Then he's making it harder for himself. I fail to see your point, if that point was a counter to what I said. I didn't say there are no other ways to make things more complicated, I said using inconsistent and arbitrary and illogical definitions and interpretations of laws are a sure want to complicate it further, while being concise and consistent lessens this.
I'm not sure how you missed the point. "Fruit" and "vegetable" do not have a consistent definition followed by everyone. The terms I listed do (at least, among people who know what the terms mean). So I've showed a law that uses unambiguous terms, and you've decided that someone is making it harder for themselves. I'm not sure who that person is that you're referring to, but at least you agree that the law using unambiguous terms is harder to follow due to the fact that those terms are not commonly understood.
And my point is, that that shouldn't supersede reality, namely that tomatoes are fruits.
And they didn't! Ever! Good god, did you even read what the court wrote? Because you are materially wrong about what you imagine the court said. Look:
Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But 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.
You see? Did I emphasize the relevant portion enough for you? Are you going to continue trying to claim that the court said "tomatoes are not a fruit?" They acknowledge the fact that tomatoes ARE a fruit, and then go on to say "we don't think that's what the author of the law meant when he said fruits vs. vegetables." They are not ignoring reality like you keep trying to claim, it's the exact opposite: they acknowledge reality and then try to work out intent. This is not a difficult thing to understand!
That people aren't 100% logical and consistent should not be an excuse, nor hamper or lessen the need for being MORE logical and consistent
Yeah, I agree. You know what helps us improve also? Not mis-stating what other people are saying, intentionally or otherwise. Let's not pretend like there's a court out there ignoring reality, because that did not happen in this case. The judge knew exactly what was going on. Some judge out there in the late 1800s was not sitting on the bench going "a tomato is not a fruit because I say so", that is NOT what happened. Don't act like it did.
On the contrary; it's by using DIFFERENT ad-hoc interpretations of the same word without regard to consistency or logic that things become not understandable.
Yeah, you think so? What if the law sets different tax rates for berries, drupes, pomes, aggregate fruits, and accessory fruits, authored by a botanist who, for some reason, decided the world of botany had become too boring and politics was more interesting. You've got 2 guys standing there wondering what the hell to do with their shipment of watermelons, strawberries, blackberries, and coconuts. Don't you think that laws should be able to be commonly understood, using common language? I mean, isn't an extremely important part of any rule-of-law society being that anyone and everyone can find out and reasonably understand what the laws are without needing an advanced degree to tell them that a watermelon is a berry, a strawberry is an accessory fruit, a blackberry is an aggregate fruit, and a coconut is a drupe? Because I'm a fairly smart guy and I didn't know any of that until I looked it up.
2)The court says 'Tomatoes are not fruit, and therefor should not be exempt from taxes'.
You keep getting that wrong. The court did not say "tomatoes are not a fruit." The court said "our opinion is that the author of the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed."
Here's something else to consider: if 100% of laws were non-ambiguous, both in their definition and punishment, then we would not need courts nor judges at all. So consider why they are one of the cornerstones of our society. Consider the job of a judge. Consider the fact that their job title is "judge." Consider also that judges issue "opinions" and "rulings."
This isn't computer programming where everything is either true or false. This is people making laws and other people thinking that they're some niche case that the author of the law didn't consider well, and they need clarification.
It's an attitude based on ignorance and laziness
No it's not, it's people trying to do their best. I'd assume you could notice that from the view up there on your horse.
And I do simply do not concur with such a thing.
Oh, well, then apologies indeed good sir, perhaps the gentleman would consider fucking off to a society where none of the laws are ambiguous and every person walking the street is the personification of logical intelligence. Where blind faith in the letter of the law is all anyone needs for a lifetime of happiness, or slavery, depending on what the law actually says.
My point is, we - justice included - are better off with the latter instead of the former attitude. It would be quite nefarious to let mere intent, with no regard to reality, determine justice: there would be - literally - no reality-check on the things claimed and any intent would go unchallenged, then.
I don't know why you're so black and white. Really, when did I argue about "no regard to reality?" That's not my argument you're setting up to knock down there, that's a strawman.
