why just marriage? what about equality for people who dont want to be married, but are equally committed and want the same legal protections?
what about those are want the same legal protections and benefits, but are say an old rish person and the child that he adopted years ago (say, from a younger wife who since died) ? why should he have to the death tax to leave his belongings to his chosen heir, while married people can waive the the death tax?
you want to talk equality? let's go all the way then. why should any married people be granted ANY special legal status and benefits that no one else gets?
is this the post about decrying being forced to be male just because you have the chromosome, but not wanting to identify as one?
I really dont care what you do in your own life. but i figure if you got the chromosome, you are what it says you are, and if you go into the women's room packing a salami, you're in the wrong room. i'm may wish i was a horse, but im smart enough to recognize no one else is gonna take me seriously as one, and let me enter the kentucky derby jsut because i say its what i feel more comfortable as.
there's plenty of other reasons to be on the moon. for one, a permanent settlement in a hollowed out moon makes for a perfect space dock / manufacturing facility, simplifying a lot of the engineering in building such a thing in space, and with a lot smaller gravity well to escape from. it makes a perfect stepping stone.
stop using word games to perpetuate that myth. they are cuts. they are real cuts in real budgets. right now, already, all federal employees (non military) of the department of defense, have had their take home pay for the remainder of the fiscal year cut by 20%, via mandated furloughs of 1 "no-work, no-leave, no-pay", day per week from NOW until the end of hte fiscal year.
That is not a cut in in growth. That is a real cut, happening right now, that affects real people. More than 800,000 of them. Similar cuts are happening across all the agencies. That means to FBI agents, USDA food inspectors (already some meat plants have had to shutdown operations either a few days a week, or altogether due to lack of inspectors), etc.
And while you can argue about what the federal spending should be all day long, those are real people performing real jobs, that are now facing having 20% less money to meet their financial obligations for the rest of the fiscal year (now to september). many of thsoe folks are on contract so they cant just leave for better work. and the cuts in pay are likely to stick around, unless the work consolidates, which instead means more work spread across fewer people; dont you love when that happens in a project??
the LoC's decision had exactly squat to do with the lobbyists.
the Librarian is appointed by the POTUS and the Library is part of the executive branch. yes, even though it's the library of -congress-, the responsibility of running/maintaining it falls under the executive. though in practice it's a joint effort, but that's where ultimate responsibilty goes.
And the POTUS can no more direct the LoC to make a specific decision in this matter than the Congress itself can (without passing another law). For the POTUS to do so is to reach beyond his powers, because even though he is the titular boss of the LoC, when the LoC is given certain powers/responsibilities by law, it is his duty to carry them out regardless of what others tell him to do. Just like the POTUS, as commander in chief, cannot dictate the result of Bradley Mannings courtsmartial (because it is a court of law) even though the officers work for him, he cannot tell the LoC how to carry his duties under the DMCA.
Likewise, Congress cannot tell the LoC what to decide, though they can simply make a new law and take back the powers they granted him.
The LoC's decision has more to do with the fact that his powers under the dMCA are restricted to fair use of copyrighted works, and thus limited to copyright law. and unlocking phones is not a copyright issue, EVEN THOUGH it is what the phone companies use as an excuse to block the unlocking of the phones.
And while fighting fire with fire, which is what hte LoC did when he allowed (improperly) the exemption for unlocking phones, is tempting, it is not legally viable. The better option is to clarify the law to stop the phone companies from misusing the copyright laws to block unlocking.
The President is not a representative. The President is a leader. The two concepts are at least partionally, if not fully, mutually exclusive.
A Representative does (ignoring our disfunctional congress for a moment) what you tell him to do. He acts in your behelf, representing your wishes. In effect, he is not entrusted to do anything more than be a mouthpiece.
A Leader tells you what to do, which is pretty much the exact opposite of a representative. In electing a leader we give up some measure of our power to him, entrusting him to make decisions on our behalf and in our best interest, even when those things are not the things we tell him to do. A leader is entrusted to do things for you without waiting for your input, and even at times ignoring it.
So there is no truth to the idea of the "president is supposed to represent the majority". That's total BS. He is not supposed to do any such thing.
taht was not a troll post. personal belief is irrelevant to the notion of grandstanding. he may very well believe in it. he states quite clearly what grandstanding is, and that the president risks little by doing it.
which is true.
it's not within the presidents power to change it. best he can do is submit a bill to congress, and given how deeply they are in teh pockets of the lobbyists, that bill will die.
so again, not a troll, stop abusing the mod system to silence things you dont agree with.
