This is most likely impossible because the ISS structure was never designed to take the kind of thrust this would require; massive reinforcement of the module connections would be required at the very least. Even if ion engines could be used in a low-impulse manner (assuming they are built, configured, etc.) to escape LEO, the deceleration burn for lunar orbit insertion would be more abrupt and jarring.
The pen register data (originating number, destination number) is probably not protectable, at least not by the Fourth Amendment because you have little (if any) expectation of privacy in this information (according to the courts). If things like drawing blood and taking fingerprints are considered "non testimonial" and therfore not technically a Fourth Amendment "search" then neither is this data, most likely, anyhow. The same is probably true for the duration of the call.
Here is the kicker though, are you ready?
This is the NSA doing this.
Why is this important?
Well, in 1952, the NSA was formed to spy on foreign governments.
From the NSA's original charter: "The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of the communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto. As used in this directive, the terms "communications intelligence" or "COMINT" shall be construed to mean all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications other than foreign press and propaganda broadcasts and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than intended recipients, but shall exclude censorship and the production and dissemination of finished intelligence." (emphasis added).
Domestic surveillance, on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens is new territory for the spooks. Do Constitutaionl rules apply? Who knows. You could be picked up based on NSA-gathered info and end up in Gitmo or worse, and no one would ever know. THAT's the real story and begs the obvious question, why not leave this to the FBI? Probably because such a program would be subject to, oh, I dont know... due process of law.
In all of this the most stunning omission from the argument you and the Admnistration advance is the lack of any articulated harm in obtaining the warrant. Nowhere has anyone completed the settence, "Yes, the Fourth Amendment is all well and good, but in this case, we can't get a warrant because..." The FSIA Court can even authorize warrants AFTER the search occurs. I really struggle to understand why a warrant cannot be obtained when clearly, (1) it is required by the Fourth Amendment; and (2) obviously it can be, from the FSIA Court. The arrogant disregard for this bedrock principal of our system of justice, sadly, is not atypical of this Administration.
Although you may be correct, it might be probable cause, this is hardly a non-issue.
Whether it is or not is a determination to be made by a court, not an instrument of the executive branch or the Chief Executive himself. If the Adminstration cannot be bothered to even go through the motions of using the FSIA Court where warrants are virtually never turned down, and can be sometimes asked for AFTER an intercept in emergent cirucmstances, then the Adminstration must view itself as beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is dangerous, unprecedented and should not be tolerated.
Under our system of justice, the ends (i.e., you're talking to Al Quaeda, so the government should listen) do not justify the means (i.e., let's not get a warrant, let's just listen). This fundammental concept is twice enshrined in our Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On a very basic level this clause reflects a judgment that when the government wishes to act in certain ways, it must follow certain procedures; that is, provide an accused with what has been called "Due Process of Law." Sometimes the question of the extent of what process is due can be hotly debated. There is no debate, however, that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures requrires that the police obtain a warrant from a judicial officer before such a search can take place. The Adminsitration no doubt is aware of this, but has chosen to ignore it.
It also ignores (not just here, but in other instances) that the Constitution regards the "process," of justice is so important, that in cases where the government fails to give an accused Due Process and obtains evidence in defiance of the accused's Constitutional rights, such evidence will not be allowed to be used in the prosecution (the "Exclusionary Rule"). Again, the administration ignores this judgment by our Constitutional Founders (which makes W's insitance on "Strict Constructionists" for the SCOTUS somewhat hilariously ironic) that individual guilty men may, in fact, go free, to protect the integrity of the system and insure that the executive respects the law it is charged to enforce. The is supposed to serve as a deterrent to instruments of the executive (police, FBI, etc.) to follow the system of checks and balances by, for example, asking a judicial officer for a warrant before (of, in the case of the FSIA, sometimes even after) executing a Fourth Amendment search.
As pointed out here , Stardust uses the same re-entry method and was built by the same contractor (LockMart) as the Genesis probe which cratered into the Utah desert in 2004 (Sarcastic photo caption: "Thud!"). An investigation revealed that the gravity switches (sensors which are to detect the probe's deceleration in the atmosphere and trigger parachute deployment) were the most likely installed in the "incorrect orientation," which sounds like bureacraticese for "backwards."
They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.
The Board was most likely advised that they risked higher exposure if this case went to trial in the form of punitive damages and attorney's fees which are available in cases like this where government entites are found to have violated constititional rights (like, in this case, speech).
Here in the Garden State, the Division of Consumer Affairs offers this website where you can search for any pending or past disciplinary action brought against anyone with a professional license regulated by the Division. Note the link to "Complaint Forms" as well from that page.
