What happened is that some drunk redneck or gangbanger or something blew apart the
local McDonalds sign with a shotgun.
However, what you didn't know is that cell phone towers are hidden in places like that --
the only indicator is a little notch or a light in the sign.
It's a lot cheaper to put a box of electronics on or in an existing structure than errect one from scratch. Also as it's out of sight is less likely to have people objecting, an illuminated sign is especially nice, since it already has a power connection.
I spent hours talking on my phone during the time, which I thought was free, but since the
McDonalds sign was destroyed, it went ROAMING. I had a $600 phone bill that month,
which I tried to explain and still refused to pay, so they disconnected me.
Did the handset not give some indication that it was roaming? If it did then it's your problem, if it didn't then your provider sounds like they are being rather nasty.
Cell phone towers are popping up everywhere.
On vacation to my hometown just this past week I recall seeing 6 cell towers that were
built in the 3 years since I moved away from that area.
A tower is simply a suitable structure to put a transciever. In many parts of Europe planners tend to discourage putting up new towers and masts if possible. The general position is that if it can go on an existing tower, mast or building then it can go there. Which had lead to some fuss being made, especially about small low power cellsites, which are simply small boxes which will go anywhere. Maybe planning rules are different in parts of the US.
Reception may be a problem in some areas, but I'd say it's rapidly improving.
Unless this is a huge town 6 purpose built towers should give you very good reception.
What we need is ONE phone number that rings your cell phone, your land line, and
any other lines you wish to tie into your "service" (e.g. work, vacation home, etc.).
Or even the ability to tie X numbers to Y phones dynamically. e.g. if you are at work your work number rings both the phone in your pocket and the phone on your desk. As does your home number, but there is some indication of which number was called. The tricky bit is if you want to be able to use your cellphone to pick up a call ringing on someone elses desk, which is a common PBX feature. If you are at home and someone rings your home phone number your phone(s) at home ring as does your cellphone. If someone calls your work number when you are not at work they get either voicemail or redirected to someone else.
Basically, it should be "smart" forwarding that will follow you anywhere you want to be
found.
Most of it is just software. Features like being able to ring multiple phones at once don't generally exist on the public telephone network, but are common on PBX systems. In many cases the same manufactuers make both types of telephone switching systems.
It helps to understand that, from what I've seen, most European (or is it most non-North
American Numbering Plan countries?) have flexible phone number structures.
The NANP is somewhat unique, in that the +1 area code, covers the US, including Alaska and Hawaii; Canada; Bermuda, UK territory (+1 441); Bahamas (+1 242); Turks and Caicos (+1 649), UK territory; Dominican Republic (+1 809); Cayman Islands, UK territory (+1 345); Jamaica (+1 876); Puerto Rico, US territory (+1 787);British Virgin Islands (+1 284); US Virgin Islands (+1 340); Anguilla, UK territory (+1 264); St. Kitts and Nevis (+1 869); Antigua and Barbuda, UK territory (+1 268); Monserrat, UK territory (+1 664); St Lucia (+1 758); St Vincent and the Grenadines (+1 784); Barbados (+1 246); Grenada (+1 473); Trinidad & Tobago (+1 868) then the really silly one Guam, US territory (+1 671) In the Carribbean non NANP countries are Cuba (+53); Hati (+509); Guadeloupe, French territory (+590) and Martinique, French territory (+596) The Marshall Islands (+692) are a US trust nearer to the US than Guam
haven't really investigated how it all works, but sometimes I wonder if a more flexible
numbering system might have helped us to avoid our current number space issues, what
with overlays, splits, and some nearly empty exchanges.
