It might be coincidental, but the altitude of this phenomenon is the same altitude as the outer edge of the ozone layer. The northern latitudes are also the areas where the earth's magnetic field allows some solar wind particles to a interact with our atmosphere.
A portion of the charged particles in the solar winds are protons - aka hydrogen ions. I think it's possible, but maybe not all that likely, that the water present at these altitudes is due to the interaction between the protons in the solar winds and the oxygen in the ozone layer. While much of the oxygen present is in the form of ozone, atomized and O2 forms are produced and destroyed in the normal processes of the ozone layer. Since water is much more stable, it is possible that water molecules may accumulate simply from the interaction of solar winds and the ozone present at that altitude and latitude.
I get the joke, but if you read my first post you'll see that I'm asking if anyone thinks this right rather than asserting it to be an expert analysis of the phenomenon. You're right though, my expertise is reactor engineering. I haven't touched optics in years- but after reading the paper I've linked to elsewhere I'm pretty sure I'm right - though I admit it was hastily written and probably hard for a litterature graduate student to follow.
Possibly, but this looks like the effect of light beams interacting inside of a target dialectric combined with the differences in light's angular momentum at the different speeds of c inside and outside the target. Aside from also cooking whatever you wanted to tractor, you might be able to accomplish this with very powerful laser pulses and "cloaking" metamaterials. Since the metamaterials bend the relevent light frequencey around a target you may be able to exert the force on the material, use a vastly powerful laser pulse, and not cook the target. This could impart enough force to be useful and could be used to maintain a cloud of such objects over vast distances using a web of laser pulses pushing and pulling the disparate objects into a desired position. Kind of a neat idea and a good intuitive leap to suggest tractor beams
I always assumed it was a misnomer and they were just very skillfully manipulated plasma devices. We already have the technology to create "plasma windows" that can hold back atmosphere against a vacuum and plasma torches than can cut through cowboynelium. Why not bridges and swords of the highly charged fun-stuff?
Sorry about the double post, but I was reading an old paper on the subject. Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force. I wonder if this is the same thing as what they are seeing in the article.
Huh, I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness." I wonder if this can be used to explain that.
Oh no, now they'll be forced to used the much more refined, albeit more involved for the psychologist, Holtzman test instead. It's terrible that they'll have to use the newer test that was designed based on experience with the Rorschach test and addresses nearly all the controversies and difficulties surrounding it. The best excuse for sticking with the older and deeply flawed Rorschach test is lazyness.
A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique (HIT) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach. Unlike the Rorschach, which uses only 10 inkblots, the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots. The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand. While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots, the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined, reliably scored, and efficiently handled by statistical methods.
It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual's personality.
It is important to note that even the sources describing this newer and more extensive test acknowledge it is merely one in a large array of tools. Taking away the older and outdated version of it does not diminish the ability of a psychologist to diagnose a patient.
If we're making analogies, it's more like a paper cup you hold up to your ear and the person's chest. There are much better projective personality tests now.
Are you actually reading what's posted before you respond to it? Your condescension is innapropriate and misplaced. The person you are responding to is not arguing against the validity of psychology or its status as a science. Quite the contrary, he is attempting to acknowledge the advances it has made over the past century.
If you think that the only thing that has changed over the past 100 years of psychology, then I instruct you to research the history of mental institutions as well as early behavioral psychology. Psychologists don't put their children in experimental learning boxes anymore - except on the venture brothers. They also almost never are allowed to conduct truly controlled psychological experiments on humans - google "prison guard experiments" if confused. With regards to the Rorschach test, there are newer projective personality tests that have been made with the experience gained through the application of the Rorschach test. These tests, such as the Holtzman test, were designed to correct many of the deficiencies of the Rorschach test. As these other tests are also not in the popular conciousness, they are better at evoking spontaneous and honest responses since there is less chance the subject will be able to anticipate either the images or the methodology. The Rorschach test is already well understood enough that, in addition to its inherent limitations, it makes little sense as a preferred tool for its intended purpose.
