But it's really the use of the language that I'm getting at: is "planet" a scientific term, is it a cultural term, or is it both?
True, but it's also not the job of politicians to define language in a more general sense (just as it isn't the IAU's job either). Words are defined by their usage, not by what a bunch of politicians claim. If politicians make a definition for a word, it's not something that can control what people use, it can only be in the context of some kind of "official" usage. Okay, it doesn't have to be scientific - perhaps they mean in the context of making future legislation, for example. But how often does "pluto" crop up, and why is this relevant as a use of politicians' time?
I have yet to have a student (in 4 years) not subscribed to Facebook (I teach college students).
I still don't think it's a good argument. The anecdotal evidence that everyone you know is on Facebook doesn't mean that everyone necessarily is. Even if they are, just because they choose to give some information to Facebook doesn't make it acceptable for another entity to extract that information forcibly - and this is even more true if they are after other kinds of information true. I'm on Facebook, but I strongly oppose schemes like this. This isn't a contradiction, as I'm careful about what information I put, and more to the point, I choose to put it there.
we have a generation grown up accustomed to giving up information without question online
Oh don't get me wrong, I do agree; whilst I would hope that younger people would be more aware of such issues, I fear that actually they will be a lot more comfortable at giving over data and not caring about privacy. That's all the more reason to oppose schemes like this: even though it might not be problematic in itself, it gets young people used to handing over their biomerics, and facial recognition. (Perhaps it's a good thing to have employers doing Facebook searches - it'll make them realise the downsides soon enough:)
But it's not easy to blame Facebook in the same way we can blame this - I mean, it would be reasonable to say this scheme shouldn't be allowed (as it's in schools, and forced upon people), but I wouldn't want Facebook banned, and I like it being around as it can be useful. I think the main problem with Facebook is its policy of requiring real names (which they appear to have not bothered about enforcing in recent years, but it means that most people still now sign up with their real names, and some like me signed up when we had to use our real names, because you had to verify it with a University email address).
But if you're being paid to go to 16-18 college (which many UK students are)
Blimey, things have changed since my day:) Though I shouldn't get too envious, as I presume the amount they get is all taken back in tuition fees when they go to University... Not to mention that I had grants. Talking of which, even though I received a grant to go to University, there was never any need to prove that I attented every single lecture and class, so it's not clear to me that such a system requires this kind of daily registration system.
You're considered enough of an adult to look after yourself (though not enough of an adult to go and see a film showing stuff that you're pretty much expected to be doing if you're married. Err...)
Nor enough an adult to make a private film of your own body. And with the Coroners and Justice Bill currently going through Parliament, it'll soon be illegal to possess a privately made drawing of your marital acts at that age... Any inconsistencies in restrictions on viewing films are nothing compared to what's being pushed through in new laws.
who the hell thinks that it will be any easier to spy on them than it is already, given the astonishing amount of privacy they give up via facebook or similar sites?
Some people choose to give data to someone, therefore it's okay for someone else to forcibly take data from everyone?
Not that I'm overly concerned about this (I've more concern about applications of the technology in other contexts, e.g., Government CCTV that's all over the place), but your reasoning isn't valid here. It's the same sort of excuse that Blunkett used to justify compulsory ID cards, by saying "But some people choose to give information to supermarkets when they sign up for a loyalty card!".
In my sixth form, I don't think anyone bothered turning up for registration:) The teachers didn't care. It's not like this is compulsory school, if you don't turn up it's your loss, not theirs. (US readers may not be aware - 16-18 is optional in the UK, and my experience was that they treat you much more like an adult student at University, rather than still a school kid who has to follow rules. Although some colleges may be stricter than others.)
Ceres was a planet for over 50 years. But that's long forgotten now, except for the leftover usage of "minor planet".
There are lots of popular concepts of science that are either outdated, or outright wrong. That's no reason to meddle in scientific terminology, nor is it any worthwhile use of politicians' time.
the IAU could have at the same time declared that there are nine "historical planets"
Completely pointless, and would just add to the confusion. It's not the job of the IAU to dicate what popular culture should be.