The most logical first step would be to split up the NANP. The Carribbean countries either staying as they are or becoming +5XX (and Guam +6XX). Then you'd need to do something like US becomes +10 and Canada +11. This immediatly gets rid of such things as overlay needed if you want to dial a free only in Canada 800 number from the US. (Since trying to do +1 800 XXX XXXX won't work, within the NANP.) A truly flexible system would be to have every number be 10 digits long, But the area code/local number split variable. So you'd have 2 digit area codes with 8 digit local numbers (79,800,000 subject to the rules that no number can start 0, 1, 555 or 911); 3 digit area codes, 7 digit area codes (7,980,000 numbers, the current situation, but insufficent for larger US cities); 4 digit area codes (798,000 local numbers) and so on. If you don't know where you are you dial 1+ 10 digits into a regular phone, using a cellphone either 1+10 digits or just the 10 digits and press the "send" button. Modern telephone equiptment can handle "promiscious dialing" as it is known in the US. Indeed in most parts of the world it's been the norm for decades. With the European model for cellular numbering there is no such thing as a "local number" you dial the entire number, either as a national number or even the full +. It's part of the GSM spec that this always works, even when you are not making an international call. Land line operators havn't yet caught on though. The psudo area code part of the number is simply to distinguish between different operators.
I don't understood why
cellular communications is still so expensive.
Because people will pay, effectivly. Cellular communication started off with a price premium and retained it. Even though it is probably cheaper to set up and maintain a celluar network. Putting wires all over the place is very expensive, especially in cities. Also it can take up a lot more time to fault find in several miles of cable than to replace a cellular base station.
My understanding is in Europe (at least the UK), local phone calls on landlines are
metered. The infrastructure is there for someone to pay when calling landline to cell.
Not really relevent, since from the start cellular phones in Europe were assigned their own psudo area codes. So a call to such a phone from a landline would never be local. This probably couldn't have worked in the US because of the constrains of the NANP.
In Europe (and pretty much everywhere else) cell phones are "calling party pays". This
means that it costs more to call a cell phone because the caller pays for it.
One British provider offered phones along the US line, regular number and pay for incomming calls. AFAIK they didn't sell that many.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it,
Sometimes with history it's the really important points which get glossed over.
and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
It dosn't appear to have been specifically directed against Jews, though. Just about anyone not a "patriotic German" was a convenient target.
The problem most "outsiders" don't understand is that there is a difference between Anarachy and Democracy (Technically we are a Republic).
Plenty of Americans don't appear to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
They ignore concepts like the social contract and take the Constitution out of context trying to use it verbatim without knowing the background details.
Historical information surrounding the US Constitution is not proprietary to US citizens (nor does someone simply being a US citizen mean they have even the first clue about the context of any historical document). When the US decided to set up a government they "borrowed" ideas from all over the place, especially classical Europe.
If I with the same consistency tried to shove Sweden down your throat, with the same apparent lack of critical thinking, I'd be run out of here, and for good reason.
Odds on the people first in line for running you out would include other (embarassed) Swedes.
As an American, I have the right to criticize my country and my government.
If you are not an American, you do not have that right.
So either Americans do not have the right to criticise any other country or government. Or it's perfectly ok for anyone to criticise any country or government... Any other position would be rather hypocitical. The US government does not appear to follow the former position. Either in word or deed, so we are left with the latter option.
That is correct. However, there seems to be rather large and vocal group of americans who think they're living in a perfect country,
Even if this were true it need not be relevent to how the US behaves towards the rest of the world. Spain, France and Britain treated their own citizens a lot better than the peoples of other nations their occupied to build their empires.
and that is impossible for some other country to be doing better in terms of freedom, for instance. The patriotism in European countries tends to be much less vocal.
All too often patriotism and jingoism tend to be confused.
You don't see as many scandinavians shouting that they are the best in the world as you see americans doing that
If someone has a good country why should they need to shout about it? People rarely need to shout the obvious:)
Keep in mind that neither France nor Germany would be democratic nations if it weren't for the US and the UK backed defeat of the Nazis.
It's not anything like so black and white. There were Americans initially backing the Nazi government. Notable amongst these was a man who's son and grandson would later become US presidents.
