Classifying Pluto as a Plutoid and then defining a Plutoid to be a spherical object past the orbit of Neptune is silly. At least gas giants are defined by some intrinsic characteristics (i.e. they're giant and made of gas) which is different than terrestrial planets (i.e. made of rocks) which could be applied to objects in other solar systems while we're not going to find any more Plutoids unless we start naming the furthest planet from every star "Neptune" or re-define the term.
Furthermore, the fact that they haven't really identified what's special about spherical objects in the Kuiper Belt, they've just determined that they should have a name (which I think is just to appease people who were sad that Pluto lost its planet status). And really, any object of sufficient mass will become spherical. That's not particularly special.
Clearing the area refers more to the fact that Pluto intersects Neptune's orbit than the fact that it lives in a debris field. The fact that Pluto crosses the orbit of a much larger object much like how comets and various asteroids cross our (and other planet's) orbit.
By the way, how many other KBOs have their own satellites as large as Charon?
Quite a number actually (ssee wiki). They're not all as large as Pluto, but some are (some are bigger) and many have moons.
Yes. I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Pluto behaves just like all the other Kuiper Belt Objects with its eccentric and highly inclined orbit or the fact that it crosses the orbit of an object that is definitely a planet (Neptune). It's just that everyone in the scientific community hates Americans which is exactly why all other American achievements and discoveries in the sciences are likewise ignored.
No, definitions of planets are important if you're looking for them elsewhere and wish to classify the objects you find orbiting other stars. Besides, even as a first year astronomy student five years ago I knew Pluto wasn't a planet, they only made it official recently (and properly defined planets).
This plutoid business is silly though and only serves as some sort of consolation prize to the people who still wish that planets weren't actually defined and Pluto could still be considered among them. I mean, unless we're actually going to be applying this standard to objects we find around other stars (which I think would be silly, but then I'm not a planetary astronomer... so who knows).
I suspect that this has something to do with the upcoming international year of astronomy, which is all about getting the public excited about astronomy, semi-reversing Pluto's demotion (which appears to have been unpopular among non-astronomers) seems to be good for this.
I think I've only screwed one guy who owned a car, let alone a big car. Granted I'm still a student, but I'm still quite happy finding men who aren't using cars to compensate for their other shortcomings.
But to say that a human rights commission isn't needed at all because we can go shopping on days when Christians traditionally took the day off work is ludicrous. I mean, even if one ignores the fact that there are still issues with the rights of women women (which doesn't even touch on the issue of the lack of abortion access to most women) or aboriginals there are still issues with the rights of those who are caught up in trouble in the name of "counter terrorism" measures.
I'm not saying that it's right for people to be censored because they offend people, but there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of human rights here (and elsewhere).
I would also contend that, based on the sorts of websites I can access and the sort of bigotry I can find that isn't censored, the human rights commission is extremely ineffective at silencing the sorts of people who would make negative statements about minority groups online. The grandparent post didn't provide what I would consider a particularly reliable website for information so I don't really know if the issue is just censorship or if there's something else to it (i.e. if the author is attempting to incite violence against a group, should they still be allowed to do so even if it's just talking?).
Do you care to provide a source that isn't a right wing website?
Perhaps one that doesn't include statements like this: in a country with Sunday shopping, abortion rights and same-sex marriage...[h]uman rights commissions are vestigial organs, a historical correction that no longer serves any useful function. in attempts to prove a point. I mean, to say that just because women have the right to reproductive freedom (if they live in a major city), gay people can get married and everyone can go shopping on Sunday (if they live in a large city) doesn't mean that human rights issues are a thing of the past.
I'm also missing the part where this website is being filtered out by a repressive government. The fact that this site is up and running and I can view it from Canada despite the fact that it criticizes the current state of affairs in this country indicates that censorship isn't nearly as bad as in China.
Actually, it is a fact that macro evolution occurs. The evidence is written in the fossil record.
People just aren't sure exactly how it happens.
And it's not like the Bible has the only other existing creation story. Why not pick one that wasn't plagiarized from the Summerians? Why not make some statement like "the Norse creation story hasn't been proven true"?
