There are different standards here, because there are different rights at stake, and they have different values.
Other Saturn images are similar artifacts. The astronomy site talks about them on another Saturn picture page.
Link to Original Source
That could be changing, said John Edwards, associate director for inertial confinement fusion and high-energy-density science of the National Ignition Facility.
In a recent piece published in the journal Physics of Plasmas, Edwards said NIF scientists are getting closer to reactions that produce more energy than they need to get going, and added that the obstacles to realizing nuclear fusion involve engineering problems rather than basic physics.""
Link to Original Source
I think, however, I spelled it Gegnomics.
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.
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.
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.
nor shall any person
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.
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 ?
Ignoring the concept that good and evil, and right and wrong are not germane to the discussion, but why have you decided that it is "immoral" ?
If I may simplify something for you, the heavy elements that form our bodies and the Earth did not come from within this solar system. We are no more tied to the Earth than anywhere else. The elements that were created in a supernova explosion and deposited within our solar system came from 'outside' our system. We are stardust, as much as we are Earth's children.