I know that sounds like an average dick-American thing to say, and I don't mean it in that way, but it is hard to be the "parent nation" of modern liberal democracy,
The US hasn't been around long enough to claim to be any kind of "parent nation".
and then to be told that even though it says so in your First Amendment, lots of small countries, and countries that you helped build are better at the basic democratic building blocks than you are.
Which countries might these be? Even if there are some it's hardly compensation for the long list of democratic governments the US has destroyed.
It's also easy for countries to criticize when *they* aren't under siege by radical Islamic terrorist organizations.
Most other nations have the good sense to avoid doing daft things like funding undemocratic Arab governments and training people who don't especially like them to fight proxy wars. The US went and made enemies around the world then, childlike, says "why do they hate us?". The Saudis hate the US because the US supports a corrupt ruling class; the Palistinians hate the US because the US gave a foreign people money and weapons to disposess them of their land; the Iranians hate the US because the US (and the UK) installed a tyrant in place of a democratic government; the Afganis hate the US because the US bombed them; the Iraqis hate the US because the USAF (together with the RAF) have been attacking their country for over a decade. Does the US mainstream media even bother to tell the US public any of this?
I guess you are one of those people who don't mind your kid seeing blood, murder and violence on TV but thinks their psyche is irreversible destroyed if they ever see a female nipple on TV, something your children depended their lives on.
Especially considering how violent some programming specifically intended for children is. Cartoons especially...
Here in America ("The Land of the Free [totse.com]") we do have a higher percentage of the population incarcerated [prisonactivist.org] than in any other country in the world.
I though it was only highest proportion out of supposedly "free" countries. If it's the highest proportion of any country that looks very much worst.
I really don't understand why all the US based people commenting here is so upset.
I currently live in the US and comes originally from one of the 1st place countires.
Possibly they have little to compare with. IIRC the US has the lowest rate of passport holdership of any "first world" country.
My personal experience is that the papers in these countries are more diversified, they write about more interssting topics,
Diversity is a very important, there is really no such thing as an objective media, all editors select what they put in their newspapers, TV or radio programmes or on a website.
they don't censor as much, the are more controversial, the are MUCH more in-depth than their US counterparts.
All of these are decisions made by the editor. Since kind of "censorship" you appear to be describing is self censorship.
And as a comment to the arrest of the reporters that crossed the security lines, why not just escort them to the other side? The US police has a sexual fixation on arresting people. I don't think there is any other country in the world where the police arrest as menay people as in the US for the most ridicoulus reasons. It's liek I sometimes are convinced that the get a bonus for arresting the most every week or so!
I'm not sure it is that simple, but number of arrests or issuing of citations/tickets/fines/etc can be seen as a performance metric for police officers. Easier to measure than rate of preventing, detecting or solving crimes. Hardly confined to the US either.
That sort of phenomenon is pretty common. There are apparently several Mount Mountains in the world.
Terry Pratchett worked this into one of his Discworld books. With such examples as "Mount Your finger!" and "Mount Who's this fool who dosn't know a mountain when he sees one?"
One solid example I can think of is the River Avon in western England. Afon means river in the old local dialect...
There is more than one River Avon in England. No doubt a few tourists wind up thinking a certain playwrite lived in Bath.
I really believe that the Founders didn't envision the sorts of multinational conglomerates and media empires that we're seeing today.
How could they, since they didn't forsee that corporate entities would be considered "people" or that the concept of "limited liability", originally intended to protect investors from creditors if a company went bankrupt (thus encouraging more investment especially by people who could only afford to invest a small "share" of the amount needed to finance a startup or expansion), being (mis)applied as protecting executives from their actions.
Adam Smith supposedly said that big business is effectively the same as big government. His 'Free Market' refered to a free market of multiple small businesses.
It's rather hard to have any kind of "market" where one entity completly controls how commerce takes place. Be that government, a single monopoly or a cartel.
It is only at the present time that (most) media companies pretend to be objective.
Now you have fewer actual media companies, since often many outlets can be owned by the same entity. Also just as lobbying of politicans has become a larger problem in recent years media companies can also be subject to lobbying actions.
