model has remained Fluke's top of the line portable DSO for almost a decade, and the price has not changed for years. Portability is a great advantage for all sorts of applications, and the scope itself includes a full complement of great features including spectrum analysis, cross-channel math functions, and full DMM capabilities separate from the scope hardware. The computer interface and software is nice too. Probes and accessories are extremely expensive though, so keep that in mind.
I built mine from an amplifier module ("brick"), but there are commercial units available like the Mirage B-34 that do the same thing. Mine has only a very small heatsink and runs on a 3-cell lithium ion pack. It's not intended for frequent use, only for emergencies when it's needed.
I'm involved in wilderness search and rescue in remote areas of Arizona. We have no cell coverage in most of the areas we work in, and only have sheriff's radio repeater coverage in about 50%. Amateur radio repeaters cover most of the rest. My commercial VHF radio is programmed with all the regional ham repeaters in addition to the sheriff's frequencies and every other wilderness public safety frequency used in the region. If I'm going into certain areas with especially bad coverage, I'll also carry a quad-band handheld (VX-7R) and an external 25W VHF amplifier. No matter what gear you have, location matters most. It is often necessary to climb the nearest ridge to make contact with a repeater, since valleys are usually completely dead spots. The only effective way to communicate from a deep, narrow valley is with HF, or at least 6M with over 100W of power. We use low-band VHF at 120W between vehicles and do fine in very rough terrain.
So yes, carry radio gear. Know your area's repeaters well, though, and be prepared to seek higher ground in order to communicate. A SPOT locator is a very good idea in addition, though, and serves a completely different purpose from other communications gear.
Remember, this is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Similarity in organization is mostly irrelevant. If a programmer looked at the UNIX code and then simultaneously wrote equivalent Linux code that was functionally equivalent and included similar structural elements, that's NOT a copyright violation. Copyright does not cover the function of the software, nor does it really cover aspects like the sequence of variable types in a struct since that's essentially random to begin with. Even if it could be proven that these correlations were nonrandom to a very high degree of certainty (how many lines of code are in the kernel again?), that does not prove a copyright violation.
The Wicked Lasers device is probably just a prototype, though. They admit they're getting those Nichia NDB7352 1 watt laser diodes by disassembling video projectors. If the product was in production, they'd be buying them in bulk from Nichia.
Not a prototype. Disassembling projectors is the only way to obtain these lasers in any quantity, even for relatively large scale manufacturing. I'm not kidding. I'm in the projector-disassembly business, supplying these lasers to manufacturers all over the world in significant quantities. Nichia and Casio seem to have a 100% exclusive deal. Casio will not even sell the laser arrays as a replacement part for the projectors. Nichia will not respond to any inquiries about these lasers, not even quote requests for 10,000 pieces.
The lasers in the Casio projectors are not identical to the Nichia NDB7352. The 7352 is in a 9mm package, the projector lasers are 5.6mm. The 7352 is not rated for use over 1W whatsoever, while the projectors run each laser at approximately 2W peak power (700mW approx average). The beam quality of the 7352 is much better. These projector lasers have no markings at all on the can, but everyone seems to agree that they are Nichia dice. They may even use the same die as the 7352 but with much lower quality standards. Regardless, you can bet that for every 24 of these lasers sold in a non-Casio product there is a dead DLP projector out there somewhere.
Let me know if my calculations are wrong... Haven't done this in awhile.
Well, not exactly right on the calculations or the assumptions. The power output is more like 1W, and the beam is approximately a 2mm X 3mm rectangle if their optics are similar to the optics others are using with these laser diodes. It's certainly not a 1mm round beam. So, 1/(.002*.003)=166667 W/m^2. Still 167 times more intense than the sun.
What if the firmware is burned into ROM and hardware only supports ROM?
You burn a new PROM (or EPROM, or EEPROM...) to replace the existing one. If you have the wherewithal to tinker with the firmware on a device that only supports ROM, then you certainly have the wherewithal to swap an IC on the board.
