The reason diamonds are so beautiful is that every one of them represents gallons and gallons of blood and broken bones laying in the bottom of a diamond mine. Nothing is quite as shiny as pure human misery.
WTF is that about moving trains by doing math? That's not perfect, that's like school. This thing must have been invented by that ONE GUY who enjoyed doing the 144 long division problems for homework in the 4th grade. "Oh teacher, can I have ANOTHER set of math problems do do? I loved cramping my hand up writing numbers SO MUCH."
The rest of us recognized all that math busy work as deadly to the drive to learn and avoided that shit as much as we could.
Make a machine that moves trains by thinking about FUCKING. In and out, up and down. I don't care, as long as it's moving and it's wet. THAT would be the perfect brain interface.
Is a binary planet an interesting thing? Do we have a reason for making the category? If it is, then yes, make a category for a binary planet. Otherwise, it's a planet and a moon.
Think about it. If I had a file folder for car receipts, is it useful to have two sub-folders for oil change receipts and another for gasoline receipts? If so, make the categories. If not, dump them into one folder.
Our current situation with having planets and dwarf planets is like having car receipt folders for the categories "combustible car fluids" and "non-combustible car fluids". Sure, it's a valid categorization, but it's not very useful.
Got used to not having all the premium channels, and I got along just fine.
Well you're a far better man than I am. I once had to live with just basic cable. I thought I could do it. I thought I was tough. I told myself they have nothing but basic cable in Africa, and since I'm a rich Westerner I should be thankful for what I do have.
I was wrong. SOO SO wrong.
The trouble started right away. Shaking, sweating, constant stomach pain. Soon I was having splitting headaches and constantly masturbating. Then, I went nuts and nearly beat a man to death with my bare hands for asking me if I'd seen Sopranos that week. Of course not, I had only basic cable. It took three years in prison for an assault charge for me to realize that I'm just not that strong of a person, and that I had NO BUSINESS not subscribing to the premium channels.
My hat is off to you sir, I wish I were half the man you are.
Scotty: I dinna know if the power supplies can take it Captain! Captain Kirk: Scotty, just do it now! Scotty: Oh shit! Captain Kirk: What is it Scotty? Scotty: I dinna know if you realize that I wasn't FUCKING AROUND Captain! Captain Kirk: I just got caught with my britches down and Khan isn't anywhere to be found. Where's Janice when you need her?
OK, so it's significant. You made a good case, so I can accept that for purposes of the argument.
Is this significance greater than the distinction between rocky planets and gas giants? Don't all three items (rocky cleared orbit, rocky non-cleared orbit, gas giant) all fit under the umbrella of "planet?"
Remember, the discussion isn't about a logical classification for everything. It's the definition of planet. I would submit that allowing the detail levels of your classification to unnecessarily contaminate the definitions of the broad levels of your classification is wrong. The definition of the broad classification (planet) is being unneccessarily attentive to details that should be addressed at lower levels. At the high level we have planets (rounded because of their own gravity) and below that we have other classifications which are appropriate to what people care about. At lower levels, people can argue all they want about rocky planets which have cleared their orbits, and those which have not.
An additional attraction to proper design of your classifications is that we're not going to revisit what a planet is in another 10 years after we learn more. We're instead going to be arguing about sub-classes of asteroids, or families of comets. The lack of stupid planet-argument spectacles will be a GOOD thing for astronomy.
I'm aware of the couple of round asteroids. They're planets.
What *kind* of planets? They're not gas giants, or trans-Neptunians, or Kuiper belt objects. They're associated with the asteroids, so if that distinction is meaningful to you, then make it.
The point is that distinctions without meaning are hardly what I'd call a clean ontology. The difference between a rocky planet and a gas giant is far far more significant than your orbit clearing mumbo-jumbo.
There's no significance to orbit clearing, thus distinguishing that characteristic is arbitrary.
