Slashdot Mirror


New Mexico Might Declare Pluto a Planet

pease1 writes "Wired and others are reporting that for New Mexico, the fight for Pluto is not over. Seven months after the International Astronomical Union downgraded the distant heavenly body to a 'dwarf planet,' a state representative in New Mexico aims to give the snubbed world back some of its respect. State lawmakers will vote Tuesday on a bill that proposes that 'as Pluto passes overhead through New Mexico's excellent night skies, it be declared a planet.' The lawmaker who introduced the measure represents the county in which Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto's discoverer, was born. For many of us old timers, and those who had the honor of meeting Clyde, this just causes a belly laugh and is pure fun. Not to mention a bit of poking a stick in the eye."

68 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Fine by Cyraan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

    Well fine, I'm gonna start my own Pluto-recognizing state, with blackjack, and hookers!
    In fact, forget the state, and the blackjack.

    --
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
    1. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well fine, I'm gonna start my own Pluto-recognizing state, with blackjack, and hookers!
      In fact, forget the state, and the blackjack.

      So just Pluto-recognizing hookers?
    2. Re:Fine by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never stopped considering Pluto a planet; the new definition is no more attractive than the previous hand-waving, and frankly, I like my definition better anyway:

      If it orbits a star, and has characteristics such that the main mass has formed a sphere or oblate spheroid and it will remain that way barring impact with something, it's a planet. If it orbits a star but will not form a sphere, it's a comet or asteroid, depending on composition (ablative or not, respectively.) If it orbits a planet, it's a moon, regardless of other characteristics. If it is not orbiting a planet or a star, it is a free object; e.g. a free planet, a free asteroid, a free comet. If it is undergoing fusion, it is a star; if the fusion fire was lit, but is now out, we have a dead star, the rest of the usual classifications for the various types of stars apply as per usual.

      Think about the known solar system in those terms. Does that not put everything in its place in a reasonable fashion, without disturbing our previous understandings?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are there any other kind?

    4. Re:Fine by Time_Ngler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldn't marbles released into space far enough away from a planet to orbit a star fall under your classification as planets?

    5. Re:Fine by Krupuk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hookers who recognize other planets, like... Uranus?

    6. Re:Fine by osgeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      too... many... uranus... jokes... in... mind... must... refrain...

    7. Re:Fine by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, because marbles didn't (and wouldn't) naturally form themselves into spheres in space. I'd just call them "artificial debris."

      There are lots more things, but most are pretty much unchanged - only the debate about what a planet is has really been stirring things up. For instance, if an object was formed by intelligent beings rather than nature, then it gets prefixed with "artificial." I also like "planetesimal" for planets too small to walk on, "planetoid" for planets that are very low mass (specifically, if you can jump off it and reach escape velocity, it's a planetoid), James Blish's "gas giant" for planets that are gaseous and transition from a gas to a solid of the same material at some depth based upon pressure, "spacecraft" for anything that was under its own power or let go inertially from something else under its own power, "satellite" for artificial moons, and "debris" for anything in space that that intelligence is responsible for, that doesn't currently perform some useful function.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Fine by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you think planets are made out of, debris.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    9. Re:Fine by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What do you think planets are made out of, debris

      In my view, debris is the result of the actions of intelligence, so no, planets aren't made of debris. They are generally made of materials condensed out of a stellar (or proto-stellar) accretion disk, or otherwise naturally found in space.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Fine by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, how many objects that you would call an asteroid have formed themselves into spheres or oblate spheroids? It takes quite a bit of mass for that to happen

      But "spheroidness" is also a continuum, and composition and history may affect it more than mass does. If we use spheroidness as the guide, then one still needs to pick an arbitrary boundary. Thus, it is not a signif improvement over mass or diameter. Plus, gas giants have no clear surface boundary. One would have to make an exception for them.

    11. Re:Fine by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not clear on what you are *actually* measuring then. Remember, if it gets into the area of geology-process opinion, then we are back to the fuzz debates again.

    12. Re:Fine by JimDaGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So exactly why are you expressing your "views" about a topic you have no formal education in? Seriously. I am educated in physics, I would never attempt to enter my "view" to Vascular Surgery. It would just be stupid.

