Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC • Hacker News Board

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#251

Post by archgoon » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 5:12 AM UTC

batpad wrote: post #248

archgoon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or released in one of those journals that most of cannot access Go down to your local university library. Go over to one of the computers (or hop on the wifi). Read the article. Email it to yourself. Not that hard now was it? This is not ideal, but it's not that you _cannot_ access it, it's just not convenient.

uh.. and what if you're in India? uhh .. apply for a Visa at your local consulate, hop onto a plane, go down to the library ... not very convenient, innit? I'm sorry, but academic data walled up in closed journals (im sorry you live in a coccoon where you think everyone has a local university library) is malicious withholding of information - i dont imply that malice exists on the part of the scientist publication, b…

Interlibrary Loan. There are places in the world that don't have internet either you know.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#252

Post by weavejester » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 9:36 AM UTC

majika wrote: post #245

weavejester wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?

I'm Australian, and we have the ABC. So, assuming you're British, we're coming from the same page. That said, the GP does have a point. The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future. Note: despite Australia's high…

> The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future.

Political parties could equally make backroom deals with private media companies as well. It would also be considerably less risky, because they wouldn't have to violate the Royal Charter.

The problem with backroom deals concerning the license fee is that they have to be remain secret, yet affect how the news is reported without drawing suspicion. Any control would have to be very subtle.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#253

Post by weavejester » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 9:40 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #250

weavejester wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?

Ensure a reduction in TV license fees, perhaps, or schedule a big, expensive inquiry into whether the BBC is systematically biased in its reporting. After all, the people pay for it so the people have a right to know, regardless of how many millions of pounds it costs the BBC.

Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think?

An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#254

Post by derleth » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

weavejester wrote: post #253

derleth wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensure a reduction in TV license fees, perhaps, or schedule a big, expensive inquiry into whether the BBC is systematically biased in its reporting. After all, the people pay for it so the people have a right to know, regardless of how many millions of pounds it costs the BBC.

Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think? An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.

> Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think?

That's why you don't reduce it right away. You threaten to reduce it if they're impolitic enough to pursue certain courses. You make this fairly clear to them. The actual decisions come from the BBC's own leadership, acting on such knowledge.

> An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. The only independence the BBC can have under its funding model is if it decided to risk going downhill and no longer being able to do the good things it's doing now. A reduction in license fees would accomplish that, meaning if you can wave that stick around the BBC will waive its independence and allow investigations.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#255

Post by weavejester » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 2:09 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #254

weavejester wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think? An government inquiry into the BBC's reporting would be even worse, as it would be a clear violation of the BBC's independence.

> Reducing the TV license fee at the same time the BBC is going to report something unfavourable to the current government might seem just a little suspicious, don't you think? That's why you don't reduce it right away. You threaten to reduce it if they're impolitic enough to pursue certain courses. You make this fairly clear to them. The actual decisions come from the BBC's own leadership, acting on such knowledge.…

> You threaten to reduce it if they're impolitic enough to pursue certain courses. You make this fairly clear to them.

And the next day there's a headlining report on government corruption.

I'm not quite seeing how the government can threaten the BBC, when they have so much to lose if those threats become public.