Ah, but I have already settled it in a useful fashion:
Pluto was named during The Time of Naming Planets. Therefore, for reasons of history and tradition, we count it among the planets, even though it's also a KBO.
All other KBOs were, or will be, named during The Time of Naming KBOs. Therefore, again for reasons of history and tradition, we count them among the KBOs, even the really big one really far out, that we haven't found yet.
People whose professions require precise technical terminology are still welcome--encouraged, in fact--to refer to Pluto and other KBOs by whatever technical terms best suit their technical purpose, in a technical discussion about Pluto and other KBOs.
How much more useful could it be? Those of us with a technical need to define "planet" can do so unhindered. Those of us who don't, can continue on through life without having to worry about pointless revisionism where tradition and history already serve us well enough.
Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?
Pluto's nature won't change either way, and our understanding of it won't change either way. This kind of legalistic controversy just for the sake of legalistic controversy is getting pretty annoying.
Traditionally, Pluto has been a planet. Now, I'm not saying tradition trumps everything, but I see no reason why it shouldn't trump meaningless debate.
Let me know if I've got it all wrong, and there is actually meaningful debate on this topic.
Actually, he was arguing that if we carry the Fed's justification to its logical conclusion, we end up saying that the protesters were burning their own property, and therefore were committing no crime.
And, having grasped that point quite firmly, I argued that in fact we end up saying that even by the Feds' logic, the protesters were still wrong, and that the right to destroy taxpayer-funded government property is not actually a right that taxpayers enjoy, and that therefore they were committing a crime even though it was "their" property.
On the other hand, putting some real controls on the break system, and gathering some meaningful metrics, would be the first step towards responsibly increasing the number of breaks granted in the contract.
Remember, the real world is full of magic, but it's not always the fluffy bunny happy fairy magic. Sometimes it's the serious business blood sacrifice no great gain without some small loss magic.
As far as I can tell, there really is almost nothing outside federal jurisdiction.
I wish it weren't so, but shit in one hand and wish in the other, see which fills up first.
If I had it my way, each state, and each county, and each city, would be substantially free of federal oversight and interference, able to experiment with a wide range of social organizations and policies. Over time, successful experiments would spread to other regions.
The way things are today, everybody tries to convince the federal government that their experiment is the only one that will succeed, and that the feds should impose it on everybody else. The end result of this is that the feds now get jurisdiction over pretty much everything, from marriage to marijuana to mob violence against municipal police cars.
I don't like it, and I don't want it, but as long as the people and their federal representatives insist on taxing me extra to fund some other city's police force, I insist on delivering savage beatings to the asshats who think I don't still have an interest in getting my money's worth.
If the police car in question is federal property because some federal funds went towards its purchase, then it logically follows that the folks who allegedly set it on fire were burning their own property, because, as taxpayers, they own the federal government.
They weren't burning their own property. They were burning our property. We have rules about who gets to burn police cars, and where, and when, and how. Personally, I fucking hate it when someone decides that the rules apply to everybody except them. They want to change our rules, let them discuss it with the rest of us, so that we can all agree on the changes. If they're not going to do that, then as far as I'm concerned, they've separated themselves from the rest of us, and no longer have any claim on our joint assets and privileges. The sooner our executive agents throw the book at these asshats, the better.
"Stuff that matters" would be three kids protesting the federal government, getting arrested by federal agents, and then are never seen again.
That would be "stuff that matters". This is pretty much "stuff that really only matters to the residents of whatever town has such no-talent assclowns for cops, and probably not even to most of them".
The U.S. will win, on account of having the technological lead.
Everybody in America is rewarded for retaining their citizenship and contributing to the economic, technological, and military advancement of their chosen state, and everybody in Russia and China will be punished for backing the losing horses.
Just as it has been for all of human history.
And as an added bonus, the nuclear war will actually be swift and limited in scope, rather than being a two- or three-way free-for-all that destroys all life on the planet.
Actually, what I think is more likely is that Russia and China will avoid overly antagonizing America, for exactly as long as it takes for them to cripple the U.S. through economic and/or diplomatic strategies. Then they will attempt exactly the kind of play that scares you so much.
Actually, what I think is most likely of all is that so long as America retains the technological edge in this area, the scenario you fear will never come to pass.
I understand when in 60-80s US public was affraid of the communists as some boogeymen. But now? Oh wait, they scare children with terrorists now.
Terrorists make for a scary bedtime story because terrorists are actually pretty scary. Likewise communists (not so much anymore, though, thanks in part to non-communist states' using them as diplomatic leverage. Which was my point. Did you have one?).