And if your stance is that a court can't do anything else BUT go with the presumed intent of a lawmaker
No, that's not my argument, I never said "the court can do this one thing and only this one thing and nothing else, they are not humans, only machines to literally interpret things."
Which is exactly why the court should not have gone along with it, but instead followed it consistently with logic and conclude, correctly, that tomato's are fruit, and thus exempt from the tax.
You must really like legislation, politics, etc. Because you're asking for a world where laws need to be so specific as to not be understandable by common people, and I would argue THAT is the nefarious evil to avoid. Any common person should be able to read a law and reasonably understand what it's telling them they are allowed or not allowed to do. It sounds like you're arguing for something where people need to be subject matter experts (literally) in order to either write or read a law. If someone makes a law that says that "berries" get an extra 10% tax, you're fine with the court saying that bananas, grapes, tomatoes, kiwis, eggplants, and cucumbers are now taxed extra, but that this does not apply to strawberries, raspberries, or blackberries, even though those have "berry" right in the name. Because the person writing the law was not en expert in botany, they don't know the difference. Or, maybe they meant the culinary use of "berry", which most people understand, which WOULD include strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries, but not bananas, eggplants, and the rest. This is why we need courts to decide what the *intent* of the law was. That does NOT require the court to completely ignore reality. In fact, it leads to a better situation where people can read and understand the laws they have to follow, even with a basic education, and we don't need to constantly rewrite the language of laws since a strawberry is actually an accessory fruit and not a berry or risk courts invalidating laws which should be there because it had a typo or they didn't like a word.
However, what they're actually doing is claiming that reality is subservient to what people *think* about something, and this is a very dangerous or at least foolish thing to do.
No, they're not. This has nothing to do with the nature of reality. The court is trying to determine the intent of the law. That's all. The person who wrote the letter of the law is the one you need to be pedantic with, not the court.
The court, fully well KNEW that tomatoes are, in effect fruits. We seem to both agree on this. However, they decided that it actually being a fruit is of no importance because people consider(ed) it to be a vegetable. The precedence this creates is, that it doesn't matter what something *actually* is, what counts is what people think of it, EVEN if that's faulty, comes from ignorance, laziness or is arbitrary and is utterly inconsistent.
That's a lot of words to say "the job of the court is to determine the intent of the law."
Seriously, if you think the specifics of this case, fruits vs. vegetables or whatever, has any bearing at all on precedent or future cases, you're wrong. Really, if someone literally brought a case to the court to decide whether or not a tomato is a fruit, if that was the actual purpose of the case, the case you're discussing can not be used as precedent. Because this case is not about whether a tomato is a fruit or not, it's about whether the person who wrote the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed. It's not hard.
That's because all bugs are arthropods. Lobsters and shrimp are sea bugs.
All bugs do have wings
No they don't. They do all have paired jointed legs, though. Even within the order Hemiptera (which means "half-winged", and contains the "true bugs") there are several wingless species. If you're trying to be scientific about the term "bug", you would say a member of Hemiptera, but they do not all have wings. Broadly, many people refer to any land-based arthropod as a bug.
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Since the case was about whether it is a vegetable OR a fruit, and it definitely is a fruit, what that does is the court 'un-fruiting' a fruit. Makes no sense.
EVEN if your explanation would be valid, one would have to explain, logically and rationally, why a fruit shouldn't be considered a fruit anymore.
You're overthinking it. Someone made a law that said that vegetables are taxed and fruits aren't. Someone imported tomatoes and didn't pay tax. Someone sued. The court said that the reason why they need to pay the tax is because most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables in common parlance, therefore the person writing the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed. That's it. They aren't saying tomatoes aren't a fruit. They're ruling on the spirit of the relevant law.
The reason that SCOTUS bitchslapped those iditios is because they were doing the same thing you are; claiming "hurr durr tomatoes are a fruit!" and SCOTUS said "yeah, dumbass, but they're also a vegetable".
