the question is not which exerts a greater pressure, but which weighs more (is more massive).
Weight is defined as "the force exerted by gravity upon an object with mass". Your kitchen scales then measure this force and coverts it to a mass on the basis that 1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 Kg at 1 meter per second per second. Thus at any given point in a gravity well, 1 kg of bricks will weigh the same as 1 kg of feathers.
Actually I'm a big fan of channel 4 news, but I'm always aware that any commercial news network is subject to allegations of, if not actual, pressure from advertisers and owners on certain stories. Plus they only have an obligation to tell the viewers what they want to hear, rather than what is actually happening, and most viewers, like Sun readers, only want to hear things which support what they already believe. Personally I tried to see as many different news stations as possible during the war, including the al-jazera website. All news media are biased one way or another, even if it just the political leanings of the reporters. This you can cope with because spin will only get you so far. A fact is still a fact. The danger is when stories are ignored for political expediency or because the media company has an agenda of its own. btw I would hold CNN's impartiality in extreme doubt, as it is part of AOL-Time-Warner. Out of all news organisations I know of, the BBC is the one I trust most. At least you know that the only agenda it has is to make sure it is allowed to keep collecting the licence fee.
except that by accepting ad revenue there could possibly be commercial pressure to not run certain stories, or at least the potential for allegations of that nature.
There are plenty of news networks out there that are as impartial as the BBC (the BBC is not 100% impartial) that are not funded by a licence fee.
Name one.
No, the BBC isn't funded at all by the government, it's funded by the licence fee payer.
Wrong. The BBC collects the licence fee, pays it all to parliament, who then grants most of it back to the BBC. It is a Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation, which operates under a Royal Charter and government appoints its head.
The BBC may not be 100% impartial but it does have a duty, as stated in it's charter to provide full, impartial and accurate reporting and programming, especially when dealing with controversial matters. Often impartial means telling people stuff they don't want to hear, which perhaps is why conservatives often accuse it of being left wing, and visa versa.
All commercial news networks editorialise to tell people things that reinforce their worldview. They have to keep their audience happy. Thus The Sun is reactionary and opinionated, the Times is conservative and serious, and Fox is noisy and patriotic
Rupert Murdoch isn't just an arsehole; he's a dangerous, manipulative man. Tony Blair got elected because Rupert Murdoch decided to throw news international behind him. Why, we can but guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blair was now to some extent in his pocket. We will never get a majority for a federal Europe because Rupert Murdoch is vehemently opposed to it, in part because many European countries won't let him own media outlets in their borders.
Can I suggest you look at this chart of media ownership, and tell me how the ownership of the means of distributing all the news and entertainment most of us hear by six massive corporations is a good thing.
I'd like to finish by suggesting that you turn off Sky for anything other than trivial drama etc, and watch more BBC news.
Slightly offtopic, but your sig, why do you want to get rid of the TV license fee? It's the only thing that stops one of the worlds greatest, and most impartial, news networks becoming yet another mouthpiece for corporate greed. At the moment the BBC is owned by the nation. If it was forced to get revenue from advertising it would inevitably start down the slope towards selling it's soul, and it's integrity to the highest bidder. I'd hate to see the BBC go commercial. It would be like selling the family silver when there's still money in the bank. Think of the cost of the license fee when you compare it to a Sky subscription, and compare the quality. On one hand you have a not for profit QUANGO, and on the other you have Rupert Murdock, the most dangerous man in the world. I know which one I prefer.