      Your "views" just make no sense from a scientific stand-point. As far as the "atom" stuff goes, you do know what you are really made from, correct? You do know what the Sun and Moon and Earth are mad from, correct?

      All of your other posts were trying to separate celestial bodies by such stupid criterion, that I thought we might as well just lump everything together on the atomic scale. After all, matter is made up of atoms. So there is a much closer link to categorize objects based on atoms vs. the 3rd grade "science view" that you came up with. Though I am very glad that we do not categorize things based only on their atomic make-up.

      Please, stop trying to defend your original post. At least own up to the fact that you know crap about physics or astronomy at a graduate or post-graduate level.

      Heck, maybe the scientific community should just let any amateur or enthusiast just start calling the shots. Hell, education is over-rated, and let us all just start to build our world view on the "views" of people like you.

      No thanks!

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    13. Re:Fine by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't science. This is simply nomenclature that arises from entirely arbitrary attempts at classing. As for the rest, I decline to respond, as you have convinced me that you are being intentionally abrasive.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:Fine by alienmole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The "stuff left around by people" definition is just a specialization of a more general meaning, which is "stuff left around by some activity" which can include geological activity, biological activity, collisions between planetary or stellar bodies, etc. Here's a pretty picture of Stellar Debris in the Large Magellanic Cloud for you to contemplate while you're plotting your theft of this term from multiple scientific disciplines. ;)

      You originally used the term "artificial debris"; qualifying it like that seems fine to me. So I'm not clear why any redefinition is needed here.

  2. Re:Is that even possible? by Bluey · · Score: 4, Funny

    That depends on what the meaning of the word "word" is.

    Read up on "Freedom Fries" for a good example of redefinition.

  3. Pfft, this move is pure self-preservation. by Spazntwich · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're just arguing on a slippery slope fallacy. First Pluto is stripped of its title, and before we know it, there will only be one Mexico again.

  4. Hurrah for New Mexico! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't submit to the international fascist conspiracy! Pluto IS a planet!

    1. Re:Hurrah for New Mexico! by RogerWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      Xena for planet!

      Petition your local representative for more planets and bigger telescopes, so all your favorite people can have a planet named after them.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  5. arrrrr? by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Funny

    It be declared a planet.

    Given the relative scarcity of larger bodies of water there, I did not realize that New Mexico had any pirates at all, let alone some in the legislature. Good work!

    Also, pi = 4. Or maybe 3.2. The government has spoken, let it be written!

    1. Re:arrrrr? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hi.

      You should learn about the subjunctive.

      Thanks.

  6. Absurd by dduardo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't like the fact that scientists say the world is round so I'm going to petition my local government to enact legislation to make the world flat. Does that sound right?

  7. Re:Great by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, at least it keeps her out of the streets, I guess.

    I wouldn't be so sure of that; She is a politician after all. It's in her nature to whore herself out.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  8. Who cares by mikesd81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it really that big of a deal that they want to pass this to honor the person that found Pluto? A link to the Memorial Text. This probably won't cost the state much money so let it be.

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  9. Stop listening to scientists! by openaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, really. Who would know more about astronomy? Astronomists? Or Representative Joni Marie Gutierrez, Landscape Architect? Let's just let her and her colleagues sort out stem cell research and evolution and global warming and blah blah.. I don't want to have to think about it. :P

    1. Re:Stop listening to scientists! by adnonsense · · Score: 4, Funny

      Representative Joni Marie Gutierrez, Landscape Architect

      I see a possible vested interest here. Pluto = planet = greater chance of manned mission = greater chance of human colonisation = opportunities galore for landscape architects. (I hear Pluto is in a very secluded location, but could benefit from some remodelling, and possibly an ornamental pond or two).

    2. Re:Stop listening to scientists! by despisethesun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you're joking, but in case you're not, someone who studies astronomy is an astronomer. Astrologers are people who study the pseudoscience of astrology.

      --
      This poo is cold.
  10. Well, if the Tomato isn't a fruit then ??? by davidwr · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) Argue with scientists
    2) Pass a law declaring victory
    3) ???
    4) PROFIT!!!

    Legally speaking, at one time tomatoes were not considered fruits.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Well, if the Tomato isn't a fruit then ??? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, it's still considered a vegetable when talking about tarriffs. The Supreme Court Case Nix v. Hedden decided that and has never been overruled; according to Westlaw (can't link to you since it's a paid service), it's still good law.

      Here are a few summary pieces from the Westlaw headnotes:

      Tomatoes are vegetables, rather than fruits, in the common and popular acceptation of such words, and were not free of duty under the provision of the free list for fruits, green, ripe, or dried, but were dutiable at 10 per cent. ad valorem, under the provision in Schedule G of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 503, for vegetables in their natural state.


      It's a pretty ridiculous ruling, as the court says things like this:

      The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word fruit as the seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are fruit, as distinguished from vegetables, in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act.


      My favorite part is the justification about how the people think it's a vegetable because of when they eat it:

      in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert

      I might add that this reasoning doesn't work anymore, since a lot of people consume fruits with their meal (orange juice, strawberries in cereal, bananas in packed lunches, canned peaches, etc.).

      The court then goes on to talk about beans, and how they are used as vegetables even though they are not vegetables. I have to wonder what the court would have thought of the sweet bean, which is eaten as a dessert in Japan. Would they have ruled that this bean is a fruit?
    2. Re:Well, if the Tomato isn't a fruit then ??? by NonSequor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The court's job was to determine the intent of the law and it decided to go with what most people consider to be fruits rather than the more rigorous definition used by botanists.

      My favorite part is the justification about how the people think it's a vegetable because of when they eat it:

      in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert


      That's not a justification, it's a description of how the words fruit and vegetable are used in everyday speech. The judge decided, correctly, that the lawmakers were using the words fruit and vegetable as they are commonly used rather than as they are used by botanists.
      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  11. Brilliant Idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next they should outlaw disease. Just imagine the healthcare savings.

  12. Re:Is that even possible? by maccam94 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This bill is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. It is not the place of government (nor religion) to declare something a fact when it contradicts information obtained using the scientific process.

  13. In other news. . . by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Illinois to vote on a bill to define pi as 22/7.

    Oklahoma's legislature to say that eclipses really are dragons eating the moon.

    North Carolina is considering a bill to re-instate earth, water, air, and fire as elements.

    1. Re:In other news. . . by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Kansas to declare that Humans were created by a divine diety.


      So some god went on a cosmic health kick and implemented a high fiber diet? And when he took a crap, he breathed life into the results and called them Humans?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:In other news. . . by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I realize that the distinctions among bodies in the solar system are somewhat arbitrary, but the decision to switch Pluto from being a planet to creating a new category called "dwarf planet" is reasoned and rather insightful. Pluto bears a lot more similarity to all the other bodies that fall into the dwarf planet category than it does to other planets. Meanwhile the only reason I can see for legislating Pluto back into planethood is an obsessive need to hold to tradition.

      I don't think tongue-in-cheek list I made is completely dissimilar to this situation, in that I'm trying to highlight the asininity of legislation like this. If the law were based on trying to construct a reasonable definition of a planet they would almost certainly have to include similar objects. Like Eris, which also has a trans-Neptunian orbit but is actually larger than Pluto and in that sense is a stronger candidate for planethood.

      Possibly it would have been better to come up with something along the lines of "California re-instates neptunium as a chemical element." Neptunium was originally thought to be an element, but was removed from the list as our understanding of chemistry improved and the definition of a chemical element was refined. But I left that out because it lacks the slapstick qualities of the three I did use.

  14. Re:Is that even possible? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're voting a friggin' fact!!

    No, they're voting a friggin' name. Pluto is a big round ball of matter that orbits the sun at a mind-boggling distance, and no one's questioning that. NM just wants to call it a "planet", which is well within their prerogative. they could also pass a law whereby you would be referred to as "the one who does not understand the law", and that'd be just fine as well.

    One of the basic functions of government is naming things. (Don't believe me? Go look at a street sign. And then pick up any package in the grocery store. The words on those things have meaning, essentially, only because the Government says so.)

