The tablets aren't $300 and the children aren't toddlers. Next time you're baffled as to why a lawsuit exists, ask yourself if you have a problem with the actual lawsuit, or the one in your imagination.
It gets worse; the Guardian's comments are full of people sneering about how we are going to destroy this precious natural water resource now we know it's there. Part of me died inside.
Err, pretty much the only thing the Bitcoin network does is "prove where [bitcoins] went". Outside the network is another matter. The issue isn't unregulated Bitcoin; the issue is unregulated Bitcoin exchanges.
Japan doesn't think Bitcoin is a currency and subsequently has no idea how to deal with MtGox's liabilities, but they most certainly have not obviated them.
Hang on, you actually think that the IAC's decision to come up with a definition for "planet" was an elaborate excuse to make Pluto an un-planet? That's really, really precious.
They can't "refuse to let anyone else do so", that's not how it works. All they can do is point out that these names aren't any more authoritative than any name you could give to the object yourself, or the nicknames NASA engineers give to craters, and as far as astronomers are concerned they're just catalogue numbers because everyone knows they're referring to the same thing.
Unfortunately the objects Uwingu is offering names for are ones that will never be referred to popularly, and subsequently the naming rights people are paying for have no effect.
They don't have any "legal power", they're just the group that writes the catalogues of astronomical objects, most of which are un-named. The only claim they have over this company is that they're the guys whose catalogues astronomers actually write and subsequently use.
They're astronomers. They get to decide what astronomers call things. You're welcome to call the moon John if you want, the IAU's not going to give a crap.
That's what's actually happening. Contrary to TFS the IAU's comments are little more than a reminder that Uwingu's list isn't going to be used by astronomers.
Confirmed comets are always named after their first two discoverers; the fact that they also have a catalogue designation for the books doesn't change that.
Their authority comes from the fact that working astronomers respect and pay attention to its decisions (as well they might; the same working astronomers constitute its membership). That's the only kind of authority that matters, isn't it? Being a body that does things right often enough that people favour your standards? It works for the IUPAC and naming elements.
Even by the dry standards of academic discourse this is pretty meek:
Recently initiatives that capitalise on the public’s interest in space and astronomy have proliferated, some putting a price tag on naming space objects and their features, such as Mars craters. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) would like to emphasise that such initiatives go against the spirit of free and equal access to space, as well as against internationally recognised standards. Hence no purchased names can ever be used on official maps and globes. The IAU encourages the public to become involved in the naming process of space objects and their features by following the officially recognised (and free) methods.
It's their set of standards and references, that's why. If you want to have your own body of standards in astronomy, or chemistry, or whatever, there's nothing stopping you from making one up and trying to convince people to use it. Just don't expect anyone to actually pay attention to it.
Yes, that's how documentary evidence works. The assumption on the part of the reader is that there may be undocumented events that are not included in the formal record.
There are worse offenders than someone who edited an article about himself while using his own real-life name as a handle? What's next, a guy who corrected a spelling mistake on his high school's page without bothering to log in first?
Didn't his choice of username already disclose his interest? You don't have to be Dirk Hatchett, Internet PI to figure out that that the JsDillon writing the article about Josh Dillon might, in fact, be Josh Dillon.
One of the downsides of having a free-to-edit encyclopedia is the difficulty in policing against bad actions like this, especially on articles visited infrequently. However the state of the articles on most of the major political players and products would seem to suggest that the editors have a low tolerance for the removal of bad news.
Slashdot Mirror
The tablets aren't $300 and the children aren't toddlers. Next time you're baffled as to why a lawsuit exists, ask yourself if you have a problem with the actual lawsuit, or the one in your imagination.
It gets worse; the Guardian's comments are full of people sneering about how we are going to destroy this precious natural water resource now we know it's there. Part of me died inside.
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...
Err, pretty much the only thing the Bitcoin network does is "prove where [bitcoins] went". Outside the network is another matter. The issue isn't unregulated Bitcoin; the issue is unregulated Bitcoin exchanges.
And if they were a government they'd have collapsed and taken down their entire economy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Japanese law begs to differ; it does distinguish between currency (however they define it) and other tokens.
Japan doesn't think Bitcoin is a currency and subsequently has no idea how to deal with MtGox's liabilities, but they most certainly have not obviated them.
Hang on, you actually think that the IAC's decision to come up with a definition for "planet" was an elaborate excuse to make Pluto an un-planet? That's really, really precious.
They can't "refuse to let anyone else do so", that's not how it works. All they can do is point out that these names aren't any more authoritative than any name you could give to the object yourself, or the nicknames NASA engineers give to craters, and as far as astronomers are concerned they're just catalogue numbers because everyone knows they're referring to the same thing.
...by someone who is not JsDillon.
No, I dare say that the revival was because Kickstarter backers were about to receive the game.
Unfortunately the objects Uwingu is offering names for are ones that will never be referred to popularly, and subsequently the naming rights people are paying for have no effect.
They don't have any "legal power", they're just the group that writes the catalogues of astronomical objects, most of which are un-named. The only claim they have over this company is that they're the guys whose catalogues astronomers actually write and subsequently use.
They're astronomers. They get to decide what astronomers call things. You're welcome to call the moon John if you want, the IAU's not going to give a crap.
Presenting it as a life-or-death debate does, however, give Uwingu free publicity.
That's what's actually happening. Contrary to TFS the IAU's comments are little more than a reminder that Uwingu's list isn't going to be used by astronomers.
Confirmed comets are always named after their first two discoverers; the fact that they also have a catalogue designation for the books doesn't change that.
Their authority comes from the fact that working astronomers respect and pay attention to its decisions (as well they might; the same working astronomers constitute its membership). That's the only kind of authority that matters, isn't it? Being a body that does things right often enough that people favour your standards? It works for the IUPAC and naming elements.
Even by the dry standards of academic discourse this is pretty meek:
Recently initiatives that capitalise on the public’s interest in space and astronomy have proliferated, some putting a price tag on naming space objects and their features, such as Mars craters. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) would like to emphasise that such initiatives go against the spirit of free and equal access to space, as well as against internationally recognised standards. Hence no purchased names can ever be used on official maps and globes. The IAU encourages the public to become involved in the naming process of space objects and their features by following the officially recognised (and free) methods.
It's their set of standards and references, that's why. If you want to have your own body of standards in astronomy, or chemistry, or whatever, there's nothing stopping you from making one up and trying to convince people to use it. Just don't expect anyone to actually pay attention to it.
His first version of the article, which was promptly deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
His second and last batch of edits, after the article was resurrected by a third party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
That is simply not true. This is the article as Josh Dillon wrote it before deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
This is the totality of his second batch of edits, after the article was revived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
Yes, that's how documentary evidence works. The assumption on the part of the reader is that there may be undocumented events that are not included in the formal record.
There are worse offenders than someone who edited an article about himself while using his own real-life name as a handle? What's next, a guy who corrected a spelling mistake on his high school's page without bothering to log in first?
Didn't his choice of username already disclose his interest? You don't have to be Dirk Hatchett, Internet PI to figure out that that the JsDillon writing the article about Josh Dillon might, in fact, be Josh Dillon.
One of the downsides of having a free-to-edit encyclopedia is the difficulty in policing against bad actions like this, especially on articles visited infrequently. However the state of the articles on most of the major political players and products would seem to suggest that the editors have a low tolerance for the removal of bad news.