Planets are round and orbit the sun. Moons are smaller objects which orbit the largest object in their planetary system. Within that you have a lot of room for domain specific ontologies to classify everything in the system. Remember, we're not trying to come up with a clean ontology here, we're defining the word "planet" without restricting other classification schemes which are useful to people studying different things in the solar system.
Round planets are moons if they are orbiting another planet. If you've got a bunch of things orbiting each other, the big one is the planet and all the rest are moons.
Moons don't have to be round, but planets do. Irregular asteroids orbiting each other aren't planets or moons, because planets are round, and moons orbit planets. They're just two asteroids orbiting each other, and that's it.
Point two: (everything that has happened is because of the ISS because the ISS is the big budget hog and the reason for everything else happening in space.) I don't agree that it's true, but even if it were, something else which is useful could be built which would also be the reason why everything else happens in space.
it's a planet. If it's orbiting a larger planet, then it's a moon.
This is just a classification problem. In my company, the secretary takes care of that shit. WHY ARE WE wasting our time with this crap? I don't give a shit if some schoolkid has to memorize dozens of planets. That's between him and his teacher.
Seems like it should be easy to count up to 10,000 or so. Why would you have to count any higher than that, even if we had a billion people?
Our counting system is arranged in a tree structure, with subtotals taken at each level, and sent up the tree. At the top you just need a genius who can use a calculator to add a dozen 8 or 9 digit numbers.
It scales pretty well, even with pencil and paper. If you're a computer programmer, you'll recognize the problem as an optimization which is far better solved with a good choice of algorithm instead of buying a faster computer.
I hate silly analogies, because they are arbitrary. Let's fix yours to make it more illustrative.
We can accept the situation you have as described, and change it this way:
1) The house you built is 38 bathrooms and that's it. When it's completed for twice the price, all you can do is take a shit. You can't live there.
2) After the house is done, you still need to build a house to live in.
3) You still have to eat and your kids still need to go to college.
Solution: let's stop wasting money on the ISS because it's useless. Finishing something for the sake of finishing it is not a reason to waste money.
We need new direction in the space program, and here are my suggestions:
1) Maintain or expand the planetary and astrophysics programs in conjunction with JPL. Basic research by robotic spacecraft is a shining light in our space program.
2) Maintain a new division within NASA - the space observatory program. They will be charged with keeping a Hubble class scope in orbit at all times. They will also be charged with maintaining anywhere from 3-6 "half-Hubble" class scopes in orbit as well, for the many times when an instrument doesn't need to be large, but it needs to be out of the atmosphere. They will also be charged with maintaining large infrared and X-Ray (and other) scopes in space to cover these other areas of the spectrum. If anybody is going to build a radio telescope on the far side of the moon, it's that division.
3) The manned spaceflight division is going to drop their NIH attitude and buy Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians. They will also work with the Russians to develop the next generation Soyuz spacecraft (and the Indians and Chinese too) which will be a common human spacecraft used by everybody. The next gen spacecraft will seat 6 and have an arm on it to grapple spacecraft. It won't have wings.
I was getting 200,000 pieces of spam mail a month at my domain until I started blocking all connections from outside the USA, as well as any address which resolved to something that looked like a cable or dsl address.
My regular mail is NOTHING like that. I get maybe 10 pieces of junk a day at the most.
Just so you don't have to do the math, that was almost one spam a second arriving at my domain. My spam filter was extremely effective, but it was getting to the point where a significant part of my bandwidth was being consumed with receiving and rejecting mail.
My regular mail is NOTHING like that. I never received so much regular junk mail that the mail delivery truck couldn't carry it all.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason diamonds are so beautiful is that every one of them represents gallons and gallons of blood and broken bones laying in the bottom of a diamond mine. Nothing is quite as shiny as pure human misery.
OH MY GOD! I was just masturbating and thinking about you, and then BONGO there's one of your posts. How the fuck are you doing old buddy?
Nonsense. You conjugate it.
I Errata, you Errated, they are eratting, we erratumed.