Historically, the newspapers were very up front about their slants, and those seeking to form their opinions on matters would generally purchase papers of both the left and the right, and then derive their own opinion from the facts within each.
If only media bias were as simple as "left" and "right". Or even if positions pf political parties were that simple:)
Now, the "objective" media will push their own slant and the average reader will accept it as truth. The NY Times, in particular, has recently been guilty of frequently contaminating their 'news' pieces with editorial opinion.
If all (or most) media outlets are saying the same thing then that can be claimed as proof that they are "objective" as opposed to being biased in much the same way.
This extends beyond the headlines, too. (See: stance on Iraq)
Slanting can be choosing if they are going to cover a story or not. Iraq (and Israel) are good examples of foreign news virtually always presented in a biased way in many places. A completly different issue, often ignored by the mainstream media even where it is a domestic issue, is extending copyright and other "corporate friendly" legislation.
Yeah, but could neutrons penetrate a double-hull space ship, with (for example), a thin layer of lead between them? Since they are pretty massive, I would think you could stop them cold pretty easily.
Even a dense metal is still mostly empty space. Unless a nutron actually hits an atomic nucleus it will pass straight through a material. In which case it can either bounce off losing energy or be captured. In the latter case there are 3 possibilities a stable isotope, an unstable radioactive isotope or a fission event.
I know this would make the hull/shielding radioactive, but it would mostly spare the water, which is more useful for blocking X-rays and such.
Worst case senario is that your shielding ends up as an effective moderator, ensuring that any neutrons which do get through are travelling slowly, since these are more likely to be captured.
Because their bias prevents them from reporting the truth.
In theory the press is free. But in practice they are biased. Either because of ownership, increasingly an issue with increased corporate ownership, or because of some external body. (If you want to lobby the press having very few people own the outlets makes things easier too.)
For example FoxNews reporters are not allowed to refer to palestine or use the phrase "occupied terrotories". They also refer to jewish settlements as "jewish neighborhoods". Why? I don't know.
In the same way that you are unlikely to see Israeli "settlers" who shoot Palestinians described as "terrorists".
What possible motive does a US news outlet to act as a PR firm for the nation of Israel?
It goes far beyond the US media, the US Congress approves the sending of huge amounts of money to Israel. Indeed there is more support within the US Congress for the Israeli government than within the Knesset.
Again I don't know the answer. All I know is that their bias prevents them reporting the news accurately.
Why the US establishment is so intersted in supporting a much smaller foreign country should be a big news story. Especially domestically in the US.
"If you don't like it, print your own newsletter."
Yes that will show them!.
If anyone were to do this they are likely to be called an "anti-semite" if they have any position other than praise for Zionism, even though the Palestinians are at least as much a semitic people as the Israelis, plenty of Jews are non or anti Zionist, plenty of pro Zionists claim to be Christians. Indeed someone who was a Semtic Jew would probably be called an anti-semite if they opposed Zionism in anway. In the west, especially the US "anti-semitic" now more or less means "non-Zionist". Another term used applied to someone attempting to promote any alternative news would be "conspiracy theorist". Even though the attempts seen in the mainstream media to link Al Queda to any terrorist attack anywhere on the planet look very much like a conspiracy theory. Also when did 17 year old boys suddenly become "men"?
If the SOHO satellite and the proposed space station are both at L1, how close will they be? Visible distance?
SOHO is at Earth/Sol L1, this station would go at Luna/Earth L1. Different points. The size of the "points" is a function of the mass and mass distribution of the larger 2 objects. In the case of the proposed location these objects are Earth and Luna.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened is that some drunk redneck or gangbanger or something blew apart the local McDonalds sign with a shotgun.
However, what you didn't know is that cell phone towers are hidden in places like that -- the only indicator is a little notch or a light in the sign.
It's a lot cheaper to put a box of electronics on or in an existing structure than errect one from scratch. Also as it's out of sight is less likely to have people objecting, an illuminated sign is especially nice, since it already has a power connection.
