The 2006 definition of "planet" by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that in the solar system a planet is a celestial body that:
is in orbit around the Sun,
has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.
The Wikipedia article for planet states that "[The] definition is drawn from two separate IAU declarations; a formal definition agreed by the Union in 2006, and an informal working definition established by the Union in 2003. The 2006 definition, while official, applies only to our Solar System, while the 2003 definition applies to planets around other stars. The extrasolar planet issue was deemed too complex to resolve at the 2006 IAU conference." [endnote a; emphasis mine]
Thus, thus current formal definition for a planet does not include objects outside our solar system.
(In other words, I'm Right and You're Wrong. Nya Nya!)
What's next, a EULA that grants the software company my indentured servitude?
You do understand that you don't have to agree to an EULA, don't you?
Too many people these days have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. It really is very simple: If you wrote the software, you can do whatever you want with it. If you didn't write the software, you have to abide by the wishes of the person who did. If you don't want to, don't use the software. Period.
Oh, and in case you think that you are forced to agree to a license by reading it, or opening a box, or downloading a link, you're not. You have to knowingly agree to the license to be bound by it's terms - in other words, you have to know it's a license and you have to know you are agreeing to it.
I'm sure there are plenty of websites, forums or blogs that can clue you into the implications of accepting a particular license well before you make a purchase. Try making an informed decision sometime - true, you'll have a lot less to complain about, but when you do there's a better chance that someone might actually give a shit.
How exactly are you going to get users to accept an EULA for a virus?
"Hello, I'm a virus about to infect your computer - please read the following statement and click 'I Agree' to continue or 'Cancel' to abort infection."
Two years ago, I knew how many "planets" our solar system contained. Then a change was made... then changed again... now another. I do not even know the total any more.
Life is change. You should probably try to get used to that idea if you have any hopes for happiness.
The current definition of 'planet' is specifically restricted to describing objects within our solar system. Your latter two points are thus irrelevant and your first does not carry enough weight on it's own to be convincing. Hence your argument is refuted.
Once we have a better understanding of the dynamics of other star systems, we can think about a more inclusive definition. For now, we shouldn't worry about them because, as you said, observation is difficult and any conclusions we make now are subject to change.
In our own star system, the only system we can observe directly and thus the only system we can have any real knowledge of, Pluto is not, and never was, a planet. Get over it.
I agree. Even if it was decided to keep Pluto as a 'planet', we would still have to come up with a new name for the eight large objects that orbit our Sun in a manner unlike anything else in the solar system (specifically, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).
There is little room for sentiment in science. Things are what they are, and if it is discovered that something is being called something it shouldn't be, it has to be changed. Some people just don't get that.
The good news is that in this case, it isn't likely to happen again. Apart from the distinction between terrestrial and gaseous, the definition for planet seems pretty solid (I do expect the term 'exoplanet' to be absorbed into the definition of planet in the long term, though. Either that or we'll be extinct and it won't matter what anything is called anymore:-).
This doesn't prove he's guilty. He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence. I still have faith that the real story will come out.
Yeah, because the "I didn't do it but I know where the body is buried" argument will look so good on appeal.
I will refrain from calling you "Jackass" on the basis that you are taking the piss.
The problem is that software industry (FOSS or otherwise) is full of lightweights with no real understanding of computers or programming. The proof of this statement is in the pudding (i.e. the general low quality of software worldwide).
Because computers are deterministic, one could in fact write software that is 100% reliable and bug free. It would just take a monstrous amount of time, and adding more people to the project will not make it go any faster (see Brook's Law).
The market currently demands software at a rate many orders of magnitude more then it can be delivered. So the market compromises, as the market does, and tolerates substandard software. This practically guarantees that software will get progressively worse as time goes on.
Franky, I think programmers should be educated much like doctors: After all, if just anyone could pick up a scalpel and call themselves a surgeon, people would be dropping dead left, right and center. The same strictures should apply to the software development industry. The market can crash and burn for all I care.
By the way, just in case you're wondering, the Slashdot community is no exception.
Then I guess the exceptions are selling exceptionally well, wouldn't you think?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Hold on, let me translate your statement into real words:
I'm so in love with my own opinion that, even though my argument has been successfully countered, I'll through a complete non sequitur into the mix whilst misrepresenting the previous poster's sentiment.