You think? So why does the law say "tax vegetables, but not fruit?" Literally every fruit is a vegetable (and most things considered only vegetables, like zucchini, are fruits), so doesn't that seem like a stupid law? Moreover, the court said that they had to pay the taxes, even though the law said you don't have to pay taxes on fruit. So they seem to be saying it's not a fruit.
Beyond definitions, like many, that case was about the spirit of the law. People consider tomatoes to be vegetables and not fruits, so therefore the people writing the law meant for tomatoes to be taxed.
1) They do have direct evidence. The probe measured it. 2) There would never be water vapor where the probe was. Demanding water vapor evidence as proof is stupid when it would not be in that location in the first place. What was there was the ionized gas that was evidence of the water plume leaving Europa. It was measured. It is direct evidence.
Triangulation? What's that supposed to mean? There aren't 3 satellites where they measure the time that the signals take to reach each customer. It's one satellite blasting out the signal to everyone who wants it. If you take an antenna out and broadcast a signal out, and then later you hear that someone had recorded that signal and is playing it back, you don't know who it was who recorded your blast. It could have been anyone. It's the same situation, the satellite does not send a different signal to every customer, it broadcasts a single signal to anyone who wants to receive it.
Yeah I'm still not sure where the confusion is. I mean, if someone farts in a room before you walk in and you smell it, you know what happened without needing to have actually measured gas being released from his anus, right? We're newcomers to space travel, but I imagine that those who have been doing it for a while would fly through a cloud like this and their first reaction would be "this thing is sending up jets of water." This is the first experience that we're getting, it's not like Earth or the moon have a bunch of extraplanetary water plumes that we would have studied and measured before. We haven't, this is the first one, this is what learning looks like.
I don't think you'll see a scientist anywhere saying "I am 100% confident that the measurements in 1997 were the result of a water plume." But I bet that confidence interval is pretty high after seeing the pictures from Hubble and putting it together. So, again, I don't know what you're trying to argue about.
Uh, yeah, I agree with all of that. They detected a certain ionized gas and had no explanation for it, until they modeled what would happen to a water plume with certain characteristics. Similar to the plumes that Hubble is said to have observed. If one of those plumes occurred with certain characteristics at a certain time, then it would result in the ionized gas which they measured. I'm not sure where the confusion is at this point.
USA is the richest large country per capita yet it has homeless.
Is your theory that you solve homelessness by throwing money at the problem, that's all it takes? I think it's a little more complex than that.
Since you like to play with statistics calculate the homeless rate * per capita GDP.
OK. I'm not sure what that's supposed to illustrate, but whatever.
The CIA puts the US at #13 on the per capita GDP list, at 59,500. The homeless rate is 0.17%. So, multiplying those two numbers, for some reason, gives 101.15. Again, I'm not clear on what that number is supposed to represent, but hopefully you know.
So, for countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US who are also on the homeless list, here are the numbers:
Luxembourg - 305.48 (this country has a larger GDP per capita, AND a higher homelessness rate; which is weird, because Luxembourg is rich so should automatically have zero homeless, or something?) Ireland - 123.42 Norway - 98.84
Some other countries: Canada - 240.5 China - 29.88 Czech Rep. - 228.8 Grenada - 8,296.68 Nigeria - 978.22 Bosnia & Herzegovina - 425.22 Australia - 214.57 New Zealand - 361.9 Russia - 948.6
Other countries listed as a higher per capita GDP than the US, such as Liechtenstein, Qatar, Monaco, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, and the UAE, did not have homelessness numbers that I found. Also, no Somalia on that homelessness list, so hopefully you can clue me in to how you found those numbers and then concluded that it doesn't even come close. And tell me what conclusions you're making from the numbers above, since you asked for those.
despite not having any direct evidence of such a plume.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The direct evidence is the whole point.
Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that the sensors detected a water plume that it was flying through.
You don't think so? It does say this:
rapid increase in the density of plasma, or ionised gas
Since you're on top of Jovian science, I'll leave it you to explain what happens to water molecules in the electric and magnetic fields 120 miles or so above Europa. I'll give you a hint in case you haven't been keeping up with the mailing lists: it doesn't stay as molecular water. See if you can deduce what it turns into.
the statement that it supposedly actually flew through a water plume seems to be scientifically dishonest
Fantastic, thanks for your opinion.