If you think big media doesn't rule you're life you're either very lucky, or badly mistaken. They don't just produce music and films, but also distribute news and opinion. Where do you get your information from which you construct your world view? Chances are it's from TV, radio, newspapers and news websites, most of which will either be fully owned by or fed stories by, Big Media. Information is power, and these guys have a virtual monopoly on the distribution of information. Unless you get all of your news direct from the source the information you receive is likely to be the subject of some corporate agenda. The question is, what is the purpose of such editing, and what have they not told you. Perhaps they just ignore the stuff which they consider not sexy enough to be news, but then you get an unbalanced view full of sensationalism and exciting gung-ho imagary. Comercial news networks select stories and views which conform to the preconceptions that their demographic already have. Why is Fox so right wing? Because polls have told them that right wing people like to watch Ffox, thus you will never see news which challenges what you already believe, because Fox know that if they ran a story their viewers didn't like, their viewers would turn off their TV's. There is no way to avoid such tainting of news beyond watching news from multiple sources. For example, during the recent war I tried to watch as much al-jazera as possible, not because I thought they were impartial, but because I knew that they would tell me stuff you'd never see on western networks. All news stories contain some truth, however the meaning of that truth is defined by context and interpretation.
You dislike the cynicism displayed on slashdot? well fine, but I'd rather be cynical that blinded by faith to a system who's sole aim is to make more money for a few rich people. Bury your head in the sand if you like, but I believe that western democracy is being co-opted by greed in order to make us all pliable little corporate whores.
To paraphrase a film (oh the irony), This is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth, that we are all slaves.
Well that may be one way to keep beer cold, but I've seen another one tested in pub in cardiff. A specially designed tap turns the last bit of beer of the pint into ice crystals thus creating an ice cap which floats on top of the beer. This then keeps the remaining beer ice cold all the way down for up to 45 minutes.
But America is supposed to to be nearly perfect, or thats what all the "Patriots" on slashdot seem to believe, and perfect is not defined as being "better than that other lot". If you are going to hold yourself up as a shining beacon of freedom, you have to lead the way and pull everyone along with you, not merely turn around occasionally to check that your still a nose ahead. Thats the difference between leadership and just wanting the bragging rights.
All China has to do is be able to drop rocks on American cities.
I don't think that's as easy as you imagine. The moon is a fairly hefty gravity well in its own right, launching a big rock off it would be an incredibly difficult and expensive operation, and the chances are that in the time needed to do it your enemy would notice (because they'd be watching your every move very carefully), and be able to launch a nuke right back at your moon base before you'd finished.
IIRC one Scottish island is planning to have the first fully hydrogen economy by producing electricity from wave power to obtain hydrogen from electrolysis of seawater. I think it was reported on/. but I can't remember when.
All religious books were written from stories passed down through the ages. Just how was an illiterate shepherd in Israel supposed to pass on the concept of string theory to his children, or indeed God to people who had only recently worked out how to farm? The whole lot was made up to make sense of the world as it appears, which is why religion has always tended to fill in the gaps around knowledge. The trick is to get religion to still be relevant while accepting new scientific fact. Interestingly though I suspect that in general physicists tend to have a higher than average probability of being open to the possibility of there being a God of some kind. Indeed most of the cosmology textbooks I've read tend to finish with a "Does this prove or disprove the existence of God" chapter. Perhaps it comes from wondering just how the universe is the way it is. On the other hand, I think biologists and geneticist tend to be less inclined to believe in God, because that would tend to imply the existence of the immortal human soul, which goes against the concept of life as a function of a mechanistic system.
boycott the companies who employ spammers
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
this guy was complaining because his legal business was being interupted. Well I say make it illegal. He got no more right to spam because it's his living than a professional hitman has a right to kill people. unsolicited, untargeted advertising should be illegal period in my book. Perhaps the answer is to build up a list of companies who employ spammers and boycott them. no advertisers, no spammers.
What if the incentive is not merely money? What if people invent just for the joy of creating something new? Maybe I'm naive but I don't believe that money makes the world go round.
Slashdot Mirror
Fool,
the question is not which exerts a greater pressure, but which weighs more (is more massive).
Weight is defined as "the force exerted by gravity upon an object with mass". Your kitchen scales then measure this force and coverts it to a mass on the basis that 1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 Kg at 1 meter per second per second. Thus at any given point in a gravity well, 1 kg of bricks will weigh the same as 1 kg of feathers.