Before acting like a complete child and responding as though we're all idiots, please read the post you're responding to and know something of what you're talking about.
? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.
Perhaps you are confusing some of the definitions of compatibility with synergy because you have just pointed out one of the only ways religion and science can be compatible and claimed it as evidence of the opposite. The fact that they, at their core, are concerned with entirely different things is exactly why they can coexist harmoniously. It's just when religion tries to muscle in on the physical world that incompatibility comes about.
He meant this in that his idea of God was so far from anything that cared about or interacted with humanity that it was less a god than it was the living Universe. When he says that it is not personal he means that it does not relate to people, nor interact with people directly and with intent, nor hold them in any more esteem than you hold the bacteria that line your intestine nor the individual cells of your skin.
In his mind, it is just as right to call a man who acknowledges this impersonal and distant creator an atheist as it would be to call a skin cell that acknowledged but did not worship the body atheist as well.
When Einstein says he rejects the idea of a personal God, he does not mean it in the sense that you seem to think. He means that he does not believe in a God whom you have a personal relationship, nor one whom is interested in you in any sort of personal way. In this sense he is rejecting the idea of a god that cares about and meddles with people in any sort of personal or individual way. This is a concept of God that perhaps may be the Creator of the universe, but to whom we would be the bacteria that returns nutrients to the fallow soil by decomposing dead soybean crops. While it may be improper to call such a person an atheist in a literal sense, a Jesuit teacher would consider him just as good as one. To a Jesuit priest in particular, or most theologans, a God who does not take an interest in or relate to people is no God at all. Why worship something that does not care for or respond to your worship? That would be like the bacteria in your intestine worshipping you. Would that make you any less likely to take an antibiotic if you had strep throat?
His was a sort of Deism common to many physicists. It was an idea of God and universe being one in the same and also very impersonal and alien.
Yeah Einstein's stubbornness on the issue of probability in physics probably doesn't come from some incompatibility between his faith and probability. Einstein was a shrewd manipulator of the press and knew quite well that a cleverly fashioned phrase, understandable to the lay newspaper reader, would win more arguments in the public arena than a well written thesis paper. In fact, his well crafted phrases kept quite a lot of funding out of the hands of quantum theorists for a long time. Less informed opponents of projects investigating quantum physics would often cite that exact quote when arguing against funding - regardless of actual personal reasons or intra-university politics were behind the opposition.
I think the lesson here is not that religion and science are incompatible, but that rigid and stubborn doctrine (scientific, religious, political, moral, etc.) is in direct opposition to scientific discovery. This includes scientists like Einstein who had a particular vision for how they thought he Universe should turn out to work, fundamentalists who already know how exactly it all works, and all the politicians and special interests who want to just agree with them or be quiet. In fact, the argument that religion and science are incompatible is a rather shallow one. Much of the research done in the pre-industrial world was done with funding and support of major religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. In the islamic world, many of the greatest astronomers and mathematicians were Muslim Clerics first and scientists second. It is only when rigid particulars of a faith, usually incidental and inconsequential to the core principals, come up against contrary scientific discoveries that religion and science get in a bloody fist fight. In the end, science prevails but religion need not perish. With the exception of fundamentalist fringe movements, long surviving faiths generally adapt with the science or at least avoid conflict.
No, it was an outright refusal to accept quantum physics as a anything but a curiosity - an interesting but ultimately fruitless dead end. Unto the day he died Einstein refused to accept that the quantum physics explanation of the sub atomic world was any more science than aether. He even coined the term "sooky action at a distance" before it was observed in an attempt to derride the ridiculousness of that particular consequence of the quantum model. While his extrapolation on the idea of entanglement and quantum teleportation were meant to demonstrate how ridiculous quantum theory was, it ended up being the basis for experiments that proved the theory valid.
It was not a simple "lament" as Einstein never considered the non-quantum past of physics to be "the past." He was quite blinded by this refusal.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious differences but...
Cars are required to have their headlights on in that situation. There is no law requiring you to blind people with lasers. The temporary blinding you describe is incidental to reasonable and lawful behavior. The potentially permanent blinding form laser-light you seem to want to inflict would be intentional and revenge for your paranoid feelings of being wronged by people driving with their headlights on at night.