Just out of curiosity, since you know so much about the environment around Jupiter and Europa I'd like to take the opportunity to ask. What other events could have been responsible for the plasma which was measured above Europa? How common are they? Have they been observed in a similar way to the observations of apparent jets of water coming from the surface of Europa? If we know that water jets would result in such an environment, but that there may be other events which are responsible, what are the chances that this was one of those other events instead of the seemingly more likely result of a water jet getting ionized?
Around 48,000 or so, a pretty small share of the overall population, about half the share compared to the US.
Isnt that a purely American problem?
There are 48 times as many homeless in Nigeria than the US, and 14 times as many in South Africa. But it's probably less fun to make fun of homeless Africans, isn't it? Don't worry though, there are other groups you could make fun of too. In Indonesia, there are 6 times as many homeless as in the US. In Haiti it's about 4 times more. Russia is nearly 10x, Venezuela nearly 4x. In Grenada over half their population is homeless, I guess a hurricane that destroys 90% of the homes will do that. Maybe there's a joke you can work into that.
1 out of every 3200 homeless people worldwide are in the U.S.
You accidentally hit an extra 3 when you were typing that, there are around 500,000 homeless in the US and 100 million worldwide. That's 1 in 200, not 1 in 3200.
If nothing else, bike riders tend to stop such behavior after they have been doing it for a while so there is a certain equilibrium within that community.
But I live in Bird territory, and I can tell you that a good portion of the time, it's the riders themselves that are the entitled asshats. They have no problem riding on crowded sidewalks, running stop signs, and general other fuckery (2 people riding on a Bird at the same time) at 15 MPH.
I'm still having a hard time figuring out how this is a technology issue instead of a local interest piece on whatever is happening in their neighborhood. I also got nearly to the end of the summary without realizing that they were talking about California and not Italy.
What data do you think they do or do not have? Have you seen the actual data? Because they're telling us that they did in fact detect something at the time, and just didn't know what it was. That sure sounds to me like the sensors have some sort of ability to measure the immediate environment around the probe. Is your argument just based on the assumption of what sensors they have, or more specifically, what sensors they don't have? I mean, this thing was designed to spend over 7 years measuring various things around Jupiter and its moons, including a probe that did directly measure Jupiter's atmosphere.
I'm suggesting that if they weren't actually taking measurements at the time that could substantiate such a conclusion
OK, but why? What's your evidence? What do you know about the sensors, their capabilities, and which ones were operating that we don't know?
It's not exactly blind guesswork, we're not blind. We have sensors. I don't know which ones the probe carried, but I do know that they showed signals which the team in 1997 did not have an explanation for and they considered them anomalous. It now turns out that if we assume a certain water jet with certain properties, it explains the sensor measurements. That's not blind guesswork, it's educated guesswork.
Yes, we will never know what the Galileo probe flew through in 1997. But it's not exactly a stretch to say that we can see plumes shooting from the surface, we've long assumed that there is an ocean twice as large as all the oceans on Earth, so, therefore, maybe it flew through a water jet. Happens to fit the data we do have also. Yeah, it could have been a cloud of alien pee. But it was probably a water jet.
While what you're saying is generally true, often times things that happen in space are just our best guess for several obvious reasons. In this case, they found that if they modeled a specific jet of water from a specific location at a specific temperature, it would produce the exact same sensor readings on the probe. So, no, it's not concrete evidence, like a lot of phenomena in space, it's circumstantial evidence which happens to precisely fit into the measurements which were actually made at the time. I believe those sensor measurements would be considered prima facie evidence for the probe flying through a water jet.
Slashdot Mirror
Then he's making it harder for himself. I fail to see your point, if that point was a counter to what I said. I didn't say there are no other ways to make things more complicated, I said using inconsistent and arbitrary and illogical definitions and interpretations of laws are a sure want to complicate it further, while being concise and consistent lessens this.