This is a commercial communications satellite that hasnothing to do with the Global Positioning System
It is not a GPS satellite, in that it is not part of the constellation of satellites that provide position reference. However, as TFA and the other links say, this satellite is one of only two that operate the Wide Area Augmentation System. WAAS uses ground-based GPS receiving stations with known positions to generate a correction signal which increases the accuracy of GPS position fixes to less than 25ft within North America and surrounding areas. Without WAAS, plain GPS can have error in the hundreds of feet. Without the accuracy provided by WAAS, GPS navigation cannot be used for instrument flight approaches - one of the most critical, important, and common uses of GPS today. If this satellite fails, the WAAS system will remain operational throughout most of its original coverage area - but will almost certainly fall outside the reliability limits required for instrument flight certification. It will be a very serious problem for many commercial users of GPS, and possibly for some military applications as well.
Welcome to the world of lawyers, where it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, but who is in a position to be a bigger pain in the neck. This is a discovery document for the defense of USPS, not a response to an inquiry. They probably won't be issuing a response.
The USPS lawyers (in the odd world of legal ethics) probably concluded that the "right" thing to do is to pressure Gamefly to settle and admit no wrongdoing by USPS. I'm sure there are good reasons for USPS to not actually put out a public report detailing what their definition of acceptable mail handling is or how poor mail handling happens, but those are good reasons only for people who work for USPS.
The original "inquiry" was not a polite request for the USPS to investigate. It was a formal complaint filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission. This is functionally a lawsuit, in the "court" of the Postal Regulatory Commission. GameFly sued the USPS demanding that they provide the same treatment to GameFly DVDs that is provided for Netflix and Blockbuster DVDs. The Postal service's response here is a discovery request, which is to be expected. However, if you read the original complaint it becomes apparent that the postal service probably already has much of this information, since the USPS and GameFly worked together for quite a long time to resolve the problem (to no avail).
We typically learn of new Apple iPhone/iPad products just before they're submitted to the FCC because once they hit the FCC they'd become public record at that point anyway.
Actually the FCC will handle equipment testing and acceptance confidentially. The process takes quite some time (months) so confidential testing and processing helps prevent early disclosure of products. Also, many devices like the iPad do not require new certifications because they will simply integrate a pre-existing radio module that has already been though the process.
Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?
It is a fission product, with very low yield. It is also produced from neutron activation of lithium-6, and from thermal neutrons and He3. In other words, it's an inadvertent byproduct of the reactor, and it shows up in the cooling loop.
Even in the 10% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad! It causes all manner of problems in the long term.
Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well. Has there been much discussion of that? I fear there hasn't been any.
Citation? Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite. In fact, all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10% mixtures, and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory. What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done? The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility (no longer an issue at all) and lack of lubricity (also no longer a problem).
Sorry, but this is for the "best" eBook reader, not the one "most crippled by DRM."
I was waiting for that. It certainly must be acknowledged that the Kindle is DRM-laden. However, that doesn't automatically make it non-best. The hardware is amazing, and substantially more capable the the competition. On top of a remarkable screen, form factor, and battery life, it has WIRELESS DATA CAPABILITY! As a whole package, it's a slam dunk - notwithstanding the DRM issue.
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary. Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court. Besides, which dictionary rules? No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs. The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case. If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used. These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words. Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge. If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict. Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS! Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled. You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute. Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one? Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out. That's his job. Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom. What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for. Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.
From TFA, it appears that the actual basis for asylum here is freedom of religion, not freedom to home-school. The parents pulled their children from public school because they are fundamentalist Christians and objected to elements of the public school's curriculum, including sex education and morality lessons drawn from other religions. The German government apparently does not recognize a parent's right to "protect" children from opposing religious views through home-schooling, and intended to compel attendance. The US recognizes this as an aspect of free exercise of religion, which can form the basis for an asylum petition. Thus, they are actually obtaining asylum on religious persecution grounds. Whether these facts actually establish a valid instance of religious persecution or not is perhaps an important question; just because something is protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution does not mean it is necessarily a fundamental human right which should give rise to an asylum claim. Germany is not subject the the US Constitution.