I spent hours talking on my phone during the time, which I thought was free, but since the McDonalds sign was destroyed, it went ROAMING. I had a $600 phone bill that month, which I tried to explain and still refused to pay, so they disconnected me.
Did the handset not give some indication that it was roaming? If it did then it's your problem, if it didn't then your provider sounds like they are being rather nasty.
Cell phone towers are popping up everywhere. On vacation to my hometown just this past week I recall seeing 6 cell towers that were built in the 3 years since I moved away from that area.
A tower is simply a suitable structure to put a transciever. In many parts of Europe planners tend to discourage putting up new towers and masts if possible. The general position is that if it can go on an existing tower, mast or building then it can go there. Which had lead to some fuss being made, especially about small low power cellsites, which are simply small boxes which will go anywhere.
Maybe planning rules are different in parts of the US.
Reception may be a problem in some areas, but I'd say it's rapidly improving.
Unless this is a huge town 6 purpose built towers should give you very good reception.
What we need is ONE phone number that rings your cell phone, your land line, and any other lines you wish to tie into your "service" (e.g. work, vacation home, etc.).
Or even the ability to tie X numbers to Y phones dynamically.
e.g. if you are at work your work number rings both the phone in your pocket and the phone on your desk. As does your home number, but there is some indication of which number was called. The tricky bit is if you want to be able to use your cellphone to pick up a call ringing on someone elses desk, which is a common PBX feature.
If you are at home and someone rings your home phone number your phone(s) at home ring as does your cellphone. If someone calls your work number when you are not at work they get either voicemail or redirected to someone else.
Basically, it should be "smart" forwarding that will follow you anywhere you want to be found.
Most of it is just software. Features like being able to ring multiple phones at once don't generally exist on the public telephone network, but are common on PBX systems. In many cases the same manufactuers make both types of telephone switching systems.
It helps to understand that, from what I've seen, most European (or is it most non-North American Numbering Plan countries?) have flexible phone number structures.
The NANP is somewhat unique, in that the +1 area code, covers the US, including Alaska and Hawaii; Canada; Bermuda, UK territory (+1 441); Bahamas (+1 242); Turks and Caicos (+1 649), UK territory; Dominican Republic (+1 809); Cayman Islands, UK territory (+1 345); Jamaica (+1 876); Puerto Rico, US territory (+1 787);British Virgin Islands (+1 284); US Virgin Islands (+1 340); Anguilla, UK territory (+1 264); St. Kitts and Nevis (+1 869); Antigua and Barbuda, UK territory (+1 268); Monserrat, UK territory (+1 664); St Lucia (+1 758); St Vincent and the Grenadines (+1 784); Barbados (+1 246); Grenada (+1 473); Trinidad & Tobago (+1 868) then the really silly one Guam, US territory (+1 671)
In the Carribbean non NANP countries are Cuba (+53); Hati (+509); Guadeloupe, French territory (+590) and Martinique, French territory (+596)
The Marshall Islands (+692) are a US trust nearer to the US than Guam
haven't really investigated how it all works, but sometimes I wonder if a more flexible numbering system might have helped us to avoid our current number space issues, what with overlays, splits, and some nearly empty exchanges.
The most logical first step would be to split up the NANP. The Carribbean countries either staying as they are or becoming +5XX (and Guam +6XX). Then you'd need to do something like US becomes +10 and Canada +11. This immediatly gets rid of such things as overlay needed if you want to dial a free only in Canada 800 number from the US. (Since trying to do +1 800 XXX XXXX won't work, within the NANP.)
A truly flexible system would be to have every number be 10 digits long, But the area code/local number split variable. So you'd have 2 digit area codes with 8 digit local numbers (79,800,000 subject to the rules that no number can start 0, 1, 555 or 911); 3 digit area codes, 7 digit area codes (7,980,000 numbers, the current situation, but insufficent for larger US cities); 4 digit area codes (798,000 local numbers) and so on.
