padren

Thanks for taking the time, I quite enjoyed your response. I agree, but I think the momentary "out of control spending" has more to do with how to deal with the Disaster Area known as the current US economy, without being able to declare it as such. The number of people out of work is crazy, the numbers for how long people have been out of work doubly so, and how strained people have been due to a combination of poor financial planning and just being stretched entirely too thin before the recession make this a pretty unusual momentary situation. It's a combination of trying to keep those people from completely crashing while unemployed, and funding jobs so some can be temporarily employed. I agree that it is disconcerting to say the least but while we probably disagree on the necessity and approach I think it's somewhat aside from the core issue I am trying to sort out. I also agree that entitlement is a huge issue. Every dime government spends on highways goes to some private contractors who then have to hire more people, right? Every check cut to a welfare bum allows some liquor store owner to pursue the dream of sending their kids to college. Private companies build all the government hardware. If a millionaire gets a tax break, and invests in a business that then hires a bunch of people they do create jobs. When the government provides a grant so a business can do the same, or so a construction project can be completed, how is it any different in how it impacts the economy? Is there any difference between the government buying a Gulfstream jet that's overpriced, and a business executive buying one? They both could make due with a less costly jet, but we always applaud the executive because "hey, luxury creates jobs" and then condemn the government when it's wasteful. Now, to be clear I am not in favor of government waste! I am just not satisfied with my intuitive differentiations between "good" corporate waste and "bad" government waste. I want to understand the nuances more. Honestly I think our military spending doesn't need to be more than the rest of the world combined. It may allow for a certain luxury of unilateralism but it's at a pretty high cost. Most countries are prepared to gear up their military in a hurry should World War Three start tomorrow and not be ended with nukes by the afternoon - I think we're the only ones that are ready to respond full-force 24/7 365 at a moment's notice. That's a bit of a side topic though. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most contemporary Republicans and Democrats can denounce pork in general all they want, but defend their own earmarks for their own constituents tooth and nail with the same rhetorical attack/defense arguments as is used when they are on the offense instead of defense. I am honestly fairly skeptical of deregulation, and I don't believe "strangling" would be the right word - stifling could be a bit harsh even, though true. It "regulates it" in the same way that a hose regulator works - slows it down sometimes when it could get going pretty fast, but does so to even it out. Net gain is undoubtedly less, but reduces the volatility. Again, that's a bit of a side issue I think. What bothers me about the growth issue though is (A) it's unsustainable, though through technology we may find new ways to grow previously unheard of, and (B) I don't believe we have any idea of how much we can grow, nor cope with dips along the way. There has to be more to it in my mind. On the one hand, if we all were subsistence farmers who built our own houses and equipment, we'd have very little (not enough for everyone, really) but we'd be entirely stable. If some people farm enough to feed other people who are then free to trade labor for food, we have a basic yet stable economy... and we are supposed to be an extrapolation of that. Somehow though, along the way we decided since we are so great at building things and farming food, if we come up a little short we can just borrow some resources from abroad so more people can eat and still pursue non-farming ventures. Then it got to the point where we never have enough, and borrow more every year. How do we fix this? We have a lot of people who do all types of labor for food, but in order to pay them for their labors so they can get food we have to borrow money from foreign entities every year. Is this tied to the trade deficit? Are we borrowing money because we don't have enough, because we choose to spend so much of it overseas? It seems like it should be simple, but it kind of makes my brain hurt to be honest.

Ignorance isn't automatically an excuse, but it can/is/should be taken into consideration. It really depends on whether the ignorance is willful, reckless against common sense, or just plain old innocently being unaware of an obscure law. It's worth noting that a school zone has a specific speed limit, but if there is no sign posted you can claim ignorance - it's up to the city to make sure signs are posted so you are duly informed. It's a sticky issue, open to abuse on both sides, and pretty much requires case by case common sense. I don't think one can easily make sweeping generalizations that hold true on the topic.

I've kinda asked similar questions before, but I think I can clearly define the real thing that bugs me with how we politically deal with debt, the economy and our budgets. 1) Republicans condemn out of control federal spending, saying how we are borrowing money to pay for programs we can't afford - Democrats defend programs because the money creates jobs and provides useful services. 2) Democrats try to cut anything Republicans like (say DoD) or raise taxes - Republicans defend how DoD creates jobs, provides useful services, and how rich people "don't sit on their wealth" but create jobs, provide useful services. Honestly, I can't see how the benefits and liabilities of either are any different. If the federal government spends money on programs - yes, it goes into the economy and creates jobs. If wealthy people get to keep more of their money - yes, it goes into the economy and creates jobs. Whether it's defense, education, social security, or privately invested funds the money does the same basic stuff. Yet each side claims the other side is bankrupting the country and only their favored fund-allocations can save it - even though there is no definable difference. What am I missing here?

Doh! Sorry, I completely missed that, guilty as charged.... I shouldn't have posted so fast and kept my fool mouth shut! I will say though - you did link to some great videos

The problem really isn't the scientists, it's the process we all use to determine the quality of sources. For instance, all the concerns you raise with regards to climate scientists, are true with all advocates of all aspects of human endeavor. Consider the claims made by politicians, car salesmen, HOAs, oil companies, wall street bankers, military generals - do you think any of them have any less motive to lie, and any less able to bury facts to make spurious claims appear reasonable? The truth is, we tend to use shortcuts in determining the quality of information. We decide if it fits our world view, and if it does we mentally tilt the benefit of the doubt in their favor. We determine how we feel about the authority of the source - is it someone or some organization we like, respect or otherwise feel has a reasonable reputation? How do we feel about their critics? We measure the cost of the two weighed possibilities: how much does it cost to believe it, and how much does it cost if we don't. We do this because it's next to impossible to verify everything ourselves. We can't go and see what Afghanistan is like, so we trust military leaders and reporters to tell us. We run it through our "world view/model" to filter information that doesn't seem to make sense. Ten foot tall spiders invading Spain would be hard to swallow, knowing even basic information about the mechanics involved and the biology of where such things could hide before now. We filter if it's coming from a dirty commie or a filthy teabagger. Lastly, if it's information that doesn't affect us we tend to just accept it since it doesn't matter. If the news is some trouble with the guidance system on the international space station they had to fix, we don't tend to care to vet it. If it's going to impact our lives like climate change we'll consider it very carefully. That's how we normally work. As you can imagine, that is nearly useless for scientific endeavors. To this end, science has gotten where it is today through strict peer review, masses of empirical evidence reproduction of results and extensive modeling and prediction analysis. I can understand how people would be skeptical of the press-release level of science, but all the data is there to be examined if you know how to look. Most people are skeptical because they don't know how to look, and don't know how to differentiate legitimate work from, say the "super healing ionized water" snake oil pushers. I think sometimes people in the scientific community fail to realize how much it looks like a "series of bullet points" summarized by a reporter (who will usually mess it up) with a whole bunch of Greek written in the background. If you are very familiar with the scientific landscape, getting a read on information quality is much more second nature. If you are really worried about the quality of information you are getting, your best bet is to learn why it's considered solid. Learn more about how the peer review process works, how data and theory are debated, who is doing what, what their credentials are and become more familiar with the scientific landscape behind all this. You'll probably find that some claims are being overstated in the media, and it's those overstated claims that are refuted by critics, but when you cut right down to it the data that is concerning scientists which points to man made global warming actually is pretty solid. But regardless of what you find, the important point is you'll find it, and you'll have reasonable reasons to back up what you find.

This could be a little unfair, as usually it is an argument not in favor of any specific personified deity, but a claim that "someone or something created the universe with intent" which, while entirely unsubstantiated and provides no useful information (or even any information, really) is at least simplified to the point of only defining what is necessary for the claim in question. Your suggestion is just as credible of course and I am sure that's entirely why you made it, but it's worth noting that a baseless suggestion that something intentionally created the universe is technically a bit more elegant than a baseless suggestion that a specific characterization of a God, with a name, a personality, and bouts of emotional instability created the universe. That said: Simple speculation and observation also suggests that the world is flat, space does not bend, the speed of light can be exceeded, a photon cannot be in two places at once, and an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power. It has been demonstrated many times over throughout human history, that the universe is under no obligation to make it's workings evident to ourselves through our own limit capacities for simple speculation.

Just as a point of interest: Part one: Law Professor James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 Part two: "Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch (From same lecture) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en&emb=1#

People have a hard time "doing wrong" to those they identify as within their "group" whatever social fabric they are apart of. Humans have an exceptional capacity for remorseless predatory behavior as well as selfless ideals of common good. The most dramatic examples of human indecency usually have elements of disassociation which, unfortunately are pretty easy to rationalize once a person starts heading that way. That's highly probable. Did the police check for prints? I am not sure how much work police actually do in a lot of these cases, but considering the value I would hope they did some investigative work. The other thing is even if prints didn't match, if it was some younger individuals who opportunistically started B&Es they may not match yet, but chances are they will turn up sooner or later - there's far more young criminals than old ones on the street. Why not bring the vault to the client? "Crotchity old man with a shotgun house-sitting service.... sleep well on vacation - just remember the password when you come home!" Don't actually know how old you are but it's the sort of service one could grow into

It would be far too invasive honestly. You are talking about seriously limiting the options of good, law abiding citizens for nothing more than to try and catch drug traffickers. As already mentioned, barter and mislabeling would drastically reduce the effectiveness. Organized crime has already worked around all the high tech equipment that has completely changed the world in the last 80 years or so - they have a profit motive to continue to do so. The only people really hurt would be the law abiding citizens it's not supposed to target. Then you get into the need to audit records in order to identify potential irregularities - to make use of such a system, there would be huge pressure to erode privacy rights. And, on top of all of that: How exactly are you supposed to pay for anything while in Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, or any other nation where electricity is intermittent? They will have their own currencies - they won't want to go digital, are you going to exchange with their currencies? If so, they become major money laundering centers, supporting exactly the kind of business those places don't need more of.

Not to completely derail this thread into secular vs. non-secular morality, but how would we define the treatment of animals with regards to the moral opposition towards cruelty? I can see how on a certain evolutionary level, animal cruelty would be symptomatic of psychopathic tendencies and threatening to the human group, not just the animals - thus a good candidate for selective moral exclusion. However, I think it's worth considering at this point in our self-awareness if morality can really be treated as entirely evolutionary in nature. The blueprint clearly is - we lived for hundreds of thousands of years without progressing very much intellectually, but having eventually come to a point where we think about ourselves and our existence in the ways we do, I think morality has transcended that original evolutionary blueprint. People regularly debate morality intellectually, and we can see how morals have changed throughout the ages and across cultures at a pace we can surely all agree is not the work itself of evolution. I'm certain how we feel about morality is largely dictated by the impact of evolution but it's expression and even tenants seem far more culturally and philosophically based.

I think this is a very possible cause of the whole mishandled affair. I should revise my comments to reflect that I have not "concluded" it was they were "looking for a fight" and to condemn them as such would be premature - I can give them the benefit of the doubt on this. I still think it is unlikely the Israelis were looking for a fight though - they certainly weren't prepared for one, and if they look for one they are one country on Earth we can probably can agree knows how to prepare for a fight. The use of warning shots (if that did occur, I am not sure where that information came from but it seems reasonable) was probably a really bad idea at night as well. I think though the overall blame in my mind would still go to the flotilla - if they had no intention of resisting, they should have been more clear and responded by radio. The Irish vessel that pushed the blockade and was redirected peacefully following this whole ordeal was able to bypass all the "suspicious intentions" on both sides by negotiating via radio and keeping the lines of communication open. The fact there was a "fog of war" aspect to this engagement really lies with the failure of the flotilla to keep the mines of communication open, which the Israelis attempted many times throughout the night.

Really sorry to hear that man. Your feelings are entirely understandable. We live in a society with civil laws and weighed punishments and trials because without them we would be left with nothing but our emotional responses - but those emotional responses are still there when these things happen. What kind of neighborhood do you live in? Was it obvious that you guys were away on vacation? If it happened the first night and it's a odd area to hit, it could be the brainchild of someone close enough to know you were gone and had valuables. A horrible thought but it does happen. I really hope the items and especially your work is recovered, and secondarily that the bastards are caught.

I have to agree it's outrageous. I cannot imagine a good reason for this, unless the officer in question is undercover but such a situation would be incredibly rare.

With blood on their hands, that they refuse to accept as by their hand. I fault them for the dishonesty but could look past it, and I would even somewhat respect a statement such as "We forced the Israelis to choose to let us past or shoot us dead, because as long as we can we will fight this injustice by any means necessary." where they are honest about their motives. Otherwise, it's like trying to "suicide by cop" by targeting a specific cop you don't like so he can be blamed for shooting you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have not seen journalists embedded with Bin Laden or other hostiles engaged in active combat with US troops. I'm not talking about "embedded friendlies" but journalists embedded with hostile opposing forces. You did, but I didn't see the relevance. I am not aware of any group specifically that would meet all your criteria for independence with regards to the Israeli blockade, nor have I looked as I don't see the relevance to the military engagement. What I have seen mostly, is people disagreeing on whether Israel had the right to board where they did, or if they needed to wait until they were within 20 miles. Some evidence suggests they had the right up to 50 miles. What I haven't seen however, is anyone claiming that Israel did not have a blockade or that any of the vessels were treated unfairly due to being unaware of the conditions of the blockade. Again, I don't see the relevance. Any body of experts determining that any given US action is illegal, would not change the fact that a decision to engage those US troops with hostile force would be met with lethal force. When you choose to engage a military with hostile force, the results are pretty much as to be expected. A battlefield is no place to decide legality. They were invited to participate personally in the inspections, so they would all be conducted with both parties present. Aside from that, I think the UN could help setup a set of inspectors that are satisfactory to both parties, if such a discussion could even happen given the flotilla's organizer's hostility towards any form of negotiations with Israel. Indeed. I agree entirely. However, "peace protesters" that then choose to engage with hostility towards US troops would not be such a remedy. They have to enforce this blockade and sink vessels that risk breaching the blockade if necessary. The riot police would have been useful in this instance when boarding the one out of six ships that were intent on resisting with force. They were not on hand for this maneuver, which may be an oversight on the Israeli's side but the old saying "you go to war with the army you've got" applies, and they used what they had on hand to try to deal with the flotilla without loss of life. They didn't have to be. They could have easily complied and gone to the port they were directed to where they would have been allowed to observe the inspections themselves. They only have themselves to blame for being 80 miles from any other port, just as they are responsible for their own actions in refusing all radio contact and proceeding to break through a military blockade. I thought the issue is Israel under-reacted by failing to recognize the threat posed by the fifth ship. Had they known beforehand how hostile the crew would be, they could have just disabled the vessel's propellers and towed it to shore, or used a larger boarding party that would not be overwhelmed and forced to respond with lethal force. Again, the Israelis are entirely honest: they have a well known established military blockade, and the use of lethal force is authorized if necessary to enforce it. Anyone challenging the blockade is aware of this. They may not like it, they may find it unwarranted or unjustified or even punitively cruel - but they are honest about their stance and that is what is important to keeping unnecessary loss of life from occurring in situations like this. Knowing their honest stance means it can be criticized and debated, and even changed. The flotilla was dishonest, posing as "peaceful protesters" (which implies the use of passive resistance when boarded or subdued) and then being outright hostile and aggressively attacked the IDF as they boarded. This dishonesty is the whole reason there was loss of life at all. And yes - I agree it played right into Hamas' plans, and given that the Israelis are the ones who erringly took them at face value and had it blow up in their face, I am pretty confident it was the activists' plan to trigger this event all along.

Had the crews of those vessels taken a page from the crew of flotilla ship #5 the Cuban Missile Crisis may have turned into a full-blown catastrophe. With regards to the civilian goods, it's been argued that there is clear evidence that civilian equipment is cannibalized for components to make weapons. Within Gaza, they find concrete used for rocket bunkers, wheel chair batteries used for trigger devices - there's only so far you can go when every humanitarian concession is turned into a weapon to kill your citizens. I don't know how chocolate is misused, but the thought terrifies me! And as soon as it was clear weapons were being shipped in, the blockade would be back up in full force, just with more people dead and everyone a little more jaded. I am personally appalled by the conditions in Gaza. They do get food but it's more of a refuge camp than a population. The economic situation is abysmal, but it will not get better until Israel and the Palestinians can live in peace - anything they build, will get blown up for as long as they are both fighting each other. Like the economic strife, the blockade itself is a symptom, not a cause.

I am not 100% certain myself, but it has been ongoing for years, it's not some warlord despot hijacking aid and declaring an area "off limits" to justify it. Military actions in general are probably pretty hard to nail down in terms of "recognition" since there are always people who condemn them and call them illegal. I believe it's recognized by the UN, but again I don't know how that works - I do think it's safe to say it's very clearly internationally established, and Israel is very clear on what it will do and what it expects of vessels attempting to breech it. Which opens the doors to all kinds of military equipment. However, they are condemning Israel for limiting aid, when it would only be marginally limited (ie, concrete and chocolate) if they agreed to third party inspections. While they condemn Israel for blocking aid, they are intent ending any kind of inspections at all. They are using a disingenuous argument as an emotional appeal, when they should challenge the blockade legally and go after what they actually want.

How did they ensure only offensive weapons didn't make it in? Secondarily, both parties are subject to rather disproportionate conditions: How long has the threat of missile attacks on civilians persisted in Israel, or the other terrorist attacks? If a blockade is acceptable temporarily given the grave situation of your civilians living in bunkers, what happens when both persist for years? Again, the legality or justifications for the blockade are entirely aside from the whole conversation. How military operations are carried out, popular or not, is the key issue behind the events on that ship. An interesting note from the JFK blockade of Cuba: So they used their own discernment to decide if the one vessel was a threat, and then boarded a vessel from Lebanon. What if the Lebanese had resisted with arms? That would have been just great for the whole Cuban Missile Crisis.

I do wonder how American armed forces would react to finding journalists embedded with an operation designed to disrupt and circumvent a US Military mission pursuant to national security. Whether you agree with the mission or whether it is important to their national security, they have long since made it clear that in their view it is, and the blockade has been internationally recognized as such for years. It's an internationally recognized military blockade of a port. If people want to challenge whether it is legal and have Israel sanctioned, or otherwise see political pressure applied to lift the blockade that is fair - but to simply say "In my mind I don't think it's justified" and then condemn any actions taken to enforce it is just backwards. Again, I think it would be a double standard to expect our own military to work this way. This already proves that such third party checks are irrelevant if they are not done by a trusted third party. If they were a genuinely objective third party, trying to further the cause of having third-party inspections before leaving so as to be allowed to dock in Gaza, they shouldn't have shipped items known to be in violation of the blockade. It doesn't matter if the cement was eventually allowed in - Israel blocks the unrestricted shipping of cement into Gaza. Everyone knows this. The "inspectors" knowingly gave this ship a "pass" despite the fact it was carrying cargo in breach of the blockade. They reviewed the case in question, and decided to let it in with certain restrictions to it's use. They have the right to do this. That right may be overbearing and may be subject to change due to political pressure, but it is part of the nature of the current well known blockade. Again, the US military routinely engages in missions that some people would call illegal. I'm pretty sure Saddam considered the entire invasion of Iraq illegal, and the Taliban considered the entire Afghanistan war illegal. Honestly it's no different than sending aid trucks over a minefield that the military warns the aid convey is there, then getting all upset over the consequences of driving over a minefield. It's the frick'n military - when they conduct an operation, they'll point a gun at your head to ensure their operation succeeds, and try not pull the trigger unless they feel they absolutely have to. That's not the Israeli military, that's standard for all military operations. Maybe we are just desensitized to seeing the military involved in these sorts of events, but the military is a last resort because then you need them to enforce a political action, things have long since gotten very grave and dangerous. They did not issue stern letters to nations trading with Gaza ports, they did not warn how docking in Gaza could hurt diplomatic relations, they put up a row of guns and said "Do not freaking dock here." There's a certain amount of gravity to that, and I don't think any of us would appreciate it if our own military operations were dismissed so flippantly simply because some people find them disagreeable. Their goal isn't to slow down shipments of goods. It's to ensure that unchecked goods aren't being shipped into Gaza. The goal of the flotilla wasn't to get aid into Gaza either - they refused all forms of compromise offered that would allow that. Their goal, and what they seem to be pushing for is unchecked unfettered access to Gaza. * They refused third party trusted inspection. * They refused to dock and observe the inspection of goods. It isn't what they want to transport, its how they want to do so without inspection or answering to anyone for anything they want to bring. Their goal wasn't "To get food and aid into Gaza" as they were given many remedies for this. They want unfettered access. They want to dock with no inspections. This is what sickens me the most: they are using aid as an entire red herring. They bring aid, because it's easier to say "this is harmless and we should be allowed to dock" which, if that was allowed, would mean they could bring anything. Would just like to add a "ditto" to that.

A simple JavaScript could help solve the dormancy issue. A small AJAX routine that fetched the homepage and discarded the contents in the header on a 14 minute timeout (present when a user is logged in) should keep the session current.

I'm pretty sure it was the terminology used by the reporter, not the IDF. I believe standard procedure would be to inform the vessel they are in violation and must change course, and that lethal force is authorized to prevent the breech of the blockade. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I still say that's an unfair characterization. Pirates pillage and loot - it's why they are out there at sea and whether they board a vessel or not is determined by whether they can loot it and if it has anything of value. The IDF was there to enforce a blockade against ships entering their territorial waters and docking at an off-limits port. Whether they had legal authority to engage where they did is another matter - one that should be addressed to determine if they are guilty of enforcing the blockade outside of their jurisdiction - not piracy. The US Coast Guard seizes ships and property when they find they've been transporting drugs - sometimes the legality of these acts are contended. Simply contending this however, does not mean the Coast Guard are pirates - just that they may have conducted an operation illegally. They then answer for a different charge than piracy, one that actually applies to the laws broken in question. To call either "pirates" is a dishonest, simplistic smear. It's like calling George Bush a mass murderer because we disagree with the pretext for a war he started, or worse - labeling the soldiers he sent into Iraq as such.

Did you catch where Mooey said that practice is now illegal, and doesn't fit the evidence of what happened in this situation? It also doesn't address the point you quoted: If they had laid down arms as did the other boats instead of resist violently, the capture of that boat would probably have been no more eventful than the other six.

I agree entirely. If the IDF did fire on the flotilla first before boarding I can understand why they would take up arms. I could even understand if they thought they were being fired on mistakenly - one person misreads a sound among the noise, tension and confusion and says "they're shooting!" or even just says that to describe the paintball fire and next thing you know people are under the impression they are taking live fire. That's part of the confusion that happens in warfare.

I agree entirely. It appears a lot of Israel agrees too, they are drawing significant heat internally for how this was handled. When they had to go in they messed it up. I don't disagree with that at all. The only real points I disagree with is the characterization of the ships as a "peace movement" that were victims of Israeli force. They did not handle the situation well, but they tried to avoid the situation as much as they could. It was forced upon them by the flotilla, and then they were forced to defend themselves. Debates such as "should the military enforce policy [x]" are good and I think the discussion with regards to the blockade is quite worthwhile. What bothers me is when people suggest that the actions taken by the flotilla are justified because the blockade is not. I think there are many things wrongs with the blockade. It should be reexamined. I do however take serious issue with breaking an active blockade as a means to dissolve it, if those attempting to break it claim any respect for human life. To clarify: 1) Peaceful protests attempting to break a blockade are understandable for the most part as long as they agree to and then do surrender and use passive resistance when boarded. It is still a risk to human life, but far less than actually attempting to breech an active blockade against naval vessels. 2) Hostile engagement with any military should be expected to result in loss of life. Safety, even that of observers or innocent non-combatants is stressed and striven for, but cannot be guaranteed. I have no idea how effective such technologies are, with enough error correction to resent corrupt packets it's conceivable a few megabytes could get through over a period of time, but I really don't know if that is realistic. I'm curious about this too. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No no, I didn't mean that! I was curious as to when the live feeds from the flotilla were cut, and whether they got any photos out before being subdued.

That would justify the Israeli response, and the view that the Israeli response was "unjustifiable" (as opposed to simply botched) has done more to undermine the blockade they are protesting than any of the peaceful protests to date. So far many of the individuals on the ship have said (as in the link from Double K) that the activists did start attacking the soldiers first, while others pleaded with them to stop. If they were "infiltrators" they wouldn't be easily identified as such, and they could just as easily be activists who were willing to resort to violence. Detailed background investigations would be needed to actually demonstrate affiliations/activities that suggested they may have organized with such intent, but even that would most likely be circumstantial.

I had the same thought but when did they loose satellite? I heard they were streaming video live up to a point, and could have gotten some file-uploads through for the still frames. It's also conceivable they managed to hide some SD cards on the ship, I don't know if they had unfettered access to it since the event though.