Maybe it is me, but when I hear someone say "no chance of..." or "100% convinced that they will find..." they sound more like a politician than a scientist. I thought the latter should have an open mind until proof was presented ?
What "proof" is sufficient to permit a scientist to say something with decent certainty? How about naturally-occurring collisions at this energy level on a daily basis for as long as the earth has been bombarded by cosmic rays? How open do scientists need to be to possibilities that are strongly and repeatedly contradicted by good evidence?
It seems specious to say that One-Der is optimal for a task because it offers the flexibility of the underlying FPGA hardware. If you have the FPGA hardware present to run the One-Der implementation, then you could just configure a more optimally designed processor out of it for whatever task you are actually performing.
Slashdot Mirror
Trading this fast brings the market closer to optimal economic efficiency, where prices at any instant accurately reflect value. Latency contributes to the very inefficiencies that you blame these "large investment firms" from profiting off of. These high-speed arbitrage and "quant" investors may make a profit without creating a product (though collectively their track record is not very good financially), but their profit margins are vanishingly small and they serve a critical role in equalizing prices between markets and keeping prices up to date as market conditions change. In short, your complaint about these trading practices smacks of jealousy and sour grapes, and it ignores the valuable role they serve in the markets.
Am I strange? I quite like the idea oif my remains being eaten by badgers. Its part of the circle of life. I have always thought that the Native American tree burials and Zoroastrian towers of silence are somehow very satisfying and symbolic of our return to nature.
Well, the badgers aren't so much eating your body as food. Really they're just pulling your remains out of the way of their excavation project. Rather than participating in the circle of life by providing nutrition to critters, your body is just annoying them by getting in the way of their homebuilding.
In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule,"
The exclusionary rule does not apply to this type of instance. This information would be admissible in the US. The exclusionary rule only bars the admission of evidence which was obtained illegally BY THE GOVERNMENT or someone working on the government's behalf. When evidence is obtained due to a third party's criminal act (which was not induced by the government), it is not barred. For example, if I undertook my own independent investigation of a murder case and committed criminal acts to obtain evidence, then turned that over to the state, it would not be barred by the exclusionary rule unless it could be shown that I was cooperating with or induced by the state to violate the defendant's rights. IANAL, but I am a 3rd year law student.
No, a print edition would not be better. In order to use evidence to impeach an expert, the evidence must be recognized as more reliable than the expert's own opinion. The only ways to demonstrate this are to have the court independently recognize the inherent authority of the source ("judicial notice", uncommon in this context), or for the expert himself to acknowledge the validity of the source, or to convince the court that your source is more reliable than the expert. No encyclopedia would ever meet these standards. Ever. To even consider that it might is ridiculous.
This is not a DVD laser. It's a 1W infrared laser. That 3-4 times more power than a Bluray drive laser.
I am lucky enough to have a Scopemeter 199C. It rules. If you can possibly swing the cost, I'd highly recommend it. This model has remained Fluke's top of the line portable DSO for almost a decade, and the price has not changed for years. Portability is a great advantage for all sorts of applications, and the scope itself includes a full complement of great features including spectrum analysis, cross-channel math functions, and full DMM capabilities separate from the scope hardware. The computer interface and software is nice too. Probes and accessories are extremely expensive though, so keep that in mind.
Aluminum foil, or fine metal mesh. The technology already exists!
I built mine from an amplifier module ("brick"), but there are commercial units available like the Mirage B-34 that do the same thing. Mine has only a very small heatsink and runs on a 3-cell lithium ion pack. It's not intended for frequent use, only for emergencies when it's needed.
I'm involved in wilderness search and rescue in remote areas of Arizona. We have no cell coverage in most of the areas we work in, and only have sheriff's radio repeater coverage in about 50%. Amateur radio repeaters cover most of the rest. My commercial VHF radio is programmed with all the regional ham repeaters in addition to the sheriff's frequencies and every other wilderness public safety frequency used in the region. If I'm going into certain areas with especially bad coverage, I'll also carry a quad-band handheld (VX-7R) and an external 25W VHF amplifier. No matter what gear you have, location matters most. It is often necessary to climb the nearest ridge to make contact with a repeater, since valleys are usually completely dead spots. The only effective way to communicate from a deep, narrow valley is with HF, or at least 6M with over 100W of power. We use low-band VHF at 120W between vehicles and do fine in very rough terrain. So yes, carry radio gear. Know your area's repeaters well, though, and be prepared to seek higher ground in order to communicate. A SPOT locator is a very good idea in addition, though, and serves a completely different purpose from other communications gear.