8 was the Command Module by itself orbiting the moon (20 times). the first humans to go to the moon.
(9 was Command Module and Lunar Module manuevering and docking in Earth Orbit)
10 was the dry run at the moon, doing everything but a full landing, though the LM did descend to within 8.4miles (44,352 feet altitude) of landing on the surface, before launching back into orbit and redocking with the Command Module.
What was the point of a manned ballistic flyby on the moon? Same question, same answer.
APOLLO 8 The first manned space craft to leave Earth orbit, reach the Earth's Moon, orbit it and return safely to Earth. The three-astronaut crew — Commander Frank Borman, Command Module Pilot James Lovell, and Lunar Module Pilot William Anders — became the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first to see Earth as a whole planet, and then the first to directly see the far side of the Moon.
Originally planned as a second Lunar Module/Command Module test in an elliptical medium Earth orbit in early 1969, the mission profile was changed in August 1968 to a more ambitious Command Module-only lunar orbital flight to be flown in December, because the Lunar Module was not yet ready to make its first flight. This meant Borman's crew was scheduled to fly two to three months sooner than originally planned, leaving them a shorter time for training and preparation, thus placing more demands than usual on their time and discipline.
Apollo 8 took three days to travel to the Moon. It orbited ten times over the course of 20 hours, during which the crew made a Christmas Eve television broadcast in which they read the first 10 verses from the Book of Genesis. At the time, the broadcast was the most watched TV program ever. Apollo 8's successful mission paved the way for Apollo 11 to fulfill U.S. President John F. Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s. The Apollo 8 astronauts returned to Earth on December 27, 1968, when their space craft splashed down in the Northern Pacific Ocean.
TIME magazine chose the crew of Apollo 8 as their Men of the Year for 1968, recognizing them as the people who most influenced events in the preceding year.[48] They had been the first people ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body.[49] They had survived a mission that even the crew themselves had rated as only having a fifty-fifty chance of fully succeeding. The effect of Apollo 8 can be summed up by a telegram from a stranger, received by Borman after the mission, that simply stated, "Thank you Apollo 8. You saved 1968."[50]
In addition there's a little story where Lovell accidently erased part of the INS's data, forcing htem to recalibrate it manually, before returning to Earth.
APOLLO 10 The fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo space program. It was an F type mission—its purpose was to be a "dry run" for the Apollo 11 mission, testing all of the procedures and components of a Moon landing without actually landing on the Moon itself. The mission included the second crew to orbit the Moon and an all-up test of the lunar module (LM) in lunar orbit. The LM came to within 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km)[2] of the lunar surface during practice maneuvers.
This dress rehearsal for a Moon landing brought Stafford and Cernan's lunar module Snoopy to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) from the lunar surface. The low approach orbit was to refine the lunar gravitational potential[10] needed to calibrate the powered descent guidance system[11] to within 1-nautical-mile (1.9 km) (LR altitude update lock) needed for a landing. Earth-based observations, unmanned spacecraft, and Apollo 8 respectively had allowed calibration to 200 nautical miles (370 km), 20 nautical miles (37 km), and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km). Except for that final stretch, the mission went exactly as a landing would have gone, both in space and on the ground, putting Apollo's extensive tracking and control network through a dry run.
Shortly after leaving low Earth orbit, the command/service module separated from the S-IVB stage, turned around, and docked its nose to the top of the lunar module still nestled in the S-IVB. The CSM/LM stack then separated from the S-IVB for the trip to the Moon.
Apollo 10 was the first to carry a color television camera inside the spacecraft, and made the first live color TV broadcasts from space.
People have a legal right to lie. Or rather, they generally is no legal requirement to be truthful outside of specific situations.
Those situations being where things like Truth in Advertising, and Libel/Slander laws come into play.
My question is, under what grounds were they suing? Were they doing it on the basis of Libel/slander? Because that I think they should easily be able to do, unless the libel/slander laws to extend to goods/services in that jurisdiction.
addendum: all that said, generally, from a grandfather who was a door to door insurance salesman who worked across most of the South, including rural areas, the best way to establish the question of permission is if you can ask the person before even getting on their property. such as finding them outside in the field, or by calling ahead if their phone number is available (like some of the larger farms).