Your mileage may vary from state-to-state, but this, along with the online Open Public Records Act form are good starts to making information more accessable, at least upon request.
Retrorockets are 2 for 3 on Mars (Viking I and II used this method), although I tend to agree that the airbag system is more robust in that it avoids the necessity for a near zero-velocity touchdown. There is a rough cut animation of the Phoenix' EDL available.
In a related vein, new laboratory studies theorize that terrestrial microbes that hitchhike on our Mars-bound spacecraft could survive the journey and harsh Mars UV environment indefinetely, and even possibly grow if they found water ice.
Your argument regaring "natural rights" will get nowhere in court, except perhaps some Rule 11(c) Sanctions
You may, in fact, be correct from a philosophical perspective, but under Copyright Act as it is, Fair Use (like self-defense) is an affirmative defense which detailed here.
Both require that the party asserting the defense establish it by a preponderance of the evidence. If you come up short, you've infringed, take solace knowing your atttorney will go on a nice vacation with the legal fees you've paid.
Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but it's worth pointing outh that "Fair Use" (and parody for that matter) are not "rights," per se. Only authors/creators of the work (not the public) are granted rights under the Copyright Act.
As a dotrine, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. This means the person claiming Fair Use has the burden of proving that their actions did not constitute infringement.
The obvious problem, if you are defending an infringement claim is that it is extremely expensive to succssfully raise a Fair Use or Parody defense, which, if it fails, causes the heavy hammer of infringement and all its penalties falls down upon you. Because of this, it's common to hear, "Yes, it's probably fair use. You will spend a billion dollars to get a chance to prove that." Just ask these guys .
John Calvert, one of the most popular proponents of ID describes the "methods" by which scientists can "detect" design in nature as:
In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. - the product of a mind. Based on the above it is reasonable to conclude that design is the best explanation for the complexity of the postulated ancestral cell. (see for yourself)
As William Saletan over at Slate.com has observed, this argument is absolutely idiotic - "It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. "
Also, ID fails to account that human knowledge is constantly expanding. It may be true that we cannot presently describe some things by "the operation of the laws of physics or chemistry or some other regularity or law," but that does not mean that someday we will not be able to do so... but until then (and perhaps for some time thereafter) people will insist on calling it "intelligent design."
Of course, appealing to the public's ability to engage in rational thought is another issue altogether.
I can see why the Army or Marines (on the ground) could benefit from something like this, but what is this going to show the XO of a surface combatant that a helicoptor or other sensors otherwise couldn't? And, if I'm commanding the Nimitz Battle Group, I'd much rather send in a F/A-18.
Although somewhat dated since it was written in response to the 1986 Challenger accident, there is this analysis from Richard Fenyman about the Space Shuttle Main Engines. Seems that the engines are not even considered whole entities for "lifespan" purposes, but their components are now rated by so-many seconds of operation.
For whatever it's worth, a 1985 mission (also by Challenger) suffered a mid-ascent center-engine failure which resulted in a lower-than-expected orbit. Not every engine failure results in a catastrophic loss. There have also been a number of launchpad aborts after the main engines have started but before the SRBs ignited.
Liquid fueled boosters are generally throttable in the sense they have thrust settings based on "rated power." The Shuttle's engines can go to 109% of rated thrust.
Solid-fueled rockets (like the Shuttle's Solid-Rocket Boosters) cannot be "throttled" in the same way because once they are ignited, they simply burn until their fuel is exhausted. Their thrust can be managed, however, by shaping the cross-section of the solid-fuel core into some fancy geometric shape to control the burn rate to a degree, but once they're lit, they're going somewhere.
The 9/11 Hijackers are known to have purchased GPS systems, presumably to help them navigate the planes to their intended targets, at least into visual range for the for final run.
If anything, this sounds like another instance of closing the barn door long after the cows have left by posturing to prevent the last attack, rather than theorizing the next mode of attack. Terrorists in general and OBL/Al Qeada in particular have demonstrated an almost virulent ability to adapt their tactics. Shutting down GPS on 9/11 may have impeded the attack on the Pentagon or second WTC tower, but probably won't make a difference next time.
Slate.com covered this a couple of days ago, ultimately giving the Blu-Ray the nod over HD-DVD. The article also links to this useful comparison chart.
Everyone knows that lefties stuck around so long because left handed pitchers can hide the ball longer on right handed batters making it harder to hit. They would win the big games and get the chicks thus propogating their own left handedness.