Remember, this is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Similarity in organization is mostly irrelevant. If a programmer looked at the UNIX code and then simultaneously wrote equivalent Linux code that was functionally equivalent and included similar structural elements, that's NOT a copyright violation. Copyright does not cover the function of the software, nor does it really cover aspects like the sequence of variable types in a struct since that's essentially random to begin with. Even if it could be proven that these correlations were nonrandom to a very high degree of certainty (how many lines of code are in the kernel again?), that does not prove a copyright violation.
The Wicked Lasers device is probably just a prototype, though. They admit they're getting those Nichia NDB7352 1 watt laser diodes by disassembling video projectors. If the product was in production, they'd be buying them in bulk from Nichia.
Not a prototype. Disassembling projectors is the only way to obtain these lasers in any quantity, even for relatively large scale manufacturing. I'm not kidding. I'm in the projector-disassembly business, supplying these lasers to manufacturers all over the world in significant quantities. Nichia and Casio seem to have a 100% exclusive deal. Casio will not even sell the laser arrays as a replacement part for the projectors. Nichia will not respond to any inquiries about these lasers, not even quote requests for 10,000 pieces.
The lasers in the Casio projectors are not identical to the Nichia NDB7352. The 7352 is in a 9mm package, the projector lasers are 5.6mm. The 7352 is not rated for use over 1W whatsoever, while the projectors run each laser at approximately 2W peak power (700mW approx average). The beam quality of the 7352 is much better. These projector lasers have no markings at all on the can, but everyone seems to agree that they are Nichia dice. They may even use the same die as the 7352 but with much lower quality standards. Regardless, you can bet that for every 24 of these lasers sold in a non-Casio product there is a dead DLP projector out there somewhere.
sunlight = 1000 W/m^2 (intensity of sunlight)
laser_toy = 0.5 W/(0.001^2) = 500000 W/m^2
500000/1000 = 500 times brighter than the sun!
Let me know if my calculations are wrong... Haven't done this in awhile.
Well, not exactly right on the calculations or the assumptions. The power output is more like 1W, and the beam is approximately a 2mm X 3mm rectangle if their optics are similar to the optics others are using with these laser diodes. It's certainly not a 1mm round beam. So, 1/(.002*.003)=166667 W/m^2. Still 167 times more intense than the sun.
What if the firmware is burned into ROM and hardware only supports ROM?
You burn a new PROM (or EPROM, or EEPROM...) to replace the existing one. If you have the wherewithal to tinker with the firmware on a device that only supports ROM, then you certainly have the wherewithal to swap an IC on the board.
This is a commercial communications satellite that hasnothing to do with the Global Positioning System
It is not a GPS satellite, in that it is not part of the constellation of satellites that provide position reference. However, as TFA and the other links say, this satellite is one of only two that operate the Wide Area Augmentation System. WAAS uses ground-based GPS receiving stations with known positions to generate a correction signal which increases the accuracy of GPS position fixes to less than 25ft within North America and surrounding areas. Without WAAS, plain GPS can have error in the hundreds of feet. Without the accuracy provided by WAAS, GPS navigation cannot be used for instrument flight approaches - one of the most critical, important, and common uses of GPS today. If this satellite fails, the WAAS system will remain operational throughout most of its original coverage area - but will almost certainly fall outside the reliability limits required for instrument flight certification. It will be a very serious problem for many commercial users of GPS, and possibly for some military applications as well.
Welcome to the world of lawyers, where it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, but who is in a position to be a bigger pain in the neck. This is a discovery document for the defense of USPS, not a response to an inquiry. They probably won't be issuing a response.
