Don’t tell the Indians that. Boson is named after Satyendra Nath Bose.
Good point. I'd read that first article you linked to already, but not the io9 one - that was interesting. Yeah poor Bose, but it's the same for Enrico Fermi, after whom we have the other particle category referred to in that article: fermions, also sans capital.
(Anyway, Bose gets a capital with 'Bose-Einstein statistics';same for Fermi with 'Fermi–Dirac statistics'.)
I watched CERN’s webcast of the Higgs Boson announcement
Sorry to be pedantic, but the correct spelling is Higgs boson. Capital ‘H’ for the ‘Higgs’ of Peter Higgs, one of the first to suggest its existence. Small ‘b’ for boson, which is just a type of particle.
Alright, more seriously, it was a longish rolling kinda quake. Little to no damage from what I can gather. Mag 7 but really deep. No tsunami danger.
It's okay, don't worry. I'm fine.
... resembles a fat interstellar slug creature ...
You seem to be the only one here suggesting she resembles a "fat interstellar slug creature". You didn't get the Vogon reference, did you?
The difference between Media 7 and Back Benches is that we’re made by TVNZ, produced internally as part of News & Current Affairs. So when the announcement was made to close TVNZ 7, Top Shelf and RB did what any good production company would do, and hit the phones, worked contacts, tried to find a new home. Whereas TVNZ clearly aren’t going to do that, at least not outside of TVNZ. We lack, if you will, a ‘champion’. And given neither Wallace nor I own the concept/name, it’s not ours to shop around.
Are TVNZ not interested in hosting it directly on TV1 or 2? It seems to me that it's a pretty successful show within its limitations (such as a lack of promotion outside TVNZ7 ads), and I assume it isn't a particularly expensive show to make.
Alternatively, would it not be possible to change the name and tweak the concept a bit, and then shop around?
And coming up in the next week or two … if you’re logged into the PA System, there will be a “last read post” button. Yes, you asked for it and you’ll get it … soon!
Yep. I mean, I've personally no interest in being involved in poly-relationships myself, but if it became legally sanctioned, then I'd feel compelled to do so. That's just how human nature works. Like when they made it legal to turn first at the top of the T. I just spent days making unnecessary turns at T-intersections.
I don’t think it’s any more of a problem to say what marriages are supposed to be like than it is to say what an ideal voter is.
EXAMPLE: (Voters – ideal and non-ideal)
Voters in national elections are supposed to know basic facts about:
• How their electoral system works
• Candidates, parties, and their policies
• Important issues confronting the nation
• National and world history
• Central ideas in politics, economics, and law
Okay, let’s assume that’s a fairly uncontroversial description of the “ideal voter”. That was easy. It should be just as easy for you to describe: “Married persons – ideal and non-ideal” followed by a set of bullet points.
Could you do so?