Not really. That particular Wikipedia article cites several reputable sources which concur with the WP article on the relevant points at hand. Are you suggesting WP contributors might be engaged in a concerted attempt to edit the Coventry article to save the life of some hostage being held by secret Nazis in Alaska or something? The current controversy, involving purposeful deletion of information relevant to ongoing events, does not invalidate well cited articles discussing history of an event that occurred over half a century ago.
"The job of the press is to report. They've made this claim so often in the past when it has been the government holding on to information that it's carved into the press plates 1/4 inch deep. They haven't cared what the information was or how damaging it could be, their job is to inform and damn it, they are going to do it. The government has no right to decide the information is sensitive and shouldn't be printed."
So are you complaining that in this instance the people working at a repository of information chose NOT to be callous and indifferent? Are you also trying to argue that Wikipedia is a member of the press or government? I suppose if you used a loose enough definition of "the press" you could include Wikipedia in it (keeping in mind that the owners and the contributes are rarely one in the same.) Of course, such a broad definition is rendered so utterly meaningless that trying to ascribe to its members duties, principals, or "a job" is fairly sanctimonious and conceited.
Even if you've found some of their behavior to be irresponsible in the past you can not simultaneously decry that previous behavior and their decision to err on the side of caution when it came to this story. The manner in which you and others are attempting to point out what you perceive to be hypocrisy rings as rather hypocritical itself.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying you are wrong to argue that news outlets can by inconsistent or even outright hypocritical. I'm saying that you, and others here, seeming to be simultaneously decrying both the idea of a journalist's "duty to the truth" and the idea of "responsible reporting." You attempt to attack them for failing to stick to a particular principal while you yourself attempt to maintain ambivalence.
You can not bemoan the hypocrisy of the press, and non-press information repositories like Wikipedia, while you yourself seem unable to take a real side at the issue at hand. How can you fault them for being unable to choose a principal when you don't seem to have any hard and fast ones as far as these issues go?
"If a times reporter happened upon someone who'd just been shot, he'd stand there taking detailed notes about the whole process"
I'm saying that if you're a human being and someone asks for help, it's not something to be criticized if you help. You're saying journalists are scum and should suffer because they'd do the same - and you talk of prejudice? I didn't say help them because they're journalists - I'm saying help them because they're human beings.
"on the other hand we know now that Wikipedia can't ever be considered an unbiased source. "
Wait, you didn't know that an internet based information source that can be edited by anyone anywhere with any agenda can't ever be assumed to be an unbiased source?
So what if they can't help everyone in a similar situation? If someone says "help me, I've been shot" do you not help them because it would be unfair since you can not help everyone in that particular situation? No, that would be an asinine thing to do. The times and his family asked them to do this because they and their experts believed keeping the information below the radar would help keep their friend and coworker safe.
So, it was brought to their attention and they were asked to help. They were able to help so they did. It disgusts me that some people think that is somehow an injustice.
Had explained to me that this expectation - that Hulu advertisements would eventually prove to be more valuable than on-air advertising - was how the company planned on becoming profitable. The justifications he gave were-
1) Hulu ads are not skippable so the fear that a percentage of viewers will skip them as they do on DVRs is not there so much.
2)Their ads can be somewhat interactive; you can click through directly to the advertiser's site.
3) Hulu commercial breaks are not long enough for the viewer to treat them as some sort of actual break in which to check their email, go to the bathroom, or grab a bite to eat. While users can simply do these things and then rewind, Hulu's own experience has found that most don't.
4)As an explanation of #3 - they can gather general statistics on user behavior with respects to their videos and ads. They know that the vast majority of users do not get up during commercials, come back after them, and rewind because they can see that few people are rewinding after commercial breaks.
5)While they do not sell personal information, they do gather broad statistics on viewers in general as well as some specifics about registers users. This allows advertisers to gauge how many people within specific demographics not only will see their ad, but how many actually responded to it. this lets advertisers gauge rather quickly how accurate any targetting was. They also get feedback from users giving thumbs up or thumbs down to certain ads. This allows advertisers to see fairly quickly if they accidently created an ad that inspires hate rather than shopping.
