Suppose a robotic surveyor on Mars has to navigate harsh terrain, looking for rocks that might contain fossils, and then send new photos of them back to Earth—a 10- to 12-minute trip at best. If it were a node on a TCP/IP network, the robot would have to keep a copy of that data in its limited memory banks until it got a confirmation that the data had been received on Earth. Such a notice would take at least 20 minutes to arrive—more if a direct connection weren't available. DTN, on the other hand, would require the surveyor to keep the data only until they were received by the first node—probably a nearby relay satellite.

An interesting article on network protocol design issues in Space. Interestingly, Cerf seems to be backing an alternative that sounds a bit like FidoNet.

I strongly object to the suggestion that IP is going to be easier to secure because security tools are readily available. The last thing you want in space is a worm, and thats exactly what you are going to get if you make it really convenient for people to just plug their everyday laptop into the system and talk to stuff in orbit.

My fear is, however, that IP will win out regardless of being completely unsuited for the task simply because its pervasive and easy.

IP in Space?

MemeStreams.net -- Your source for breaking news on catasrophic transformer explosions.

Blast rattles San Francisco financial district

Mike the Usurper wrote:

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

I think one thing that is overlooked in this is that Sensenbrenner is considered to be the right's answer to, well, I have a hard time thinking of anyone as far to the left as Jim is to the right, not even Ted. He's the one who held up the Intelligence Act because he wanted to attach immigration riders to it. He's the same one who, when presented by Amnesty International quoting FBI documents abouts abuses at Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib and Bagram, simply didn't want to hear it, gaveled the meeting closed and walked off.

This is quite a lively discussion and I want to throw my hat into the ring. The thing that pisses me off about the Patriot Act is that both sides have turned it into such a political football that its almost impossible to have substantive discussion about it.

To Sensenbrenner I would say:

The discussion about whether or not these provisions are properly crafted hangs on the question of whether the checks and balances actually make sense for the long term and not on documented cases of abuse. This law is about the future and not about the past. Furthermore, even ardent defenders of the law conceed that various gag rules make it very difficult to document abuses. And no, I don't trust lawmakers to provide oversight. You, yourself have argued that the political discussion hasn't been substantive (more on that in a minute). To turn around and argue that its going to be effective at preventing abuse seems hypocritical.

To the left I would say:

Various overbroad calls for repealing the thing have contributed nothing at all to the debate. Sensenbrenner may have been a dick in that hearing, but he was right. POW abuse has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Hearings about the Patriot Act ought to be about the Patriot Act. Talking about unrelated issues prevents the substantive debate that is needed about the specific provisions. Its almost as if you don't want that discussion to happen, because you don't actually want to reform this law. (Hrmmmmmmm.)

The most troubling provisions of this law are not the ones which have been opened to debate by the sunset clause. It is absolutely inevitable that the National Security Letters will be abused if the Supreme Court does not ultimately declare them unconstitutional.

A law that says that an FBI agent can write a letter demanding information with absolutely no oversight at all that cannot be challenged or even discussed is absolutely asking to be abused. As a temporary emergency measure it might have been acceptable. As a permanent part of our legal system it is not.

RE: Patriot Act Extended

adam wrote:
The article expresses the view that many in the Muslim community feel that anybody brought to trial wouldn't receive a fair trial. The question arises whether this is systematic of a failure of the British system to assimilate the community or perhaps in view of what happened to the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6, who were falsely convicted under not entirely dissimilar circumstances, a not unreasonable point of view. Or even perhaps both positions are in fact accurate.

I'm posting this back out to my MemeStream because I think its an incredibly good point that is easily forgotten.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past few years about due process for people suspected of terrorism. The point of view that some people seem to have is that nearly everyone accused of being a terrorist likely is a terrorist. You tend to give the police and the military the benefit of the doubt. They have no interest in sweeping up innocent people. The attitude is that due process helps the terrorists avoid punishment for their crimes.

The string of false convictions referenced above didn't occur in a third world country a long time ago. They occured in England in the 1970s. An innocent individual was gunned down in the street by police in England on Friday. The fact is that you are going to have innocent people get swept up in your anti-terror actions. It is unavoidable, because people whose job is prosecution tend to make presumptions of guilt that are not supported by the evidence, or perhaps even reasonable (like assuming that its unusual to see someone wearing a coat when its 62 degrees fahrenheit.) When your job is to see guilt you are going to see it even when its not there.

If you do not have a process for determining whether or not people ought to have been swept up, or if your process is seriously flawed as it was in England in the 70s, you will punish innocent people. If this is a systemic problem, you create a situation where no one trusts your judgement anymore, even if you improve your process. This tends to live with you for a long time.

Muslims who might have information which is useful to the authorities are unlikely to provide it if they are unsure of its meaning and they don't want to see innocent people get nailed by a system that cannot distinguish them.

To put it another way, people in the hood don't talk to the cops, and occaisonally they become so alienated that you get riots.

Alienating communities of people frustrates your ability to prosecute when you need it the most. One person cannot hide in a community unless the community wants to hide him. You want these people to trust you. If they don't trust you, they won't help you, and you won't get the intelligence you need.

RE: Telegraph | News | One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists

There is no simpler way of letting the emergency services know who to contact should you be involved in an accident than by using ICE.

ICE - In Case of Emergency

The mantle in gas lanterns, the small cloth pouch over the flame, is coated with a compound containing thorium-232. When bombarded with neutrons it produces uranium-233, which is fissionable. David bought thousands of lantern mantles from surplus stores and blowtorched them into a pile of ash.

To isolate the thorium from the ash, he purchased $1000 worth of lithium batteries and cut them in half with wire cutters. He placed the lithium and thorium ash together in a ball of aluminum foil and heated the ball with a Bunsen burner. This purified the thorium to at least 9000 times the level found in nature, and up to 170 times the level that requires NRC licensing.

Teenager builds fission reactor in Mom's shed out of household parts. Seriously.

The Radioactive Boy Scout

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7.

As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders. However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

I really hope this study was flawed. There needs to be more. The actual POV of that community needs to be directly discussed. I would like to see surveys like this done in the US as well.

Telegraph | News | One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists

What is not uncertain, however, is that our Current Account
Deficit has granted a degree of control and authority to another sovereign
nation over our own economy. The net results of that may be determined over the
coming decade.

Buffett (who I've come to dislike inspite of my respect for him) warned of this in 2003. Bill Gross specifically predicted this for 2005.

The Big Picture: Federal Reserve Responsibilities Outsourced to China

On 21 July 2005, three separate incidents involving smoke being seen in Shepherd's Bush, Warren Street and Oval underground stations occurred, leading to the closure and evacuation of the lines. It is being reported that the devices set off were detonators with 'dummy' explosives (BBC), and that one person has been injured.

21 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

I've been thinking the radical right was a little too happy about Roberts. Thats no good. If the radicals are happy the moderates will be worried. If the moderates are worried the man won't be approved. 24 hours in the wake of the nomination there was this terrible vacuum of radical conservative opposition. So Coulter is deployed on cue. She should generate enough noise to make the appearance of balance in the process. She also gets to benefit from the I told you so later on when Roberts inevitably diverges from hardline thinking. Good work if you can get it.

AnnCoulter.com - Printer Friendly Article: SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING