If you define an element as something that "cannot be broken down any further" you exclude anything that decays into lighter elements, such as uranium or radium. You also exclude substances that can be induced to break down through various means.
However, it's not a problem if you refine the definition slightly: an element is that which cannot be broken down chemically. You can't turn an atom of X into a lighter atom of Y just by mixing chemicals together in a beaker (no offence, chemists, I'm just trying to illustrate a point). Fire X through a particle accelerator hard enough, though, and sometimes it breaks apart into smaller/lighter pieces when it hits something.
I can think of only one difference between Britain and the US in this regard: we don't have O'Reillys, Colberts or Mahers. The only analogue I can think of is Jeremy Paxman but he's not even close; we just don't celebrate(?) political commentators to the same degree.
I can't speak Italian so I won't comment on their media but I will say this: it seems as though Berlusconi got away with much worse than defamation or phone hacking. Ultimately though, I'm only really concerned with how my own country's media operates, parochial as that may be.
Perhaps the choice of test subject had more to do with the ease of tending to them automatically over such a long time frame; using larger organisms like lab mice would likely be impractical. Methinks the similarity in the size of the genome is a happy coincidence.
What puzzles me is why it's necessary to send animals to Mars at all. Are there really that many more cosmic rays en route to Mars than there are where the ISS is?
The way I see it, the problems that stem from our system of economics are incidental; the real problem is democracy*. People will always vote for the guy who says something along the lines of "Free stuff for all!" rather than the one that says "Sorry countrymen, but we can't afford it and this is why... actually, while I'm here, the state is already spending more than it earns and we need to cut a few things."
*Caveat: I'm pro-democracy and I'll remain so until a truly benevolent and intelligent dictator comes along. I suspect we'll have to build our own.
You could certainly argue that this is a problem with the culture and practices of the press and not one specifically with Murdoch. That said, when a significant portion of the popular press is in fact owned by Murdoch the distinction seems moot.
I heard this on the radio yesterday and it seems pertinent: Charlotte Church (a singer - just think 'Bieber' but with classical training and a proper excuse for looking like a girl) was asked to perform at a Murdoch birthday party. She was told that if she waived her usual fee she would be treated "favourably" in News Int. papers. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical but that sounds rather a lot like extortion. It's even worse when you bear in mind we're talking about a girl who was in her early teens at the time.
The government hacks people all the time, but I rarely see outrage about it.
Cite or STFU. That is all.
Actually, no it isn't. The government - or more correctly the police - are quite capable of getting their hands on your data easily, without resorting to "hacking" if they get a court order. They don't need to hack anything.
Besides that, Britain isn't some tin pot dictatorship (yet) where the police are basically there to do what politicians say: ministers have been tried, convicted and sentenced for a number of crimes, so they patently aren't above the law. I've no doubt, however, that they still get away with the same kinds of financial shenanigans that any rich banker or company executive does.
Not so new that I haven't seen that joke a hundred times or cracked it myself more than once. Just because it's been going on for a while doesn't make this sort of 'red top' reporting acceptable.
You must have skin much thicker than mine, honoured elder.
"Penguin Group is removing Kindle ebooks from libraries using Overdrive citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content."
(Emphasis mine) I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.
Eh you can mod it down because he didn't go along with the premise and you just can't stand that... but it's the fucking truth. Whoever modded this down is a pansy girlie-man with no functional testicles as evidenced by his inability to deal with a contrary opinion.
Evidently you can't stand the moderator's opinion that the parent is off-topic (personally I think it got off lightly). Is your resultant rant irony or rank hypocrisy?
Putting wi-fi in a campground is contrary to its purpose.
You mean providing network access where wires are expensive or otherwise inconvenient? Wi-fi sounds ideal.
Some ball-less soul-less sack of shit will mod me down anyway because he hasn't the guts to argue against me, but that's okay.
You got a -1, stop whinging and deal with it like everyone else.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with the BBC? You talk about the use of means to maintain control over content for profit, but when the owner is itself a publicly owned body, what's the problem if the people in the country in question have free access?
...so if the government were headed with a real leader (ie instead of a toady to their special-interests), they would confront whoever was the HEAD of the board that made such a statement.
No.
It is antithetical to the very nature of the BBC for them to give in to government pressure. Ever.
But unfortunately I don't live in an area with cable or fibre, so I'm stuck with DSL. Even if it was available I've no need for a landline telephone so I have to add a sizeable amount to those seemingly cheap prices. I'd be looking at ~£40 p.m. for uncapped* fibre; for some reason the 20MB and 40MB packages cost the same. That also requires a minimum 18 months contract. (Virgin are marginally cheaper)
Maybe I'm not in the 2+2.4 kids target audience, but I'll stick with my £12, 8MB, contract-free service. It seems like better value for money and it's more than adequate for playing online, using iPlayer and getting the odd game on Steam. Still, I guess I'd get a better deal if I watched TV.
The press is the fourth branch of government and it is doing a horrible job.
The press is just a marketing tool.
Yes, hence the part about doing a terrible job. How about a state-owned media operator like the BBC? Aunty Beeb may not be perfect but a news outlet with neutrality as part of its mandate sounds like a good idea, at least on paper.
The fact you actually believe it'll work when there are several good (both extinct and extant) examples on why it doesn't makes me think this is actually a troll post.
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me, then.
If you define an element as something that "cannot be broken down any further" you exclude anything that decays into lighter elements, such as uranium or radium. You also exclude substances that can be induced to break down through various means.
However, it's not a problem if you refine the definition slightly: an element is that which cannot be broken down chemically. You can't turn an atom of X into a lighter atom of Y just by mixing chemicals together in a beaker (no offence, chemists, I'm just trying to illustrate a point). Fire X through a particle accelerator hard enough, though, and sometimes it breaks apart into smaller/lighter pieces when it hits something.
Is that better?
Mere steps? I don't think so.
I'd say ansibles are more of a quantum leap away.
I can think of only one difference between Britain and the US in this regard: we don't have O'Reillys, Colberts or Mahers. The only analogue I can think of is Jeremy Paxman but he's not even close; we just don't celebrate(?) political commentators to the same degree.
I can't speak Italian so I won't comment on their media but I will say this: it seems as though Berlusconi got away with much worse than defamation or phone hacking. Ultimately though, I'm only really concerned with how my own country's media operates, parochial as that may be.
Hmm, that took over an hour.
We're slipping, guys!
Perhaps the choice of test subject had more to do with the ease of tending to them automatically over such a long time frame; using larger organisms like lab mice would likely be impractical. Methinks the similarity in the size of the genome is a happy coincidence.
What puzzles me is why it's necessary to send animals to Mars at all. Are there really that many more cosmic rays en route to Mars than there are where the ISS is?
I think it boils down to a benevolent dictator doing what the people need, rather than what they want. See the paragraph before the one you quoted.
The way I see it, the problems that stem from our system of economics are incidental; the real problem is democracy*. People will always vote for the guy who says something along the lines of "Free stuff for all!" rather than the one that says "Sorry countrymen, but we can't afford it and this is why... actually, while I'm here, the state is already spending more than it earns and we need to cut a few things."
*Caveat: I'm pro-democracy and I'll remain so until a truly benevolent and intelligent dictator comes along. I suspect we'll have to build our own.
You could certainly argue that this is a problem with the culture and practices of the press and not one specifically with Murdoch. That said, when a significant portion of the popular press is in fact owned by Murdoch the distinction seems moot.
I heard this on the radio yesterday and it seems pertinent: Charlotte Church (a singer - just think 'Bieber' but with classical training and a proper excuse for looking like a girl) was asked to perform at a Murdoch birthday party. She was told that if she waived her usual fee she would be treated "favourably" in News Int. papers. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical but that sounds rather a lot like extortion. It's even worse when you bear in mind we're talking about a girl who was in her early teens at the time.
The government hacks people all the time, but I rarely see outrage about it.
Cite or STFU. That is all.
Actually, no it isn't. The government - or more correctly the police - are quite capable of getting their hands on your data easily, without resorting to "hacking" if they get a court order. They don't need to hack anything.
Besides that, Britain isn't some tin pot dictatorship (yet) where the police are basically there to do what politicians say: ministers have been tried, convicted and sentenced for a number of crimes, so they patently aren't above the law. I've no doubt, however, that they still get away with the same kinds of financial shenanigans that any rich banker or company executive does.
I suggest you call your friends first and then the mall; boycotting is pointless if one is the only person doing it.
No, newbie douche, the failure is on your part.
Wow, that seemed harsh. Do you talk like that to people in the real world?
In retrospect it's clear that I should have said "ought to be above...". Still, there's no need to be abusive.
Are you new here??
Not so new that I haven't seen that joke a hundred times or cracked it myself more than once. Just because it's been going on for a while doesn't make this sort of 'red top' reporting acceptable.
You must have skin much thicker than mine, honoured elder.
"Penguin Group is removing Kindle ebooks from libraries using Overdrive citing 'security concerns' as a weak excuse, while most likely taking a shot at Amazon. One more example of DRM being about protecting business models, not content."
(Emphasis mine)
I try not to criticise submissions, but what the hell? I don't care what was done by whom, I thought Slashdot was above such flagrant editorialism.
For shame.
It's not a mis-spelling: it's whinging. Comes from whinge.
So there.
How has that turned out? Have PPCs really fallen behind, or hit a wall, compared to Intel's CPUs Apple uses?
Does my XBox count?
Eh you can mod it down because he didn't go along with the premise and you just can't stand that ... but it's the fucking truth. Whoever modded this down is a pansy girlie-man with no functional testicles as evidenced by his inability to deal with a contrary opinion.
Evidently you can't stand the moderator's opinion that the parent is off-topic (personally I think it got off lightly). Is your resultant rant irony or rank hypocrisy?
Putting wi-fi in a campground is contrary to its purpose.
You mean providing network access where wires are expensive or otherwise inconvenient? Wi-fi sounds ideal.
Some ball-less soul-less sack of shit will mod me down anyway because he hasn't the guts to argue against me, but that's okay.
You got a -1, stop whinging and deal with it like everyone else.
Posts like yours don't help.
And neither do posts like yours, unless you say why you think as you do.
'Does not... does to!' exchanges do not make for thought-provoking reading.
Nice of you to post anonymously to avoid losing your precious karma by the way.
Pot, meet kettle.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Paul McGann made a good Doctor. Far, far better than ol' Big Ears in my opinion.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with the BBC?
You talk about the use of means to maintain control over content for profit, but when the owner is itself a publicly owned body, what's the problem if the people in the country in question have free access?
...so if the government were headed with a real leader (ie instead of a toady to their special-interests), they would confront whoever was the HEAD of the board that made such a statement.
No.
It is antithetical to the very nature of the BBC for them to give in to government pressure. Ever.
But unfortunately I don't live in an area with cable or fibre, so I'm stuck with DSL. Even if it was available I've no need for a landline telephone so I have to add a sizeable amount to those seemingly cheap prices. I'd be looking at ~£40 p.m. for uncapped* fibre; for some reason the 20MB and 40MB packages cost the same. That also requires a minimum 18 months contract. (Virgin are marginally cheaper)
Maybe I'm not in the 2+2.4 kids target audience, but I'll stick with my £12, 8MB, contract-free service. It seems like better value for money and it's more than adequate for playing online, using iPlayer and getting the odd game on Steam. Still, I guess I'd get a better deal if I watched TV.
But he did use either.
The press is the fourth branch of government and it is doing a horrible job.
The press is just a marketing tool.
Yes, hence the part about doing a terrible job. How about a state-owned media operator like the BBC? Aunty Beeb may not be perfect but a news outlet with neutrality as part of its mandate sounds like a good idea, at least on paper.
The fact you actually believe it'll work when there are several good (both extinct and extant) examples on why it doesn't makes me think this is actually a troll post.
fucktarded USians
This wasn't a giveaway?