In other words, encouraging them to plant cash crops on soil unsuitable to the growth of cash crops instead of planting food that they can sustain them and those around them while depleting the soil of essential nutrients (because the farmers aren't paid enough to buy fertilizer for their land) until it can't grow anything at all thus lowering the local standard of living by a lot (i.e. everyone starves) and the big multinational company moves on to exploit another area.
And how many users from other countries log in infrequently?
Furthermore, how do you determine which users are Canadians? If I leave all my networks, I could be living anywhere in the world. If you go by IP addresses you'll be eliminating people who are just living in or visiting Canada, but not Canadians living or visiting abroad.
Have you looked at some of the more recent CFL's? I saw some last month in the harware store that had glass covers around the light itself. They were a bit more expensive, but they weren't ugly at least.
As a result, it's perfectly obvious that US industry has stepped up to the plate and provided the US with the BEST broadband in the world, at the lowest prices.
Are you sure about this business of the US having the cheapest and best broadband? This BBC article seems to be under the impression that Japan's got some pretty sweet broadband and that the Swedes tend to get the cheap broadband and this place seems to think that the US doesn't rank in the top 10 in broadband penetration, which I wouldn't assume is a marker of the best and cheapest broadband.
Granted, I don't know if the governments in any of these countries chipped in to build the infrastructure.
Oh yes, we haven't found any other life anywhere else. Given that we can only really look closely at a couple dozen worlds (counting some moons) and we have only actually put probes on less than a handfull of them. There couldn't possibly be life anywhere else in our solar system, let alone the rest of our galaxy or the universe.
Clearly this makes life extremely rare and unlikely to be observed elsewhere.
Usually you just need the head end and the worm will regrow (but I think this depends on the specific worm). If the 50% is the tail end then it doesn't regrow and if it's just random part in the middle (i.e. if they're taking a core sample and get a 3 inch section from the middle of a 1m long worm) then you're not really going to have much at all to go on.
I don't know if you've ever dissected a worm in high school biology class, but they've pretty much got organs in the front and intestines and nerves through the rest and then a place to poop at the end and that's about it (simplifying).
can someone fill me in on what's going on since the summary isn't very descriptive?
Is it that people with beards are better at creating computer languages or are better at using them? If it's the latter, my supervisor is proof that this isn't the case, given his lack of beard and the fact that he's well versed in many computer languages.
The US also has rather draconian drug laws, which probably explain a lot of the prison population. Rapists and murders tend to get out easy compared to some kid caught with dope.
That doesn't mean that some of the people there are wrongly convicted, although if person A didn't kill person B then that must mean that somewhere out there, there's a person C who did kill him.
The flood in the old testament is likely a result of the black sea filling in and people who lived there being displaced by the water. It was also written in the Epic of Gilgamesh before it was borrowed for the old testament.
A drought tens of thousands of years before writing was developed is a very unlikely source for a story about a flood.
I don't know anyone who does research in astronomy and uses windows as their primary operating system. Pretty much everyone runs some version of linux and if forced to use a windows machine for some sort of actual research, use cygwin/x.
The only time I've seen people use windows is when they're creating power point slides for a presentation or lecture (although I've seen a few just made with pdfs in LaTeX) or dealing with someone else's MS office files. Windows may be a user friendly desktop, but it's useless for doing actual work as far as I'm concerned.
I know one time I had a rash and the doctor prescribed some skin cream, I took it to the pharmacy and they told me that my plan wouldn't cover this and that these products on the shelf would be just as effective. When I was on the pill, the pharmacist also referred me to the cheaper version, despite what my doctor wrote down on the form as well.
In general, pharmacists are supposed to keep an eye out for drug interactions and all this and that, so I would think that most of them are aware of different drugs which have the same effect and could probably change what drug is being used (perhaps after some consultation with the doctor as well).
Slashdot Mirror
Classifying Pluto as a Plutoid and then defining a Plutoid to be a spherical object past the orbit of Neptune is silly. At least gas giants are defined by some intrinsic characteristics (i.e. they're giant and made of gas) which is different than terrestrial planets (i.e. made of rocks) which could be applied to objects in other solar systems while we're not going to find any more Plutoids unless we start naming the furthest planet from every star "Neptune" or re-define the term.