  15. The reason for this is obvious: by quixoticsycophant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Politics. Pandering to the idiot vote. For Astrology believers, the 'downgrading' of Pluto was a slap in the face, provoking those feelings of religious outrage which politicians love to exploit. Millions and millions of voters in New Mexico have some sort of belief in Astrology, ranging from slight interest to passionate conviction. Many of those votes have just been guaranteed to those legislators responsible for this bill.

    Being enlightened slashdotters, most of us have little appreciation for how stupid people really are. I am here to say that yes, they are that stupid.

  16. Planet or not? by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't anyone see? This whole debate was created by Pluto itself as media hype to keep Pluto in the news!

  17. The saddest thing by jiawen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The saddest thing about all this, to me, is that the legislators probably did this because their constituents demanded it. There are way too many people out there who think that Pluto being declared not a planet is the biggest astronomy story in recent memory. Hints as to the source of gamma ray bursts? Flowing water on Mars? The Hubble's main camera having trouble? Landing a probe on the surface of Titan? More beautiful photography of Saturn than you can shake a stick at? None of those seem to get a grip on the popular consciousness. But Pluto, subject to more anthropomorphizing than any planet should be, somehow gets to be the cute underdog, fighting for its rights against nasty scientists. Blech.

    1. Re:The saddest thing by MollyB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But Pluto, subject to more anthropomorphizing than any planet should be, somehow gets to be the cute underdog, fighting for its rights against nasty scientists. Blech. 1. Exactly who is doing the anthropomorphizing here? Hint: you.
      2. Some people from the New Mexico county in which Clyde Tombaugh (the tireless discover of said celestial body) was born wanted to honor him, in defiance of the slithy toves and slimy weasels that would deprive him of his hard-earned recognition. I'm not going to provide a link you probably won't follow anyway, but you might find that he deduced the presence of an unseen planet from perturbations of Neptune's orbit and found the tiny pinprick of light only after weeks of staring into "blink-comparators" which alternate views of the same patch of sky taken over an interval.
      3. Not all scientists are nasty. Some are blinkered by their own exactitude, but many will continue to consider Pluto a planet. Factoid: Part of the reason Pluto was named such was to honor Percival Lowell, (that's the PL part, duh) and if you've never heard of him, you might be beyond remedial reading.
      4. You seem to imply that no other research is going on because the question of Pluto's status is taking up all the space for other news. If you look around, there's more than plenty.
      5. Stop being sad and judgemental. If you're young and healthy, learn and enjoy as much as you can. Plenty of time for dread and sorrow later...
    2. Re:The saddest thing by clickety6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And your scientific rather than emotional reasoning for calling Pluto a planet is.... ?

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  18. Re:Is that even possible? by omeomi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heck, by the "as Pluto passes overhead through New Mexico's excellent night skies, it be declared a planet" definition, pretty much everything up there is a planet...the moon, the stars, some comets, satellites...the international space station...just about everything but the sun, I guess...

  19. Uh, schoolbooks? by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea, funny and even cute, until you figure that as they look at new science books for state public schools, the state will be more concerned with the books promoting the official state version of the planetary population than they will be with overall quality or cost to the taxpayers.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  20. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Connecticut has declared Pluto to be a social networking site.

  21. And Ketchup is a vegetable by popo · · Score: 2, Funny


    which, by the way has more bearing on reality than the semantics of the word "planet".

    this is *still* a non-story.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  22. That... that's super. by Kabuthunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is what I see upon looking at the article:

    "I'm right and everyone else is wrong! I'm going to believe it MY way, and that's that."

    I mean cripes... I wonder how many of them still believe the world is flat? Just because you say that it's true doesn't mean that it is.

    --
    Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  23. Re:Pluto by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most state representatives are not professional politicians. They do their service at the statehouse for a few months out of the year, and for the rest of their time, they have a real job. It takes five minutes of this representative's time to write this bill, and another minute of their legislature's time to vote for it (most state legislatures handle their voting instantly rather than having protracted voting times like Congress does) to honor an astronomer from their state, so I don't see a problem.

  24. Texas Two-step by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would be fun to stand on the border between New Mexico and Texas and hop back and forth over the borderline, thinking "now it's a planet, now it's not. Planet again...."

  25. Re:Is that even possible? by giminy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually it reinforces the first ammendment in a way which the first ammendment does not need, and as such could be seen as weakening the first ammendment, yes.