Do they need to replace a texts everytime a new moon of Jupiter is found? I remember those tables of "How many moons each planet has", and they were always quickly out of date for the gas giants.
The word "planet" was already in use by the general public and the meaning of the world "planet" is: One of the celestial objects that used to be called "planet".
This is a brilliant definition. But why specify "celestial objects"? It's fully defined with "One of the things that used to be called 'planet'". Now I have this image of a dictionary where every definition of a word is: "X: Something that used to be called X". Brilliant.
In summary, the astronomers doesn't own the word "planet", the general public do.
Sure, but by the same reasoning, the politicians don't own the word either, and shouldn't be redefining it.
And no one's claiming that astronomers own words. If you want to use planet to mean Ceres, the Moon and the Sun, that's up to you. But astronomers do get to define the words they use for scientific usage. I suppose if politicians feel they need to define the word for political usages, that's up to them - but how often exactly does Pluto being a planet or not turn up in state politics?
No, you're still missing his point. He's applying the argument "let's assume the RIAA's claim that downloading equals theft is true, and see what illogical conclusions we come to in this case". Nowhere does that imply that he thinks the RIAA's claim is true.
Indeed. I, like many people on Slashdot, work as a programmer. Does that mean I own the code I write for my company? Of course not.
Ulrich downloading "his" own album is no different to me if I were to pirate my company's products. It's copyright infringement - and according to the RIAA, that makes him a thief.
The very purpose of a contract is that it releases you from or binds you to certain obligations. If you sign a contract saying you won't post a review of your doctor on a website, you are bound by the contract to not post a review of your doctor on a website. If you post the review anyway, your doctor can sue for breach of contract. That's the way contract law works....
I know that every time someone says, "there ought to be a law," god kills a kitten, but in this case there really should be a law stating that businesses (which doctors and hospitals are) do not have the right to prevent you, via contract or other means, from writing a public statement of your experience with that business as long as that statement does not constitute libel.
Well that's not so far fetched - it's all very well saying "That's the way contract law works.", but the point is that there are some things you can't give up a right to, even if you signed a contract. Whether people should be prevented from giving reviews here is ultimately up to the courts to decide, even if they did sign a contract. And yes, I agree that they should be allowed to, even if they've signed a contract. If however the Government decides that you should be prevented for reviewing, then the Government is banning free speech.
It wasn't that they prevented you from speaking, but that they terminated your employment. Whether it was right to sack you is a matter for employment law, but they weren't directly preventing you from speaking.
But what happens here? If you post about it, and they then choose not to give you healthcare, then yes that would be comparable (although I'll add, it's also a problem that comes from having to rely on private healthcare). If however they sue you, and expect the Government to force you to stop speaking, or punish you for having done so, then it surely becomes a first amendment issue.
Just because there's an absolute zero doesn't stop cold from being relative. Absolute zero only gives you one fixed point - where does the sense of scale come from? Is 1K cold? Or 100K, or 1000K? Clearly, our perception of "cold" has nothing to do with absolute zero, but is based on the temperatures we are used to on Earth, which is relative.
Another example is that "light" and "heavy" are relative terms, even though there's an absolute zero for mass. The fact that you can't have negative mass doesn't stop us from talking about "heavy particles" and "planets of low mass", even though the objects referred to in the latter context are vastly heavier than in the former.
News about news, rather than "Here's a new application... for the Iphone!" I don't recall articles for reading stories on any other mobile devices that people have done for years, but everytime something is done "On The Iphone!" for some reason we get an article.
Though nothing beats the "You can now access this website... On The Iphone!" story we had recently, about avoiding paying parking tickets IIRC.
See my reply above. Being "stalking" doesn't stop it from being "snooping" as well. And that just makes my point even more so: the OP said that relying on public information can't be snooping. If you're saying it can be stalking, I'd say that's even worse.
There's a big difference between stalking someone (online or in the physical world) and looking at what they willingly post online.
