Pluto — a Complex and Changing World

astroengine writes "After 4 years of processing the highest resolution photographs the Hubble Space Telescope could muster, we now have the highest resolution view of Pluto's surface ever produced. Most excitingly, these new observations show an active world with seasonal changes altering the dwarf planet's surface. It turns out that this far-flung world has more in common with Earth than we would have ever imagined."

Comments

I know I was shocked to learn that

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a dog! Why would Disney lie to me?

Re:Can't wait for a good picture!

[Tablizer]

Damn, the worlds going to end before then.

Which one? Did you mean "worlds" or "world's"? In the space age one has to be more specific.
     

i just had an epiphany

[circletimessquare]

this ridiculous argument is a good definition of conservatism versus liberalism, in the abstract

the idea that pluto is a planet or not has absolutely no relevance to anyone's life. it is also a pretty arbitrary and pointless issue: no one has any vested interests here. however, it is memorized as a child, and has a long tradition

therefore, i bet you if you asked a random sample of self-identified conservatives, in any country, they would choose pluto remain a planet. and i would also bet a random sample of self-identified liberals worldwide would choose that pluto not be a planet

because the only issue here is tradition. obsequious unthinking obedience to the past and a dimwitted anxiety at anything new, ie, conservatism, versus forward thinking logic and rationality, aka liberalism

Re:i just had an epiphany

[Anonymous Coward]

That is about the most twisted view of liberal -vs- conservative I have ever heard...

Literally, it is "Liberal", as in "A liberal application of peanutbutter on the bread", and "Conservative", as in "Try to be a bit more conservative of our oxygen supply."

Specifically, as it relates to social welfare. Example: The liberal view is to supply however much money is needed to ensure that no child goes hungry, no matter what the price. The conservative view is to supply enough money that the preponderance of the children do not go hungry, while retaining a tight reign on government spending.

At least in theory.

Recent crops of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" blur these ideological standpoints to the point of being unrecognizable.

Where the "Science VS Religion" meets "Liberal VS Conservative" ball comes into play, is that the liberal takes the view that no amount of tradition or public sentimentality (eg, magical thinking, traditionalism, religious dogma, et al that you seem to rail against in your post above) justifies the slowing of intellectual pursuits and progress; While the conservative takes the view that while the science is incontrovertable, the "The peasants are revolting, and they have torches and pitchforks!" potential of the liberal approach makes it insanely foolish to implement.

This is why the conservative government of the bush administration (Despite its blurred line on deficit war expendature, which was indisputably liberal in the purest sense.) acted the way it did on such "Controversial" issues as the infamous "Stem Cell Research", and "Gay marriage" issues. (Like it or not, a VERY large percentage of the population in the US is against these. You can argue that they are stupid/insane/deluded/brainwashed/whatever until you are blue in the face, it does not change the fact that this is indeed the case.)

In case you were wondering, I am a moderate libertarian. I simply grow very tired of the whole "Liberals are teh UBER! Conservatives are teh SUXX0rZ!" on one side, and the "Lieberals are commies, Conservatives are the Real Americans!(TM)" on the other.

Like any two extremes in a statistical plot, the percentage of the time when a fully liberal or a fully conservative implementation for any given problem actually being necessary/ideal is, by definition, marginal.

For this reason, I see both views as having merits, but blind adherence to either is simply wrong the majority of the time.

Your association of conservatives with being backwards hillbillies, and liberals as being enlightened rationalists is horribly misguided, and frightening from my perspective.

The true rationalist would concede that there are times to be conservative, and times to be liberal, and give reasons for each individual circumstance as it arrises; often creating natural compromises in the process, which places his solutions someplace near the median of the Liberal-Conservative scale.

This is because the true rationalist understands that while something might be true, if that truth would have seriously erosive implications to the current social order, it promises to bring more harm than benefit to blindly enforce it. Better is to slowly allow the social population and mindset to adapt to this newly discovered truth over time, thus reducing total damage and waste of resources.

A good example of this, is Evolution VS Creationism. Evoltionary theory is the best explanation for what we have observed scientifically, and has been proven in a number of test cases. However, it challenges the world-view of a VERY VERY VERY large percentage of the population, and forcing it as an issue would create much social and urban unrest, much like the current situation in Ireland with the Protestants VS the Catholics. This makes it a VERY stupid idea to try and force down the public's collective throats at this moment in time. Instead, as you can see by its slow introduction into the school system, the truth of evolution is being slowly incorporated into the social conciou