For those too lazy to click the link, the reasons are obvious, just use a little common sense: (1) when mosquitos bite, they suck blood, not inject it; (2) although the mosquito uses saliva for lubrication when biting, the HIV virus cannot live in saliva; and (3) mosquitos bite and the fly off and rest after gorging on you. They are not vampiric, going from person to person, sucking blood.
Mandating that they prosecute spammers would almost instantly bankrupt an AG's annual budget. Personally, I would rather my AG's efforts be dedicated elsewhere, like to actual crimes rather than nuisances like spam.
Slashdot Mirror
This is most likely impossible because the ISS structure was never designed to take the kind of thrust this would require; massive reinforcement of the module connections would be required at the very least. Even if ion engines could be used in a low-impulse manner (assuming they are built, configured, etc.) to escape LEO, the deceleration burn for lunar orbit insertion would be more abrupt and jarring.
Here is the kicker though, are you ready?
This is the NSA doing this.
Why is this important?
Well, in 1952, the NSA was formed to spy on foreign governments.
From the NSA's original charter: "The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of the communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto. As used in this directive, the terms "communications intelligence" or "COMINT" shall be construed to mean all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications other than foreign press and propaganda broadcasts and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than intended recipients, but shall exclude censorship and the production and dissemination of finished intelligence." (emphasis added).
Domestic surveillance, on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens is new territory for the spooks. Do Constitutaionl rules apply? Who knows. You could be picked up based on NSA-gathered info and end up in Gitmo or worse, and no one would ever know. THAT's the real story and begs the obvious question, why not leave this to the FBI? Probably because such a program would be subject to, oh, I dont know... due process of law.
In all of this the most stunning omission from the argument you and the Admnistration advance is the lack of any articulated harm in obtaining the warrant. Nowhere has anyone completed the settence, "Yes, the Fourth Amendment is all well and good, but in this case, we can't get a warrant because ..." The FSIA Court can even authorize warrants AFTER the search occurs. I really struggle to understand why a warrant cannot be obtained when clearly, (1) it is required by the Fourth Amendment; and (2) obviously it can be, from the FSIA Court. The arrogant disregard for this bedrock principal of our system of justice, sadly, is not atypical of this Administration.
Whether it is or not is a determination to be made by a court, not an instrument of the executive branch or the Chief Executive himself. If the Adminstration cannot be bothered to even go through the motions of using the FSIA Court where warrants are virtually never turned down, and can be sometimes asked for AFTER an intercept in emergent cirucmstances, then the Adminstration must view itself as beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is dangerous, unprecedented and should not be tolerated.
Under our system of justice, the ends (i.e., you're talking to Al Quaeda, so the government should listen) do not justify the means (i.e., let's not get a warrant, let's just listen). This fundammental concept is twice enshrined in our Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On a very basic level this clause reflects a judgment that when the government wishes to act in certain ways, it must follow certain procedures; that is, provide an accused with what has been called "Due Process of Law." Sometimes the question of the extent of what process is due can be hotly debated. There is no debate, however, that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures requrires that the police obtain a warrant from a judicial officer before such a search can take place. The Adminsitration no doubt is aware of this, but has chosen to ignore it.
It also ignores (not just here, but in other instances) that the Constitution regards the "process," of justice is so important, that in cases where the government fails to give an accused Due Process and obtains evidence in defiance of the accused's Constitutional rights, such evidence will not be allowed to be used in the prosecution (the "Exclusionary Rule"). Again, the administration ignores this judgment by our Constitutional Founders (which makes W's insitance on "Strict Constructionists" for the SCOTUS somewhat hilariously ironic) that individual guilty men may, in fact, go free, to protect the integrity of the system and insure that the executive respects the law it is charged to enforce. The is supposed to serve as a deterrent to instruments of the executive (police, FBI, etc.) to follow the system of checks and balances by, for example, asking a judicial officer for a warrant before (of, in the case of the FSIA, sometimes even after) executing a Fourth Amendment search.
As pointed out here , Stardust uses the same re-entry method and was built by the same contractor (LockMart) as the Genesis probe which cratered into the Utah desert in 2004 (Sarcastic photo caption: "Thud!"). An investigation revealed that the gravity switches (sensors which are to detect the probe's deceleration in the atmosphere and trigger parachute deployment) were the most likely installed in the "incorrect orientation," which sounds like bureacraticese for "backwards."
They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.
The Board was most likely advised that they risked higher exposure if this case went to trial in the form of punitive damages and attorney's fees which are available in cases like this where government entites are found to have violated constititional rights (like, in this case, speech).
