JoeSchmuckatelli

Reuters has another dramatic infographic about the eruption: How big was the Tonga eruption? (reuters.com)

We used to say my little sister was tiny: she's only FiveTwelve.

You mean I'm even more of a minority than I thought? (Over 79") (Of course, I live in BBall country - so I regularly run into one to two guys who are taller than me). ... But Absolutely! Every business leader and engineer should have to spend a few hours cramped into a dishwasher before they are allowed to design seating on airlines, cars or other things humans use: then, maybe, they'd understand our pain!

The Tongan volcano eruption caused a lightning storm. This infographic is really interesting: Analysing the volcanic lightning from the Tonga eruption (reuters.com)

What are the limitations preventing direct satellite transmission of TV or Radio into an area without requiring use of a satellite dish or transceiver? So that someone with just any old radio or TV can tune in without special additional (and easily spotted/reported) equipment?

Maybe I can go and advocate for the overlooked minority of Tall People who want to go to space! 2% Club! (Okay, actually 0.5% club, but I like to be inclusive)

I'll leave out my first bitter remark - but will say that one response to the current actions of a certain fossil fuel exporting kleptocratic dictator has made a change where I hear folks outside of the beards n birkenstocks crew saying things they'd agree with... For totally different reasons. IOW Nuclear, solar, wind and other alternative sources are being viewed as strategic independence factors, not just expensive boondoggles that will drive up the price of everything.

Man - I should have thought about all that; thanks for the reminder! (Dunno why, but I expected a bare platform kinda like their current Drone ships)

Way too much stuff on top for me to think a rocket is landing on it anytime soon...

Wish there was a way to 'thumbs up' acknowledge something without the implications of 'like'. Appreciate the post /info: dislike the results

Any updates on the Oil Rigs being transformed?

I need to add yet another feature: if you are granted immunity, and through your actions have the immunity rescinded... the government still has to prove its case against you in a subsequent trial. So, Low Level Guy gets arrested and threatened with prosecution. Prosecutor (Government) offers him immunity in exchange for a commitment to testify against Big Guy at Big Guy's trial. Low Level Guy accepts and is granted immunity. He then is deposed (recorded) and may sign Affidavits and other forms of admissible and likely self-incriminating testimony to help the government prepare its case against Big Guy. At trial of Big Guy, Low Level Guy refuses to testify. Prosecutor pulls him (and his lawyer) aside and threatens to rescind the grant of immunity and prosecute Low Level Guy. He isn't (necessarily) automatically going to jail. Big Guy may get off - especially if Low Level Guy's testimony was critical to the government's case. What do you think happens to Low Level Guy? All that previous testimony, Affidavits and other evidence gets used against them in his trial. Finally, if at trial, Low Level Guy not only refuses to testify against himself - but also proffers testimony that contradicts his prior statements (he lies) in an attempt to exonerate Big Guy... He not only gets tried for his own (prior) crimes for which he was originally indicted... he gets Perjury added to the crimes he's accused of. Thus - it's likely a slam-dunk for the prosecution against him... but he still has to be tried and has to be convicted for punishment to be levied. (Unless, through some unlikely turn of events, he is offered and granted a plea agreement (which is an acceptance of a conviction without a trial).) Final edit: often times grants of immunity are accompanied with a plea to a lesser unrelated charge. So, the witness granted immunity for big charge in exchange for testimony, still has a conviction, punishment can be stayed by the government while awaiting the testimony... so if they do refuse to testify, rather than waiting to jail the guy after a subsequent trial, he can be jailed immediately for the lesser unrelated conviction... and then brought out for the later trial on the primary charges for which immunity was granted and then rescinded.

Of course. The purpose of the Constitution (Aside from, but also including, describing how our government works) is to immunize (protect) the citizens of America from Government harm (overreach). Where another route has been taken to protect a person from criminal liability from the government, then the right is already protected (or rather the jeopardy against which the Constitutional right protects is already protected against via a grant of immunity) then there is no jeopardy. At that point, testimony may be compelled. So where you have a right against self incrimination - that you can assert in the absence of some kind of agreement with the government - if you DO have an agreement with the government for immunity against the self incriminating testimony, and refuse to testify, you can be penalized. Sometimes by having the grant rescinded, sometimes by contempt charges. Let me add this: if you have a valid grant of immunity, and are compelled to testify, and do... and lie? Guess what? You get Criminal Perjury charges levied against you. 1758. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Immunity | JM | Department of Justice Here's a defense oriented primer: Perjury: Laws and Penalties | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com