Anyways, these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time*viewers over the air. It came up when we were complaining about the studios' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date. While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates, we still grumbled a bit about it.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be coincidental, but the altitude of this phenomenon is the same altitude as the outer edge of the ozone layer. The northern latitudes are also the areas where the earth's magnetic field allows some solar wind particles to a interact with our atmosphere.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/magnetic-field/earth.jpg
A portion of the charged particles in the solar winds are protons - aka hydrogen ions. I think it's possible, but maybe not all that likely, that the water present at these altitudes is due to the interaction between the protons in the solar winds and the oxygen in the ozone layer. While much of the oxygen present is in the form of ozone, atomized and O2 forms are produced and destroyed in the normal processes of the ozone layer. Since water is much more stable, it is possible that water molecules may accumulate simply from the interaction of solar winds and the ozone present at that altitude and latitude.
There was a California anti-trust suit going back in 2006.
I get the joke, but if you read my first post you'll see that I'm asking if anyone thinks this right rather than asserting it to be an expert analysis of the phenomenon. You're right though, my expertise is reactor engineering. I haven't touched optics in years- but after reading the paper I've linked to elsewhere I'm pretty sure I'm right - though I admit it was hastily written and probably hard for a litterature graduate student to follow.
Here is a very good paper that might give you some insight.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/DirectPDFAccess/7CB1DC52-BDB9-137E-C347E05AD6F7E2D4_84895.pdf?da=1&id=84895&seq=0&CFID=48237375&CFTOKEN=15548595
"Angular momentum of circularly polarized light in dielectric media"
Possibly, but this looks like the effect of light beams interacting inside of a target dialectric combined with the differences in light's angular momentum at the different speeds of c inside and outside the target. Aside from also cooking whatever you wanted to tractor, you might be able to accomplish this with very powerful laser pulses and "cloaking" metamaterials. Since the metamaterials bend the relevent light frequencey around a target you may be able to exert the force on the material, use a vastly powerful laser pulse, and not cook the target. This could impart enough force to be useful and could be used to maintain a cloud of such objects over vast distances using a web of laser pulses pushing and pulling the disparate objects into a desired position. Kind of a neat idea and a good intuitive leap to suggest tractor beams
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12961080/
I always assumed it was a misnomer and they were just very skillfully manipulated plasma devices. We already have the technology to create "plasma windows" that can hold back atmosphere against a vacuum and plasma torches than can cut through cowboynelium. Why not bridges and swords of the highly charged fun-stuff?
Sorry about the double post, but I was reading an old paper on the subject. Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force. I wonder if this is the same thing as what they are seeing in the article.
Huh, I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness." I wonder if this can be used to explain that.
Oh no, now they'll be forced to used the much more refined, albeit more involved for the psychologist, Holtzman test instead. It's terrible that they'll have to use the newer test that was designed based on experience with the Rorschach test and addresses nearly all the controversies and difficulties surrounding it. The best excuse for sticking with the older and deeply flawed Rorschach test is lazyness.
A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique (HIT) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach. Unlike the Rorschach, which uses only 10 inkblots, the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots. The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand. While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots, the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined, reliably scored, and efficiently handled by statistical methods.
It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual's personality.
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/inkblot-perception.html
It is important to note that even the sources describing this newer and more extensive test acknowledge it is merely one in a large array of tools. Taking away the older and outdated version of it does not diminish the ability of a psychologist to diagnose a patient.
It's just a stethescope[sic].
If we're making analogies, it's more like a paper cup you hold up to your ear and the person's chest. There are much better projective personality tests now.
Are you actually reading what's posted before you respond to it? Your condescension is innapropriate and misplaced. The person you are responding to is not arguing against the validity of psychology or its status as a science. Quite the contrary, he is attempting to acknowledge the advances it has made over the past century.
