geordief

Well that would be British taxpayers' money that they would have to justify giving away to a criminal. If they are found liable for that /some amount (apparently v unlikely) in a court then they (or some body) would have to shell out that amount and also lose some reputation along with it. All the BBC has for capital is its reputation for good journalism and public service -well it also has to justify its subvention from the British public via its political representatives. I think caving into Trump would be an own goal on that score and decrease the respect most(?-well I hope most) of the British public have for it-as well as being the obviously wrong thing to do. There is also a cohort of the British public that does not like the BBC and they may well enjoy its discomfiture. since they clearly did make an error (the case being made is ,presumably that they are biased against Trump and that this mistake is illustrative of that )

I saw (BBC or CNN) that those exact same files (and faulty redactions ) go back some 9 years. To the Virgin Islands,I think I heard. Which doesn't indicate a (recent) leak to me.

Google autosuggest brings up "scotch whiskey" when you start typing in the url /search box (on both my devices). You are not suggesting it is wrong,surely ;-)

Suppose we have a mechanical clock with an observer at its centre. The clock has symettrically spread moving components of mass comprising the mechanism. Suppose those components are all moving away from the centre(a gravity well) at the same speed and that the clock as a whole continues to " tell the time". As they move further out from the centre does the time as "told by the clock" seem to move more or less quickly to the observer at its centre-or the same?

Have they recycled Thomas the Tank Engine? (he looks a bit grey around the jowls)

Mulled cider?

So we can't even measure absolute time elapsed in our own frame other than to an approximation?(unsurprising perhaps) Is it an interesting (or true) observation that a "clock" cannot "time itself?"

I first thought of a mechanical watch being used to assess the speed of its inner mechanism and then realized that any regularly repeating system could serve as such a timing mechanism So if we take the orbit of the moon ,can it be used to assess the speed of particular movements ,say on the earth? Can it tell usat what ,say Trump tells lies?(events "within" the mechanism) Can it measure the speed of coronal euptions in the Sun ?("external" events) It seems to me that,if we choose a different regularly repeating timing mechanism-say Mercury around the Sun then there will be different measurements for the same events and there will have to be a transformation to make them agree. That seems like a preamble to what I wanted to ask ,which is "Can a clock measure the rate of its own internal movements or do we need a second timing mechanism to do that?" Are all measurements of time relative and never absolute?

Think it means "study of". ("Logos" meaning "word" -eg loggorhoia is verbal diarrhoea ) Are you getting confused with "philo.." ,meaning "love of"?

Not a dog trained for Crufts then. Had no idea

Is the "frightened" dog part of the illusion? It can't see the "hole" can it?(especially from its direction)

Is there a limit to how small an interval that can be measured?- and is that for practical reasons or intrinsic reasons (ie there are no intervals below a certain size that could be measured even if we had the capability-which obviously we could not have since the spacetime interval is built into our measuring tools as far as I know) Or could we in theory build measuring tools (to measure time intervals) with unlimited capabilities so that the spacetime intervals themselves could be limitless small?

In practical terms do people who upload AI generated content get rewarded for their "content"? I recently looked through a supposed "Nov 30 episode of Kimmel" and it only became completely to me obvious in the comments that it was not genuine. I think it was Youtube and so they may have had ads and been paid for this misleading product. Music/art seems different but I guess those "content providers" get money out of AI plagiarisation. I hardly click on Youtube any more unless I already know what is inside.

"geplåstert" is Dutch-or bastardised? I found this ,anyway: "England around the 12th century, Plasterers (many of which were Italian) would mix wine or beer in with the plaster. It was felt the plaster would last longer..however the plasterers also didn’t mind a glass or two as well and this is where the saying “to get plastered” comes from."

Bob means drive(r) ? I like the Tiramisu we get in Lidl.(and elsewhere).

Debatable (a separate thread?)

Be careful.Screwdrivers can slip very easily.The glass itself is very slippy and you don't want the end of the screwdriver going into your wrist . It can be frustrating if you are not used to it and your attention can skip a beat. Maybe hold the jar upside down on a flat surface?

Yes ,I buy beetroot juice and a small amount drunk cold is quite nice. Except,a while back (perhaps I had the remains of a cold) I coughed up what looked like blood into the sink.It took me a while to realize it was beetroot juice lodged in my throat. And ,yes it does turn urine and stools red or pink quite promptly.

Looks a bit like an emasculator for animals.

Probably what was on my mind. Is it correct to say that there is no force in the universe that would be capable of achieving the same deformation of a nucleus ? (in a rest frame ,if that could apply as a description) Nothing that could conceivably ,as it were put the nucleus in a vice and squeeze it so that its shape was identical to relativistic length contracted?

If an object is moving at a significant (reativistic) velocity wrt a particular frame of reference then that frame will see it as length contracted in the direction of motion. Not only "see" it but the object will actually. be. length contracted in that frame of reference. (Hope I am correct so far) In the frame of the object itself no such contraction is observed or experienced. So my question is ,are there any objects where this lack of symmetry would be a problem? Are some objects required to be perfectly symmetrical along all 3 physical axes so that they could not physically exist "squashed up" in another frame of reference ? (I presume the answer must be "no".Was the question worth asking -or well put?)

I always make a small hole with a ( hopefully short) sharp knife if they are too tight. It may still require strength even after that. It also helps if hands and lid are very dry.

This seemed an interesting article yesterday .I wonder is there any connection to allergies? I have no allergies but my brother is intolerant to onions. Why some animals can eat poison and cheat deathCreatures consuming species that contain deadly toxins have evolved a suite of clever strategies to stay alive.

Maybe a good attempt. Maths is an edifice of the mind but there are seemingly no(?) * physical objects that cannot be modelled entirely mathematically. And no thinking being could construct a mathematical model without recourse to information coming from the physicsl world. Do the uncertainty theorem and chaos theory belie that?

Does a materialist assert the primacy of physical objects over the ideas we can form about them? Are there attempts to form an interface between the two concepts? Might the one reality bleed into the other or can there be a model that subsumes both?