No, they all want to see Titanic. The question is who wanted to see it in 3D. Maybe that added a small percentage of extra ticket sales over a plain-ol' re-release of Titanic, but mostly it's being able to see it again (or for the first time) on the big screen that is the draw.
What 3D really did is multiply the box office sales by the extra cost of a 3D ticket.
Why is a human lifetime the only meaningful context? Because we're human? That doesn't stop us from thinking about contexts where a human lifespan is too tiny a blip to even notice.
But again, that might not work for extra-solar star systems.
That's why limiting the definition to our solar system is actually a feature.:)
I use the dwarf planet / planet distinction, don't get me wrong. I also like dividing the bodies into 'region'-based categories. Inner planets, inner dwarf planets (asteroid belt planetoids), gas giants, ice dwarfs.
Which is great. As Neil Tyson said in an interview once, to him the important thing wasn't whether you called something a planet, it was what the properties of the object were. You have a big table of the objects and their properties, and if what you're interested in is icy bodies that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but not cleared their orbits, then you get a set of bodies that match that. And so on.
To me personally, I don't care about the word "planet" or "dwarf planet". I don't care what you call these things. I just care that we acknowledge extant differences between them -- such as that there are 8 objects orbiting the sun that have the ability to clean up their orbits of the vast majority of debris, and the rest which cannot even come close.
Separating Pluto from those 8 bodies isn't arbitrary. Neither is wanting to include it with them. The difference is that the latter is based on history and nostalgia, the former on science.
Arbitrary means that the line has been drawn at a certain point because... we decided to draw the line at that point.
Well they didn't draw the line at a certain point because they didn't have to. The extant gap between bodies' orbit-clearing ability was already there and ridiculously huge. It's no more arbitrary than the distinction between the Americas and Eurasia. You might not be able to exactly where one begins and the other ends, but you don't have to because there's a gigantic gap where neither of them are.
Complaining "Why did you pick exactly that point?" when no point was picked, the 5-order-of-magnitude gap makes such a thing unnecessary, is missing the point.
Well in contrast to bodies in space, their inability to clear their debris field is most likely a direct consequence of their great mass. So calling them "dwarf humans" would be highly inaccurate.
There's nothing arbitrary about a 5-orders-of-magnitude difference in gravitational dominance. It's an obvious difference between objects in our solar system that should be acknowledged. Ignoring it would be stupid.
"People" don't like that Pluto got demoted; their objections to the definition are reverse-engineered from that emotional fact, as evidenced by not even trying to understand the physical reality that informs it.
Well guess what, Pluto fans? You're not much of a Pluto fan if your love is based around it being technically called a planet. The object is still just as awesome as it used to be. The only thing that changed is our understanding of its place in the solar system.
Many people don't like the definition for many reasons. Among them, that what constitutes a "clear" orbit is not specified and is arbitrary (no planet has an orbit 100% free of other objects), that the point of 'hydrostatic equilibrium' is also unspecified and arbitrary, and that it only applies to the Solar System ("The Sun" is in there).
between the least of the planets is, versus the greatest of the dwarf planets.
The line between Europe and Asia is arbitrary. The line between Eurasia and the Americas is absolutely not -- you could draw the line with a brush a thousand miles wide. The situation in our solar system is the latter case.
The concept is that in 1988 the cryo units for travel were accidentally set for 281,474,976,710,656 years due to an endian mistake.
What I find amazing is not that such a simple mistake could be made, but that the cryo machines and the 16-bit computers running them were able to run for over 10^15 years!
Fucking nice job on the hardware, guys! But next time don't leave the drivers for the interns to write...
However, Figure 6 does not predict that all of that rise will occur prior to 1998, with a flat-to-falling trend since then.
Ah, 1998. The obvious choice for picking as the specific year to measure all warming against. Due to its magical properties of being a special goalpost, we can ignore the yearly variation that would normally necessitate a rolling average and shows temperatures rising unabated well into this decade. Instead we can simply compare temperatures to 1998 and 1998 only, because it's magic, and say the warming has stopped.
How fortunate that it was not actually 1999, or 1996, that were the magical goalposts! Then we'd be forced to conclude that the warming has accelerated after the change to the new post-magic-year epoch! Soon the earth will be cooked!
