Hey man. Any other civilization would have just taken them out back and shot them long ago. Plus, I wouldn't believe everything you read from the London Mirror.
Yeah, but mechanics make jack shit. And we'll also have to worry about angry mechanics turning the warehouse into a scene from Terminator 2. Not only will one guy go postal, the whole place will go postal with him.
There is a reason that Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers in the case of a revolution. Unfortunately, I don't happen to know it (probably cause they'll make a mess of it with legal speak) so I will make something up. We shoudl kill all the lawyers as a reset to the system. The legal system is a mess. You have a revolution and keep the lawyers, it will remain a mess cause they will just show up afterwards and screw the system up again. So you kill them all off and the old system is prevented for at least a generation from coming back. Maybe we need to do the same in business. We should round up all these fervent 'maximizing profit' types and send them to a devils island like prison. Then we reset the system. The system at least for a generation is then protected from its own excesses and extremes. Of course then greed will take over and we'll have to get rid of the new business types again.
On a more peaceful side, we need accountability. Having your entire workforce ready to linch you is not good for any business. Maximizing profits today at the expense of tomarrow is not good for business. Look at the best companies on Earth. AT&T - the employees would probably be willing to die for the company at one point. Ford - They loved Henry Ford like a brother. High burnout rates and high employee dissatification is not a good business plan.
Do what they did in ancient times. If everyone felt collectively guilty for something, they picked someone at random and killed him. That was the traditional form of scapegoating - when you can't really blame anyone for your problems becuase no one is really responsible for them, you pick someone and blame them. We should do that in companies. Every week we can all vote to see who is happy and who isn't. If the number is above 50% for unhappy, we can all vote for someone to get the ax.
As far as business not having to care about the working slob, one would be well advised to remember the last people who held such an arrogant attitude, namely the french aristocracy. Like the old nobility, we don't keep around businesses becuase of god given rights or anything. We keep businesses around becuase they best serve the common good. Same with money. We don't have slavery and we don't take too much of the stuff you produce through your hardwork becuase of any god given right you may have to it. We let you keep it becuase it best serves the common good to let you keep it. The same with capitalism. We don't support capitalism cuase of anyones god given right to it. Now I know you will start qouting the declaration of independence about rights to pursuit of property/hapiness but remember the phrase that precedes it "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" but since no one can agree on god anymore, the truth is pretty evident that we are endowed with those rights becuase they serve the common good. Siociety lets us have those rights. The same was once true of the nobility. We left the nobility around becuase keeping them around served the common good, not becuase they had a god given right to rule. However, that changed. The moment they no longer served the common good we got rid of them: in france through violence, in england through reform. The same can be true for business. That is perhaps one of the only things Marx got right - people won't take abuse to infinity. Though his belief in inevitable revolution and the good of communism was completely unfounded, his truth still stands. Business would be wise to remember, you treat us like shit for too long and say to hell with the common good and we may come to your door and take back what we helped you to get.
When I was looking for a college to go to and something to major in (I like computers but I also like history and astronomy), the first thing I heard was find a career you like and stick with that major. I kept asking around cause I know plenty of people who were told taht and now hate their jobs. Then finally I ran into one guy who gave a different answer. He said don't go into a field you think is fun now just becuase you think its fun. Go into a field that is rewrding to you. What you find fun will change as youu get older. What you find enjoyable is different at the age of 28 then when your 18, different at the age of 48 then when your 38. The people who picked a career cause it was fun are the same people who now hate their jobs with a vegenance. But what you find rewarding almost never changes. You may not love what your doing. No one loves work their entire lives. But the fact that you went to work and came home feeling like you accomplished something is enough to make it worthwhile for you.
That's what I think is what happened to a lot of IT professionsals. Some came for the money and that contributes but I think a lot more came cause they say something that looked fun a couple of years back and now that thier a little older, they realize it isn't as fun as they thought it was. As I said, money contributes. A lot of ppl probably came to the industry cause they thought they found IT fun but really they just found making boatloads of cash fun. But in the end, it isn't what is fun but what is rewarding that counts. I don't like mowing the lawn but once its done and I can look at a freshly mowed lawn, its worth it.