If you think that the only thing that has changed over the past 100 years of psychology, then I instruct you to research the history of mental institutions as well as early behavioral psychology. Psychologists don't put their children in experimental learning boxes anymore - except on the venture brothers. They also almost never are allowed to conduct truly controlled psychological experiments on humans - google "prison guard experiments" if confused. With regards to the Rorschach test, there are newer projective personality tests that have been made with the experience gained through the application of the Rorschach test. These tests, such as the Holtzman test, were designed to correct many of the deficiencies of the Rorschach test. As these other tests are also not in the popular conciousness, they are better at evoking spontaneous and honest responses since there is less chance the subject will be able to anticipate either the images or the methodology. The Rorschach test is already well understood enough that, in addition to its inherent limitations, it makes little sense as a preferred tool for its intended purpose.
Before acting like a complete child and responding as though we're all idiots, please read the post you're responding to and know something of what you're talking about.
Nah, then you're called "uncooperative" and you 12 more hours of enforced observation.
? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.
Perhaps you are confusing some of the definitions of compatibility with synergy because you have just pointed out one of the only ways religion and science can be compatible and claimed it as evidence of the opposite. The fact that they, at their core, are concerned with entirely different things is exactly why they can coexist harmoniously. It's just when religion tries to muscle in on the physical world that incompatibility comes about.
He meant this in that his idea of God was so far from anything that cared about or interacted with humanity that it was less a god than it was the living Universe. When he says that it is not personal he means that it does not relate to people, nor interact with people directly and with intent, nor hold them in any more esteem than you hold the bacteria that line your intestine nor the individual cells of your skin.
In his mind, it is just as right to call a man who acknowledges this impersonal and distant creator an atheist as it would be to call a skin cell that acknowledged but did not worship the body atheist as well.
When Einstein says he rejects the idea of a personal God, he does not mean it in the sense that you seem to think. He means that he does not believe in a God whom you have a personal relationship, nor one whom is interested in you in any sort of personal way. In this sense he is rejecting the idea of a god that cares about and meddles with people in any sort of personal or individual way. This is a concept of God that perhaps may be the Creator of the universe, but to whom we would be the bacteria that returns nutrients to the fallow soil by decomposing dead soybean crops. While it may be improper to call such a person an atheist in a literal sense, a Jesuit teacher would consider him just as good as one. To a Jesuit priest in particular, or most theologans, a God who does not take an interest in or relate to people is no God at all. Why worship something that does not care for or respond to your worship? That would be like the bacteria in your intestine worshipping you. Would that make you any less likely to take an antibiotic if you had strep throat?
His was a sort of Deism common to many physicists. It was an idea of God and universe being one in the same and also very impersonal and alien.
Yeah Einstein's stubbornness on the issue of probability in physics probably doesn't come from some incompatibility between his faith and probability. Einstein was a shrewd manipulator of the press and knew quite well that a cleverly fashioned phrase, understandable to the lay newspaper reader, would win more arguments in the public arena than a well written thesis paper. In fact, his well crafted phrases kept quite a lot of funding out of the hands of quantum theorists for a long time. Less informed opponents of projects investigating quantum physics would often cite that exact quote when arguing against funding - regardless of actual personal reasons or intra-university politics were behind the opposition.
I think the lesson here is not that religion and science are incompatible, but that rigid and stubborn doctrine (scientific, religious, political, moral, etc.) is in direct opposition to scientific discovery. This includes scientists like Einstein who had a particular vision for how they thought he Universe should turn out to work, fundamentalists who already know how exactly it all works, and all the politicians and special interests who want to just agree with them or be quiet. In fact, the argument that religion and science are incompatible is a rather shallow one. Much of the research done in the pre-industrial world was done with funding and support of major religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. In the islamic world, many of the greatest astronomers and mathematicians were Muslim Clerics first and scientists second. It is only when rigid particulars of a faith, usually incidental and inconsequential to the core principals, come up against contrary scientific discoveries that religion and science get in a bloody fist fight. In the end, science prevails but religion need not perish. With the exception of fundamentalist fringe movements, long surviving faiths generally adapt with the science or at least avoid conflict.