I'm not sure how you missed the point. "Fruit" and "vegetable" do not have a consistent definition followed by everyone. The terms I listed do (at least, among people who know what the terms mean). So I've showed a law that uses unambiguous terms, and you've decided that someone is making it harder for themselves. I'm not sure who that person is that you're referring to, but at least you agree that the law using unambiguous terms is harder to follow due to the fact that those terms are not commonly understood.
And my point is, that that shouldn't supersede reality, namely that tomatoes are fruits.
And they didn't! Ever! Good god, did you even read what the court wrote? Because you are materially wrong about what you imagine the court said. Look:
Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine , just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But 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.
You see? Did I emphasize the relevant portion enough for you? Are you going to continue trying to claim that the court said "tomatoes are not a fruit?" They acknowledge the fact that tomatoes ARE a fruit, and then go on to say "we don't think that's what the author of the law meant when he said fruits vs. vegetables." They are not ignoring reality like you keep trying to claim, it's the exact opposite: they acknowledge reality and then try to work out intent. This is not a difficult thing to understand!
That people aren't 100% logical and consistent should not be an excuse, nor hamper or lessen the need for being MORE logical and consistent
Yeah, I agree. You know what helps us improve also? Not mis-stating what other people are saying, intentionally or otherwise. Let's not pretend like there's a court out there ignoring reality, because that did not happen in this case. The judge knew exactly what was going on. Some judge out there in the late 1800s was not sitting on the bench going "a tomato is not a fruit because I say so", that is NOT what happened. Don't act like it did.
On the contrary; it's by using DIFFERENT ad-hoc interpretations of the same word without regard to consistency or logic that things become not understandable.
Yeah, you think so? What if the law sets different tax rates for berries, drupes, pomes, aggregate fruits, and accessory fruits, authored by a botanist who, for some reason, decided the world of botany had become too boring and politics was more interesting. You've got 2 guys standing there wondering what the hell to do with their shipment of watermelons, strawberries, blackberries, and coconuts. Don't you think that laws should be able to be commonly understood, using common language? I mean, isn't an extremely important part of any rule-of-law society being that anyone and everyone can find out and reasonably understand what the laws are without needing an advanced degree to tell them that a watermelon is a berry, a strawberry is an accessory fruit, a blackberry is an aggregate fruit, and a coconut is a drupe? Because I'm a fairly smart guy and I didn't know any of that until I looked it up.
2)The court says 'Tomatoes are not fruit, and therefor should not be exempt from taxes'.
You keep getting that wrong. The court did not say "tomatoes are not a fruit." The court said "our opinion is that the author of the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed."
Here's something else to consider: if 100% of laws were non-ambiguous, both in their definition and punishment, then we would not need courts nor judges at all. So consider why they are one of the cornerstones of our society. Consider the job of a judge. Consider the fact that their job title is "judge." Consider also that judges issue "opinions" and "rulings."
This isn't computer programming where everything is either true or false. This is people making laws and other people thinking that they're some niche case that the author of the law didn't consider well, and they need clarification.
It's an attitude based on ignorance and laziness
No it's not, it's people trying to do their best. I'd assume you could notice that from the view up there on your horse.
And I do simply do not concur with such a thing.
Oh, well, then apologies indeed good sir, perhaps the gentleman would consider fucking off to a society where none of the laws are ambiguous and every person walking the street is the personification of logical intelligence. Where blind faith in the letter of the law is all anyone needs for a lifetime of happiness, or slavery, depending on what the law actually says.
My point is, we - justice included - are better off with the latter instead of the former attitude. It would be quite nefarious to let mere intent, with no regard to reality, determine justice: there would be - literally - no reality-check on the things claimed and any intent would go unchallenged, then.
I don't know why you're so black and white. Really, when did I argue about "no regard to reality?" That's not my argument you're setting up to knock down there, that's a strawman.
And if your stance is that a court can't do anything else BUT go with the presumed intent of a lawmaker
No, that's not my argument, I never said "the court can do this one thing and only this one thing and nothing else, they are not humans, only machines to literally interpret things."