One reviewer stated that the last version of Zelda was a great game for kids and a lot of girls might like playing it (no, I am not making that up - and it was a woman who said it). Metriod was cool but I don't many people who can justify a $250 purchase for one game. And mario sunshine? Come on. Isn't that the one where he cleans up pollution? What kind of video game player over the age of 12 would be caught doing that?!? You really have to look at the system as a whole. It may have one or two games for an adult but just one or two can't justify paying $200+ for a system. Not when playstation has a list of adult type games longer than the credits of starcraft. The Xbox is the same. With Nintendo you get one or two adult games and the rest are for kids. With the Xbox and PS2 you get adult games and one or two for kids. Plus, you probably have to figure in advertising. I don't hear about new sneakers cause I am not into sports - ie. I don't watch the places where I am likely to see ads for sports products. You may not hear about nintendo cause you're over the age of 12. In the end it comes down to what system has the heavy hitters like GTA3. Xbox has got it. PS2 has got it. Nintendo doesn't.
Most likely the battle will end in a truce. Just look at the plans for consoles. They are looking more and more like limited pcs. In the end, you won't even know the difference between the two.
I have a commodore 128 and its boot time is still slower than the good old Tandy coco2. Flip the switch and it was on. As far as load times go though, windows xp is a big improvement on the windows 98 load times. I used to turn the comp on, go otu and eat and by the time I got back it will just have completed its loading.
I'll say it again, teh more advanced consoles get, the more they will look like pcs. You connect consoles to the net and your end up with the same patch system of pcs. You'll want keyboards and mice for fps's so you'll need to add them to consoles. And you'll want your console to do just about everything your pc currently does. End result: you wind up with a machine that looks supiciously like a pc.
The upgrade is only a problem if you want the latest greatest stuff. I just bought an amd 2500+ and a decent graphics processor for only $200. Plays just about any game out there. And I only upgrade once every three or so years so it really isn't that much more expensive to keep the pc upgraded. At the most it will only cost you the cost of a decent console. Instead of buying a new playstation, just upgrade. (That is assuming you know what you are doing.) Plus I find it is cheaper to buy old pc games than old console games. When added to the fact that once you consider you can play just about anything on a pc (NES, SNES, genesis, atari, twenty year old computer games, etc..) where consoles limit it you more or less to the current machine, pc's begin to look better and better.
As far as patches go, you really think that when consoles start getting connected to the net, the same won't happen. And if you don't think console games have bugs, check out the bottom floor of the 99 level dungeon in lufia 2 (SNES).
" think that having a discernable stata and a core of different composition than the crust sounds like a good rule of thumb,"
What about planets like Jupiter that don't have a crust (at least not a discernable one) and theroretically don't have a terrible discernable strata beyond a series of cloud decks covering an ocean of helium and a core of solid hydrogen.
Pluto is the roman god of the dead and closely resembles the greek god Hades. Personally, I say we anme the three: quinor, sedna, and pluto collectively Cerberus.
What about asteroid belts with planets stuck in them? What if we run into two planets in the same orbit but orbiting at such a speed that they don't collide? What about gas gainst orbitted by super dense asteroids?
"Only major planets have moons."
There are several asteorids in the asteroid belt that have their own moons. Some of the moons of the gas giants, if not in this solar system then undoubtfully in others, have their own moons. Henhce, in true/. tradition, you fail it (or rather your hypothesis fails.)
Its like pond and lake. The definition of a pond is a body of water smaller than a lake and bigger than etc.. The definition of a lake is a body of water larger than a pond and etc.. Their are lakes larger than seas and some smaller than ponds. Their are puddles in the rainforest classified as lakes. What's a lake? What's a pond? Spent an entire hour in seventh grade science class tryng to come up with a good definition and we couldn't come up with one. The teacher said he asked a few phd's and a few professors and they didn't know. He spent weeks trying to come up with one himself and he couldn't. Its an almost entirely subjective label.
Well, when someone says 'planet', that should mean something. Like when someone says vegtable, certain characteristics should come to mind. The question is what those characteristic that come to mind should be. Also, some astronomers when searching through viable canidates want to limit that search as much as possibel before having to indivisually examine each one. It's easier to understand in terms of stars: you want to classify them in such a way that ppl searching for ones that might have planets can easily cross a bunch off the list - the indices are a pain in the ass to search when it comes to looking up more data on an object from what I hear. The same with planets and asteroids, etc. If your looking for bodies with certain characteristics, good and meaningful classification becomes incredibly useful. Plus, it helps spikes kids interests in space if they can come home and feel good about the fact tehy know all the planets. Builds confidence and hence more curiousity and all that...