My understanding is that they didn't take enough fuel to reach the ISS.
Actually I'm a big fan of channel 4 news, but I'm always aware that any commercial news network is subject to allegations of, if not actual, pressure from advertisers and owners on certain stories. Plus they only have an obligation to tell the viewers what they want to hear, rather than what is actually happening, and most viewers, like Sun readers, only want to hear things which support what they already believe. Personally I tried to see as many different news stations as possible during the war, including the al-jazera website. All news media are biased one way or another, even if it just the political leanings of the reporters. This you can cope with because spin will only get you so far. A fact is still a fact. The danger is when stories are ignored for political expediency or because the media company has an agenda of its own. btw I would hold CNN's impartiality in extreme doubt, as it is part of AOL-Time-Warner. Out of all news organisations I know of, the BBC is the one I trust most. At least you know that the only agenda it has is to make sure it is allowed to keep collecting the licence fee.
People don't want good, unbiased news coverage. They want to hear stuff which reinforces their existing worldview.
except that by accepting ad revenue there could possibly be commercial pressure to not run certain stories, or at least the potential for allegations of that nature.
when it happens I hope someone has the forsight to get it mirrored for posterity, and post a story here.
There are plenty of news networks out there that are as impartial as the BBC (the BBC is not 100% impartial) that are not funded by a licence fee.
Name one.
No, the BBC isn't funded at all by the government, it's funded by the licence fee payer.
Wrong. The BBC collects the licence fee, pays it all to parliament, who then grants most of it back to the BBC. It is a Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation, which operates under a Royal Charter and government appoints its head.
The BBC may not be 100% impartial but it does have a duty, as stated in it's charter to provide full, impartial and accurate reporting and programming, especially when dealing with controversial matters. Often impartial means telling people stuff they don't want to hear, which perhaps is why conservatives often accuse it of being left wing, and visa versa.
All commercial news networks editorialise to tell people things that reinforce their worldview. They have to keep their audience happy. Thus The Sun is reactionary and opinionated, the Times is conservative and serious, and Fox is noisy and patriotic
Rupert Murdoch isn't just an arsehole; he's a dangerous, manipulative man. Tony Blair got elected because Rupert Murdoch decided to throw news international behind him. Why, we can but guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blair was now to some extent in his pocket. We will never get a majority for a federal Europe because Rupert Murdoch is vehemently opposed to it, in part because many European countries won't let him own media outlets in their borders.
Can I suggest you look at this chart of media ownership, and tell me how the ownership of the means of distributing all the news and entertainment most of us hear by six massive corporations is a good thing.
I'd like to finish by suggesting that you turn off Sky for anything other than trivial drama etc, and watch more BBC news.
Slightly offtopic, but your sig, why do you want to get rid of the TV license fee? It's the only thing that stops one of the worlds greatest, and most impartial, news networks becoming yet another mouthpiece for corporate greed. At the moment the BBC is owned by the nation. If it was forced to get revenue from advertising it would inevitably start down the slope towards selling it's soul, and it's integrity to the highest bidder. I'd hate to see the BBC go commercial. It would be like selling the family silver when there's still money in the bank. Think of the cost of the license fee when you compare it to a Sky subscription, and compare the quality. On one hand you have a not for profit QUANGO, and on the other you have Rupert Murdock, the most dangerous man in the world. I know which one I prefer.
