It has not been challenged again.... it would be interesting to see if it was challenged again ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States ... ...
Opinion of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between “off the wall” surveillance and “through the wall” surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a “firm but also bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the “‘entrance to the house’”.[1] This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was “unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment”[2] because according to Scalia’s previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined. ... ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html ...
YLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded. ... ...
      (b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6—7. ... ...

##
## Not disagreeing, but surely you can see my confusion as both of the above refer to "...technology in question is not in general public use..."
##

The key component is "plain view', thermal enhanced imaging is not plain view, and trained dogs are not plain smell. If the officer can smell your pot without a dog, you will still have issues.

My memory of that ruling is a little fuzzy but I believe (but could be wrong) that the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required.. ie, if they used a common telescope or binoculars and saw something it could be used, but at the time thermal imaging or low flying photos (or observation) from helicopter or plane was considered a governmental (as in only they could do it due to the resources) search and therefore required a warrant.

That (if my memory is correct) was the test that allowed the police to claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine when they happened to smell or see something that was really in 'plain view' while preventing the police from claiming plain view for every new search that could be performed remotely.

Wow... someone else with common sense,,, I find it funny that our existence doesn't prove anything. To the Atheist it lends proof to evolution because they assume there is nothing that exists that could have designed or controlled things to cause us to be here. To the Theologists its supporting evidence of Gods grand design.

If you find logs stacked in two parallel rows with two other parallel rows at 90 degrees forming a rectangular enclosure with a few breaks that can be used to enter or exit and enclosure, does it prove that eventually the absurd odds of trees just randomly falling will build a log cabin or does it prove that even if you have no other proof that some intelligence built it, that there is some intelligence that €you just haven't found yet.

Can you please provide a written definition for your use of theory, because even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ... ...
The term theoretical

Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory. ... ...

How would I dis-prove gravity... would be the question...

I would take a mass and drop it in a vacuum and watch it not fall ... and rule out any other forces. The theory of gravity predicts that it would fall towards the earth ( assuming that we are in fact conducting such experiment on earth). If it didn't fall then our current theory of gravity is wrong.

The question wasn't what test WILL , but what test WOULD .... If you can't think of a test that would prove your theory wrong then it's not provable...

Einstein proved that newtons laws were wrong... or incorrect and limited if you want to be PC about it...

Science works by the simple principle that only a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory... please review your science... a theory covers a range of ideas...which is what makes it different than an observation... an observation says that in this particular instance this is what was observed... a theory says that in all these cases (sometimes more limited than others) something will be observed. So, only a single counter example breaks the theory.

Let me rephrase the question slightly....

Genetically modified plants and animals ... how would future generations be able to tell those changes were were 'in theory' designed, from regular evolution, or are those Genetically modified plants and animals just another example of how evolution can happen? Don't think 5, 10 years, but after the next dark age when we pull ourselves out of the next iceage and re-discover technology.

Of course there are changes..., god making adjustments and improving the design... just like there are changes in the design of cars...
go though the fossil... err.. junk yards and note the clear changes between generations...

Yea, there are changes... but are they due to some intelligence or chance?

After we have our next dark age and rebuild our technology level and re-discover genetics and technology will metal carcasses join the dinosaurs as extinct species and will the genetic variations of plants currently classified as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food ) be just another example of evolution?

Why are remains of structural buildings considered 'proof' of human habitation in some location, when it's technically possible though completely improbable that the the tree's just fell that way, etc... but the probably statistically less probability that everything happened just right by chance got us here?

Science is predicated on no invoking the supernatural, and creation is predicated on their being a supernatural. As far as I can tell they are both the most logical theory given their predicates. If I show you a log cabin in the woods and tell you that there is NO EVIDENCE that humans had been in those woods, you would have to come up with some other theory for how the cabin happened to come into existence.

All theories are predicated on assumptions.... Assuming there is no god, is there any test or evidence that could prove that evolution and the changes were planned and not random variations. If they were not random then they were controlled.

It's also a false assumption on your part that someone needs to prove the existence of something for it to be considered... Logic has multiple ways of dealing with unknowns, and it can very well handle unknowns but....
1) Questioning if it the unknown matters -- Does it matter if Gravity was created by god as part of a grand design or if it just is....
2) Assuming that the unknown is really known ( and leaving it as a stated assumption) -- Assuming that velocities are well below the speed of light so relativity doesn't need to be considered
3) Assume that the unknown is known and leave it as an unstated assumption.... The shortest path between two points is a straight line

Evolution is a theory that fits the available data, but does there actually exist a test that could show for example that genetically engineered plans and animals aren't evolution, or are they really evolution in action?

One of the reasons given against creationism is that there isn't any way to dis-prove it. Yet, I don't see how evolution could be disproved, so I don't see what difference there is between evolution and creationism (or its variations) except that if you assume there is a god then it follows that our existence must be part of a grand plan, but if you assume there is no god, then our existence must be just random chance and genetic variations.

What discovery or test would allow for evolution to be disproved? Or is evolution, "Not even wrong."

Or, with the slight modifier of "more".

Because

You are getting paid to write the code, and you could have negotiated the cost of releasing the source as part of that,
but you want them to pay YOU more for that YOU think is the right thing.

Does anyone really think teaching is that much different than any knowledge driven task?

I mean, programming tools certainly write better software, and search tools certainly provide a better coverage of a subject than individuals. Teaching someone is not about presenting the knowledge and reasons, not even if if it includes a rigorous explanation. Teaching is about taking someone from some lower level of understanding and knowledge and bringing them to a higher level of understanding and knowledge. There are literally multiple ways that subtraction can be taught, or multiplication for that matter, and while any individual likely has a belief that one method is superior, easier, simpler or even conceptually clearer, they all deviate from the concept in some way. One who understands the concept can understand how each method reflects and models the concept, and a good teacher can use the differences to help a student better understand the concept and learn it. No program can understand the concept, and even a skilled individual who is capable of explaining the concept with each of the various methods can't predetermine which method may be best for an individual student.

Previously I had read that many Teachers believed the best use of the videos were to give the lectures and introductions as homework to allow them more time to give the individual assistance and help students with the finer points and understanding. If this notes the benefits of the example it would likely be due to giving the Teachers a point of focus for mus-understandings and a place to focus on further and alternative instruction.

More like a programmer looking at automatically generated code and realizing that if the order of required steps is done differently the amount of required work would be decreased, like filtering before sorting, if the filtering won't change the results.

Well, the bicycles uses no Gas, but the Bus can carry 50+ people in a single trip. So which is better?

Evolution relies on an infinite series of infinitesimal small mistakes which by chance got us to here. There could not be any design or plan but only chance. How do you prove this false? And if you can't prove it false, how can you prove it true? Ie. There is a creator that planed everything and set everything in motion, but he is so far beyond us that we can't communicate with him any more than ants can communicate with us. Both statements are unprovable, and which one you believe will much more likely depend on how lucky you feel.

Even if you assume that God knows the answers, there is still reason for him to experiment so as to offer proof to others. God could wipe the slate clean and start over and know the outcome, but if the slate wasn't wiped clean then any other creation (less than God) would know that God used a do over. This way, God shows everyone else. Why does any teacher perform an experiment when they know the result, it's a demonstration.