I think he was talking about their biological classification dude, and not their use in the english language. In other words, kingdom, genus, species, etc. The two groups in biology are exclusive.
Brontosaurous and Apatasaurous(sic) are the same creature. At the time these names began to be first used, their was a competition in paleontology(sic) between two american scientists over who could find more species of dinosaurs. They worked for competing interests (namely museums) and each went about scouring the world for new species and attaching their names to them in order to rack up a larger number and hence a bigger reputation. I forget the whole story (Nova did a show on it, so did the history channel) but when all was said and done, it was realized that they had independently found specimens of the several of the same species and had given them different names. The classic example is the brontosaurus and apatasaurous(sic). They had both given them their own names in order to get a higher count and neither had bothered to check to see if the other had already found such a specimen. So since the apatasaurus(sic) was discovered first, the species kept that name and they dropped brontosaurous. If anyone was idiotic it was the two ppl who orginally competed over the names and, if anything, common sense dictates that continuing to call the same species two different names is the greater stupidity.
"One doesn't deny a Chihuahua a place among dogs because it is too small."
First: The designation 'planet' should mean something. Sure we can group small dogs under the category of dogs but that doesn't mean we can go around calling pomeranians' greyhounds. The same with planets. We can group pluto and sedna under the category of masses but we shouldn't call them planets. Planets should be its own category of the junk floating around in the universe, just as asteroids and comets are categories. When someone says this object is a planet we should thus be able to make some assumptions about that object. Otherwise we have to break that category up even more. If we have to have sedna added and a couple hundred other, the category of planets becomes so vague that it becomes meaningless. Thus we will have to break the category of planets up into sub categories in order to get any meaning out of it: gas gaints, rocky planets, etc.. Think of it like the dogs again. If we call every dog a pomeranian then the label 'pomeranian' loses its meaning.
Now the problems with his gravity rules. The first problem is moons. No one wants to call luna a planet. If we go around saying a planet in the solar system (Jupiter) has 32 other planets orbiting it, things will get very confusing awfully quick. So we would want to declare that for it to be a planet it has to orbit the sun. But then their is the problem of 'planets' that orbit each other. For example, we see this in some asteroids - two asteroids that orbit each other while traveling in a circular path around the sun - similiar to binary star systems where two stars orbit each other and tavel in a circular path around the galaxy. They can't both be moons. They can't both be planets. And what about rogue planets that no longer orbit a star but have been orphaned and are currently floating in interstellar space.
The second problem is comet-like bodies. What if you have a planet that as it orbits its sun sheds its atmosphere and mass to the point that it loses the gravity necessary to keep it circular. Likewise, what if you run into an asteroid that through a series of collisions gains enough mass to become a planet. This is fine but what happens when you have a whole belt of such objects. When you classify something, its best it stays in that classification for awhile or else the act of classification becomes somewhat meaningless. For example, you don't classify water by its mass in a rain storm cause that mass is constantly changing. Rather you state the rate of that change. If you didn't, you'd be forced to constantly reclassify it every observation.
So simply stating that gravity rule as the only criteria doesn't work. We'd have to make it more complex. Moons aren't planets (assuming you still want the word moon and planet to mean anything - and yes I know some moons could have their own moons). Belts like the asteroid belt and the kuiper belt where objects could conceivably change in every observation from planet to non planet and back would create a nightmare for astronomers using such a system. And remember these are only problems we face with a small data set like our solar system. Add in problems like the Super jupiters, some of which are undoubtfully brown stars or close to becoming them, and other as of yet unknowns and one could only imagine even more problems would arise in the gravity rule system. Now if these means adding addition requirements or not, or perhaps just abandoning the whole system is anybodies guess. He's write in stating you can't just use the old size requirement - but that was and is why we called pluto a planet and ceres an asteroid. Becuase someone said theres a size difference - there is really no other reason. Some asteroids have atmospheres. Some have moons. Some planets don't have moons. Some planets have moons larger than other planets. Perhaps the best bet is to just throw all the labels out and start over.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey man. Any other civilization would have just taken them out back and shot them long ago. Plus, I wouldn't believe everything you read from the London Mirror.
Yeah, but mechanics make jack shit. And we'll also have to worry about angry mechanics turning the warehouse into a scene from Terminator 2. Not only will one guy go postal, the whole place will go postal with him.
