There is also a gap of several orders of magnitude between Mars and Jupiter. Also, it should be noted that these measures are influenced by orbital distance, which is not an intrinsic property of the body in question. And that's the problem with the two tiered system of names. To get there, you have to depend on information that is not intrinsic to the thing being named.
Why do you think the IAU should have felt it reasonable to classify Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars as planets, when those objects would have been far more similar in properties to other non-planet TNOs than to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune?
Given that a meteor is a meteorite when it burns up in the atmosphere (thus is altered into something else entirely), it is also a bad example. You may as well include "Wood->Fire".
That is essentially always what is meant when someone says a planet was ejected by a star. It is a common phrase that comes up most frequently when discussing rogue planets (which are not planets by the IAU definition).
If we want to be pedantic (and this being/., we do), Uranus and Earth aren't named after Roman gods. Uranus named after the Greek god of the sky Ouranos (the Roman equivalent was Caelus), and Earth is named after dirt.
You can't get to 99% if you ditch that stuff, though. And really, people not wanting to be subject to harsher treatment by the police due to the color of their skin doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
Seems like the "redress" portion of his wording addresses that. Any profit made off of illegal or negligent activity could be transferred to those harmed, or their next of kin, and not run afoul of it.
The idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is ill-conceived. It assumes that people who commit murder are rational and consider the long-term consequences of their actions, and that they think they are likely to get caught. But the reality is most murders are committed in the heat of a moment, by people with poor impulse control and little forethought. And when it's not in the heat of the moment, the killer generally thinks that they will get away with the crime. The severity of the penalty has absolutely no bearing on the murderer's thinking (or lack thereof) in either case.
I love how the Trumpkins pretend that China doesn't exist, or that they're not every bit as sick of North Korea's shit as the rest of the world, and that they don't have far more influence with Pyongyang than anyone in the US.
Exactly the same thing happened when President Obama abandoned US allies in Iraq and left the place open for ISIS.
You spelled "abided by the deal his predecessor made with the government of Iraq who had no desire to have the US military presence continue any longer" wrong.
You think he knew that his successor would be the most idiotic, short-sighted, illiterate, corrupt human to ever hold the office of the President? He knew that his successor would examine the intelligence and decide that backing out of a deal that set back Iran's nuclear program by decades was the right choice? I've seen a lot of stupid posts on/., but this is right up there.
I don't get why a deal to give them access to lots of money in order to promise not to build a bomb was smart in the first place.
Probably because it wasn't just a promise. It was submission to an incredibly intrusive inspection regime that ensures that they are keeping their promise. They have kept their end of the bargain. For us to abandon it is shameful, and does not advance the interests of the US or a nuclear-free Iran in any way.
So... letting them have access to more money seems more likely to speed up bomb construction than pretending the promises are meaningful in my mind.
No one's pretending that. Some people who would rather start a war are pretending that there isn't anything meaningful in place to ensure that Iran keeps their promise, and you appear to have bought into their lies.
Get out of here with your FUD. The weapons development you refer to occurred only before the deal was struck. Every credible source of intelligence agrees that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal, and is further from being able to construct nuclear arms than they have been in a very long time.
An 11 year cycle is not the cause of a century long warming sudden warming trend. And while the amount of energy added to a system is important, equally important is the amount of energy removed from the system. That 11 year cycle is a constant that hasn't changed in any meaningful way as long as we've been measuring it. What has changed is the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat that otherwise would be removed from the system.
The "one-spacers" were, as a group, slower readers across the board (by about 10 words per minute)
When that is taken into consideration, it paints a picture less of two-spacers being slowed down by one-space text, and more of two spacers having developed a better approach that pays off even when they have to adjust to text written without proper spacing.
So:
Group A uses single spaces. They read single space and double space at the same rate.
Group B uses double spaces. They read single space at the same rate as Group A, but they read double spaced text considerably faster.
Seems like a pretty good argument that we should all be using double spaces. That way we all could read faster all the time.
At the risk of speaking for someone else, you are not getting that right. He is pointing out that using different types of breaks to show different levels of division within a text makes reading that text easier, which is also what then study from TFA shows. The use of new line and indentation on paragraphs that he cited is an obvious example that we're all familiar with, just at a larger scale.
No one wants to put in the effort to read a giant block of text that should have been divided into paragraphs. Not because of snobbishness, or stubbornness, or a concern for other punctuation. Because it's hard on the eyes, and it's hard on the part of the brain that interprets visual stimulus. The same thing applies on a smaller scale with the amount of space at the end of a sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's how I'm going to view it. Our solar system contains 9 orbiting bodies I call planets, and a bunch of other stuff that isn't.
So, how do you separate "planets" from "Pluto-sized objects orbiting the sun"?
So, WHY do you separate "planets" from "Pluto-sized objects orbiting the sun"?
There is also a gap of several orders of magnitude between Mars and Jupiter. Also, it should be noted that these measures are influenced by orbital distance, which is not an intrinsic property of the body in question. And that's the problem with the two tiered system of names. To get there, you have to depend on information that is not intrinsic to the thing being named.