Trespassing is generally defined as presence on property without permission. However, you are generally legally allowed to make a reasonable attempt to establish "permission", and doing so involves a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. Being caught on my land a half mile from the house is not a reasonable attempt and is trespassing. But approaching my front door and knocking is reasonable, and is not trespassing. But if I answer the door and deny permission, you are now trespassing IF you dont make you reasonable attempt to leave in compliance with my wishes. in other words, if I deny permission, you cant be arrested -that instant- for trespassing; reasonable allowance must be made for leaving the property. Now if you make a detour to my backyard or otherwise dont make effort to leave after being denied...then it again becomes trespassing.
This comes about because there are varous things for which someone may need to establish contact with a person, and that may require inquiring at their door. Things like serving legals papers, etc, come to mind. So attempting to say "you're trespassing" to prevent them from serving those papers, doesn't work.
The only way I know of (beyond having a mean dog named Chopper) to prevent even the attempt to approach the door to inquire for permission to be there is to also post "No Soliciting", or similar, which serves to indicate that all permission is denied beforehand without even having to inquire, which therefore means any presence on the property is without permission, and thus trespassing.
Least these are the general rules for most places I've lived.
advertising in the pages is very cheap and usually sold as part of a package deal by an advertising agency, of which the yellow pages portion is a very minor part of the overall cost.
Your post is Fallacy. Profitability has only an indirect relationship with whether or not anyone reads the book.
The Publisher gets paid by the Advertiser. As long as the Advertiser pays more than it costs to produce, there is profit for the Publisher.
The Advertiser gets paid by the Advertisee. As long as the Advertisee maintains a contract, which probably includes many things far more important than publication in the Yellow Pages, with the Advertiser, there is profit for the Advertiser.
The Advertisee gets paid by customers like normal. As long as the customers pay enough to cover costs and the act of advertising seems to be working, the Advertisee probably isn't going to quibble over exactly which of the various forms of advertising are being used, given that publication in the yellow pages is relatively cheap and not the biggest source of cost in his contract with the advertising company. Like worrying about 1$ in a bill for 50$.
Note that none of this requires reading or usage of the yellow pages to maintain profitability. The much more telling datum is the number of books that end up getting trashed or recycled in a community, which typically floats around 60-75% in studies where they've compared the numbers delivered to the numbers found in the garbage/recycle bins. And that further doesn't take into account the other uses, such as firestarter, paperweight, etc. Other studies as to actual usage of the book to find services still don't usually find numbers higher than about 15% of people sampled.
right. though it shoudlbe noted that they weren't just always extant. they're still descended from the gray wolf (the page implies the opposite a few times). they just simply werent specifically bred by people to change their traits (like heightened protectiveness for sheep dogs, or changed size like in mastifs or toy poodles). dingos are another such primitive breed, though at this point they've compeltely returned to the wild and aren't even considered Feral anymore.
gases left to their own devices and with no external forces directing them in a certain semi-coherent direction. the only thing for them to impact with is each other, causing the expansion.
that doesnt apply to rocket exhaust, where the gases also have a clear line of travel imparted to them by the going from an area of high pressure (combustionc hamber) to low pressure (the outside).
and though people too oftem try to shorthand it by conflating the two seperate interactions into one, its really two systems occuring at same time: gases leaving exhaust nozzle, and gases interacting with asteroid.
the exhaust plume will have a volumetric shape (the plume) within which its fairly coherent and the particles can transfer significant energy via collision, with efficiency dropping as you move further and further from the plume. they will still have a clear general direction of movement however, different from that of gas particles at rest. the principle of superposition can show two states of the gases: one, the equivelent gases "at rest" only colliding with each other, producing the expanding "random" gas particle movement everyone knows. the other state being the gas particles moving away from the combustion chamber.
and the higher the thrust, the longer the plume and most force imparted at a longer distance.
and another consideration is the asteroid trapping exhaust via gravity, or, if sufficient exhaust is wasted by being angled away from teh asteroid, the exhaust plume, as diffuse at it may be, having an attraction on the opposite side of the object.
Slashdot Mirror
why just marriage? what about equality for people who dont want to be married, but are equally committed and want the same legal protections?
what about those are want the same legal protections and benefits, but are say an old rish person and the child that he adopted years ago (say, from a younger wife who since died) ? why should he have to the death tax to leave his belongings to his chosen heir, while married people can waive the the death tax?
you want to talk equality? let's go all the way then.
why should any married people be granted ANY special legal status and benefits that no one else gets?
is this the post about decrying being forced to be male just because you have the chromosome, but not wanting to identify as one?