    The first ammendment states that noone can interfere with anyone calling Pluto anything they want, including a cartoon dog. If the state legislature decided that calling Pluto a Dwarf Planet violated the state constitution, that in turn would violate the US Constitution because as a New Mexico and a US Citizen, I would simultaneously be restricted from saying, "Pluto is a Dwarf Planet" (under NM law) and allowed to say it (under US law).

    They are setting a precedent of slipperiness here. By defining Pluto in terms of what citizens are allowed to call it, they actually introduce the notion/thought/possible (mis)understanding of their state contitution that says citizens are only allowed to define objects in a way that the state legislature permits. The law is unnecessary in the same way that any anti-discrimination law (should be) unecessary -- non-discrimination is already protected as an interpretation of the consitution. The law, by leaving some groups out (e.g. hemaphroditic pagans), can actually weaken the original intent of the consitution, because the law introduces the idea that the consitution should not be interpretated to include those groups. Laws like this can provide a de facto interpretation of the intent of the constitution.

    As a bizarre example, if I were to draft a contract in New Mexico now that had the words "Pluto, a dwarf planet," in it, and actually got someone to sign it, I could probably claim the contract void after the state legislator does their magic. So while a funny addition to the New Mexico lawbooks, the legislators should actually be extremely careful in how they write the law. In all honesty, they made the news and should probably just drop the law at this point, before they do something stupid (or waste hundreds of hours researching similar laws and avoiding the pitfalls that they made).

    Or so a lawyer would argue, of which I am not one. Fortunately, hypothetical arguments are still protected in both the US and the sovereign state of California, so I'm okay...

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  26. One simple reason for this by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clyde Tombaugh.

    He found Pluto at a time when detecting planets was done with glass plate negatives and telescopes that were manually driven. He knew he was looking for a planet but where to find it was a matter of subjective debate. But he was the consummate scientist; as his wife noted after the demotion of Pluto, he would have been disappointed but he would have understood.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:One simple reason for this by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      as his wife noted after the demotion of Pluto, he would have been disappointed but he would have understood.

      And in fact, when Tombaugh announced his discovery he didn't claim that it was a planet, only a Trans Neptunian Object.

  27. Thank you New Mexico by volcanopele · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I, for one, like this resolution. The IAU decision last year consisted of one of the most ridiculous definitions I have ever seen and it is nice to see a legitimate resolution being offered to attack it. There was a resolution last year in the California statehouse, but that read more like a joke, than something more serious like this one. I've emailed my state assemblyman this story so maybe Arizona will do the same thing. After all, this PLANET was discovered using an Arizona telescope. For those who think this is a waste of money, how much money do you think this will cost? This is a symbolic resolution, no appropriations are associated with it. The text looks like it took 10 minutes to write. As commented earlier, this will take about a minute to vote on. So certainly compared to other government wasteful spending, this ranks pretty far down there.

    --
    The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    1. Re:Thank you New Mexico by skrolle2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Kuiper belt has a lot of stuff in it. If Pluto is a planet, what is Eris, Ceres, Varuna, Ixion, Quaoar, and Orcus? All of those are definitely in the same ballpark as Pluto, should we upgrade all of those to planet status as well? Or should we only keep Pluto classified as a planet, since that's the object we discovered first? The discovery of Pluto isn't lessened because we since have discovered objects with the same characteristics, We know now that it was premature to call it a planet, but it was still a remarkable achievement.

  28. Re:Great by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A large part of science is categorization, putting together like objects and phenomona, aiding researchers in narrowing things down. With the discovery that Pluto is one among many like bodies, we either have to admit into the planetary family dozens if not hundreds of such bodies, or we have to say that, whatever emotional attachments some might have to this particular body, it isn't a planet. Science is supposed to be dispassionate, so it can't consider that some legislator in New Mexico might get pissed off at a perceived slight to his state. In science, the rule is "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck", even if the locals have been calling it a emperor penguin for years.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  29. Re:Pluto by SenorFluffyPants · · Score: 2, Funny

    I live in New Mexico. Our legislature just spent weeks debating the realtive merits of cockfighting; this Pluto thing is actually an improvement in the level of legislative discourse.

