Arguably, the homeowner may not want to give it up -- the debris is likely to be worth way more to a collector than the damage it caused, especially since there's video of the crash.
Of course, then the question of "who owns it?" comes up -- the ISS *clearly* discarded it, and by chance it ended up in the homeowner's possession.
Typically, meteorites belong to the land owner where they fall, and this isn't debris from a crash like we had with Columbia -- it's literally trash from space.
So, maybe the lawyers will be arguing about it for a while, or maybe the homeowner will just give it to NASA without any drama -- I know that the previous article says that NASA now has it, but that doesn't mean they get to keep it. Or maybe NASA will analyze it and then return it without any drama.
Either way, I imagine that the homeowner will file a claim with their own insurance, who will then file a claim with NASA or Japan (or both?) and if they recover the money, the homeowner will get their deductable back.
I think you'll find that people who don't get married in the first place have the lowest divorce rates.
But their kids tend to grow up to knock over liquor stores.
Remember the dudgeon last year when some of the abortion Taliban states started data tracking residents who left the state to possibly get their desired medical procedures in 'free' New York or California? Now these same states have developed Strange New Respect for tracking it helps them collect their extortionate taxes.
But we've already done sample returns from the Moon and asteroids, and we examine them in clean rooms with very tight controls. To be sure, the main reason is to keep Earth stuff from contaminating the samples, not the other way around, but there's still as complete a separation as possible in a lab. Scientists have read or seen The Andromeda Strain too.
More relevantly, we have already identified a few rocks spalled away from Mars and captured by Earth. Plus how many more over the millennia that we don't know about? If deadly viruses existed on Mars, they are already here.
Here's the lyrics to a fairly typical, average kinda tune:
We used to swim the same moonlight waters
Oceans away from the wakeful day
My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Scent of the sea before the waking of the world
Brings me to thee
Into the blue memory
My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Into the blue memory
A siren from the deep came to me
Sang my name my longing
Still I write my songs about that dream of mine
Worth everything I may ever be
The Child will be born again
That siren carried him to me
First of them true loves
Singing on the shoulders of an angel
Without care for love ‘n loss
Bring me home or leave me be
My love in the dark heart of the night
I have lost the path before me
The one behind will lead me
Take me
Cure me
Kill me
Bring me home
Every way
Every day
Just another loop in the hangman’s noose
Take me, cure me, kill me, bring me home
Every way, every day
I keep on watching us sleep
Relive the old sin of Adam and Eve
Of you and me
Forgive the adoring beast
Redeem me into childhood
Show me myself without the shell
Like the advent of May
I’ll be there when you say
Time to never hold our love
-------
But there's next to no repetition in it.
. If it takes an anti-missile costing $100,000 to take out a drone costing $1,000, that's an obvious advantage to the side using drones.
It's also a temporary problem. Short-range anti-drone missiles should cost roughly the same amount as drones.
That is essentially how whistle-blowing is done
I think more often, whistleblowing is just complaining to your manager, or manager's manager.
In the case of Ukraine, the success rate is very high because anybody in range is likely an enemy soldier.
Israel's success rate may be as low as 0.1%. That tells us that robots can't tell civilians from military. A large enough stockpile of human shields would be a serious problem.
And we know drones et al are vulnerable to GPS spoof attacks, making such an attack risky against a technologically advanced enemy with intellectuals and engineers forming a scientific take on special forces.
Why bother with a missile? You're here, so a geek. You know GPS jamming is effective, as is GPS spoofing. All you need is a parabolic dish and a high power transmitter. There's simply no possibility of a wide-angle transmitter on a satellite matching a narrow beam that's broadcast from a hundredth of the distance. Sure, there'll be authentication keys. And social engineers have compromised most of the world's governments, which means the keys will be for sale somewhere.
The only way I can the robot army being effective is if they flatten everything at long range, indiscriminately. And that is going to cause its own problems. Especially if the software gets hacked prior to install. Which will happen, because hiring and training an army of hackers in Mitnick-style social engineering tactics costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the expense of maintaining a wall of tactical nukes that can EMP the robot forces.
The robots work OK, but the AI doesn't. Israel is using AI extensively to target Hamas at the moment, with the very best AI that exists and the very best military minds the world can produce. The success rate is somewhere between 1% and 0.1%.
Face scanning tech also depends on the data set being valid. The DOD has been compromised many times by airwall violations, security violations, improper screening, and extremely buggy software from Cisco and Microsoft.
All the enemy needs to do is write a rootkit that flips a couple of bits. The robot army now faces the other way and friends are identified as foe. I wouldn't put it past a group like the Lazarus hackers to be capable of such a stunt. We already know the enemy is capable of GPS jamming and GPS spoofing, because they've done so to hijack US drones, and that's another potential vulnerability.
US military robots are also known to have severe problems identifying that a person dressed as a tree is a person, not a tree. A skillful enemy could walk through US robot army lines without impediment, unless the US robots shoot indiscriminately. But if the US robots are genocidal, mutually assured destruction becomes a viable tactic. You can't be more than dead, after all.
And if the US includes a death switch, given that US defence contractors don't always wipe hard drives and the military don't psychologically screen very well (Manning was known to be seriously mentally unstable prior to deployment, for example), there's absolutely no guarantee the enemy won't simply learn it and spoof it.
I just don't see how the US think this could possibly work.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