I really dont care what you do in your own life. but i figure if you got the chromosome, you are what it says you are, and if you go into the women's room packing a salami, you're in the wrong room. i'm may wish i was a horse, but im smart enough to recognize no one else is gonna take me seriously as one, and let me enter the kentucky derby jsut because i say its what i feel more comfortable as.
so now he is being oppressed. for his opinion. an opinion not even presented in the story he wrote.
freedom of thought?
only as long as everyone else agrees with it.
was it a failure of democracy when the 14th amendment was enacted and slavery abolished over the wishes of large portions of the popluations wishes?
democracy doesnt always get it right, and occasionally (re: very frequently) the vulgar masses dont even recognize their own hypocrisy.
there's plenty of other reasons to be on the moon. for one, a permanent settlement in a hollowed out moon makes for a perfect space dock / manufacturing facility, simplifying a lot of the engineering in building such a thing in space, and with a lot smaller gravity well to escape from. it makes a perfect stepping stone.
yes.
however Chopper likely won't care about that.
i take it you've never made a decision you've had to retract?
the LoC is not a lawyer. nor is he likely an electronics guru.
stop using word games to perpetuate that myth.
they are cuts.
they are real cuts in real budgets.
right now, already, all federal employees (non military) of the department of defense, have had their take home pay for the remainder of the fiscal year cut by 20%, via mandated furloughs of 1 "no-work, no-leave, no-pay", day per week from NOW until the end of hte fiscal year.
That is not a cut in in growth.
That is a real cut, happening right now, that affects real people.
More than 800,000 of them.
Similar cuts are happening across all the agencies. That means to FBI agents, USDA food inspectors (already some meat plants have had to shutdown operations either a few days a week, or altogether due to lack of inspectors), etc.
And while you can argue about what the federal spending should be all day long, those are real people performing real jobs, that are now facing having 20% less money to meet their financial obligations for the rest of the fiscal year (now to september). many of thsoe folks are on contract so they cant just leave for better work. and the cuts in pay are likely to stick around, unless the work consolidates, which instead means more work spread across fewer people; dont you love when that happens in a project??
you get pay raises?
ya, they dont say it, but that's what those are for.
if you dont get them, ya, you got screwed.
the LoC's decision had exactly squat to do with the lobbyists.
the Librarian is appointed by the POTUS and the Library is part of the executive branch.
yes, even though it's the library of -congress-, the responsibility of running/maintaining it falls under the executive.
though in practice it's a joint effort, but that's where ultimate responsibilty goes.
And the POTUS can no more direct the LoC to make a specific decision in this matter than the Congress itself can (without passing another law). For the POTUS to do so is to reach beyond his powers, because even though he is the titular boss of the LoC, when the LoC is given certain powers/responsibilities by law, it is his duty to carry them out regardless of what others tell him to do. Just like the POTUS, as commander in chief, cannot dictate the result of Bradley Mannings courtsmartial (because it is a court of law) even though the officers work for him, he cannot tell the LoC how to carry his duties under the DMCA.
Likewise, Congress cannot tell the LoC what to decide, though they can simply make a new law and take back the powers they granted him.
The LoC's decision has more to do with the fact that his powers under the dMCA are restricted to fair use of copyrighted works, and thus limited to copyright law. and unlocking phones is not a copyright issue, EVEN THOUGH it is what the phone companies use as an excuse to block the unlocking of the phones.
And while fighting fire with fire, which is what hte LoC did when he allowed (improperly) the exemption for unlocking phones, is tempting, it is not legally viable. The better option is to clarify the law to stop the phone companies from misusing the copyright laws to block unlocking.
You do realize that the POTUS has the power to introduce bills into Congress for consideration, dont you?
No president has ever forced any congress to ever pass any specific law.
Your post is 100% troll BS.
Civics fail.
Hardcore.
The President is not a representative.
The President is a leader.
The two concepts are at least partionally, if not fully, mutually exclusive.
A Representative does (ignoring our disfunctional congress for a moment) what you tell him to do.
He acts in your behelf, representing your wishes. In effect, he is not entrusted to do anything more than be a mouthpiece.
A Leader tells you what to do, which is pretty much the exact opposite of a representative.
In electing a leader we give up some measure of our power to him, entrusting him to make decisions on our behalf and in our best interest, even when those things are not the things we tell him to do. A leader is entrusted to do things for you without waiting for your input, and even at times ignoring it.
So there is no truth to the idea of the "president is supposed to represent the majority".