Well, nuclear weaponry (rather, its existence and the credibly threat of its use) did slow the spread of communism. So it has that going for it... Just goes to show that there's no tool made by man that can't be used for both good and evil.
No offense, but every Country in the world deserves to be on equal footing.
I disagree. I think that individual human beings have certain rights, but deserve no more than the consequences of the actions they choose, and whatever good or bad luck comes their way. If a bunch of individuals want to band together, form a nation-state with borders and a foreign policy and whatnot, more power to them. I don't think they deserve to be on an equal footing with any other nation-state or other entity, though.
I think nation-states deserve no more than whatever good will or grudging respect they can earn; through whatever combination of diplomacy, economic incentives, and military might best suits their available resources and general disposition. And if they don't have the resources or the will to enforce their statehood? Then its formation was ill-advised, and its citizens should disband it and join a more competitive and successful society post-haste.
Beyond that, I don't think nation-states deserve anything at all. I don't think America deserves anything. I don't think France deserves anything. I don't think China deserves anything. I don't think the Apache nation or the Aztec Empire deserved anything. I don't think the Rome deserved anything. I don't think South Africa deserves anything. I don't think Cuba deserves anything.
The world isn't a fair and just place, with some kind and loving Superbeing bringing justice to the downtrodden. It's a harsh and unforgiving realm, where good things come only as a result of hard work and good luck, and nobody is entitled to a piece of someone else's pie.
Military, on account of they don't have to show a profit.
In addition to being a national defense and a beatings-delivery system, the military is also a giant R&D playground for all sorts of useful future civilian technology.
It actually works out really well this way: Civilian contractors score government R&D contracts to research applications for a new technology. When the R&D is done, the military may get a new weapon system. But even if the military doesn't get a new weapon system, the civilian contractor gets the benefit of a free R&D program, the lessons from which they can bring to the civilian market, without ever having to risk their financial stability by investing themselves in an unproven technology.
It's in the taxpayer's best interest for the government to engage in some level of funding things that might be useful, but which civilian companies don't want to risk researching. One way the government serves this taxpayer interest is to integrate government-funded R&D with national defense advancement.
Everybody makes out. The nation continues to be secure in the face of threats brought about by evolving technology. The economy gets a boost from cheap R&D. Workers and management get paid for doing useful work. Consumers get new and better goods and services.
About the only problem I can see is that some people still insist on complaining that the military is actually willing to foot the R&D bill on unproven new technologies.
You think it'll be such a blessing, why aren't you advancing the state of the art yourself?
This auto mechanic is my kind of scum! Fearless AND inventive!
Wait, that was transmission, right? Though I guess rebuilding transvestites/transsexuals would also offset your jigsaw-puzzle deficiencies. Either way, rock on!
Since Intel has over 100,000 employees, this is only a 10% reduction. And why should it be overdue? Intel has being doing well up until recently. Recent events have changed that, which is why they're due for a reduction right now.
How do you feel about the fact that while you're here whining about all the challenges, others are dedicating their intellect to studying the challenges in depth with the intention of overcoming them?
When did the human race get so full of complainers and defeatists? We're toolmakers. Solving problems is what we do.
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists now believe that the universe works only because of the presence of some mysterious phenomenon that nobody has ever observed directly, and which science itself is unable to explain?
Are these the same scientists who believe that talk of "god" has no place in science?
very time I see an "urban" game (Need for Speed: Most Wanted, I'm looking at yoooooou~) it's always come off as being poser and totally fake. What can you expect? You're getting a bunch of 35 year-old, predominantly-white, middle-class geeks to develop your "hip" urban game!
There's a profound difference between the game developers, the game designers, and the game art directors.
I suspect that while there's probably good reason to assume that the developers are mostly 35 year-old white middle class male geeks, I don't see any reason to assume that the people actually tasked with coming up with the "look and feel" aren't better-suited to that job. Maybe they're the ones who are saying the urban culture demographic is no longer there.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but I have already settled it in a useful fashion:
Pluto was named during The Time of Naming Planets. Therefore, for reasons of history and tradition, we count it among the planets, even though it's also a KBO.
All other KBOs were, or will be, named during The Time of Naming KBOs. Therefore, again for reasons of history and tradition, we count them among the KBOs, even the really big one really far out, that we haven't found yet.
People whose professions require precise technical terminology are still welcome--encouraged, in fact--to refer to Pluto and other KBOs by whatever technical terms best suit their technical purpose, in a technical discussion about Pluto and other KBOs.