Why do you think the IAU should have felt it reasonable to classify Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars as planets, when those objects would have been far more similar in properties to other non-planet TNOs than to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune?
Given that a meteor is a meteorite when it burns up in the atmosphere (thus is altered into something else entirely), it is also a bad example. You may as well include "Wood->Fire".
That is essentially always what is meant when someone says a planet was ejected by a star. It is a common phrase that comes up most frequently when discussing rogue planets (which are not planets by the IAU definition).
If we want to be pedantic (and this being /., we do), Uranus and Earth aren't named after Roman gods. Uranus named after the Greek god of the sky Ouranos (the Roman equivalent was Caelus), and Earth is named after dirt.
Yes. So?
You can't get to 99% if you ditch that stuff, though. And really, people not wanting to be subject to harsher treatment by the police due to the color of their skin doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
Seems like the "redress" portion of his wording addresses that. Any profit made off of illegal or negligent activity could be transferred to those harmed, or their next of kin, and not run afoul of it.
The idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is ill-conceived. It assumes that people who commit murder are rational and consider the long-term consequences of their actions, and that they think they are likely to get caught. But the reality is most murders are committed in the heat of a moment, by people with poor impulse control and little forethought. And when it's not in the heat of the moment, the killer generally thinks that they will get away with the crime. The severity of the penalty has absolutely no bearing on the murderer's thinking (or lack thereof) in either case.
- Citation needed
No one is questioning Trump's authority to do this. They're questioning his judgment in doing so. And with excellent reason.
I love how the Trumpkins pretend that China doesn't exist, or that they're not every bit as sick of North Korea's shit as the rest of the world, and that they don't have far more influence with Pyongyang than anyone in the US.
All our allies seem to be happy with Trump leadership.
- Citation needed
Exactly the same thing happened when President Obama abandoned US allies in Iraq and left the place open for ISIS.
You spelled "abided by the deal his predecessor made with the government of Iraq who had no desire to have the US military presence continue any longer" wrong.
You think he knew that his successor would be the most idiotic, short-sighted, illiterate, corrupt human to ever hold the office of the President? He knew that his successor would examine the intelligence and decide that backing out of a deal that set back Iran's nuclear program by decades was the right choice? I've seen a lot of stupid posts on /., but this is right up there.
War is bad no matter who it's with. People forget this. They see WWII and think "we stopped Hitler, yea!" and become warhawks.
War is bad but it's not necessarily worse than the alaternatives.
In the case of Iran, it definitely is.
I don't get why a deal to give them access to lots of money in order to promise not to build a bomb was smart in the first place.
Probably because it wasn't just a promise. It was submission to an incredibly intrusive inspection regime that ensures that they are keeping their promise. They have kept their end of the bargain. For us to abandon it is shameful, and does not advance the interests of the US or a nuclear-free Iran in any way.
So... letting them have access to more money seems more likely to speed up bomb construction than pretending the promises are meaningful in my mind.
No one's pretending that. Some people who would rather start a war are pretending that there isn't anything meaningful in place to ensure that Iran keeps their promise, and you appear to have bought into their lies.
Get out of here with your FUD. The weapons development you refer to occurred only before the deal was struck. Every credible source of intelligence agrees that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal, and is further from being able to construct nuclear arms than they have been in a very long time.
An 11 year cycle is not the cause of a century long warming sudden warming trend. And while the amount of energy added to a system is important, equally important is the amount of energy removed from the system. That 11 year cycle is a constant that hasn't changed in any meaningful way as long as we've been measuring it. What has changed is the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat that otherwise would be removed from the system.
The "one-spacers" were, as a group, slower readers across the board (by about 10 words per minute)
When that is taken into consideration, it paints a picture less of two-spacers being slowed down by one-space text, and more of two spacers having developed a better approach that pays off even when they have to adjust to text written without proper spacing.
Double space in a book also ends up wasting paper.
I've read plenty of books in which the blank space is the only thing that wasn't a waste of paper.
Oxford trained != well trained
So:
Group A uses single spaces. They read single space and double space at the same rate.
Group B uses double spaces. They read single space at the same rate as Group A, but they read double spaced text considerably faster.
Seems like a pretty good argument that we should all be using double spaces. That way we all could read faster all the time.
At the risk of speaking for someone else, you are not getting that right. He is pointing out that using different types of breaks to show different levels of division within a text makes reading that text easier, which is also what then study from TFA shows. The use of new line and indentation on paragraphs that he cited is an obvious example that we're all familiar with, just at a larger scale.
No one wants to put in the effort to read a giant block of text that should have been divided into paragraphs. Not because of snobbishness, or stubbornness, or a concern for other punctuation. Because it's hard on the eyes, and it's hard on the part of the brain that interprets visual stimulus. The same thing applies on a smaller scale with the amount of space at the end of a sentence.