Furthermore, the fact that they haven't really identified what's special about spherical objects in the Kuiper Belt, they've just determined that they should have a name (which I think is just to appease people who were sad that Pluto lost its planet status). And really, any object of sufficient mass will become spherical. That's not particularly special.
Clearing the area refers more to the fact that Pluto intersects Neptune's orbit than the fact that it lives in a debris field. The fact that Pluto crosses the orbit of a much larger object much like how comets and various asteroids cross our (and other planet's) orbit. By the way, how many other KBOs have their own satellites as large as Charon? Quite a number actually (ssee wiki). They're not all as large as Pluto, but some are (some are bigger) and many have moons.
Yes. I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Pluto behaves just like all the other Kuiper Belt Objects with its eccentric and highly inclined orbit or the fact that it crosses the orbit of an object that is definitely a planet (Neptune). It's just that everyone in the scientific community hates Americans which is exactly why all other American achievements and discoveries in the sciences are likewise ignored.
No, definitions of planets are important if you're looking for them elsewhere and wish to classify the objects you find orbiting other stars. Besides, even as a first year astronomy student five years ago I knew Pluto wasn't a planet, they only made it official recently (and properly defined planets).
This plutoid business is silly though and only serves as some sort of consolation prize to the people who still wish that planets weren't actually defined and Pluto could still be considered among them. I mean, unless we're actually going to be applying this standard to objects we find around other stars (which I think would be silly, but then I'm not a planetary astronomer... so who knows).
I suspect that this has something to do with the upcoming international year of astronomy, which is all about getting the public excited about astronomy, semi-reversing Pluto's demotion (which appears to have been unpopular among non-astronomers) seems to be good for this.
Psh. Everyone knows that maths are just tools for physicists.
I think I've only screwed one guy who owned a car, let alone a big car. Granted I'm still a student, but I'm still quite happy finding men who aren't using cars to compensate for their other shortcomings.
I have a friend who's 6'8" who doesn't seem to have trouble driving small cars. If he can fit in a normal car, then why can't you?
But to say that a human rights commission isn't needed at all because we can go shopping on days when Christians traditionally took the day off work is ludicrous. I mean, even if one ignores the fact that there are still issues with the rights of women women (which doesn't even touch on the issue of the lack of abortion access to most women) or aboriginals there are still issues with the rights of those who are caught up in trouble in the name of "counter terrorism" measures.
I'm not saying that it's right for people to be censored because they offend people, but there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of human rights here (and elsewhere).
I would also contend that, based on the sorts of websites I can access and the sort of bigotry I can find that isn't censored, the human rights commission is extremely ineffective at silencing the sorts of people who would make negative statements about minority groups online. The grandparent post didn't provide what I would consider a particularly reliable website for information so I don't really know if the issue is just censorship or if there's something else to it (i.e. if the author is attempting to incite violence against a group, should they still be allowed to do so even if it's just talking?).
Do you care to provide a source that isn't a right wing website?
Perhaps one that doesn't include statements like this: in a country with Sunday shopping, abortion rights and same-sex marriage...[h]uman rights commissions are vestigial organs, a historical correction that no longer serves any useful function. in attempts to prove a point. I mean, to say that just because women have the right to reproductive freedom (if they live in a major city), gay people can get married and everyone can go shopping on Sunday (if they live in a large city) doesn't mean that human rights issues are a thing of the past.
I'm also missing the part where this website is being filtered out by a repressive government. The fact that this site is up and running and I can view it from Canada despite the fact that it criticizes the current state of affairs in this country indicates that censorship isn't nearly as bad as in China.
Actually, it is a fact that macro evolution occurs. The evidence is written in the fossil record.
People just aren't sure exactly how it happens.
And it's not like the Bible has the only other existing creation story. Why not pick one that wasn't plagiarized from the Summerians? Why not make some statement like "the Norse creation story hasn't been proven true"?