How much more useful could it be? Those of us with a technical need to define "planet" can do so unhindered. Those of us who don't, can continue on through life without having to worry about pointless revisionism where tradition and history already serve us well enough.
Why all the controversy anyway?
Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?
Pluto's nature won't change either way, and our understanding of it won't change either way. This kind of legalistic controversy just for the sake of legalistic controversy is getting pretty annoying.
Traditionally, Pluto has been a planet. Now, I'm not saying tradition trumps everything, but I see no reason why it shouldn't trump meaningless debate.
Let me know if I've got it all wrong, and there is actually meaningful debate on this topic.
Actually, he was arguing that if we carry the Fed's justification to its logical conclusion, we end up saying that the protesters were burning their own property, and therefore were committing no crime.
And, having grasped that point quite firmly, I argued that in fact we end up saying that even by the Feds' logic, the protesters were still wrong, and that the right to destroy taxpayer-funded government property is not actually a right that taxpayers enjoy, and that therefore they were committing a crime even though it was "their" property.
And it was all fun and games until your feelings got hurt.
I guess now it's one-eyed fun and games.
Or is that only after someone loses an eye?
WOULD be.
Not WILL be.
Your cynicism is fashionable, but not compelling. My optimism may be just as uncompelling, but it has the added bonus of not being conformist crap.
On the other hand, putting some real controls on the break system, and gathering some meaningful metrics, would be the first step towards responsibly increasing the number of breaks granted in the contract.
Remember, the real world is full of magic, but it's not always the fluffy bunny happy fairy magic. Sometimes it's the serious business blood sacrifice no great gain without some small loss magic.
As far as I can tell, there really is almost nothing outside federal jurisdiction.
I wish it weren't so, but shit in one hand and wish in the other, see which fills up first.
If I had it my way, each state, and each county, and each city, would be substantially free of federal oversight and interference, able to experiment with a wide range of social organizations and policies. Over time, successful experiments would spread to other regions.
The way things are today, everybody tries to convince the federal government that their experiment is the only one that will succeed, and that the feds should impose it on everybody else. The end result of this is that the feds now get jurisdiction over pretty much everything, from marriage to marijuana to mob violence against municipal police cars.
I don't like it, and I don't want it, but as long as the people and their federal representatives insist on taxing me extra to fund some other city's police force, I insist on delivering savage beatings to the asshats who think I don't still have an interest in getting my money's worth.
They weren't burning their own property. They were burning our property. We have rules about who gets to burn police cars, and where, and when, and how. Personally, I fucking hate it when someone decides that the rules apply to everybody except them. They want to change our rules, let them discuss it with the rest of us, so that we can all agree on the changes. If they're not going to do that, then as far as I'm concerned, they've separated themselves from the rest of us, and no longer have any claim on our joint assets and privileges. The sooner our executive agents throw the book at these asshats, the better.
Actually, they're saying that they're going to work on the technology, and let the Japanese people decide whether or not to make use of it.
Which is exactly like NASA, and exactly as it should be.
Did you really think there was no useful middle ground between "we got nuthin'" and "Moonbase Alpha are go!"?
This is so not "stuff that matters".
"Stuff that matters" would be three kids protesting the federal government, getting arrested by federal agents, and then are never seen again.
That would be "stuff that matters". This is pretty much "stuff that really only matters to the residents of whatever town has such no-talent assclowns for cops, and probably not even to most of them".
The U.S. will win, on account of having the technological lead.
Everybody in America is rewarded for retaining their citizenship and contributing to the economic, technological, and military advancement of their chosen state, and everybody in Russia and China will be punished for backing the losing horses.
Just as it has been for all of human history.
And as an added bonus, the nuclear war will actually be swift and limited in scope, rather than being a two- or three-way free-for-all that destroys all life on the planet.
Actually, what I think is more likely is that Russia and China will avoid overly antagonizing America, for exactly as long as it takes for them to cripple the U.S. through economic and/or diplomatic strategies. Then they will attempt exactly the kind of play that scares you so much.
Actually, what I think is most likely of all is that so long as America retains the technological edge in this area, the scenario you fear will never come to pass.
Tell me more about the "realism" of this "Order/Chaos magic" you speak of...
It always seemed much more realistic to me that Wizards would invent magic spells that are useful, such as one-way invisibility.
You know, because it's a magical solution, not a scientific solution.
Terrorists make for a scary bedtime story because terrorists are actually pretty scary. Likewise communists (not so much anymore, though, thanks in part to non-communist states' using them as diplomatic leverage. Which was my point. Did you have one?).