  30. Not only in France by fmobus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, there are some Representative jackasses in my country (Brazil) trying to push this etymology-purity agenda, forbidding any use of foreign expressions where a translation is available. Before anyone says that would violate freedom of speech, I should inform that this agenda is mainly lead by a Communist Party of Brazil representative. 'Nuff said.

    I remember once a crappy CHI teacher I had, who said foreign/loan-words should be written in italics or quoted (this is right) and gave "deletar" as an example. "Deletar" is how "to delete" was adapted into Brazilian Portuguese computer-related lexicon, and its use is widely accepted and understood. I argued with him that this word was already officially accepted, and was even listed in Brazilian Literary Academy latests dictionary updates, to which he replied the Academy is not defending the purity of Portuguese well enough. He then mentioned that there at least seven good translations for "to delete" in Portuguese but, as it turns out, all translations he suggested fail to capture the computer-semantic of deletion. I proceeded to show how successfully loaned words from other languages like French and no one seems to bother: "capô" (vehicle hood/bonnet) is derived from "capeaux", just like most car parts in Brazilian Portuguese (maybe because the first cars were brought here by French people). He just shut up.

    Completely OT: This same teacher also was against CSS because it made impossible to the user to enlarge fonts, against PDF for text because it is an image format. He also said that human adaptability to absence of light increases with time (this is right) and that if you remained 60 minutes in a dark room, you'd be adapted enough to be able to read a text on a paper. WTF??

    In my opinion, people should be incentive and taught to write and spell properly, but if rule-of-law is necessary to achieve it, something is really wrong deep down.

    Oh, we were talking about Pluto here? Almost forgot. I'm still amazed there is still no NGO named "Friends of Pluto" (portuguese text warning. babelfish is your friend) using vast incentives from government and big companies (which in turn get nice tax-reductions) to defend this unjust arbitrarity.

  31. Bad Priorities by lbmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a former resident of New Mexico (along with Bill Gates :), I'd hope that a state representative would focus aim on the poverty of the south valley barrios in Albuquerque, the fact that NM has the highest rate of police shooting people in the back, or maybe even the violence and drug problems on the SE side of Abq. That should be a priority... but then again, that is just me.

  32. Compromise based on DST by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Daylight Savings Time gave me an idea: Between November and March, Pluto is a planet, but a dwarf-planet between April and October.

  33. It's part of a reciprocal agreement by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pluto is recognising New Mexico as a country.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  34. The farce continues by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is what happens when a poorly thought definition change occurs. The dynamics of the Pluto orbit were known for a long time. There's been no sudden increase in scientific insight due to this capricious change. Let's look at the facts. Pluto was considered a planet for more than 75 years. In recent times, many Kuiper Belt objects (which by definition interact gravitationally with Neptune) were found, one which is probably even larger than Pluto and at it's closest approach can be closer to the Sun than Pluto is at it's most distant. There may be many such objects larger than Pluto. So yes, if Pluto were discovered now (ignoring the new definition), it probably would not be considered a planet.

    But let's look at the definition. Pluto satisfies the first two conditions, it is in orbit around the Sun and is massive enough to form a sphere. The third condition is that "it must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". That phrase has yet to be defined. So we're saying Pluto is not a planet even though we don't yet know the meaning of a critical term. Let me point out what should be obvious. Namely, if one defines the neighborhood of an orbit as a locus of the trajectory (in four dimensional space-time, eg, the space within distance d of the object at time t), then anything big enough to be round most likely has cleared an impressively large neighborhood of anything of similar mass. I assume reasonably that "cleared" means here that no amount of mass similar in order of magnitude routinely runs through this neighborhood. Also, it ignores the grief that the definition change causes to the outside world. Science textbooks need to be modified to reflect this new definition. Given that the definition is "official" yet is still mostly incomplete, the IAU will need to complete the definition of planet (and you can bet that Pluto == planet is still on the agenda). Finally, the definition explicitly only defines "planet" in the Solar System. The related definition of "dwarf planet" (ie, if it is massive enough to be rounded by gravity, it's a dwarf planet) does apply to exosolar dwarf planets (by a 2003 decision by the IAU).