That's total BS. He is not supposed to do any such thing.
What in the world does Obama need votes for?
taht was not a troll post.
personal belief is irrelevant to the notion of grandstanding. he may very well believe in it.
he states quite clearly what grandstanding is, and that the president risks little by doing it.
which is true.
it's not within the presidents power to change it. best he can do is submit a bill to congress, and given how deeply they are in teh pockets of the lobbyists, that bill will die.
so again, not a troll, stop abusing the mod system to silence things you dont agree with.
in politics, being silent is often the best choice. you will be attacked by someone no matter what you say.
8 was the Command Module by itself orbiting the moon (20 times). the first humans to go to the moon.
(9 was Command Module and Lunar Module manuevering and docking in Earth Orbit)
10 was the dry run at the moon, doing everything but a full landing, though the LM did descend to within 8.4miles (44,352 feet altitude) of landing on the surface, before launching back into orbit and redocking with the Command Module.
What was the point of a manned ballistic flyby on the moon? Same question, same answer.
APOLLO 8
The first manned space craft to leave Earth orbit, reach the Earth's Moon, orbit it and return safely to Earth. The three-astronaut crew — Commander Frank Borman, Command Module Pilot James Lovell, and Lunar Module Pilot William Anders — became the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first to see Earth as a whole planet, and then the first to directly see the far side of the Moon.
Originally planned as a second Lunar Module/Command Module test in an elliptical medium Earth orbit in early 1969, the mission profile was changed in August 1968 to a more ambitious Command Module-only lunar orbital flight to be flown in December, because the Lunar Module was not yet ready to make its first flight. This meant Borman's crew was scheduled to fly two to three months sooner than originally planned, leaving them a shorter time for training and preparation, thus placing more demands than usual on their time and discipline.
Apollo 8 took three days to travel to the Moon. It orbited ten times over the course of 20 hours, during which the crew made a Christmas Eve television broadcast in which they read the first 10 verses from the Book of Genesis. At the time, the broadcast was the most watched TV program ever. Apollo 8's successful mission paved the way for Apollo 11 to fulfill U.S. President John F. Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s. The Apollo 8 astronauts returned to Earth on December 27, 1968, when their space craft splashed down in the Northern Pacific Ocean.
TIME magazine chose the crew of Apollo 8 as their Men of the Year for 1968, recognizing them as the people who most influenced events in the preceding year.[48] They had been the first people ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body.[49] They had survived a mission that even the crew themselves had rated as only having a fifty-fifty chance of fully succeeding. The effect of Apollo 8 can be summed up by a telegram from a stranger, received by Borman after the mission, that simply stated, "Thank you Apollo 8. You saved 1968."[50]
In addition there's a little story where Lovell accidently erased part of the INS's data, forcing htem to recalibrate it manually, before returning to Earth.
APOLLO 10
The fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo space program. It was an F type mission—its purpose was to be a "dry run" for the Apollo 11 mission, testing all of the procedures and components of a Moon landing without actually landing on the Moon itself. The mission included the second crew to orbit the Moon and an all-up test of the lunar module (LM) in lunar orbit. The LM came to within 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km)[2] of the lunar surface during practice maneuvers.
This dress rehearsal for a Moon landing brought Stafford and Cernan's lunar module Snoopy to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) from the lunar surface. The low approach orbit was to refine the lunar gravitational potential[10] needed to calibrate the powered descent guidance system[11] to within 1-nautical-mile (1.9 km) (LR altitude update lock) needed for a landing. Earth-based observations, unmanned spacecraft, and Apollo 8 respectively had allowed calibration to 200 nautical miles (370 km), 20 nautical miles (37 km), and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km). Except for that final stretch, the mission went exactly as a landing would have gone, both in space and on the ground, putting Apollo's extensive tracking and control network through a dry run.
Shortly after leaving low Earth orbit, the command/service module separated from the S-IVB stage, turned around, and docked its nose to the top of the lunar module still nestled in the S-IVB. The CSM/LM stack then separated from the S-IVB for the trip to the Moon.
Apollo 10 was the first to carry a color television camera inside the spacecraft, and made the first live color TV broadcasts from space.
Upon re
you really dont understand how many people have died at sea in the past, do you?
People have a legal right to lie. Or rather, they generally is no legal requirement to be truthful outside of specific situations.
Those situations being where things like Truth in Advertising, and Libel/Slander laws come into play.