Well, nuclear weaponry (rather, its existence and the credibly threat of its use) did slow the spread of communism. So it has that going for it... Just goes to show that there's no tool made by man that can't be used for both good and evil.
And the fact that you can't actually copy this video to your local hard drive is relevant or interesting.... why?
I disagree. I think that individual human beings have certain rights, but deserve no more than the consequences of the actions they choose, and whatever good or bad luck comes their way. If a bunch of individuals want to band together, form a nation-state with borders and a foreign policy and whatnot, more power to them. I don't think they deserve to be on an equal footing with any other nation-state or other entity, though.
I think nation-states deserve no more than whatever good will or grudging respect they can earn; through whatever combination of diplomacy, economic incentives, and military might best suits their available resources and general disposition. And if they don't have the resources or the will to enforce their statehood? Then its formation was ill-advised, and its citizens should disband it and join a more competitive and successful society post-haste.
Beyond that, I don't think nation-states deserve anything at all. I don't think America deserves anything. I don't think France deserves anything. I don't think China deserves anything. I don't think the Apache nation or the Aztec Empire deserved anything. I don't think the Rome deserved anything. I don't think South Africa deserves anything. I don't think Cuba deserves anything.
The world isn't a fair and just place, with some kind and loving Superbeing bringing justice to the downtrodden. It's a harsh and unforgiving realm, where good things come only as a result of hard work and good luck, and nobody is entitled to a piece of someone else's pie.
Does this story have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with me, "rights", or "online"?
Is this story EVEN REMOTELY "news for nerds"?
Is this REALLY "stuff that matters"?
Military, on account of they don't have to show a profit.
In addition to being a national defense and a beatings-delivery system, the military is also a giant R&D playground for all sorts of useful future civilian technology.
It actually works out really well this way: Civilian contractors score government R&D contracts to research applications for a new technology. When the R&D is done, the military may get a new weapon system. But even if the military doesn't get a new weapon system, the civilian contractor gets the benefit of a free R&D program, the lessons from which they can bring to the civilian market, without ever having to risk their financial stability by investing themselves in an unproven technology.
It's in the taxpayer's best interest for the government to engage in some level of funding things that might be useful, but which civilian companies don't want to risk researching. One way the government serves this taxpayer interest is to integrate government-funded R&D with national defense advancement.
Everybody makes out. The nation continues to be secure in the face of threats brought about by evolving technology. The economy gets a boost from cheap R&D. Workers and management get paid for doing useful work. Consumers get new and better goods and services.
About the only problem I can see is that some people still insist on complaining that the military is actually willing to foot the R&D bill on unproven new technologies.
You think it'll be such a blessing, why aren't you advancing the state of the art yourself?
This auto mechanic is my kind of scum! Fearless AND inventive!
Wait, that was transmission, right? Though I guess rebuilding transvestites/transsexuals would also offset your jigsaw-puzzle deficiencies. Either way, rock on!
Since Intel has over 100,000 employees, this is only a 10% reduction. And why should it be overdue? Intel has being doing well up until recently. Recent events have changed that, which is why they're due for a reduction right now.
It's not a horrible idea, just a challenging one.
How do you feel about the fact that while you're here whining about all the challenges, others are dedicating their intellect to studying the challenges in depth with the intention of overcoming them?
When did the human race get so full of complainers and defeatists? We're toolmakers. Solving problems is what we do.
The guy doing it now hopes to adapt the original NASA research to a profitable business model based on solving the problems.
I say 5 is meaningful in every way that matters to the discussion.
But at least your straight pedantry makes a pleasant change of pace from my humorous pedantry.
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists now believe that the universe works only because of the presence of some mysterious phenomenon that nobody has ever observed directly, and which science itself is unable to explain?
Are these the same scientists who believe that talk of "god" has no place in science?
There's a profound difference between the game developers, the game designers, and the game art directors.
I suspect that while there's probably good reason to assume that the developers are mostly 35 year-old white middle class male geeks, I don't see any reason to assume that the people actually tasked with coming up with the "look and feel" aren't better-suited to that job. Maybe they're the ones who are saying the urban culture demographic is no longer there.
Summary of parent comment:
... [Pop] Latex Balloons ...2) [Strike] rigid structures ... [with] space junk ...3) ... Track ... Larger Space Junk4) ??????5) ... profit [!!!1one!] ...
1) Summary of parent comment
2) Summary of parent comment:1)
3) ???
4) Profit!