Webster agrees with wikpedia.
Entry for Hades
Gnome got powned. On a more serious note, I bet it was some deranged KDE fan or something. The GUI wars have been heating lately.
There is a reason that Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers in the case of a revolution. Unfortunately, I don't happen to know it (probably cause they'll make a mess of it with legal speak) so I will make something up. We shoudl kill all the lawyers as a reset to the system. The legal system is a mess. You have a revolution and keep the lawyers, it will remain a mess cause they will just show up afterwards and screw the system up again. So you kill them all off and the old system is prevented for at least a generation from coming back. Maybe we need to do the same in business. We should round up all these fervent 'maximizing profit' types and send them to a devils island like prison. Then we reset the system. The system at least for a generation is then protected from its own excesses and extremes. Of course then greed will take over and we'll have to get rid of the new business types again.
On a more peaceful side, we need accountability. Having your entire workforce ready to linch you is not good for any business. Maximizing profits today at the expense of tomarrow is not good for business. Look at the best companies on Earth. AT&T - the employees would probably be willing to die for the company at one point. Ford - They loved Henry Ford like a brother. High burnout rates and high employee dissatification is not a good business plan.
Do what they did in ancient times. If everyone felt collectively guilty for something, they picked someone at random and killed him. That was the traditional form of scapegoating - when you can't really blame anyone for your problems becuase no one is really responsible for them, you pick someone and blame them. We should do that in companies. Every week we can all vote to see who is happy and who isn't. If the number is above 50% for unhappy, we can all vote for someone to get the ax.
As far as business not having to care about the working slob, one would be well advised to remember the last people who held such an arrogant attitude, namely the french aristocracy. Like the old nobility, we don't keep around businesses becuase of god given rights or anything. We keep businesses around becuase they best serve the common good. Same with money. We don't have slavery and we don't take too much of the stuff you produce through your hardwork becuase of any god given right you may have to it. We let you keep it becuase it best serves the common good to let you keep it. The same with capitalism. We don't support capitalism cuase of anyones god given right to it. Now I know you will start qouting the declaration of independence about rights to pursuit of property/hapiness but remember the phrase that precedes it "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" but since no one can agree on god anymore, the truth is pretty evident that we are endowed with those rights becuase they serve the common good. Siociety lets us have those rights. The same was once true of the nobility. We left the nobility around becuase keeping them around served the common good, not becuase they had a god given right to rule. However, that changed. The moment they no longer served the common good we got rid of them: in france through violence, in england through reform. The same can be true for business. That is perhaps one of the only things Marx got right - people won't take abuse to infinity. Though his belief in inevitable revolution and the good of communism was completely unfounded, his truth still stands. Business would be wise to remember, you treat us like shit for too long and say to hell with the common good and we may come to your door and take back what we helped you to get.
Cause I don't have time to read it.
Shh, dude. Someone will hear ya. Then the cubicle police will come and drag you to the dungeon of the evil human resources director.
When I was looking for a college to go to and something to major in (I like computers but I also like history and astronomy), the first thing I heard was find a career you like and stick with that major. I kept asking around cause I know plenty of people who were told taht and now hate their jobs. Then finally I ran into one guy who gave a different answer. He said don't go into a field you think is fun now just becuase you think its fun. Go into a field that is rewrding to you. What you find fun will change as youu get older. What you find enjoyable is different at the age of 28 then when your 18, different at the age of 48 then when your 38. The people who picked a career cause it was fun are the same people who now hate their jobs with a vegenance. But what you find rewarding almost never changes. You may not love what your doing. No one loves work their entire lives. But the fact that you went to work and came home feeling like you accomplished something is enough to make it worthwhile for you.
That's what I think is what happened to a lot of IT professionsals. Some came for the money and that contributes but I think a lot more came cause they say something that looked fun a couple of years back and now that thier a little older, they realize it isn't as fun as they thought it was. As I said, money contributes. A lot of ppl probably came to the industry cause they thought they found IT fun but really they just found making boatloads of cash fun. But in the end, it isn't what is fun but what is rewarding that counts. I don't like mowing the lawn but once its done and I can look at a freshly mowed lawn, its worth it.