But nope, since we measure from 1998, and not 1999, and certainly not with valid statistical methods, we say any predictions of warming in the 1st decade of the 21st century were wrong.
Right, which is why it only matters for engineering professions where there are legal consequences for failure, rather than just marketplace consequences. Civil engineering in particular is a field where it matters.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Sorry, it kinda does, though much less so than people who oppose equal rights entirely. You're saying sure they should be able to have the legal benefits, but they should not be allowed to have your special designation of being "married". They can have "civil union" or something but "marriage" is special and should not be allowed for gays because your religion says so. This is inherently acting to make them second-class citizens.
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Especially when it's a one-way separation -- heterosexuals could have a "civil union" if they don't want to be called "married", but it doesn't go the other way.
Besides, what makes your religion's definition of marriage so special? What if they're of a religion that doesn't care?
There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets.
That's more than enough. These people don't want to be even subtly reminded that gays exist. Wanting to be able to exist in society without having to hide their identity, and creating entertainment that acknowledges that homosexuals exist, is "shoving the gay agenda down people's throats".
Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.
The mere fact that they are aware of its existence is enough.
And does it matter?
Think of it this way: If instead of an RPG where you basically craft whatever character you want and all the romance subplots are optional, what if it was a game about an openly gay character (with or without 'romance', and with appropriate age rating), and playing that character was the only option? Would that make their complaints legitimate?
We regulate quite a few of them. I can't technically call myself an engineer in my state even though I am one and employers don't really care that I don't have the legal title. Lawyer, dentist, M.D., dietitian, and others are protected nationwide and for damn good reason imo.
Paper boy? Shit, if you want that title then I don't even care if you've ever slung a rolled up piece of bird cage liner into the mud before.
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
So you don't think something with feathers could scary? Like, say, an eagle? Well fucking grizzly bears disagree with you -- maybe you should reconsider!
No, he'll just say that all the failings were because of the government and none of them would have happened if not for that.
It's great, because since there's always a government around he can always blame it for anything that happens. "Oh, it wasn't a real free market." It's the same excuse used by communists.
Unlike the dog which man did actively do selective breeding, cats did it themselves. Humans created settlements, which stored grain, which attracted rodents, which attracted cats, which people encouraged to stay to kill more rodents.
Well of course we say they did it themselves; this is far better for cat-human relations.:)
But fair enough. Even if we take this to not be intentional on human's part, selective breeding did definitely go on, and the spread of the domestic cat was definitely due to conscious human decision.
You are effectively claiming that the police looked into the future and made false statements on the report for a crime that wasn't controversial at the time,
Because the police would only make false statements if they thought the case would end up being controversial?
Seems to me it's more likely they'd feel willing to doctor things to get the result they wanted if they thought it wouldn't be controversial, because "controversial" would imply "subjected to greater scrutiny".
Oh noes! The noise of windmills may cause "annoyance"! Oh woe is me! I feel so foolish for ever doubting these people than windmills were ruining their health! Because that's totally what they meant -- minor stress due to annoyance!
Only one little problem -- if annoyance is a reason to prevent something, then who wins between them being annoyed by windmills, and me being annoyed by people protesting windmills for retarded reasons?
Someone else posted that some windmills were built too close to houses (or vice versa) than recommended and that's fine. That doesn't apply to the majority of these people.
Because domestic cats outside North America aren't domestic, as in created by humans? No other parts of the world lacked small passerine-killing cats before the domestic cat was introduced?
That was a pretty flimsy straw you were grasping for, but you missed.
Well as long as we can agree that there are some places where they are perfect (maybe not Ontario, but definitely Texas), then it naturally follows that they should be part of the answer.
I think non-PV solar has a lot of potential, too. Some techniques solve the nighttime energy storage problem quite well.
I really wish we weren't in such a fucked situation with nuclear. New plants are being commissioned, but it's not enough and they don't include particularly novel designs. It's going to be a long time before we're a nuclear nation.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone's wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, etc.
No, they all want to see Titanic. The question is who wanted to see it in 3D. Maybe that added a small percentage of extra ticket sales over a plain-ol' re-release of Titanic, but mostly it's being able to see it again (or for the first time) on the big screen that is the draw.
What 3D really did is multiply the box office sales by the extra cost of a 3D ticket.