WTF is that about moving trains by doing math? That's not perfect, that's like school. This thing must have been invented by that ONE GUY who enjoyed doing the 144 long division problems for homework in the 4th grade. "Oh teacher, can I have ANOTHER set of math problems do do? I loved cramping my hand up writing numbers SO MUCH."
The rest of us recognized all that math busy work as deadly to the drive to learn and avoided that shit as much as we could.
Make a machine that moves trains by thinking about FUCKING. In and out, up and down. I don't care, as long as it's moving and it's wet. THAT would be the perfect brain interface.
Is a binary planet an interesting thing? Do we have a reason for making the category? If it is, then yes, make a category for a binary planet. Otherwise, it's a planet and a moon.
Think about it. If I had a file folder for car receipts, is it useful to have two sub-folders for oil change receipts and another for gasoline receipts? If so, make the categories. If not, dump them into one folder.
Our current situation with having planets and dwarf planets is like having car receipt folders for the categories "combustible car fluids" and "non-combustible car fluids". Sure, it's a valid categorization, but it's not very useful.
Right. One causes the other.
Except, AMD is a single entity, not a collective noun.
Got used to not having all the premium channels, and I got along just fine.
Well you're a far better man than I am. I once had to live with just basic cable. I thought I could do it. I thought I was tough. I told myself they have nothing but basic cable in Africa, and since I'm a rich Westerner I should be thankful for what I do have.
I was wrong. SOO SO wrong.
The trouble started right away. Shaking, sweating, constant stomach pain. Soon I was having splitting headaches and constantly masturbating. Then, I went nuts and nearly beat a man to death with my bare hands for asking me if I'd seen Sopranos that week. Of course not, I had only basic cable. It took three years in prison for an assault charge for me to realize that I'm just not that strong of a person, and that I had NO BUSINESS not subscribing to the premium channels.
My hat is off to you sir, I wish I were half the man you are.
I don't know about you, but I'm not leaving this planet unless there's some space orgies promised to me in writing first.
Insane drug and sex parties with zero-G Kamasutra moves lasting for days and days without fear of pregnancy? Is that what you meant?
If it's not, then who was it giving me the anal probe last night?
Scotty: I dinna know if the power supplies can take it Captain!
Captain Kirk: Scotty, just do it now!
Scotty: Oh shit!
Captain Kirk: What is it Scotty?
Scotty: I dinna know if you realize that I wasn't FUCKING AROUND Captain!
Captain Kirk: I just got caught with my britches down and Khan isn't anywhere to be found. Where's Janice when you need her?
The End
Ausweis bitte! in the original German.
The computers are dead, not half alive as previously reported.
6 -15-spacewalk-three_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-0
OK, so it's significant. You made a good case, so I can accept that for purposes of the argument.
Is this significance greater than the distinction between rocky planets and gas giants? Don't all three items (rocky cleared orbit, rocky non-cleared orbit, gas giant) all fit under the umbrella of "planet?"
Remember, the discussion isn't about a logical classification for everything. It's the definition of planet. I would submit that allowing the detail levels of your classification to unnecessarily contaminate the definitions of the broad levels of your classification is wrong. The definition of the broad classification (planet) is being unneccessarily attentive to details that should be addressed at lower levels. At the high level we have planets (rounded because of their own gravity) and below that we have other classifications which are appropriate to what people care about. At lower levels, people can argue all they want about rocky planets which have cleared their orbits, and those which have not.
An additional attraction to proper design of your classifications is that we're not going to revisit what a planet is in another 10 years after we learn more. We're instead going to be arguing about sub-classes of asteroids, or families of comets. The lack of stupid planet-argument spectacles will be a GOOD thing for astronomy.
I'm aware of the couple of round asteroids. They're planets.
What *kind* of planets? They're not gas giants, or trans-Neptunians, or Kuiper belt objects. They're associated with the asteroids, so if that distinction is meaningful to you, then make it.
The point is that distinctions without meaning are hardly what I'd call a clean ontology. The difference between a rocky planet and a gas giant is far far more significant than your orbit clearing mumbo-jumbo.