Which is exactly why the court should not have gone along with it, but instead followed it consistently with logic and conclude, correctly, that tomato's are fruit, and thus exempt from the tax.
You must really like legislation, politics, etc. Because you're asking for a world where laws need to be so specific as to not be understandable by common people, and I would argue THAT is the nefarious evil to avoid. Any common person should be able to read a law and reasonably understand what it's telling them they are allowed or not allowed to do. It sounds like you're arguing for something where people need to be subject matter experts (literally) in order to either write or read a law. If someone makes a law that says that "berries" get an extra 10% tax, you're fine with the court saying that bananas, grapes, tomatoes, kiwis, eggplants, and cucumbers are now taxed extra, but that this does not apply to strawberries, raspberries, or blackberries, even though those have "berry" right in the name. Because the person writing the law was not en expert in botany, they don't know the difference. Or, maybe they meant the culinary use of "berry", which most people understand, which WOULD include strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries, but not bananas, eggplants, and the rest. This is why we need courts to decide what the *intent* of the law was. That does NOT require the court to completely ignore reality. In fact, it leads to a better situation where people can read and understand the laws they have to follow, even with a basic education, and we don't need to constantly rewrite the language of laws since a strawberry is actually an accessory fruit and not a berry or risk courts invalidating laws which should be there because it had a typo or they didn't like a word.
However, what they're actually doing is claiming that reality is subservient to what people *think* about something, and this is a very dangerous or at least foolish thing to do.
No, they're not. This has nothing to do with the nature of reality. The court is trying to determine the intent of the law. That's all. The person who wrote the letter of the law is the one you need to be pedantic with, not the court.
The court, fully well KNEW that tomatoes are, in effect fruits. We seem to both agree on this. However, they decided that it actually being a fruit is of no importance because people consider(ed) it to be a vegetable. The precedence this creates is, that it doesn't matter what something *actually* is, what counts is what people think of it, EVEN if that's faulty, comes from ignorance, laziness or is arbitrary and is utterly inconsistent.
That's a lot of words to say "the job of the court is to determine the intent of the law."
Seriously, if you think the specifics of this case, fruits vs. vegetables or whatever, has any bearing at all on precedent or future cases, you're wrong. Really, if someone literally brought a case to the court to decide whether or not a tomato is a fruit, if that was the actual purpose of the case, the case you're discussing can not be used as precedent. Because this case is not about whether a tomato is a fruit or not, it's about whether the person who wrote the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed. It's not hard.
In fact, they are more closely related to lobster
That's because all bugs are arthropods. Lobsters and shrimp are sea bugs.
All bugs do have wings
No they don't. They do all have paired jointed legs, though. Even within the order Hemiptera (which means "half-winged", and contains the "true bugs") there are several wingless species. If you're trying to be scientific about the term "bug", you would say a member of Hemiptera, but they do not all have wings. Broadly, many people refer to any land-based arthropod as a bug.
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Since the case was about whether it is a vegetable OR a fruit, and it definitely is a fruit, what that does is the court 'un-fruiting' a fruit. Makes no sense.
EVEN if your explanation would be valid, one would have to explain, logically and rationally, why a fruit shouldn't be considered a fruit anymore.
You're overthinking it. Someone made a law that said that vegetables are taxed and fruits aren't. Someone imported tomatoes and didn't pay tax. Someone sued. The court said that the reason why they need to pay the tax is because most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables in common parlance, therefore the person writing the law intended for tomatoes to be taxed. That's it. They aren't saying tomatoes aren't a fruit. They're ruling on the spirit of the relevant law.
The reason that SCOTUS bitchslapped those iditios is because they were doing the same thing you are; claiming "hurr durr tomatoes are a fruit!" and SCOTUS said "yeah, dumbass, but they're also a vegetable".
You think? So why does the law say "tax vegetables, but not fruit?" Literally every fruit is a vegetable (and most things considered only vegetables, like zucchini, are fruits), so doesn't that seem like a stupid law? Moreover, the court said that they had to pay the taxes, even though the law said you don't have to pay taxes on fruit. So they seem to be saying it's not a fruit.
