They are using a vary basic form of technology called bullshit. 100%, unrefined. It's impossible to do what they say from 'satellite images'. If they had a large fleet of low-flying aircraft with extraordinarily sensitive magnetometers, it may just be possible. From orbit? Complete and utter bollocks.
Sigh. Roughly 40 free to air channels, not including shopping, subscription or timeshifted, on UK TV. Nine BBC channels, variable quality (fair to excellent), but easily superior to any other main English-speaking nation in the world, and I've been to them all for periods > a month (plenty of time to absorb the shock).
That and the ad-free radio (bliss) on seven excellent channels [pop, easy-listening, classical, news/drama/factual, talk/sport, music, repeats of drama from over 60 years of archives] plus local radio. Costs less than a pint of beer a week.
Please don't listen to right-wingers in the UK that hate the BBC. In my personal experience, the BBC and NHS are the two things people here wouldn't want to see altered.
It wasn't 'banned' as the AC hysterically claimed, it was rejected. Follow the link a sentence or two further, it was picked up by ITV, as stated.
Banning means stopping it being broadcast. They couldn't and didn't do this. The next sentence in your link explains why they didn't pay money to the US for a children's programme, as they were quite happily making British pre-school television, without the letter Zee.
tBBT is quite rude in places. A repeated episode I saw last week had Penny suggesting that she was picked up by a guy in a bar, who then picked up another girl and they went off to have a threesome. Or Sheldon worrying Leonard about Penny being hypnotised by a male friend to 'make her think she's a chicken pecking seed' (moving his head back and forward). If you listen carefully, there are a lot of pretty close-to-the-knuckle lines like this.
I have no problems with this, but am surprised it's so regularly repeated in the daytime here in the UK. Maybe it's because they don't swear? Perhaps that says a lot about the real concerns of censors.
Sesame Street was never on the BBC. It was always on ITV. Therefore this is a lie.
10E-10 levels of lithium and 10E-14 levels of beryllium are usually overlooked in discussions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. But even minute proportions of Everything still results in rather large amounts of Something.
In the Bronx it was not uncommon for people to call an ambulance when they had a cold and wanted to see a doctor to get some cough medicine prescribed
Could you define "not uncommon" please? Daily? Monthly? She saw this herself, or 'heard about it'? And the ambulance crews just waved them onboard, like wide-eyed innocents who could be duped that way? Yeah, ok. Did your wife enquire further, or just write it off as the feckless poor?
In San Jose, she sees tons of drunks and drug users... after a while the doctors have to prescribe something just to get the person out of the way so that patients with real needs can be seen.
In San Jose, they need to have their alcohol and drug addiction services massively improved. Addicts should know that they will be referred to specialists. Why isn't your wife tackling this, rather than just handing out the pills?
Also virtually nobody in the USA chooses between a $90 doctor's visit and feeding their family.
I'm guessing your circle of family and friends includes a wide number > 21 yrs old on minimum wage? Thanks for the perspective on what someone in the top 1% thinks of the bottom 10%.
To anyone who ever says that Snowden told the terrorists about bugging. The 2010 film Four Lions has a scene with the terrorist plotters using a spoof on Disney's "Club Penguin", making it the only safe method to chat to each other (it's a black comedy). Interception was so widely known, it was a joke (see Bin Laden's lack of house-hold comms).
The people who didn't suspect that electronic comms were all thoroughly bugged were the other 99.999999% of the population. They thought the 'goodies' were targeting the 'baddies'.
It means one less security issue (stolen/compromised laptops) to worry about.
The AC has it. It's all about data security, or at least that's certainly the thing that would have prised Windows from the hands of the managers. The costs/hassle of not worrying about losing sensitive data knocks all the other savings into a cocked hat.
Although you'd think it was an everyday meme, a quick Google shows it's not used on Slashdot that often. I'm pretty sure it was in vogue at one point a decade or so ago, when every car/computer related story seemed to have it. But not now.
So be nice! Or are you a flummoxed MS employee in London who's watching his horses being taken to the knacker's yard?
Yes please, I will have it with milk before I lay my head down for unclouded dreams of delight.
95% of all food/environment-related health research misses the elephant in the room; the hard to quantify effects of personal stress. This study shows that stress, by variation to routine, kills people. My remarks were there to illustrate that sleep cycles driven by routine are unnatural because we make them so.
It's always galling when the media focus on rich, busy people, on how stressful their lives are, It's the poor bastards at the bottom who are most stressed and have the worst health outcomes. Any research that draws attention to this is to be welcomed.
I pretty much can fall asleep when I like, within boundaries. Normally it's off to bed at 2300, awake at 0700. But I can go to bed tonight at 2100, knowing I'll fall asleep in no more than 30 minutes and my body will wake me up at 0530.
But then except for a trains and planes, I haven't used an alarm clock in over 5 years.
Said I wasn't a lawyer! Perhaps I was thinking about the sorts of things you find on our private nets are more equivalent to conversation, that Facebook is a modern version; it's not published (libel), it's more equivalent to slander.
Is there some new [to the law] concept of private here?
When we 'put something on the Internet', why don't you have an expectation of privacy? I'm not talking about usenet/blogs, etc, but in email. That's on the internet. Of course, you say, but that's different. Can putting a comment on Facebook not be thought of as just a wider email- it's addressed to a fixed number of individuals. No-one outside of my circle can access it with my permission, just like if I sent it. If I wrote a letter to a friend saying I didn't think that person x was doing a good job and my friend took that letter and photocopied it and passed it around, I don't think I'd be liable for any slanderous proceedings (IANAL though).
Facebook posts are not the action of publishing. There is, or should be, a very cogent difference in intent.
Best hydrology resource I've seen online, sorry to be so positive.