If you don't know where you are you dial 1+ 10 digits into a regular phone, using a cellphone either 1+10 digits or just the 10 digits and press the "send" button. Modern telephone equiptment can handle "promiscious dialing" as it is known in the US. Indeed in most parts of the world it's been the norm for decades.
With the European model for cellular numbering there is no such thing as a "local number" you dial the entire number, either as a national number or even the full +. It's part of the GSM spec that this always works, even when you are not making an international call. Land line operators havn't yet caught on though. The psudo area code part of the number is simply to distinguish between different operators.
I've had a mobile here in the UK for the last 6 years, and not once have I had a telemarketer call me...
That's because it would cost the telemarketer extra money. Also POTS calls are calling party clears, but GSM and ISDN are either party clears.
I don't understood why cellular communications is still so expensive.
Because people will pay, effectivly. Cellular communication started off with a price premium and retained it. Even though it is probably cheaper to set up and maintain a celluar network. Putting wires all over the place is very expensive, especially in cities. Also it can take up a lot more time to fault find in several miles of cable than to replace a cellular base station.
My understanding is in Europe (at least the UK), local phone calls on landlines are metered. The infrastructure is there for someone to pay when calling landline to cell.
Not really relevent, since from the start cellular phones in Europe were assigned their own psudo area codes. So a call to such a phone from a landline would never be local.
This probably couldn't have worked in the US because of the constrains of the NANP.
In Europe (and pretty much everywhere else) cell phones are "calling party pays". This means that it costs more to call a cell phone because the caller pays for it.
One British provider offered phones along the US line, regular number and pay for incomming calls. AFAIK they didn't sell that many.
Yes. A previous post of mine a few weeks ago mentioned this. Hitler simply took the already present anger over Germany's treatment, focused it on a small group, and rode it to power.
First heard this from my high school history teacher. All other accounts I had heard before that glossed over it,
Sometimes with history it's the really important points which get glossed over.
and made it seem that he magically made the Germans hate the Jews. He only found a way to direct their hatred, and the Jews were a convenient target.
It dosn't appear to have been specifically directed against Jews, though. Just about anyone not a "patriotic German" was a convenient target.
The problem most "outsiders" don't understand is that there is a difference between Anarachy and Democracy (Technically we are a Republic).
Plenty of Americans don't appear to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
They ignore concepts like the social contract and take the Constitution out of context trying to use it verbatim without knowing the background details.
Historical information surrounding the US Constitution is not proprietary to US citizens (nor does someone simply being a US citizen mean they have even the first clue about the context of any historical document). When the US decided to set up a government they "borrowed" ideas from all over the place, especially classical Europe.
If I with the same consistency tried to shove Sweden down your throat, with the same apparent lack of critical thinking, I'd be run out of here, and for good reason.
Odds on the people first in line for running you out would include other (embarassed) Swedes.
As an American, I have the right to criticize my country and my government.
If you are not an American, you do not have that right.
So either Americans do not have the right to criticise any other country or government. Or it's perfectly ok for anyone to criticise any country or government...
Any other position would be rather hypocitical. The US government does not appear to follow the former position. Either in word or deed, so we are left with the latter option.
That is correct. However, there seems to be rather large and vocal group of americans who think they're living in a perfect country,
:)
Even if this were true it need not be relevent to how the US behaves towards the rest of the world.
Spain, France and Britain treated their own citizens a lot better than the peoples of other nations their occupied to build their empires.
and that is impossible for some other country to be doing better in terms of freedom, for instance. The patriotism in European countries tends to be much less vocal.
All too often patriotism and jingoism tend to be confused.
You don't see as many scandinavians shouting that they are the best in the world as you see americans doing that
If someone has a good country why should they need to shout about it? People rarely need to shout the obvious
Keep in mind that neither France nor Germany would be democratic nations if it weren't for the US and the UK backed defeat of the Nazis.