Let me clear things up for you, just in case you're too dense to figure it out yourself: In all the cases you cited above, the music is being used as a sound effect. That does not make all music sound effects, no matter how many units are sold.
I'm surprised you have the balls to post such garbage using your screen name. You might as well hold up a big poster saying "I'm mweather and I'm a clueless dickhead".
"Any sufficiently advanced communications technology is indistinguishable from noise."
Umm, I think the decrypter/decoder might be able to make such distinction. In fact, one could argue that it is in fact a defining characteristic of such a device.
With all due respect (and you know what that means in this forum:-P), a call Dpilot's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law bogus.
So, more evidence supporting general relativity, but we still insist on viewing it as an approximation of a quantum-mechanical system (like how Newtonian physics can be viewed as an approximation of relativity).
My understanding is that relativity has been directly observed several times, whereas quantum theory is still just based on the interpretation of a series of controlled laboratory experiments, which mostly amounts to sifting through the wreckage of a high-energy collision and trying to derive the original state from the leftover pieces.
Isn't it about time to abandon the concept of the graviton and just accept that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is simply the observed effect of the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of matter and energy?
There's a saying in engineering: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
... and the faint (but real) possibility that the whole thing will cycle out of control and render the planet uninhabitable.
There is absolutely nothing, nothing, that the human race can to that will render this planet uninhabitable. Too believe otherwise is supreme arrogance.
Even if we simultaneously launched every nuclear, chemical and biological weapon and dumped every ounce of toxic waste, a million years later there would be no indication that we had done anything at all except for a thin radioactive smear in the fossil record.
The only things that could end life on Earth are the Sun (which will do so in about a billion or two years when it gets so hot it will boil away the oceans) or a collision with another celestial body (and it would have to be a big one - the last few didn't do squat in the life-terminating department).
Simply put, life is the most powerful force in the universe. The human race, however, is another matter...
Your argument is lame and by extension so are you. Try saying some of that shit during a job interview sometime - I can tell you, if I was sitting on the other side of the table you would be out on your ass.
Writing readable code is a discipline, and as such it requires a commitment from the programmer. A language that engages in 'hand-holding' techniques (a criticism traditionally directed at Pascal and it's derivatives) will reduce the overall skill of a programmer versus a language that, so to speak, throws you to the wolves.
In other words, a long-term Python developer will be by definition a lesser programmer then a long-term C-style-language developer, for the simple reason they they have never needed to develop a discipline for writing readable code. The language took care of it for them so they didn't have to.
By the way, I write in assembly for kicks. That's commitment!
... it forces you to write readable, well indented code...
Decent programmers do not require features in the language in order to make their code readable. Conversely, nothing will help an inadequate programmer write readable code; it's something that comes with experience.
Using whitespaces as a block delimiter is a stupid, stupid idea, and anyone who thinks it isn't is a stupid, stupid programmer.
Come back when you have a few decades as a maintenance programmer behind you and tell me otherwise.
If I offer to pay someone $30 for raking the leaves and mowing the grass in my yard, when you agree to do it, you have made a contract with me without any negotiations.
"What? Sorry, I thought you were just giving me $30 for no reason. I don't recall you ever asking me to rake your lawn. Can you prove otherwise? What conversation? I don't recall any conversation. Do you have something with my signature on it that says I will rake your lawn? No? Then fuck off!"
A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties - you cannot have a contract without some proof that all parties have agreed to the terms of the contract. Furthermore, most contracts, at least the ones I've signed, require a witness signature to be legally binding. Do any of these things happen when you "agree" to the terms of the GPL or "accept" an EULA (Note that it is not called an EUC. Why do you think that is?)
No, they don't. Because they're not contracts, they are licenses.
So take what they say with a grain of salt. After all, it is their job to promote their products.
Free software isn't a product, it's a philosophy. Try and see if you can figure out the difference; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Your safe search is off, which triggers my URL filtering to block google. It's a great way to catch people who hang out on the seedier side of google images.
Or people who don't like to have their search results artificially curtailed by someone else's sense of unreasonable morality.
Slashdot Mirror
'Planet' is not specific to our solar system.
Yes it is:
The 2006 definition of "planet" by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that in the solar system a planet is a celestial body that:
The Wikipedia article for planet states that "[The] definition is drawn from two separate IAU declarations; a formal definition agreed by the Union in 2006, and an informal working definition established by the Union in 2003. The 2006 definition, while official, applies only to our Solar System, while the 2003 definition applies to planets around other stars. The extrasolar planet issue was deemed too complex to resolve at the 2006 IAU conference." [endnote a; emphasis mine]
Thus, thus current formal definition for a planet does not include objects outside our solar system.