Why is a human lifetime the only meaningful context? Because we're human? That doesn't stop us from thinking about contexts where a human lifespan is too tiny a blip to even notice.
But again, that might not work for extra-solar star systems.
That's why limiting the definition to our solar system is actually a feature. :)
I use the dwarf planet / planet distinction, don't get me wrong. I also like dividing the bodies into 'region'-based categories. Inner planets, inner dwarf planets (asteroid belt planetoids), gas giants, ice dwarfs.
Which is great. As Neil Tyson said in an interview once, to him the important thing wasn't whether you called something a planet, it was what the properties of the object were. You have a big table of the objects and their properties, and if what you're interested in is icy bodies that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but not cleared their orbits, then you get a set of bodies that match that. And so on.
To me personally, I don't care about the word "planet" or "dwarf planet". I don't care what you call these things. I just care that we acknowledge extant differences between them -- such as that there are 8 objects orbiting the sun that have the ability to clean up their orbits of the vast majority of debris, and the rest which cannot even come close.
Separating Pluto from those 8 bodies isn't arbitrary. Neither is wanting to include it with them. The difference is that the latter is based on history and nostalgia, the former on science.
When did 130 ly become nearby?
As soon as the context became the stars.
Arbitrary means that the line has been drawn at a certain point because... we decided to draw the line at that point.
Well they didn't draw the line at a certain point because they didn't have to. The extant gap between bodies' orbit-clearing ability was already there and ridiculously huge. It's no more arbitrary than the distinction between the Americas and Eurasia. You might not be able to exactly where one begins and the other ends, but you don't have to because there's a gigantic gap where neither of them are.
Complaining "Why did you pick exactly that point?" when no point was picked, the 5-order-of-magnitude gap makes such a thing unnecessary, is missing the point.
Well in contrast to bodies in space, their inability to clear their debris field is most likely a direct consequence of their great mass. So calling them "dwarf humans" would be highly inaccurate.
There's nothing arbitrary about a 5-orders-of-magnitude difference in gravitational dominance. It's an obvious difference between objects in our solar system that should be acknowledged. Ignoring it would be stupid.
"People" don't like that Pluto got demoted; their objections to the definition are reverse-engineered from that emotional fact, as evidenced by not even trying to understand the physical reality that informs it.
Well guess what, Pluto fans? You're not much of a Pluto fan if your love is based around it being technically called a planet. The object is still just as awesome as it used to be. The only thing that changed is our understanding of its place in the solar system.
Not really; as far as we can tell Pluto is roughly spherical, and has sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.
Many people don't like the definition for many reasons. Among them, that what constitutes a "clear" orbit is not specified and is arbitrary (no planet has an orbit 100% free of other objects), that the point of 'hydrostatic equilibrium' is also unspecified and arbitrary, and that it only applies to the Solar System ("The Sun" is in there).
Those people ignore that there's a five order of magnitude difference
between the least of the planets is, versus the greatest of the dwarf planets.
The line between Europe and Asia is arbitrary. The line between Eurasia and the Americas is absolutely not -- you could draw the line with a brush a thousand miles wide. The situation in our solar system is the latter case.
The concept is that in 1988 the cryo units for travel were accidentally set for 281,474,976,710,656 years due to an endian mistake.
What I find amazing is not that such a simple mistake could be made, but that the cryo machines and the 16-bit computers running them were able to run for over 10^15 years!
Fucking nice job on the hardware, guys! But next time don't leave the drivers for the interns to write...
However, Figure 6 does not predict that all of that rise will occur prior to 1998, with a flat-to-falling trend since then.
Ah, 1998. The obvious choice for picking as the specific year to measure all warming against. Due to its magical properties of being a special goalpost, we can ignore the yearly variation that would normally necessitate a rolling average and shows temperatures rising unabated well into this decade. Instead we can simply compare temperatures to 1998 and 1998 only, because it's magic, and say the warming has stopped.
How fortunate that it was not actually 1999, or 1996, that were the magical goalposts! Then we'd be forced to conclude that the warming has accelerated after the change to the new post-magic-year epoch! Soon the earth will be cooked!
But nope, since we measure from 1998, and not 1999, and certainly not with valid statistical methods, we say any predictions of warming in the 1st decade of the 21st century were wrong.