It's not anything like so black and white. There were Americans initially backing the Nazi government. Notable amongst these was a man who's son and grandson would later become US presidents.
I know that sounds like an average dick-American thing to say, and I don't mean it in that way, but it is hard to be the "parent nation" of modern liberal democracy,
The US hasn't been around long enough to claim to be any kind of "parent nation".
and then to be told that even though it says so in your First Amendment, lots of small countries, and countries that you helped build are better at the basic democratic building blocks than you are.
Which countries might these be? Even if there are some it's hardly compensation for the long list of democratic governments the US has destroyed.
It's also easy for countries to criticize when *they* aren't under siege by radical Islamic terrorist organizations.
Most other nations have the good sense to avoid doing daft things like funding undemocratic Arab governments and training people who don't especially like them to fight proxy wars. The US went and made enemies around the world then, childlike, says "why do they hate us?".
The Saudis hate the US because the US supports a corrupt ruling class; the Palistinians hate the US because the US gave a foreign people money and weapons to disposess them of their land; the Iranians hate the US because the US (and the UK) installed a tyrant in place of a democratic government; the Afganis hate the US because the US bombed them; the Iraqis hate the US because the USAF (together with the RAF) have been attacking their country for over a decade.
Does the US mainstream media even bother to tell the US public any of this?
I guess you are one of those people who don't mind your kid seeing blood, murder and violence on TV but thinks their psyche is irreversible destroyed if they ever see a female nipple on TV, something your children depended their lives on.
Especially considering how violent some programming specifically intended for children is. Cartoons especially...
Here in America ("The Land of the Free [totse.com]") we do have a higher percentage of the population incarcerated [prisonactivist.org] than in any other country in the world.
I though it was only highest proportion out of supposedly "free" countries. If it's the highest proportion of any country that looks very much worst.
I really don't understand why all the US based people commenting here is so upset.
I currently live in the US and comes originally from one of the 1st place countires.
Possibly they have little to compare with. IIRC the US has the lowest rate of passport holdership of any "first world" country.
My personal experience is that the papers in these countries are more diversified, they write about more interssting topics,
Diversity is a very important, there is really no such thing as an objective media, all editors select what they put in their newspapers, TV or radio programmes or on a website.
they don't censor as much, the are more controversial, the are MUCH more in-depth than their US counterparts.
All of these are decisions made by the editor. Since kind of "censorship" you appear to be describing is self censorship.
And as a comment to the arrest of the reporters that crossed the security lines, why not just escort them to the other side? The US police has a sexual fixation on arresting people. I don't think there is any other country in the world where the police arrest as menay people as in the US for the most ridicoulus reasons. It's liek I sometimes are convinced that the get a bonus for arresting the most every week or so!
I'm not sure it is that simple, but number of arrests or issuing of citations/tickets/fines/etc can be seen as a performance metric for police officers. Easier to measure than rate of preventing, detecting or solving crimes. Hardly confined to the US either.
That sort of phenomenon is pretty common. There are apparently several Mount Mountains in the world.
Terry Pratchett worked this into one of his Discworld books. With such examples as "Mount Your finger!" and "Mount Who's this fool who dosn't know a mountain when he sees one?"
One solid example I can think of is the River Avon in western England. Afon means river in the old local dialect...
There is more than one River Avon in England. No doubt a few tourists wind up thinking a certain playwrite lived in Bath.
I really believe that the Founders didn't envision the sorts of multinational conglomerates and media empires that we're seeing today.
How could they, since they didn't forsee that corporate entities would be considered "people" or that the concept of "limited liability", originally intended to protect investors from creditors if a company went bankrupt (thus encouraging more investment especially by people who could only afford to invest a small "share" of the amount needed to finance a startup or expansion), being (mis)applied as protecting executives from their actions.
Adam Smith supposedly said that big business is effectively the same as big government. His 'Free Market' refered to a free market of multiple small businesses.
It's rather hard to have any kind of "market" where one entity completly controls how commerce takes place. Be that government, a single monopoly or a cartel.
