Magic phrase? Burden? You don't want somebody to keep calling you: the solution is to ask them not to call you again. Who's the one ignoring the obvious here?
I think the simplest way to solve #1 and #2 would be to take away the "enough mass to be round" and just set a simple mass threshold. I get a planet as being anything satisfying:
Mass above a certain threshold. I would call this PRECISELY Pluto's mass, as it means Pluto is empirically a planet (as it always has been) but hopefully there are no tenth planets. (Not sure if asteroids heavier than Pluto exist or not...)
Mass below the threshold of nuclear fusion (~0.084 solar masses)
Primary gravitational influence on the object is a star/post-star or collection of stars, where "star" is defined elsewhere...
This definition includes all existing planets and nothing else (I think). Objects not satisfying #1 are most likely comets, asteroids or moons. Those not satisfying #2 are stars or post-stars (e.g. black holes). Those not satisfying #3 would be moons.
This definition includes wandering planets, whose primary gravitational influences are still nearby stars and/or the gravity of the collection of stars known as the Milky Way, planets of binary systems, etc. Anybody see where it falls short?
The other way to do it would be to say "The IAU says what's a planet and what isn't, end of story."
There's a third way I just thought of. Call anything natural orbiting a star or collection of stars a planet, lower-case p, with obvious subcategories like "asteroid", "comet", "brown dwarf". Call anything natural orbiting a planet a moon (second-order planet). Anything natural orbiting a moon is a third-order planet. And so on. MVEMJSUNP we can call Planets with a capital P. These will be the ONLY Planets except for extrasolar planets that the IAU individually allows to join their ranks. This method is to-the-point and doesn't throw out any existing terminology as far as I can tell...
The honest reason? YRO is a poorly-named section. It's the closest thing/. has to a "Law" section, which is where stories like this would be better placed. As a result, a lot of law-related stories get put here because it's the closest thing to what the story actually relates to.
Personally I would like to see YRO renamed to (or retired in favour of) a new "Law for Nerds" section.
Sound doesn't need line-of sight. If you had access to the technology, you could conceivably do this using a laser mike from an open window across the street, or through the wall from the room behind the computer.
But names can't really be translated. I mean, yes, your name probably comes from some old Hebrew/Irish/whatever word meaning whatever it means, but there isn't going to be an alien equivalent of "Fred" any more than there's a French equivalent of "Fred". Certainly they will get no meaning from the names. At best, they will figure out that they have found a list of names, and what good will that do the aliens?
I vote we stick a copy of Wikipedia on that disc instead.
Finding intelligent life would be a big kick (in SOME sort of direction) for basically every major religion. What if the aliens have a Christ-like figure? What if they DON'T? Either way, as Clarke said in a different context, the thought is staggering.
Videogames do not promote violence. They are a safe outlet for violence. Divert your pent-up anger into dumb machines instead of other people.
And if somebody is the kind of person who would kill another person? His brain was most likely broken long before he touched a videogame. Maybe the videogame pushed him over the edge - but it could just as easily have been a violent movie, or a bad relationship, or somebody denting his car.
There are a few people who are broken, and there are a LOT of people who play videogames. Statistically, of course there's gonna be overlap. But I side with Bruce Schneier; generally, as long as it's still newsworthy, it's not worth worrying about. Stuff that happens so often it doesn't make the news, stuff like automobile fatalities: that's the stuff you need to start worrying about.
In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to find some way to bring the still-popular story back to the top, instead of presenting the same thing as new news twice?
Slashdot Mirror
Surely not!
Magic phrase? Burden? You don't want somebody to keep calling you: the solution is to ask them not to call you again. Who's the one ignoring the obvious here?
Oh come on! Nobody else watches The Daily Show?
And when I say "bad", what I mean is that the ATi X850 CrossFire is hurting America.
That definition excludes EARTH, you insensitive clod!
I think the simplest way to solve #1 and #2 would be to take away the "enough mass to be round" and just set a simple mass threshold. I get a planet as being anything satisfying:
This definition includes all existing planets and nothing else (I think). Objects not satisfying #1 are most likely comets, asteroids or moons. Those not satisfying #2 are stars or post-stars (e.g. black holes). Those not satisfying #3 would be moons.
This definition includes wandering planets, whose primary gravitational influences are still nearby stars and/or the gravity of the collection of stars known as the Milky Way, planets of binary systems, etc. Anybody see where it falls short?
The other way to do it would be to say "The IAU says what's a planet and what isn't, end of story."
There's a third way I just thought of. Call anything natural orbiting a star or collection of stars a planet, lower-case p, with obvious subcategories like "asteroid", "comet", "brown dwarf". Call anything natural orbiting a planet a moon (second-order planet). Anything natural orbiting a moon is a third-order planet. And so on. MVEMJSUNP we can call Planets with a capital P. These will be the ONLY Planets except for extrasolar planets that the IAU individually allows to join their ranks. This method is to-the-point and doesn't throw out any existing terminology as far as I can tell...
Similarities between Wikipedia and E2
Why E2 is different
As you say, you're a huge reader; you benefit more from economy of scale than most other people would.
The honest reason? YRO is a poorly-named section. It's the closest thing /. has to a "Law" section, which is where stories like this would be better placed. As a result, a lot of law-related stories get put here because it's the closest thing to what the story actually relates to.
Personally I would like to see YRO renamed to (or retired in favour of) a new "Law for Nerds" section.
What Fraser doesn't do in that episode, which this system does do, is test out all the keys to find out what sound they make.
Sound doesn't need line-of sight. If you had access to the technology, you could conceivably do this using a laser mike from an open window across the street, or through the wall from the room behind the computer.
great. you used up all the capital letters we had available and the next shipment isn't due until monday. i hope you're happy.
Personally I'm a big fan of telling tech support I have Windows 97.
I think you just infringed on the copyright on several existing late-night cable movies!
So THAT'S it! Of course! Suddenly, the last fifty years of political history make perfect sense.
Put it in your sig on /. and post +5 comments. It works. Really.
*fwash* There was no alternate Slashdot layout. What you saw was light from the planet Venus, refracted through swamp gas.
But names can't really be translated. I mean, yes, your name probably comes from some old Hebrew/Irish/whatever word meaning whatever it means, but there isn't going to be an alien equivalent of "Fred" any more than there's a French equivalent of "Fred". Certainly they will get no meaning from the names. At best, they will figure out that they have found a list of names, and what good will that do the aliens?
I vote we stick a copy of Wikipedia on that disc instead.
No, I'm pretty sure the song title is 2+2=5.
Finding intelligent life would be a big kick (in SOME sort of direction) for basically every major religion. What if the aliens have a Christ-like figure? What if they DON'T? Either way, as Clarke said in a different context, the thought is staggering.
Thousands of [rtGDS'p7500-0'p"£!$ now available at eBay!
That sounds like a challenge to me!
Videogames do not promote violence. They are a safe outlet for violence. Divert your pent-up anger into dumb machines instead of other people.
And if somebody is the kind of person who would kill another person? His brain was most likely broken long before he touched a videogame. Maybe the videogame pushed him over the edge - but it could just as easily have been a violent movie, or a bad relationship, or somebody denting his car.
There are a few people who are broken, and there are a LOT of people who play videogames. Statistically, of course there's gonna be overlap. But I side with Bruce Schneier; generally, as long as it's still newsworthy, it's not worth worrying about. Stuff that happens so often it doesn't make the news, stuff like automobile fatalities: that's the stuff you need to start worrying about.
In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to find some way to bring the still-popular story back to the top, instead of presenting the same thing as new news twice?
I dunno... I heard Finland was pretty good.