If you think big media doesn't rule you're life you're either very lucky, or badly mistaken. They don't just produce music and films, but also distribute news and opinion. Where do you get your information from which you construct your world view? Chances are it's from TV, radio, newspapers and news websites, most of which will either be fully owned by or fed stories by, Big Media. Information is power, and these guys have a virtual monopoly on the distribution of information. Unless you get all of your news direct from the source the information you receive is likely to be the subject of some corporate agenda. The question is, what is the purpose of such editing, and what have they not told you. Perhaps they just ignore the stuff which they consider not sexy enough to be news, but then you get an unbalanced view full of sensationalism and exciting gung-ho imagary. Comercial news networks select stories and views which conform to the preconceptions that their demographic already have. Why is Fox so right wing? Because polls have told them that right wing people like to watch Ffox, thus you will never see news which challenges what you already believe, because Fox know that if they ran a story their viewers didn't like, their viewers would turn off their TV's. There is no way to avoid such tainting of news beyond watching news from multiple sources. For example, during the recent war I tried to watch as much al-jazera as possible, not because I thought they were impartial, but because I knew that they would tell me stuff you'd never see on western networks. All news stories contain some truth, however the meaning of that truth is defined by context and interpretation.
You dislike the cynicism displayed on slashdot? well fine, but I'd rather be cynical that blinded by faith to a system who's sole aim is to make more money for a few rich people. Bury your head in the sand if you like, but I believe that western democracy is being co-opted by greed in order to make us all pliable little corporate whores.
To paraphrase a film (oh the irony), This is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth, that we are all slaves.
I suspect that is also the motive behind
W.A.S.T.E
Well that may be one way to keep beer cold, but I've seen another one tested in pub in cardiff. A specially designed tap turns the last bit of beer of the pint into ice crystals thus creating an ice cap which floats on top of the beer. This then keeps the remaining beer ice cold all the way down for up to 45 minutes.
I forgot to add that getting into the lead and then putting up barriers to maintain you position is also not leadership, just cheating.
But America is supposed to to be nearly perfect, or thats what all the "Patriots" on slashdot seem to believe, and perfect is not defined as being "better than that other lot". If you are going to hold yourself up as a shining beacon of freedom, you have to lead the way and pull everyone along with you, not merely turn around occasionally to check that your still a nose ahead. Thats the difference between leadership and just wanting the bragging rights.
I don't think that's as easy as you imagine. The moon is a fairly hefty gravity well in its own right, launching a big rock off it would be an incredibly difficult and expensive operation, and the chances are that in the time needed to do it your enemy would notice (because they'd be watching your every move very carefully), and be able to launch a nuke right back at your moon base before you'd finished.
Do you really need someone to tell you it's a joke before you find it funny? Quit trying to justify your stupidity. You're only making it worse.
IIRC one Scottish island is planning to have the first fully hydrogen economy by producing electricity from wave power to obtain hydrogen from electrolysis of seawater. I think it was reported on /. but I can't remember when.
it's too small to have any effect.
All religious books were written from stories passed down through the ages. Just how was an illiterate shepherd in Israel supposed to pass on the concept of string theory to his children, or indeed God to people who had only recently worked out how to farm? The whole lot was made up to make sense of the world as it appears, which is why religion has always tended to fill in the gaps around knowledge. The trick is to get religion to still be relevant while accepting new scientific fact. Interestingly though I suspect that in general physicists tend to have a higher than average probability of being open to the possibility of there being a God of some kind. Indeed most of the cosmology textbooks I've read tend to finish with a "Does this prove or disprove the existence of God" chapter. Perhaps it comes from wondering just how the universe is the way it is. On the other hand, I think biologists and geneticist tend to be less inclined to believe in God, because that would tend to imply the existence of the immortal human soul, which goes against the concept of life as a function of a mechanistic system.
Kang: Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons.
Kodos: Kneel before my slingshot puny Earthling.
You, my friend, are a nutcase, and as such welcome in my village any time you like.
You think too much.
spammers killed my dog
this guy was complaining because his legal business was being interupted. Well I say make it illegal. He got no more right to spam because it's his living than a professional hitman has a right to kill people. unsolicited, untargeted advertising should be illegal period in my book. Perhaps the answer is to build up a list of companies who employ spammers and boycott them. no advertisers, no spammers.
well thats just details. They're basically the same evil scum.
What if the incentive is not merely money? What if people invent just for the joy of creating something new? Maybe I'm naive but I don't believe that money makes the world go round.