I can see how my comments addressed items not in your original post. I will say that I agree that those agencies providing review of trustworthiness of a product, must themselves, be open to inspection. If I need to trust person B to review device X to inform me as to whether I should trust that device, I need satisfaction that B can be trusted. From this position, both aspects of trust are the same. However, I will maintain that no enough is done in our marketplace (primarily due to governments not wanting to limit their own reach) to ensure the security of our private communications. The telecom and data industries are only limiting themselves to what is required by law. There is no advantage to them to provide better security, and I have no doubt, that there is considerable pressure not to. Here, the market does not provide the device, service, or product I desire; either limited by legislation or by actions from state agencies.

I cannot agree on this. There is no double standard here, only different standards applied to different concepts. When I produce a product for public consumption where that device facilitates a protected right, the device should be tested for its ability to be trusted. i.e. source code public and/or peer reviewed. My personal communication is protected. The software for my device to facilitate that communication should be trusted, and the only way to ensure that trust is to have its functionality peer reviewed.

There are different standards here, because there are different rights at stake, and they have different values.

Sorry Sunshine, you're mixing apples and oranges. He's advocating peer-review for technologies to be widely used and trusted by people. He's advocating privacy and anonymity for people. You are trying to say that asking that the tools we use to privately communicate should be trusted, because the corporate bodies that make them deserve to be trusted. People have the right for private communication, with the exception of pre-authorized, court sponsored, evidence gathering. People are allowed to be anonymous. We do not have to carry papers when we travel locally/internally. We are free to associate. I do not have to trust that the software you have installed on a device that that I own. I certainly do not have to give up my rights to grant rights where they do not belong

Change the clocks before Hallowe'en, that way its dark when the kids go out. Changing it afterwards is stupid. Somehow trick or treating when its not dark is just wrong. Lighting effects and such don't have much impact when its not dark.

With only 1/4 the oxygen pickup, this protein would likely not be a substitute for your own blood, but it could be something to tide you over until you could get a proper top up.

If memory serves, artifacts like this are caused generally from the timing difference from the 3 colour images that were superimposed on each other to get the composite colour image.

Other Saturn images are similar artifacts. The astronomy site talks about them on another Saturn picture page.

I once used Genomics as the name of a boardgame I developed, where the basis of the game was earning money by breeding gnomes.

I think, however, I spelled it Gegnomics.

So, you've discounted the fact that we won't be using a flammable substance for the ship's skin, and we won't be using a flammable gas for lift ? Helium doesn't burn/explode, and neither does the intended skin.

Those that dies in the Hindenburg were burned by diesel fuel spilled when the skin and lifting gas ignited. So on the whole, I'd say we have learned from History in this case. Of course, we still drive to work knowing that this is the least safe commuting option.

Sadly, I feel your pain.

Unfortunately, the law would compel Bob to testify, IF the law knew Bob was a witness. Such testimony would be to Bob's disadvantage.

Of course, the legal teams would need to learn about Bob's information. Bob is not required under any law to indicate that he was in possession of such information. However, once he admits that he was a witness he can be compelled to testify.

I'm sorry, perhaps the quoting the actual wording of the amendment confused you.

You cannot be compelled to provide testimony that may incriminate yourself. It doesn't matter if its your trial or someone else's.
However, the premise of TFA is that a witness can be compelled to incriminate a third party. The 5th clearly places restrictions against self-incrimination, but does not offer any such restriction on the incrimination of others.

If I am giving testimony as to another's guilt or innocence and the defense asks me a direct question (to cast doubt to either my honesty, or if I have an issue with the defendant, for example) that would have me admitting to my own criminal behavior (connected or not to this case) or committing perjury, I may refuse to answer this question.

In this case I am providing "third-party" testimony and am covered by both the intent and the letter of the Fifth Amendment.

As a note, in many countries this protection is also included in civil cases, not just criminal ones.

I agree to your definition of immorality, but again, I don't see how it applies to human living on another planet. Are you are indicating that because humans will not be living in (earthly) optimal conditions, that having them there is immoral ?

You have indicated that we are part of Earth and not Mars, so living on Mars is immoral.

Do you believe that having astronauts living on the space station is immoral?
Do you believe that humans living in the Arctic is immoral?

Would denying the opportunity for people to live on other planets be considered immoral ?