Beyond definitions, like many, that case was about the spirit of the law. People consider tomatoes to be vegetables and not fruits, so therefore the people writing the law meant for tomatoes to be taxed.
Oh, I didn't realize you were getting that pedantic. It flew through whatever the plume turned into at that distance. Happy?
We're still going around in the circle, huh? OK.
1) They do have direct evidence. The probe measured it.
2) There would never be water vapor where the probe was. Demanding water vapor evidence as proof is stupid when it would not be in that location in the first place. What was there was the ionized gas that was evidence of the water plume leaving Europa. It was measured. It is direct evidence.
Triangulation? What's that supposed to mean? There aren't 3 satellites where they measure the time that the signals take to reach each customer. It's one satellite blasting out the signal to everyone who wants it. If you take an antenna out and broadcast a signal out, and then later you hear that someone had recorded that signal and is playing it back, you don't know who it was who recorded your blast. It could have been anyone. It's the same situation, the satellite does not send a different signal to every customer, it broadcasts a single signal to anyone who wants to receive it.
It only became obvious because of the recent pictures that show the plumes actually happen.
Yeah I'm still not sure where the confusion is. I mean, if someone farts in a room before you walk in and you smell it, you know what happened without needing to have actually measured gas being released from his anus, right? We're newcomers to space travel, but I imagine that those who have been doing it for a while would fly through a cloud like this and their first reaction would be "this thing is sending up jets of water." This is the first experience that we're getting, it's not like Earth or the moon have a bunch of extraplanetary water plumes that we would have studied and measured before. We haven't, this is the first one, this is what learning looks like.
I don't think you'll see a scientist anywhere saying "I am 100% confident that the measurements in 1997 were the result of a water plume." But I bet that confidence interval is pretty high after seeing the pictures from Hubble and putting it together. So, again, I don't know what you're trying to argue about.
Uh, yeah, I agree with all of that. They detected a certain ionized gas and had no explanation for it, until they modeled what would happen to a water plume with certain characteristics. Similar to the plumes that Hubble is said to have observed. If one of those plumes occurred with certain characteristics at a certain time, then it would result in the ionized gas which they measured. I'm not sure where the confusion is at this point.
Yes, notice how I said molecular water, not elemental water.
USA is the richest large country per capita yet it has homeless.
Is your theory that you solve homelessness by throwing money at the problem, that's all it takes? I think it's a little more complex than that.
Since you like to play with statistics calculate the homeless rate * per capita GDP.
OK. I'm not sure what that's supposed to illustrate, but whatever.
The CIA puts the US at #13 on the per capita GDP list, at 59,500. The homeless rate is 0.17%. So, multiplying those two numbers, for some reason, gives 101.15. Again, I'm not clear on what that number is supposed to represent, but hopefully you know.
So, for countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US who are also on the homeless list, here are the numbers:
Luxembourg - 305.48 (this country has a larger GDP per capita, AND a higher homelessness rate; which is weird, because Luxembourg is rich so should automatically have zero homeless, or something?)
Ireland - 123.42
Norway - 98.84
Some other countries:
Canada - 240.5
China - 29.88
Czech Rep. - 228.8
Grenada - 8,296.68
Nigeria - 978.22
Bosnia & Herzegovina - 425.22
Australia - 214.57
New Zealand - 361.9
Russia - 948.6
Other countries listed as a higher per capita GDP than the US, such as Liechtenstein, Qatar, Monaco, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, and the UAE, did not have homelessness numbers that I found. Also, no Somalia on that homelessness list, so hopefully you can clue me in to how you found those numbers and then concluded that it doesn't even come close. And tell me what conclusions you're making from the numbers above, since you asked for those.
despite not having any direct evidence of such a plume.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The direct evidence is the whole point.
Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that the sensors detected a water plume that it was flying through.