Obviously. I can assert the Constitutional right to fly the Space Shuttle but unless the text of the Constitution (or subsequent court cases interpreting the text) agree that such a right exists - it doesn't. America has a bunch of people who don't know what's in the document making up nonsense. That's nothing new. I presumed y'all knew I was talking about asserting rights that actually exist. To reiterate: if the right actually exists you can assert the right and not be punished by the government for clinging to the constitutional protection against government overreach. * However - in a fight between two private actors, certain things that protect you against government harm don't apply in the civil case. So if the question asked only implicates your civil liability (i.e. 'did your actions breach a contract' or 'were you negligent') you cannot successfully assert a right against self incriminating testimony. On the other hand, if answering the question puts you in jeopardy with the government via criminal liability ('did you murder your wife for the insurance proceeds') you can assert the constitutional right and not be jailed for it. In the first example, refusing to answer questions that might implicate your civil liability can be contempt of court and you can be jailed - but in the second, refusing to give testimony that might incriminate you... you cannot. However - as I tried to highlight, asserting your constitutional right against self incrimination in the civil trial (about insurance fraud) - while they cannot force you to testify - the jury is allowed to infer from the refusal to speak that the testimony, if given truthfully, would be adverse to your interests. Only the jury in a related criminal case is not * https://www.bc-llp.com/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-in-a-civil-case/#:~:text=In 1976%2C the U.S. Supreme,your reply may incriminate you.

Um... If done, won't it be a drone using the soft capture anyway? (presumes launch costs go way down and people are scooping up space junk and historic relics - otherwise about the only way I see it happening is after some paid for deployment)

That has potential to be a game changer! (get it?)

OK - in America it is your choice whether to swear or Affirm that the testimony given will be truthful. It isn't a magic spell (although the history does reflect a past belief in someone putting their soul in jeopardy <swear >) it is merely a commitment to be truthful. Legally swearing or affirming is the same thing. If you are not - if you lie under oath - you trigger the legal jeopardy of perjury. I've mentioned it once before, but early in my practice I found a witness that a plaintiff and his counsel were attempting to conceal. He basically proved that not only was the plaintiff lying - so was the lawyer (I won't go into details but there were multiple corroborating details discovered after I found the witness). Because testimony under oath and official statements and assertions had been made the court not only dismissed the case - it sanctioned the plaintiff and the lawyer (my firm's fairly expensive bills to our client all got paid, plus a penalty). The court could have recommended criminal liability... But didn't need to. So to go back. We ask or command a person to testify in a case. When they do, they swear or affirm that the testimony will be truthful. At risk of prosecution or civil penalty if they lie. Under certain circumstances, some witnesses enjoy the right to not testify because of their Constitutional rights or because of other exclusions (e.g. Spousal privilege). When those exclusions apply, a witness may be able to avoid testimony to prevent a greater harm. But they are fairly narrow cut outs. You cannot claim spousal privilege against a girlfriend or ex spouse. You cannot claim the 5th if the government has granted immunity and requires you to testify against another. Does that clear anything up?

Taking the 5th can't be used against you in a criminal trial - but juries are allowed to infer the refusal to answer indicates that the answer would be adverse to that person's claims or protestations of innocence in a civil case https://www.lanepowell.com/Our-Insights/221205/Taking-the-Fifth-in-a-Civil-Context#:~:text=“Once a witness in a,to testify.” Chaffee v. You cannot (in America) be jailed for asserting a Constitutional right. Also - see above

This is so true. Beyond that, however, is how accessible Hubble made Space to the average Joe. Much of the actual work done by astronomers is looking at numbers and graphs of wave forms and other things that don't readily communicate what they're seeing to most people. But those pretty pictures along with the stories of what is happening and why it's important did. Shuttle and Hubble did for my generation what the Moon landings did for my parents... And I don't think we'd have the funding for everything we are currently doing and capable of doing were it not for how relatable those two systems made Space and Astronomy

True. He said something similar in 2014 and it's still flying.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/25/22950498/russia-nasa-international-space-station-dmitry-rogozin-roscosmos-ukraine-iss

Rogozin also threatened to deorbit ISS...

Lenticular cloud! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_cloud (referenced in Foo Fighters link)

Even if not entirely below the noise floor - if spotted the operator wouldn't know what he's seeing was a plane. The cross section is so different from what they were used to seeing and recognizing as a plane that it would be brain noise even if not completely invisible. As for being observed - they're both night fighting aircraft with high altitude capabilities.

The original teaser trailer came out at a PAX event - so all hope is not lost for such... although it was in a September event. My anticipation is that we are still due a development video with an Arecibo-like message to complete the two partials we've already received. I'm hoping the next message part completes the whole message. If it is again a partial, then I estimate another 6 months before the final reveal, coupled with a public announcement in and around the time of the completed message. However, if this next Arecibo message 'completes' the reveal... maybe release is two months after that? (Pure guesswork on my part).