Your mileage may vary from state-to-state, but this, along with the online Open Public Records Act form are good starts to making information more accessable, at least upon request.
Retrorockets are 2 for 3 on Mars (Viking I and II used this method), although I tend to agree that the airbag system is more robust in that it avoids the necessity for a near zero-velocity touchdown. There is a rough cut animation of the Phoenix' EDL available.
In a related vein, new laboratory studies theorize that terrestrial microbes that hitchhike on our Mars-bound spacecraft could survive the journey and harsh Mars UV environment indefinetely, and even possibly grow if they found water ice.
NASA's policy on this is summarized here.
Your argument regaring "natural rights" will get nowhere in court, except perhaps some Rule 11(c) Sanctions
You may, in fact, be correct from a philosophical perspective, but under Copyright Act as it is, Fair Use (like self-defense) is an affirmative defense which detailed here.
Both require that the party asserting the defense establish it by a preponderance of the evidence. If you come up short, you've infringed, take solace knowing your atttorney will go on a nice vacation with the legal fees you've paid.
Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but it's worth pointing outh that "Fair Use" (and parody for that matter) are not "rights," per se. Only authors/creators of the work (not the public) are granted rights under the Copyright Act.
As a dotrine, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. This means the person claiming Fair Use has the burden of proving that their actions did not constitute infringement.
The obvious problem, if you are defending an infringement claim is that it is extremely expensive to succssfully raise a Fair Use or Parody defense, which, if it fails, causes the heavy hammer of infringement and all its penalties falls down upon you. Because of this, it's common to hear, "Yes, it's probably fair use. You will spend a billion dollars to get a chance to prove that." Just ask these guys .
In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. - the product of a mind. Based on the above it is reasonable to conclude that design is the best explanation for the complexity of the postulated ancestral cell.
(see for yourself)
As William Saletan over at Slate.com has observed, this argument is absolutely idiotic - "It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. "
Also, ID fails to account that human knowledge is constantly expanding. It may be true that we cannot presently describe some things by "the operation of the laws of physics or chemistry or some other regularity or law," but that does not mean that someday we will not be able to do so... but until then (and perhaps for some time thereafter) people will insist on calling it "intelligent design."
Of course, appealing to the public's ability to engage in rational thought is another issue altogether.
Indeed, here is a quick link I was able to find.
I can see why the Army or Marines (on the ground) could benefit from something like this, but what is this going to show the XO of a surface combatant that a helicoptor or other sensors otherwise couldn't? And, if I'm commanding the Nimitz Battle Group, I'd much rather send in a F/A-18.
So, I suppose there is a way to do this from outside of one's little home network as well?
For whatever it's worth, a 1985 mission (also by Challenger) suffered a mid-ascent center-engine failure which resulted in a lower-than-expected orbit. Not every engine failure results in a catastrophic loss. There have also been a number of launchpad aborts after the main engines have started but before the SRBs ignited.
My only regret is that I have no mod points for you, sir.
Solid-fueled rockets (like the Shuttle's Solid-Rocket Boosters) cannot be "throttled" in the same way because once they are ignited, they simply burn until their fuel is exhausted. Their thrust can be managed, however, by shaping the cross-section of the solid-fuel core into some fancy geometric shape to control the burn rate to a degree, but once they're lit, they're going somewhere.
If anything, this sounds like another instance of closing the barn door long after the cows have left by posturing to prevent the last attack, rather than theorizing the next mode of attack. Terrorists in general and OBL/Al Qeada in particular have demonstrated an almost virulent ability to adapt their tactics. Shutting down GPS on 9/11 may have impeded the attack on the Pentagon or second WTC tower, but probably won't make a difference next time.
Slate.com covered this a couple of days ago, ultimately giving the Blu-Ray the nod over HD-DVD. The article also links to this useful comparison chart.
Mod parent up, molto informative.
I don't know about winning "big games," but that is the only plausible explaination for Kenny Rogers' continued employment.
Mosquitos do not harbor AIDS or HIV.
For those too lazy to click the link, the reasons are obvious, just use a little common sense: (1) when mosquitos bite, they suck blood, not inject it; (2) although the mosquito uses saliva for lubrication when biting, the HIV virus cannot live in saliva; and (3) mosquitos bite and the fly off and rest after gorging on you. They are not vampiric, going from person to person, sucking blood.
Mandating that they prosecute spammers would almost instantly bankrupt an AG's annual budget. Personally, I would rather my AG's efforts be dedicated elsewhere, like to actual crimes rather than nuisances like spam.
Laughed my ass off at the parent. I love girls like that.