One reviewer stated that the last version of Zelda was a great game for kids and a lot of girls might like playing it (no, I am not making that up - and it was a woman who said it). Metriod was cool but I don't many people who can justify a $250 purchase for one game. And mario sunshine? Come on. Isn't that the one where he cleans up pollution? What kind of video game player over the age of 12 would be caught doing that?!? You really have to look at the system as a whole. It may have one or two games for an adult but just one or two can't justify paying $200+ for a system. Not when playstation has a list of adult type games longer than the credits of starcraft. The Xbox is the same. With Nintendo you get one or two adult games and the rest are for kids. With the Xbox and PS2 you get adult games and one or two for kids. Plus, you probably have to figure in advertising. I don't hear about new sneakers cause I am not into sports - ie. I don't watch the places where I am likely to see ads for sports products. You may not hear about nintendo cause you're over the age of 12. In the end it comes down to what system has the heavy hitters like GTA3. Xbox has got it. PS2 has got it. Nintendo doesn't.
Exacty. Plus when consoles can connect to the net, how long before console games adopt the release now patch later model of pcs?
Most likely the battle will end in a truce. Just look at the plans for consoles. They are looking more and more like limited pcs. In the end, you won't even know the difference between the two.
I have a commodore 128 and its boot time is still slower than the good old Tandy coco2. Flip the switch and it was on. As far as load times go though, windows xp is a big improvement on the windows 98 load times. I used to turn the comp on, go otu and eat and by the time I got back it will just have completed its loading.
I'll say it again, teh more advanced consoles get, the more they will look like pcs. You connect consoles to the net and your end up with the same patch system of pcs. You'll want keyboards and mice for fps's so you'll need to add them to consoles. And you'll want your console to do just about everything your pc currently does. End result: you wind up with a machine that looks supiciously like a pc.
The upgrade is only a problem if you want the latest greatest stuff. I just bought an amd 2500+ and a decent graphics processor for only $200. Plays just about any game out there. And I only upgrade once every three or so years so it really isn't that much more expensive to keep the pc upgraded. At the most it will only cost you the cost of a decent console. Instead of buying a new playstation, just upgrade. (That is assuming you know what you are doing.) Plus I find it is cheaper to buy old pc games than old console games. When added to the fact that once you consider you can play just about anything on a pc (NES, SNES, genesis, atari, twenty year old computer games, etc..) where consoles limit it you more or less to the current machine, pc's begin to look better and better.
As far as patches go, you really think that when consoles start getting connected to the net, the same won't happen. And if you don't think console games have bugs, check out the bottom floor of the 99 level dungeon in lufia 2 (SNES).
" think that having a discernable stata and a core of different composition than the crust sounds like a good rule of thumb,"
What about planets like Jupiter that don't have a crust (at least not a discernable one) and theroretically don't have a terrible discernable strata beyond a series of cloud decks covering an ocean of helium and a core of solid hydrogen.
Pluto is the roman god of the dead and closely resembles the greek god Hades. Personally, I say we anme the three: quinor, sedna, and pluto collectively Cerberus.
What about asteroid belts with planets stuck in them? What if we run into two planets in the same orbit but orbiting at such a speed that they don't collide? What about gas gainst orbitted by super dense asteroids?
"Only major planets have moons." /. tradition, you fail it (or rather your hypothesis fails.)
There are several asteorids in the asteroid belt that have their own moons. Some of the moons of the gas giants, if not in this solar system then undoubtfully in others, have their own moons. Henhce, in true
So those circular drops of astronaut piss floating in space are actually planets? cool...
Its like pond and lake. The definition of a pond is a body of water smaller than a lake and bigger than etc.. The definition of a lake is a body of water larger than a pond and etc.. Their are lakes larger than seas and some smaller than ponds. Their are puddles in the rainforest classified as lakes. What's a lake? What's a pond? Spent an entire hour in seventh grade science class tryng to come up with a good definition and we couldn't come up with one. The teacher said he asked a few phd's and a few professors and they didn't know. He spent weeks trying to come up with one himself and he couldn't. Its an almost entirely subjective label.
Well, when someone says 'planet', that should mean something. Like when someone says vegtable, certain characteristics should come to mind. The question is what those characteristic that come to mind should be. Also, some astronomers when searching through viable canidates want to limit that search as much as possibel before having to indivisually examine each one. It's easier to understand in terms of stars: you want to classify them in such a way that ppl searching for ones that might have planets can easily cross a bunch off the list - the indices are a pain in the ass to search when it comes to looking up more data on an object from what I hear. The same with planets and asteroids, etc. If your looking for bodies with certain characteristics, good and meaningful classification becomes incredibly useful. Plus, it helps spikes kids interests in space if they can come home and feel good about the fact tehy know all the planets. Builds confidence and hence more curiousity and all that...