No, it was an outright refusal to accept quantum physics as a anything but a curiosity - an interesting but ultimately fruitless dead end. Unto the day he died Einstein refused to accept that the quantum physics explanation of the sub atomic world was any more science than aether. He even coined the term "sooky action at a distance" before it was observed in an attempt to derride the ridiculousness of that particular consequence of the quantum model. While his extrapolation on the idea of entanglement and quantum teleportation were meant to demonstrate how ridiculous quantum theory was, it ended up being the basis for experiments that proved the theory valid. It was not a simple "lament" as Einstein never considered the non-quantum past of physics to be "the past." He was quite blinded by this refusal.
Obviously this isn't THAT permanent since it's being de-orbited in 2016.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious differences but... Cars are required to have their headlights on in that situation. There is no law requiring you to blind people with lasers. The temporary blinding you describe is incidental to reasonable and lawful behavior. The potentially permanent blinding form laser-light you seem to want to inflict would be intentional and revenge for your paranoid feelings of being wronged by people driving with their headlights on at night.
Not really. That particular Wikipedia article cites several reputable sources which concur with the WP article on the relevant points at hand. Are you suggesting WP contributors might be engaged in a concerted attempt to edit the Coventry article to save the life of some hostage being held by secret Nazis in Alaska or something? The current controversy, involving purposeful deletion of information relevant to ongoing events, does not invalidate well cited articles discussing history of an event that occurred over half a century ago.
"The job of the press is to report. They've made this claim so often in the past when it has been the government holding on to information that it's carved into the press plates 1/4 inch deep. They haven't cared what the information was or how damaging it could be, their job is to inform and damn it, they are going to do it. The government has no right to decide the information is sensitive and shouldn't be printed."
So are you complaining that in this instance the people working at a repository of information chose NOT to be callous and indifferent? Are you also trying to argue that Wikipedia is a member of the press or government? I suppose if you used a loose enough definition of "the press" you could include Wikipedia in it (keeping in mind that the owners and the contributes are rarely one in the same.) Of course, such a broad definition is rendered so utterly meaningless that trying to ascribe to its members duties, principals, or "a job" is fairly sanctimonious and conceited.
Even if you've found some of their behavior to be irresponsible in the past you can not simultaneously decry that previous behavior and their decision to err on the side of caution when it came to this story. The manner in which you and others are attempting to point out what you perceive to be hypocrisy rings as rather hypocritical itself.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying you are wrong to argue that news outlets can by inconsistent or even outright hypocritical. I'm saying that you, and others here, seeming to be simultaneously decrying both the idea of a journalist's "duty to the truth" and the idea of "responsible reporting." You attempt to attack them for failing to stick to a particular principal while you yourself attempt to maintain ambivalence.
You can not bemoan the hypocrisy of the press, and non-press information repositories like Wikipedia, while you yourself seem unable to take a real side at the issue at hand. How can you fault them for being unable to choose a principal when you don't seem to have any hard and fast ones as far as these issues go?
"If a times reporter happened upon someone who'd just been shot, he'd stand there taking detailed notes about the whole process"
I'm saying that if you're a human being and someone asks for help, it's not something to be criticized if you help. You're saying journalists are scum and should suffer because they'd do the same - and you talk of prejudice? I didn't say help them because they're journalists - I'm saying help them because they're human beings.
"on the other hand we know now that Wikipedia can't ever be considered an unbiased source. " Wait, you didn't know that an internet based information source that can be edited by anyone anywhere with any agenda can't ever be assumed to be an unbiased source?
So what if they can't help everyone in a similar situation? If someone says "help me, I've been shot" do you not help them because it would be unfair since you can not help everyone in that particular situation? No, that would be an asinine thing to do. The times and his family asked them to do this because they and their experts believed keeping the information below the radar would help keep their friend and coworker safe.
So, it was brought to their attention and they were asked to help. They were able to help so they did. It disgusts me that some people think that is somehow an injustice.
Anyways, these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time*viewers over the air. It came up when we were complaining about the studios' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date. While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates, we still grumbled a bit about it.