The USPS lawyers (in the odd world of legal ethics) probably concluded that the "right" thing to do is to pressure Gamefly to settle and admit no wrongdoing by USPS. I'm sure there are good reasons for USPS to not actually put out a public report detailing what their definition of acceptable mail handling is or how poor mail handling happens, but those are good reasons only for people who work for USPS.
The original "inquiry" was not a polite request for the USPS to investigate. It was a formal complaint filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission. This is functionally a lawsuit, in the "court" of the Postal Regulatory Commission. GameFly sued the USPS demanding that they provide the same treatment to GameFly DVDs that is provided for Netflix and Blockbuster DVDs. The Postal service's response here is a discovery request, which is to be expected. However, if you read the original complaint it becomes apparent that the postal service probably already has much of this information, since the USPS and GameFly worked together for quite a long time to resolve the problem (to no avail).
We typically learn of new Apple iPhone/iPad products just before they're submitted to the FCC because once they hit the FCC they'd become public record at that point anyway.
Actually the FCC will handle equipment testing and acceptance confidentially. The process takes quite some time (months) so confidential testing and processing helps prevent early disclosure of products. Also, many devices like the iPad do not require new certifications because they will simply integrate a pre-existing radio module that has already been though the process.
Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?
It is a fission product, with very low yield. It is also produced from neutron activation of lithium-6, and from thermal neutrons and He3. In other words, it's an inadvertent byproduct of the reactor, and it shows up in the cooling loop.
Once production is geared up, the cost will come down, unless they are using unobtanium in the paints on the ceramic plates.
They probably are. Most catalysts that are useful in applications like this are platinum-group metals, and sizable quantities are required.
Even in the 10% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad! It causes all manner of problems in the long term.
Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well. Has there been much discussion of that? I fear there hasn't been any.
Citation? Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite. In fact, all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10% mixtures, and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory. What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done? The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility (no longer an issue at all) and lack of lubricity (also no longer a problem).
Sorry, but this is for the "best" eBook reader, not the one "most crippled by DRM."
I was waiting for that. It certainly must be acknowledged that the Kindle is DRM-laden. However, that doesn't automatically make it non-best. The hardware is amazing, and substantially more capable the the competition. On top of a remarkable screen, form factor, and battery life, it has WIRELESS DATA CAPABILITY! As a whole package, it's a slam dunk - notwithstanding the DRM issue.
The Amazon Kindle. Is this even a legitimate competition?
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary. Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court. Besides, which dictionary rules? No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs. The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case. If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used. These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words. Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge. If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict. Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS! Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled. You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute. Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one? Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out. That's his job. Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom. What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for. Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.
From TFA, it appears that the actual basis for asylum here is freedom of religion, not freedom to home-school. The parents pulled their children from public school because they are fundamentalist Christians and objected to elements of the public school's curriculum, including sex education and morality lessons drawn from other religions. The German government apparently does not recognize a parent's right to "protect" children from opposing religious views through home-schooling, and intended to compel attendance. The US recognizes this as an aspect of free exercise of religion, which can form the basis for an asylum petition. Thus, they are actually obtaining asylum on religious persecution grounds. Whether these facts actually establish a valid instance of religious persecution or not is perhaps an important question; just because something is protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution does not mean it is necessarily a fundamental human right which should give rise to an asylum claim. Germany is not subject the the US Constitution.
Maybe it is me, but when I hear someone say "no chance of..." or "100% convinced that they will find..." they sound more like a politician than a scientist. I thought the latter should have an open mind until proof was presented ?
What "proof" is sufficient to permit a scientist to say something with decent certainty? How about naturally-occurring collisions at this energy level on a daily basis for as long as the earth has been bombarded by cosmic rays? How open do scientists need to be to possibilities that are strongly and repeatedly contradicted by good evidence?
It seems specious to say that One-Der is optimal for a task because it offers the flexibility of the underlying FPGA hardware. If you have the FPGA hardware present to run the One-Der implementation, then you could just configure a more optimally designed processor out of it for whatever task you are actually performing.