There's no significance to orbit clearing, thus distinguishing that characteristic is arbitrary.
Planets are round and orbit the sun. Moons are smaller objects which orbit the largest object in their planetary system. Within that you have a lot of room for domain specific ontologies to classify everything in the system. Remember, we're not trying to come up with a clean ontology here, we're defining the word "planet" without restricting other classification schemes which are useful to people studying different things in the solar system.
Round planets are moons if they are orbiting another planet. If you've got a bunch of things orbiting each other, the big one is the planet and all the rest are moons.
Moons don't have to be round, but planets do. Irregular asteroids orbiting each other aren't planets or moons, because planets are round, and moons orbit planets. They're just two asteroids orbiting each other, and that's it.
Point one: what science?
Point two: (everything that has happened is because of the ISS because the ISS is the big budget hog and the reason for everything else happening in space.) I don't agree that it's true, but even if it were, something else which is useful could be built which would also be the reason why everything else happens in space.
it's a planet. If it's orbiting a larger planet, then it's a moon.
This is just a classification problem. In my company, the secretary takes care of that shit. WHY ARE WE wasting our time with this crap? I don't give a shit if some schoolkid has to memorize dozens of planets. That's between him and his teacher.
Seems like it should be easy to count up to 10,000 or so. Why would you have to count any higher than that, even if we had a billion people?
Our counting system is arranged in a tree structure, with subtotals taken at each level, and sent up the tree. At the top you just need a genius who can use a calculator to add a dozen 8 or 9 digit numbers.
It scales pretty well, even with pencil and paper. If you're a computer programmer, you'll recognize the problem as an optimization which is far better solved with a good choice of algorithm instead of buying a faster computer.
I hate silly analogies, because they are arbitrary. Let's fix yours to make it more illustrative.
We can accept the situation you have as described, and change it this way:
1) The house you built is 38 bathrooms and that's it. When it's completed for twice the price, all you can do is take a shit. You can't live there.
2) After the house is done, you still need to build a house to live in.
3) You still have to eat and your kids still need to go to college.
Solution: let's stop wasting money on the ISS because it's useless. Finishing something for the sake of finishing it is not a reason to waste money.
We need new direction in the space program, and here are my suggestions:
1) Maintain or expand the planetary and astrophysics programs in conjunction with JPL. Basic research by robotic spacecraft is a shining light in our space program.
2) Maintain a new division within NASA - the space observatory program. They will be charged with keeping a Hubble class scope in orbit at all times. They will also be charged with maintaining anywhere from 3-6 "half-Hubble" class scopes in orbit as well, for the many times when an instrument doesn't need to be large, but it needs to be out of the atmosphere. They will also be charged with maintaining large infrared and X-Ray (and other) scopes in space to cover these other areas of the spectrum. If anybody is going to build a radio telescope on the far side of the moon, it's that division.
3) The manned spaceflight division is going to drop their NIH attitude and buy Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians. They will also work with the Russians to develop the next generation Soyuz spacecraft (and the Indians and Chinese too) which will be a common human spacecraft used by everybody. The next gen spacecraft will seat 6 and have an arm on it to grapple spacecraft. It won't have wings.
That's about it for basic capabilities.
If an analogy were something standing up, it could fall down. But if it's a car then the analogy would drive away.
I did the math, but missed the last zero on the end. Understandable, since I run a very small font size on my xterms.
I was getting 200,000 pieces of spam mail a month at my domain until I started blocking all connections from outside the USA, as well as any address which resolved to something that looked like a cable or dsl address.
My regular mail is NOTHING like that. I get maybe 10 pieces of junk a day at the most.
Just so you don't have to do the math, that was almost one spam a second arriving at my domain. My spam filter was extremely effective, but it was getting to the point where a significant part of my bandwidth was being consumed with receiving and rejecting mail.
My regular mail is NOTHING like that. I never received so much regular junk mail that the mail delivery truck couldn't carry it all.