Well I'd use stalking to mean more than passive observing, but either way, that was my point - that even if one makes use only of public material, there's a wide range of possible acts, from a casual glance, to snooping.
Whether the content is meant to be private or not, if someone posts to their blog that they hate their job and are cutting corners until they quit, I'm much less likely to give them a job at my company.
Sure. But that doesn't mean I'd like them snooping all sorts of other stuff about me.
The current iMac does everything most users, even power users could possibly want to do.
Yes but by that reasoning, so does a much cheaper desktop PC, or, in particular, a much more portable laptop.
Some high end gaming PCs sound like a 747 about to take off, whereas our 8 core MacPro is essentially silent unless it is working really hard computationally.
You can have silent PCs too. The main issue is often the graphics card - what card does your Mac have? (If it doesn't have one comparable to the high end gaming PC, then it's not a fair comparison - it's perfectly possible to get silent high end PCs that don't have the latest graphics card).
How easy is it to get at the innards to swap out/add hard drives, video cards and memory?
Easy. But hang on, a moment ago you were playing the card of "You only find yearnings like that on a techie site like/. but never where ordinary computer users roam." Ordinary users don't swap out those things. And for those users who do, they're going to be concerned about how much expansion the computer offers. You can't have it both ways.
which never show up on any performance spec sheet.
Ah yes, this one again. Well my Amiga is the best computer ever, it just won't show up on a performance spec sheet.
Indeed, it sounds like the definition of "first" as popularised by Apple:) ("First GUI!... except for the first", "First 64-bit PC!... except for the first").
Note that the reply also shares the same subject like as the original "troll" post, complete with the added "Re:". So this isn't simply a case of misthreading - either the bug is more complex than that, or there isn't a bug at all and he just replied to the first post in an attempt to get his post near the top.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's really the use of the language that I'm getting at: is "planet" a scientific term, is it a cultural term, or is it both?
True, but it's also not the job of politicians to define language in a more general sense (just as it isn't the IAU's job either). Words are defined by their usage, not by what a bunch of politicians claim. If politicians make a definition for a word, it's not something that can control what people use, it can only be in the context of some kind of "official" usage. Okay, it doesn't have to be scientific - perhaps they mean in the context of making future legislation, for example. But how often does "pluto" crop up, and why is this relevant as a use of politicians' time?
I have yet to have a student (in 4 years) not subscribed to Facebook (I teach college students).
I still don't think it's a good argument. The anecdotal evidence that everyone you know is on Facebook doesn't mean that everyone necessarily is. Even if they are, just because they choose to give some information to Facebook doesn't make it acceptable for another entity to extract that information forcibly - and this is even more true if they are after other kinds of information true. I'm on Facebook, but I strongly oppose schemes like this. This isn't a contradiction, as I'm careful about what information I put, and more to the point, I choose to put it there.
we have a generation grown up accustomed to giving up information without question online
Oh don't get me wrong, I do agree; whilst I would hope that younger people would be more aware of such issues, I fear that actually they will be a lot more comfortable at giving over data and not caring about privacy. That's all the more reason to oppose schemes like this: even though it might not be problematic in itself, it gets young people used to handing over their biomerics, and facial recognition. (Perhaps it's a good thing to have employers doing Facebook searches - it'll make them realise the downsides soon enough:)
But it's not easy to blame Facebook in the same way we can blame this - I mean, it would be reasonable to say this scheme shouldn't be allowed (as it's in schools, and forced upon people), but I wouldn't want Facebook banned, and I like it being around as it can be useful. I think the main problem with Facebook is its policy of requiring real names (which they appear to have not bothered about enforcing in recent years, but it means that most people still now sign up with their real names, and some like me signed up when we had to use our real names, because you had to verify it with a University email address).
But if you're being paid to go to 16-18 college (which many UK students are)
Blimey, things have changed since my day :) Though I shouldn't get too envious, as I presume the amount they get is all taken back in tuition fees when they go to University... Not to mention that I had grants. Talking of which, even though I received a grant to go to University, there was never any need to prove that I attented every single lecture and class, so it's not clear to me that such a system requires this kind of daily registration system.