I think he was talking about their biological classification dude, and not their use in the english language. In other words, kingdom, genus, species, etc. The two groups in biology are exclusive.
Brontosaurous and Apatasaurous(sic) are the same creature. At the time these names began to be first used, their was a competition in paleontology(sic) between two american scientists over who could find more species of dinosaurs. They worked for competing interests (namely museums) and each went about scouring the world for new species and attaching their names to them in order to rack up a larger number and hence a bigger reputation. I forget the whole story (Nova did a show on it, so did the history channel) but when all was said and done, it was realized that they had independently found specimens of the several of the same species and had given them different names. The classic example is the brontosaurus and apatasaurous(sic). They had both given them their own names in order to get a higher count and neither had bothered to check to see if the other had already found such a specimen. So since the apatasaurus(sic) was discovered first, the species kept that name and they dropped brontosaurous. If anyone was idiotic it was the two ppl who orginally competed over the names and, if anything, common sense dictates that continuing to call the same species two different names is the greater stupidity.
"One doesn't deny a Chihuahua a place among dogs because it is too small."
First: The designation 'planet' should mean something. Sure we can group small dogs under the category of dogs but that doesn't mean we can go around calling pomeranians' greyhounds. The same with planets. We can group pluto and sedna under the category of masses but we shouldn't call them planets. Planets should be its own category of the junk floating around in the universe, just as asteroids and comets are categories. When someone says this object is a planet we should thus be able to make some assumptions about that object. Otherwise we have to break that category up even more. If we have to have sedna added and a couple hundred other, the category of planets becomes so vague that it becomes meaningless. Thus we will have to break the category of planets up into sub categories in order to get any meaning out of it: gas gaints, rocky planets, etc.. Think of it like the dogs again. If we call every dog a pomeranian then the label 'pomeranian' loses its meaning.
Now the problems with his gravity rules. The first problem is moons. No one wants to call luna a planet. If we go around saying a planet in the solar system (Jupiter) has 32 other planets orbiting it, things will get very confusing awfully quick. So we would want to declare that for it to be a planet it has to orbit the sun. But then their is the problem of 'planets' that orbit each other. For example, we see this in some asteroids - two asteroids that orbit each other while traveling in a circular path around the sun - similiar to binary star systems where two stars orbit each other and tavel in a circular path around the galaxy. They can't both be moons. They can't both be planets. And what about rogue planets that no longer orbit a star but have been orphaned and are currently floating in interstellar space.
The second problem is comet-like bodies. What if you have a planet that as it orbits its sun sheds its atmosphere and mass to the point that it loses the gravity necessary to keep it circular. Likewise, what if you run into an asteroid that through a series of collisions gains enough mass to become a planet. This is fine but what happens when you have a whole belt of such objects. When you classify something, its best it stays in that classification for awhile or else the act of classification becomes somewhat meaningless. For example, you don't classify water by its mass in a rain storm cause that mass is constantly changing. Rather you state the rate of that change. If you didn't, you'd be forced to constantly reclassify it every observation.
So simply stating that gravity rule as the only criteria doesn't work. We'd have to make it more complex. Moons aren't planets (assuming you still want the word moon and planet to mean anything - and yes I know some moons could have their own moons). Belts like the asteroid belt and the kuiper belt where objects could conceivably change in every observation from planet to non planet and back would create a nightmare for astronomers using such a system. And remember these are only problems we face with a small data set like our solar system. Add in problems like the Super jupiters, some of which are undoubtfully brown stars or close to becoming them, and other as of yet unknowns and one could only imagine even more problems would arise in the gravity rule system. Now if these means adding addition requirements or not, or perhaps just abandoning the whole system is anybodies guess. He's write in stating you can't just use the old size requirement - but that was and is why we called pluto a planet and ceres an asteroid. Becuase someone said theres a size difference - there is really no other reason. Some asteroids have atmospheres. Some have moons. Some planets don't have moons. Some planets have moons larger than other planets. Perhaps the best bet is to just throw all the labels out and start over.