(In other words, I'm Right and You're Wrong. Nya Nya!)
That's the way politics sections work ...
One could argue that that's the way politics works as well.
What's next, a EULA that grants the software company my indentured servitude?
You do understand that you don't have to agree to an EULA, don't you?
Too many people these days have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. It really is very simple: If you wrote the software, you can do whatever you want with it. If you didn't write the software, you have to abide by the wishes of the person who did. If you don't want to, don't use the software. Period.
Oh, and in case you think that you are forced to agree to a license by reading it, or opening a box, or downloading a link, you're not. You have to knowingly agree to the license to be bound by it's terms - in other words, you have to know it's a license and you have to know you are agreeing to it.
I'm sure there are plenty of websites, forums or blogs that can clue you into the implications of accepting a particular license well before you make a purchase. Try making an informed decision sometime - true, you'll have a lot less to complain about, but when you do there's a better chance that someone might actually give a shit.
Write a benign virus ... put an EULA on i ...
How exactly are you going to get users to accept an EULA for a virus?
"Hello, I'm a virus about to infect your computer - please read the following statement and click 'I Agree' to continue or 'Cancel' to abort infection."
Two years ago, I knew how many "planets" our solar system contained. Then a change was made... then changed again... now another. I do not even know the total any more.
Life is change. You should probably try to get used to that idea if you have any hopes for happiness.
The current definition of 'planet' is specifically restricted to describing objects within our solar system. Your latter two points are thus irrelevant and your first does not carry enough weight on it's own to be convincing. Hence your argument is refuted.
Once we have a better understanding of the dynamics of other star systems, we can think about a more inclusive definition. For now, we shouldn't worry about them because, as you said, observation is difficult and any conclusions we make now are subject to change.
In our own star system, the only system we can observe directly and thus the only system we can have any real knowledge of, Pluto is not, and never was, a planet. Get over it.
I agree. Even if it was decided to keep Pluto as a 'planet', we would still have to come up with a new name for the eight large objects that orbit our Sun in a manner unlike anything else in the solar system (specifically, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).
There is little room for sentiment in science. Things are what they are, and if it is discovered that something is being called something it shouldn't be, it has to be changed. Some people just don't get that.
The good news is that in this case, it isn't likely to happen again. Apart from the distinction between terrestrial and gaseous, the definition for planet seems pretty solid (I do expect the term 'exoplanet' to be absorbed into the definition of planet in the long term, though. Either that or we'll be extinct and it won't matter what anything is called anymore :-).
I think a better way to win would be to get the other guy to not play. Maybe a well-timed kick to the groin would do the trick?
This doesn't prove he's guilty. He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence. I still have faith that the real story will come out.
Yeah, because the "I didn't do it but I know where the body is buried" argument will look so good on appeal.
I will refrain from calling you "Jackass" on the basis that you are taking the piss.
The problem is that software industry (FOSS or otherwise) is full of lightweights with no real understanding of computers or programming. The proof of this statement is in the pudding (i.e. the general low quality of software worldwide).
Because computers are deterministic, one could in fact write software that is 100% reliable and bug free. It would just take a monstrous amount of time, and adding more people to the project will not make it go any faster (see Brook's Law).
The market currently demands software at a rate many orders of magnitude more then it can be delivered. So the market compromises, as the market does, and tolerates substandard software. This practically guarantees that software will get progressively worse as time goes on.
Franky, I think programmers should be educated much like doctors: After all, if just anyone could pick up a scalpel and call themselves a surgeon, people would be dropping dead left, right and center. The same strictures should apply to the software development industry. The market can crash and burn for all I care.
By the way, just in case you're wondering, the Slashdot community is no exception.
Then I guess the exceptions are selling exceptionally well, wouldn't you think?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Hold on, let me translate your statement into real words:
I'm so in love with my own opinion that, even though my argument has been successfully countered, I'll through a complete non sequitur into the mix whilst misrepresenting the previous poster's sentiment.
Let me clear things up for you, just in case you're too dense to figure it out yourself: In all the cases you cited above, the music is being used as a sound effect. That does not make all music sound effects, no matter how many units are sold.