It is only at the present time that (most) media companies pretend to be objective.
:)
Now you have fewer actual media companies, since often many outlets can be owned by the same entity. Also just as lobbying of politicans has become a larger problem in recent years media companies can also be subject to lobbying actions.
Historically, the newspapers were very up front about their slants, and those seeking to form their opinions on matters would generally purchase papers of both the left and the right, and then derive their own opinion from the facts within each.
If only media bias were as simple as "left" and "right". Or even if positions pf political parties were that simple
Now, the "objective" media will push their own slant and the average reader will accept it as truth. The NY Times, in particular, has recently been guilty of frequently contaminating their 'news' pieces with editorial opinion.
If all (or most) media outlets are saying the same thing then that can be claimed as proof that they are "objective" as opposed to being biased in much the same way.
This extends beyond the headlines, too. (See: stance on Iraq)
Slanting can be choosing if they are going to cover a story or not. Iraq (and Israel) are good examples of foreign news virtually always presented in a biased way in many places. A completly different issue, often ignored by the mainstream media even where it is a domestic issue, is extending copyright and other "corporate friendly" legislation.
Yeah, but could neutrons penetrate a double-hull space ship, with (for example), a thin layer of lead between them? Since they are pretty massive, I would think you could stop them cold pretty easily.
Even a dense metal is still mostly empty space. Unless a nutron actually hits an atomic nucleus it will pass straight through a material. In which case it can either bounce off losing energy or be captured. In the latter case there are 3 possibilities a stable isotope, an unstable radioactive isotope or a fission event.
I know this would make the hull/shielding radioactive, but it would mostly spare the water, which is more useful for blocking X-rays and such.
Worst case senario is that your shielding ends up as an effective moderator, ensuring that any neutrons which do get through are travelling slowly, since these are more likely to be captured.
Because their bias prevents them from reporting the truth.
In theory the press is free. But in practice they are biased. Either because of ownership, increasingly an issue with increased corporate ownership, or because of some external body. (If you want to lobby the press having very few people own the outlets makes things easier too.)
For example FoxNews reporters are not allowed to refer to palestine or use the phrase "occupied terrotories". They also refer to jewish settlements as "jewish neighborhoods". Why? I don't know.
In the same way that you are unlikely to see Israeli "settlers" who shoot Palestinians described as "terrorists".
What possible motive does a US news outlet to act as a PR firm for the nation of Israel?
It goes far beyond the US media, the US Congress approves the sending of huge amounts of money to Israel. Indeed there is more support within the US Congress for the Israeli government than within the Knesset.
Again I don't know the answer. All I know is that their bias prevents them reporting the news accurately.
Why the US establishment is so intersted in supporting a much smaller foreign country should be a big news story. Especially domestically in the US.
"If you don't like it, print your own newsletter."
Yes that will show them!.
If anyone were to do this they are likely to be called an "anti-semite" if they have any position other than praise for Zionism, even though the Palestinians are at least as much a semitic people as the Israelis, plenty of Jews are non or anti Zionist, plenty of pro Zionists claim to be Christians. Indeed someone who was a Semtic Jew would probably be called an anti-semite if they opposed Zionism in anway. In the west, especially the US "anti-semitic" now more or less means "non-Zionist".
Another term used applied to someone attempting to promote any alternative news would be "conspiracy theorist". Even though the attempts seen in the mainstream media to link Al Queda to any terrorist attack anywhere on the planet look very much like a conspiracy theory. Also when did 17 year old boys suddenly become "men"?
A next generation telescope at L2, shielded from the Earth's EM output by the moon..
Probably less hassle to buld it on farside and run a cable to a relay station on nearside.
If the SOHO satellite and the proposed space station are both at L1, how close will they be? Visible distance?
SOHO is at Earth/Sol L1, this station would go at Luna/Earth L1. Different points. The size of the "points" is a function of the mass and mass distribution of the larger 2 objects. In the case of the proposed location these objects are Earth and Luna.