In other words, encouraging them to plant cash crops on soil unsuitable to the growth of cash crops instead of planting food that they can sustain them and those around them while depleting the soil of essential nutrients (because the farmers aren't paid enough to buy fertilizer for their land) until it can't grow anything at all thus lowering the local standard of living by a lot (i.e. everyone starves) and the big multinational company moves on to exploit another area.
Something like that?
And how many users from other countries log in infrequently?
Furthermore, how do you determine which users are Canadians? If I leave all my networks, I could be living anywhere in the world. If you go by IP addresses you'll be eliminating people who are just living in or visiting Canada, but not Canadians living or visiting abroad.
Have you looked at some of the more recent CFL's? I saw some last month in the harware store that had glass covers around the light itself. They were a bit more expensive, but they weren't ugly at least.
Why aren't comments like this being modded down? There are at least two others below this one that require it as well.
My only consolation is that I don't seem to be the only one who missed it.
As a result, it's perfectly obvious that US industry has stepped up to the plate and provided the US with the BEST broadband in the world, at the lowest prices.
Are you sure about this business of the US having the cheapest and best broadband? This BBC article seems to be under the impression that Japan's got some pretty sweet broadband and that the Swedes tend to get the cheap broadband and this place seems to think that the US doesn't rank in the top 10 in broadband penetration, which I wouldn't assume is a marker of the best and cheapest broadband.
Granted, I don't know if the governments in any of these countries chipped in to build the infrastructure.
Until a large comet comes and wipes us off the face of the Earth.
Oh yes, we haven't found any other life anywhere else. Given that we can only really look closely at a couple dozen worlds (counting some moons) and we have only actually put probes on less than a handfull of them. There couldn't possibly be life anywhere else in our solar system, let alone the rest of our galaxy or the universe.
Clearly this makes life extremely rare and unlikely to be observed elsewhere.
Usually you just need the head end and the worm will regrow (but I think this depends on the specific worm). If the 50% is the tail end then it doesn't regrow and if it's just random part in the middle (i.e. if they're taking a core sample and get a 3 inch section from the middle of a 1m long worm) then you're not really going to have much at all to go on.
I don't know if you've ever dissected a worm in high school biology class, but they've pretty much got organs in the front and intestines and nerves through the rest and then a place to poop at the end and that's about it (simplifying).
But yeah... worms = uber creepy.
Well, it's good to know I didn't miss anything good then.
can someone fill me in on what's going on since the summary isn't very descriptive?
Is it that people with beards are better at creating computer languages or are better at using them? If it's the latter, my supervisor is proof that this isn't the case, given his lack of beard and the fact that he's well versed in many computer languages.
The US also has rather draconian drug laws, which probably explain a lot of the prison population. Rapists and murders tend to get out easy compared to some kid caught with dope.
That doesn't mean that some of the people there are wrongly convicted, although if person A didn't kill person B then that must mean that somewhere out there, there's a person C who did kill him.
The flood in the old testament is likely a result of the black sea filling in and people who lived there being displaced by the water. It was also written in the Epic of Gilgamesh before it was borrowed for the old testament.
A drought tens of thousands of years before writing was developed is a very unlikely source for a story about a flood.
I don't know anyone who does research in astronomy and uses windows as their primary operating system. Pretty much everyone runs some version of linux and if forced to use a windows machine for some sort of actual research, use cygwin/x.
The only time I've seen people use windows is when they're creating power point slides for a presentation or lecture (although I've seen a few just made with pdfs in LaTeX) or dealing with someone else's MS office files. Windows may be a user friendly desktop, but it's useless for doing actual work as far as I'm concerned.
Don't pharmacists usually make such suggestions?
I know one time I had a rash and the doctor prescribed some skin cream, I took it to the pharmacy and they told me that my plan wouldn't cover this and that these products on the shelf would be just as effective. When I was on the pill, the pharmacist also referred me to the cheaper version, despite what my doctor wrote down on the form as well.
In general, pharmacists are supposed to keep an eye out for drug interactions and all this and that, so I would think that most of them are aware of different drugs which have the same effect and could probably change what drug is being used (perhaps after some consultation with the doctor as well).