Do you get it now, dickhead?
Clearly you have never done any sysadmin work.
I'm surprised you have the balls to post such garbage using your screen name. You might as well hold up a big poster saying "I'm mweather and I'm a clueless dickhead".
Idiot.
"Any sufficiently advanced communications technology is indistinguishable from noise."
Umm, I think the decrypter/decoder might be able to make such distinction. In fact, one could argue that it is in fact a defining characteristic of such a device.
With all due respect (and you know what that means in this forum :-P), a call Dpilot's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law bogus.
Hi.
I just found this closing parenthesis: )
Does it belong to you?
So, more evidence supporting general relativity, but we still insist on viewing it as an approximation of a quantum-mechanical system (like how Newtonian physics can be viewed as an approximation of relativity).
My understanding is that relativity has been directly observed several times, whereas quantum theory is still just based on the interpretation of a series of controlled laboratory experiments, which mostly amounts to sifting through the wreckage of a high-energy collision and trying to derive the original state from the leftover pieces.
Isn't it about time to abandon the concept of the graviton and just accept that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is simply the observed effect of the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of matter and energy?
There's a saying in engineering: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Probably. I'll work on it.
Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"
Alright, I'll bite:
"All Americans suck [air] because nature has selected that as the best way to get oxygen into the bloodstream."
Now where's my +5?
... and the faint (but real) possibility that the whole thing will cycle out of control and render the planet uninhabitable.
There is absolutely nothing, nothing, that the human race can to that will render this planet uninhabitable. Too believe otherwise is supreme arrogance.
Even if we simultaneously launched every nuclear, chemical and biological weapon and dumped every ounce of toxic waste, a million years later there would be no indication that we had done anything at all except for a thin radioactive smear in the fossil record.
The only things that could end life on Earth are the Sun (which will do so in about a billion or two years when it gets so hot it will boil away the oceans) or a collision with another celestial body (and it would have to be a big one - the last few didn't do squat in the life-terminating department).
Simply put, life is the most powerful force in the universe. The human race, however, is another matter...
Your argument is lame and by extension so are you. Try saying some of that shit during a job interview sometime - I can tell you, if I was sitting on the other side of the table you would be out on your ass.
Writing readable code is a discipline, and as such it requires a commitment from the programmer. A language that engages in 'hand-holding' techniques (a criticism traditionally directed at Pascal and it's derivatives) will reduce the overall skill of a programmer versus a language that, so to speak, throws you to the wolves.
In other words, a long-term Python developer will be by definition a lesser programmer then a long-term C-style-language developer, for the simple reason they they have never needed to develop a discipline for writing readable code. The language took care of it for them so they didn't have to.
By the way, I write in assembly for kicks. That's commitment!
... it forces you to write readable, well indented code ...
Decent programmers do not require features in the language in order to make their code readable. Conversely, nothing will help an inadequate programmer write readable code; it's something that comes with experience.
Using whitespaces as a block delimiter is a stupid, stupid idea, and anyone who thinks it isn't is a stupid, stupid programmer.
Come back when you have a few decades as a maintenance programmer behind you and tell me otherwise.
Wow, you really are some dumbass.
If I offer to pay someone $30 for raking the leaves and mowing the grass in my yard, when you agree to do it, you have made a contract with me without any negotiations."What? Sorry, I thought you were just giving me $30 for no reason. I don't recall you ever asking me to rake your lawn. Can you prove otherwise? What conversation? I don't recall any conversation. Do you have something with my signature on it that says I will rake your lawn? No? Then fuck off!"
A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties - you cannot have a contract without some proof that all parties have agreed to the terms of the contract. Furthermore, most contracts, at least the ones I've signed, require a witness signature to be legally binding. Do any of these things happen when you "agree" to the terms of the GPL or "accept" an EULA (Note that it is not called an EUC. Why do you think that is?)
No, they don't. Because they're not contracts, they are licenses.
So take what they say with a grain of salt. After all, it is their job to promote their products.Free software isn't a product, it's a philosophy. Try and see if you can figure out the difference; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
You'll still be a dumbass, though.
Or people who don't like to have their search results artificially curtailed by someone else's sense of unreasonable morality.
You're right; if they had the Windows codebase, it probably would have take twice as long!
Wow, you have a processor with 8080 compatibility?
That rocks (in 1976)!
apt-get install wine ... no, no it isn't.