Phew! What a relief!
Right, which is why it only matters for engineering professions where there are legal consequences for failure, rather than just marketplace consequences. Civil engineering in particular is a field where it matters.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Sorry, it kinda does, though much less so than people who oppose equal rights entirely. You're saying sure they should be able to have the legal benefits, but they should not be allowed to have your special designation of being "married". They can have "civil union" or something but "marriage" is special and should not be allowed for gays because your religion says so. This is inherently acting to make them second-class citizens.
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Especially when it's a one-way separation -- heterosexuals could have a "civil union" if they don't want to be called "married", but it doesn't go the other way.
Besides, what makes your religion's definition of marriage so special? What if they're of a religion that doesn't care?
There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets.
That's more than enough. These people don't want to be even subtly reminded that gays exist. Wanting to be able to exist in society without having to hide their identity, and creating entertainment that acknowledges that homosexuals exist, is "shoving the gay agenda down people's throats".
Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.
The mere fact that they are aware of its existence is enough.
And does it matter?
Think of it this way: If instead of an RPG where you basically craft whatever character you want and all the romance subplots are optional, what if it was a game about an openly gay character (with or without 'romance', and with appropriate age rating), and playing that character was the only option? Would that make their complaints legitimate?
You sure Step 2 isn't "set off the halon fire suppression system in the prison" or similar?
We regulate quite a few of them. I can't technically call myself an engineer in my state even though I am one and employers don't really care that I don't have the legal title. Lawyer, dentist, M.D., dietitian, and others are protected nationwide and for damn good reason imo.
Paper boy? Shit, if you want that title then I don't even care if you've ever slung a rolled up piece of bird cage liner into the mud before.
I can see why they sued then, 'cus if he gets to put "Astronaut who will date your daughter" on the ballot they wouldn't have a fuckin' chance!
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
So you don't think something with feathers could scary? Like, say, an eagle? Well fucking grizzly bears disagree with you -- maybe you should reconsider!
It's not self-sustainable. It's sustained by the sun.
So fuck the damn creationists. Doomsday, get my gun!
Wait, sorry, wrong cue.
No, he'll just say that all the failings were because of the government and none of them would have happened if not for that.
It's great, because since there's always a government around he can always blame it for anything that happens. "Oh, it wasn't a real free market." It's the same excuse used by communists.
Unlike the dog which man did actively do selective breeding, cats did it themselves. Humans created settlements, which stored grain, which attracted rodents, which attracted cats, which people encouraged to stay to kill more rodents.
Well of course we say they did it themselves; this is far better for cat-human relations. :)
But fair enough. Even if we take this to not be intentional on human's part, selective breeding did definitely go on, and the spread of the domestic cat was definitely due to conscious human decision.
You are effectively claiming that the police looked into the future and made false statements on the report for a crime that wasn't controversial at the time,
Because the police would only make false statements if they thought the case would end up being controversial?
Seems to me it's more likely they'd feel willing to doctor things to get the result they wanted if they thought it wouldn't be controversial, because "controversial" would imply "subjected to greater scrutiny".
Oh noes! The noise of windmills may cause "annoyance"! Oh woe is me! I feel so foolish for ever doubting these people than windmills were ruining their health! Because that's totally what they meant -- minor stress due to annoyance!
Only one little problem -- if annoyance is a reason to prevent something, then who wins between them being annoyed by windmills, and me being annoyed by people protesting windmills for retarded reasons?
Someone else posted that some windmills were built too close to houses (or vice versa) than recommended and that's fine. That doesn't apply to the majority of these people.
Because domestic cats outside North America aren't domestic, as in created by humans? No other parts of the world lacked small passerine-killing cats before the domestic cat was introduced?
That was a pretty flimsy straw you were grasping for, but you missed.
Well as long as we can agree that there are some places where they are perfect (maybe not Ontario, but definitely Texas), then it naturally follows that they should be part of the answer.
I think non-PV solar has a lot of potential, too. Some techniques solve the nighttime energy storage problem quite well.
I really wish we weren't in such a fucked situation with nuclear. New plants are being commissioned, but it's not enough and they don't include particularly novel designs. It's going to be a long time before we're a nuclear nation.