You're considered enough of an adult to look after yourself (though not enough of an adult to go and see a film showing stuff that you're pretty much expected to be doing if you're married. Err...)
Nor enough an adult to make a private film of your own body. And with the Coroners and Justice Bill currently going through Parliament, it'll soon be illegal to possess a privately made drawing of your marital acts at that age... Any inconsistencies in restrictions on viewing films are nothing compared to what's being pushed through in new laws.
who the hell thinks that it will be any easier to spy on them than it is already, given the astonishing amount of privacy they give up via facebook or similar sites?
Some people choose to give data to someone, therefore it's okay for someone else to forcibly take data from everyone?
Not that I'm overly concerned about this (I've more concern about applications of the technology in other contexts, e.g., Government CCTV that's all over the place), but your reasoning isn't valid here. It's the same sort of excuse that Blunkett used to justify compulsory ID cards, by saying "But some people choose to give information to supermarkets when they sign up for a loyalty card!".
In my sixth form, I don't think anyone bothered turning up for registration :) The teachers didn't care. It's not like this is compulsory school, if you don't turn up it's your loss, not theirs. (US readers may not be aware - 16-18 is optional in the UK, and my experience was that they treat you much more like an adult student at University, rather than still a school kid who has to follow rules. Although some colleges may be stricter than others.)
You think it's great, but if that's the reason, then I think that's just petty.
Ceres was a planet for over 50 years. But that's long forgotten now, except for the leftover usage of "minor planet".
There are lots of popular concepts of science that are either outdated, or outright wrong. That's no reason to meddle in scientific terminology, nor is it any worthwhile use of politicians' time.
the IAU could have at the same time declared that there are nine "historical planets"
Completely pointless, and would just add to the confusion. It's not the job of the IAU to dicate what popular culture should be.
Fifty year old texts that say Pluto has no moons?
Do they need to replace a texts everytime a new moon of Jupiter is found? I remember those tables of "How many moons each planet has", and they were always quickly out of date for the gas giants.
The word "planet" was already in use by the general public and the meaning of the world "planet" is: One of the celestial objects that used to be called "planet".
This is a brilliant definition. But why specify "celestial objects"? It's fully defined with "One of the things that used to be called 'planet'". Now I have this image of a dictionary where every definition of a word is: "X: Something that used to be called X". Brilliant.
In summary, the astronomers doesn't own the word "planet", the general public do.
Sure, but by the same reasoning, the politicians don't own the word either, and shouldn't be redefining it.
And no one's claiming that astronomers own words. If you want to use planet to mean Ceres, the Moon and the Sun, that's up to you. But astronomers do get to define the words they use for scientific usage. I suppose if politicians feel they need to define the word for political usages, that's up to them - but how often exactly does Pluto being a planet or not turn up in state politics?
No, you're still missing his point. He's applying the argument "let's assume the RIAA's claim that downloading equals theft is true, and see what illogical conclusions we come to in this case". Nowhere does that imply that he thinks the RIAA's claim is true.
Yes, that was his point.
Indeed. I, like many people on Slashdot, work as a programmer. Does that mean I own the code I write for my company? Of course not.
Ulrich downloading "his" own album is no different to me if I were to pirate my company's products. It's copyright infringement - and according to the RIAA, that makes him a thief.
The very purpose of a contract is that it releases you from or binds you to certain obligations. If you sign a contract saying you won't post a review of your doctor on a website, you are bound by the contract to not post a review of your doctor on a website. If you post the review anyway, your doctor can sue for breach of contract. That's the way contract law works. ...
I know that every time someone says, "there ought to be a law," god kills a kitten, but in this case there really should be a law stating that businesses (which doctors and hospitals are) do not have the right to prevent you, via contract or other means, from writing a public statement of your experience with that business as long as that statement does not constitute libel.