    So all this effort fails to apply to other star systems. This is quite relevant. First, the Solar System is a mature star system, more than 4 billion years old with no signs of recent perturbation. Second, all the orbits of the "planets" are circular. That's unusual. Most of the objects yet discovered have very elliptical (ie, large eccentricity) orbits. The definition would be hard to observe anyway since one would need to be able to account for most of the nonstellar mass in the star system before they could claim that anything has "cleared its orbit".

    Finally, the decision was made with little concensus. The IAU is not an open-membership body. My impression is that it admits members directly by election only or at the behest of a "national member", a national level organization (like the US National Academy of Science's Board on International Scientific Organizations) which may have similar membership requirements. IMHO, IAU membership isn't constituted in a way conducive to concensus outside the astronomy community. Second, as noted before, only 5% of the members of the IAU actually voted on the definition in question. Further, only IAU officials had the power to modify the definition when it was being voted on. Finally, no report of the actual vote has ever been made public, as far as I can tell. We know that 424 members voted on it (this is widely reported in the media), but I have never seen reported the actual vote tally.

    In summary, a redefinition of a common term, "planet" which manages to remain ill-defined and to have little scientific value by an international body that failed to generate any concensus either inside or out on the decision.

  35. Re:Great by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually it is a smart political move. Scores points with the constiuents that for the most part agree that demoting pluto was totally dumb to begin with. And creates some good tourist marketing material. "Come visit sunny New Mexico where Pluto is still a planet!".

  36. Re:Is that even possible? by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This bill is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. It is not the place of government (nor religion) to declare something a fact when it contradicts information obtained using the scientific process.

    WTF?! You realize we're talking about whether to call Pluto a planet or not, right? This is a social convention, not a fact of nature. It's a societal decision about how we use words, it has nothing to do with any even remotely scientific process, nor can it possibly contradict information. If you think you should name your baby Dwight and your wife thinks he should be named Fred, you're not arguing about a fact of the world, nor is there a true and right answer, nor can either of you be correct or incorrect in any meaningful sense of the word.

    It's highly amusing that there are some people who think there's some fact of the matter about what is or isn't a planet that's independent of what we arbitrarily choose to call a planet. The law in question is silly, granted, but it does not in any way at all whatsoever "contradict information obtained using the scientific process".

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  37. Re:So we have 15+ planets now? by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is being a planet treated as some sort of exclusive club? Sure, they're planets, every last one of them. So what?

  38. Re:So we have 15+ planets now? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What about it? Half a dozen isn't any surprise to me. This sub-thread was started by a claim of 1000+, which is what got me interested, because it seems... optimistic. No one has backed the claim up yet, but the thread's life isn't over yet. Regardless, I'm all for discovering new planets. Even thousands of them, which would be absolutely fascinating. Let's do it!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  39. Re:So we have 15+ planets now? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's also pretty hard for schoolchildren to memorize the names of all countries, rivers, lakes, mountains, and so forth. Does this mean we only have ten of each of those?

  40. Re:So we have 15+ planets now? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Making schoolchildren memorize arbitrary nomenclature is often useless and one of the many signs that our school systems are structured and run by the clueless.

    As to why you'd have them memorize the names of any planets at all, you'd probably mention to them (not make them memorize) the first few discovered by our relatively limited earthbound observations as an unimportant but mildly interesting historical issue, and any beyond that which might be educational in and of themselves. I suspect you'd want to tell them how large the current planet count has become, again purely as a matter of interest, and as an intellectual fulcrum for you to inform them that said number is expected to change shortly, and often. Along with the asteroid count, the comet count, the satellite count, the star count, the galaxy count, etc.

    There is no need for them to "memorize" any of these names and numbers until or unless they decide to focus on space science one way or another. And perhaps not even then. They just need to know that there are other planets out there in our system, and how planetary systems work, so they don't get caught up in superstitious nonsense.

    On top of this, they need to know how to look things up so that when they want a fact for some reason, they can go get it with minimal fanfare.

    Intellectual honesty, critical thinking skills, and the ability to use reference materials fluidly are all far more educationally valuable than canned, arbitrary information that came from a committee not entirely in internal agreement anyway.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  41. I, for one... by o'reor · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... welcome our new Pluto-recognizing overladies.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.