You don't think so? It does say this:
rapid increase in the density of plasma, or ionised gas
Since you're on top of Jovian science, I'll leave it you to explain what happens to water molecules in the electric and magnetic fields 120 miles or so above Europa. I'll give you a hint in case you haven't been keeping up with the mailing lists: it doesn't stay as molecular water. See if you can deduce what it turns into.
the statement that it supposedly actually flew through a water plume seems to be scientifically dishonest
Fantastic, thanks for your opinion.
Just out of curiosity, since you know so much about the environment around Jupiter and Europa I'd like to take the opportunity to ask. What other events could have been responsible for the plasma which was measured above Europa? How common are they? Have they been observed in a similar way to the observations of apparent jets of water coming from the surface of Europa? If we know that water jets would result in such an environment, but that there may be other events which are responsible, what are the chances that this was one of those other events instead of the seemingly more likely result of a water jet getting ionized?
Don't be mean. He said driving. He's driving the bus.
I was thinking "They have homeless in Italy too?"
Around 48,000 or so, a pretty small share of the overall population, about half the share compared to the US.
Isnt that a purely American problem?
There are 48 times as many homeless in Nigeria than the US, and 14 times as many in South Africa. But it's probably less fun to make fun of homeless Africans, isn't it? Don't worry though, there are other groups you could make fun of too. In Indonesia, there are 6 times as many homeless as in the US. In Haiti it's about 4 times more. Russia is nearly 10x, Venezuela nearly 4x. In Grenada over half their population is homeless, I guess a hurricane that destroys 90% of the homes will do that. Maybe there's a joke you can work into that.
1 out of every 3200 homeless people worldwide are in the U.S.
You accidentally hit an extra 3 when you were typing that, there are around 500,000 homeless in the US and 100 million worldwide. That's 1 in 200, not 1 in 3200.
If nothing else, bike riders tend to stop such behavior after they have been doing it for a while so there is a certain equilibrium within that community.
Sort of like drug addicts.
But I live in Bird territory, and I can tell you that a good portion of the time, it's the riders themselves that are the entitled asshats. They have no problem riding on crowded sidewalks, running stop signs, and general other fuckery (2 people riding on a Bird at the same time) at 15 MPH.
I'm still having a hard time figuring out how this is a technology issue instead of a local interest piece on whatever is happening in their neighborhood. I also got nearly to the end of the summary without realizing that they were talking about California and not Italy.
What data do you think they do or do not have? Have you seen the actual data? Because they're telling us that they did in fact detect something at the time, and just didn't know what it was. That sure sounds to me like the sensors have some sort of ability to measure the immediate environment around the probe. Is your argument just based on the assumption of what sensors they have, or more specifically, what sensors they don't have? I mean, this thing was designed to spend over 7 years measuring various things around Jupiter and its moons, including a probe that did directly measure Jupiter's atmosphere.
I'm suggesting that if they weren't actually taking measurements at the time that could substantiate such a conclusion
OK, but why? What's your evidence? What do you know about the sensors, their capabilities, and which ones were operating that we don't know?
It's not exactly blind guesswork, we're not blind. We have sensors. I don't know which ones the probe carried, but I do know that they showed signals which the team in 1997 did not have an explanation for and they considered them anomalous. It now turns out that if we assume a certain water jet with certain properties, it explains the sensor measurements. That's not blind guesswork, it's educated guesswork.
Yes, we will never know what the Galileo probe flew through in 1997. But it's not exactly a stretch to say that we can see plumes shooting from the surface, we've long assumed that there is an ocean twice as large as all the oceans on Earth, so, therefore, maybe it flew through a water jet. Happens to fit the data we do have also. Yeah, it could have been a cloud of alien pee. But it was probably a water jet.
While what you're saying is generally true, often times things that happen in space are just our best guess for several obvious reasons. In this case, they found that if they modeled a specific jet of water from a specific location at a specific temperature, it would produce the exact same sensor readings on the probe. So, no, it's not concrete evidence, like a lot of phenomena in space, it's circumstantial evidence which happens to precisely fit into the measurements which were actually made at the time. I believe those sensor measurements would be considered prima facie evidence for the probe flying through a water jet.
I was going to say something about Huygens, but that landed on Titan, not Europa. We haven't seen anything to the surface of Europa yet.