Well that's not so far fetched - it's all very well saying "That's the way contract law works.", but the point is that there are some things you can't give up a right to, even if you signed a contract. Whether people should be prevented from giving reviews here is ultimately up to the courts to decide, even if they did sign a contract. And yes, I agree that they should be allowed to, even if they've signed a contract. If however the Government decides that you should be prevented for reviewing, then the Government is banning free speech.
And who exactly is it that enforces the contract, if one of you decides it isn't valid or fair? That's right, the Government.
It wasn't that they prevented you from speaking, but that they terminated your employment. Whether it was right to sack you is a matter for employment law, but they weren't directly preventing you from speaking.
But what happens here? If you post about it, and they then choose not to give you healthcare, then yes that would be comparable (although I'll add, it's also a problem that comes from having to rely on private healthcare). If however they sue you, and expect the Government to force you to stop speaking, or punish you for having done so, then it surely becomes a first amendment issue.
TFA is unclear on what tactic they are using.
Oh, what a brilliant argument! Let me join in:
"Iphone blows megagoats" "No it doesn't".
Wake me up when you actually have a worthwhile argument.
Just because there's an absolute zero doesn't stop cold from being relative. Absolute zero only gives you one fixed point - where does the sense of scale come from? Is 1K cold? Or 100K, or 1000K? Clearly, our perception of "cold" has nothing to do with absolute zero, but is based on the temperatures we are used to on Earth, which is relative.
Another example is that "light" and "heavy" are relative terms, even though there's an absolute zero for mass. The fact that you can't have negative mass doesn't stop us from talking about "heavy particles" and "planets of low mass", even though the objects referred to in the latter context are vastly heavier than in the former.
I think they already applied that ban on brains to some of the politicians.
News about news, rather than "Here's a new application ... for the Iphone!" I don't recall articles for reading stories on any other mobile devices that people have done for years, but everytime something is done "On The Iphone!" for some reason we get an article.
Though nothing beats the "You can now access this website ... On The Iphone!" story we had recently, about avoiding paying parking tickets IIRC.
See my reply above. Being "stalking" doesn't stop it from being "snooping" as well. And that just makes my point even more so: the OP said that relying on public information can't be snooping. If you're saying it can be stalking, I'd say that's even worse.
There's a big difference between stalking someone (online or in the physical world) and looking at what they willingly post online.
Well I'd use stalking to mean more than passive observing, but either way, that was my point - that even if one makes use only of public material, there's a wide range of possible acts, from a casual glance, to snooping.
Whether the content is meant to be private or not, if someone posts to their blog that they hate their job and are cutting corners until they quit, I'm much less likely to give them a job at my company.
Sure. But that doesn't mean I'd like them snooping all sorts of other stuff about me.
The current iMac does everything most users, even power users could possibly want to do.
Yes but by that reasoning, so does a much cheaper desktop PC, or, in particular, a much more portable laptop.
Some high end gaming PCs sound like a 747 about to take off, whereas our 8 core MacPro is essentially silent unless it is working really hard computationally.
You can have silent PCs too. The main issue is often the graphics card - what card does your Mac have? (If it doesn't have one comparable to the high end gaming PC, then it's not a fair comparison - it's perfectly possible to get silent high end PCs that don't have the latest graphics card).
How easy is it to get at the innards to swap out/add hard drives, video cards and memory?
Easy. But hang on, a moment ago you were playing the card of "You only find yearnings like that on a techie site like /. but never where ordinary computer users roam." Ordinary users don't swap out those things. And for those users who do, they're going to be concerned about how much expansion the computer offers. You can't have it both ways.
which never show up on any performance spec sheet.
Ah yes, this one again. Well my Amiga is the best computer ever, it just won't show up on a performance spec sheet.
Indeed, it sounds like the definition of "first" as popularised by Apple :) ("First GUI! ... except for the first", "First 64-bit PC! ... except for the first").
reply suddenly find itself attach to other parent
Note that the reply also shares the same subject like as the original "troll" post, complete with the added "Re:". So this isn't simply a case of misthreading - either the bug is more complex than that, or there isn't a bug at all and he just replied to the first post in an attempt to get his post near the top.