My question is, under what grounds were they suing? Were they doing it on the basis of Libel/slander? Because that I think they should easily be able to do, unless the libel/slander laws to extend to goods/services in that jurisdiction.
addendum:
all that said, generally, from a grandfather who was a door to door insurance salesman who worked across most of the South, including rural areas, the best way to establish the question of permission is if you can ask the person before even getting on their property. such as finding them outside in the field, or by calling ahead if their phone number is available (like some of the larger farms).
General interpretations I've been told are:
Trespassing is generally defined as presence on property without permission. However, you are generally legally allowed to make a reasonable attempt to establish "permission", and doing so involves a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. Being caught on my land a half mile from the house is not a reasonable attempt and is trespassing. But approaching my front door and knocking is reasonable, and is not trespassing. But if I answer the door and deny permission, you are now trespassing IF you dont make you reasonable attempt to leave in compliance with my wishes. in other words, if I deny permission, you cant be arrested -that instant- for trespassing; reasonable allowance must be made for leaving the property. Now if you make a detour to my backyard or otherwise dont make effort to leave after being denied...then it again becomes trespassing.
This comes about because there are varous things for which someone may need to establish contact with a person, and that may require inquiring at their door. Things like serving legals papers, etc, come to mind. So attempting to say "you're trespassing" to prevent them from serving those papers, doesn't work.
The only way I know of (beyond having a mean dog named Chopper) to prevent even the attempt to approach the door to inquire for permission to be there is to also post "No Soliciting", or similar, which serves to indicate that all permission is denied beforehand without even having to inquire, which therefore means any presence on the property is without permission, and thus trespassing.
Least these are the general rules for most places I've lived.
advertising in the pages is very cheap and usually sold as part of a package deal by an advertising agency, of which the yellow pages portion is a very minor part of the overall cost.
Your post is Fallacy. Profitability has only an indirect relationship with whether or not anyone reads the book.
The Publisher gets paid by the Advertiser. As long as the Advertiser pays more than it costs to produce, there is profit for the Publisher.
The Advertiser gets paid by the Advertisee. As long as the Advertisee maintains a contract, which probably includes many things far more important than publication in the Yellow Pages, with the Advertiser, there is profit for the Advertiser.
The Advertisee gets paid by customers like normal. As long as the customers pay enough to cover costs and the act of advertising seems to be working, the Advertisee probably isn't going to quibble over exactly which of the various forms of advertising are being used, given that publication in the yellow pages is relatively cheap and not the biggest source of cost in his contract with the advertising company. Like worrying about 1$ in a bill for 50$.
Note that none of this requires reading or usage of the yellow pages to maintain profitability.
The much more telling datum is the number of books that end up getting trashed or recycled in a community, which typically floats around 60-75% in studies where they've compared the numbers delivered to the numbers found in the garbage/recycle bins. And that further doesn't take into account the other uses, such as firestarter, paperweight, etc. Other studies as to actual usage of the book to find services still don't usually find numbers higher than about 15% of people sampled.
right. though it shoudlbe noted that they weren't just always extant. they're still descended from the gray wolf (the page implies the opposite a few times). they just simply werent specifically bred by people to change their traits (like heightened protectiveness for sheep dogs, or changed size like in mastifs or toy poodles). dingos are another such primitive breed, though at this point they've compeltely returned to the wild and aren't even considered Feral anymore.
gases left to their own devices and with no external forces directing them in a certain semi-coherent direction. the only thing for them to impact with is each other, causing the expansion.
that doesnt apply to rocket exhaust, where the gases also have a clear line of travel imparted to them by the going from an area of high pressure (combustionc hamber) to low pressure (the outside).
and though people too oftem try to shorthand it by conflating the two seperate interactions into one, its really two systems occuring at same time: gases leaving exhaust nozzle, and gases interacting with asteroid.
the exhaust plume will have a volumetric shape (the plume) within which its fairly coherent and the particles can transfer significant energy via collision, with efficiency dropping as you move further and further from the plume. they will still have a clear general direction of movement however, different from that of gas particles at rest. the principle of superposition can show two states of the gases: one, the equivelent gases "at rest" only colliding with each other, producing the expanding "random" gas particle movement everyone knows. the other state being the gas particles moving away from the combustion chamber.
and the higher the thrust, the longer the plume and most force imparted at a longer distance.
and another consideration is the asteroid trapping exhaust via gravity, or, if sufficient exhaust is wasted by being angled away from teh asteroid, the exhaust plume, as diffuse at it may be, having an attraction on the opposite side of the object.