Did they really? The information was, at the time the trade was executed, already announced and public. I do believe that, if a person has insider information, the restriction on them is that they cannot use it until it becomes public information.
So maybe they broke the law in how they got the information, but by waiting until its public to execute the trade, they seem to have, in actuality, complied with at least a lay understanding of the relevant regulations. My own company sends out reminders at various times to be wary of making statements because of worries about insider leaks, but as far as any training I have ever had to take has said, once the information is public, trading based on it is fair game.
So how about this.... trader came about insider information, knew when it was to be announced, and timed his trade for as soon as possible after the announcement in an attempt to profit while still being in compliance? Does the law/regulation take into account information travel time from the point of announcement in determining the order of events?
Not saying its wrong to, clearly its right by any understanding of physics that I have, but, isn't expecting people to understand such nuances a bit unrealistic?
I love waze but, it has definitely gotten me a few times too.
Once, I was on my way to a friend's farm. I had heard there was another way to get there for "people who know the route", and assumed that Waze must have picked up on that and was taking me that way, so I followed it instead of taking my normal route.
We got off the highway, and it turned down a dirt road. I was ok with that, been down dirt roads before....then...the road ended. I looked down at Waze and saw the route swung to the left, so I looked over to the left and saw a 4 wheeler path, which was big enough for my car so I tried following it, only to find it came out to an empty overgrown field....at which point I turned back and went back to the road.
Another time, it took me off the highway I should have stayed on, and through some side streets back towards the road, ending in a right turn only where it wanted me to go left... and then proceeded to try to take me back down that circuit as I tried to find my way back.
Waze is wonderful for so many reasons (I have been known to pull it out and fire it up to report police sitting in front of my house) but, I doubt anybody has really gotten it 100% right when it comes to maps...just too much area to cover.
Oh I disagree entirely, I see no evidence that government involvement actually helps. Drug abuse is, at its worst, a medical problem. Prohibition does jack shit to address the real issues. In fact, what it really does is create these drugs.
Yes create them. Over and over we see prohibitionists setting their sights on whatever happnes to be popular at the moment, disrupting the market, and then something else crops up. Prohibition encourages increasing potency, encourages ignoring safety protocols and releasing untested and unsafe drugs onto the street.
Many of these drugs would never have gained any serious popularity at all if not for prohibitionists creating the market for them.
And beyond all that.... my body my choice. Fuck you for even having an opinion about what I, or anyone else, might or might choose to use.
I do not agree with the DEA, I think this is wrong. I think it's ludicrous the Marijuana is rated at the Class it is.
I think its ludicrous that there are classes, defined by a bunch of stuffy old politicians, few of whom have any medical credentials.
Simple fact is, marijuana use is drug use. Period. There are more pot users than the next 3 major illicit drugs COMBINED. You take pot out of the mix and it is hard to justify any of this crap.
Even worst is the drug related crime, an entire class of petty crimes that happen really, for no other reason, than the artificially inflated price of drugs. Just look at portugal or the swiss heroin study. Criminality amongst drug users is clearly driven not by drug use but by drug high prices.... prices which prohibitionist tactics aim to raise.
Just look at alcohol problems today, and tell me that they are real problems when compared to the alcohol problems during prohibition. When was the last time some people were executed by a street gang over alcohol distribution? When was the last rash of people blinded by methanol added to bootleg liquor?
Its not just bad scheduling of marijiuana, its the very idea that the government should regulate what people can choose freely to put into their own bodies that was wrong.
It all came out of alcohol prohibition and the FBN having precious little bit of jack shit to do after it ended. So they started drumming up support for giving themselves more work, and...it worked. The path to making marijiana illegal was a farce so comical that nobody would believe it were it fiction.
You have Harry Anslinger, a name everyone should read up on.... first he tells congress marijiana makes people violent and how just one joint could make a person kill their own brother... then later on, changes up his story to how it makes people lazy and apathetic.
During all this, the AMA came out against making it illegal, and their doctor was asked to "go home if you don't have anything good to say" in the Senate... followed up by the house of reps debate on the measure.... which consisted of two questions: "What is marijuana?" and "What does the AMA have to say about it?"...which amusingly was answered that their doctor was up on the hill a few days ago, and they support it.
After this, Anslinger himself spent years sending letters to police chiefs around the country, asking them to keep tabs on jazz musicians because they smoke pot, and one day, there is going to be a big event, where they are going to round up all the pot smoking jazz musicians. Seriously.... you can't make this shit up: http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/48/anslinger.html
"Please prepare all cases in your jurisdiction involving musicians in violation of the marijuana laws. We will have a great National round-up arrest of all such persons on a single day. I will let you know what day."
I don't particularly care what they are trying to do. Perhaps those "shady doctors", as you put it, are doing what doctors who prescribed alcohol during prohibition did: Realizing that arrest and jail is more harmful to the health of their patient than the drugs.
However, in any case, it doesn't matter what they are trying to do....ends do not justify means. Maybe I am "just trying to catch child pronographers" so I break into your house and inspect every file on your computer. Sure its wrong but hey, I am trying to catch child pornographers, so you should be happy I violated your privacy. As long as the intention is good, all is good in your mind right?
Maybe its fixed now, but a couple of years ago it was an absolute mess to try and use multiple instances of firefox with different profiles. The dock could only track the windows from one of them, which would be fine if it wasn't for the lack of any real other options for dealing with various application windows except the dock.
That was the real deal breaker for me. Aside from that I almost liked unity, I gave it a solid few days of trial before I reverted back to the gnome environment.
at a previous job we all built our own desktops, new guy came in all gung ho about Gentoo.... I remember it was like his third day and the compiler messages were still scrolling by, and he didn't even have X yet.
I totally get wanting the ability to recompile anything on the system, for several reasons, not the least of which is, yes, you may have some things you want to tweak the optomisations on and eek every little bit of performance you can out of your modern hardware.
What I don't get is thinking setting them globally and then recompiling everything including ls for perfomance.... just seemed a bit too much like chroming the engine block.
alt-drag to move windows is actually a very old default. I first learned about it over a decade ago when a co-worker and I were talking about WM customization. For a LONG TIME I ran with no window decorations on my terminal windows, total borderless, and just used alt-drag and its companions (like all middle drag and alt right drag) to move and resize them.
I was pretty miffed when I found it was getting harder and less reliable to make windows borderless unless I want to be swapping out window managers... I feel like I have spent enough of my life swapping out and configuring window managers.
> As people have already pointed out, the parents who complain about > violent video games are not the same parents as those buying it
Not only that, but this is not a new issue. Long after movie ratings were in effect, many theaters didn't really enforce them. Eventually they became more strict about it (I was never sure why, it was right around the time I hit 18 though). I remember hearing about parents, not in line buying the tickets...down at the theater complaining to the manager because their son had permission to go see an R rated movie they didn't want to see. Yes, complaining that it was being enforced AT ALL.
They were not the same parents asking for it to be enforced of course, but they did exist too. Overall, I always thought it was silly. At least the game ratings list why content is rated as it is, but, overall, it always seemed like it shouldn't be anyones job to police except....the vocal minority of parents who are so fragile about the thought that little timmy might be exposed to anything other than puppies and sunshine.
> I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible > and who the customer feels is responsible
But I would argue there is another category of potentially responsible but not worth it due to what evidence would be needed or the likelyhood of winning anything substantial vs the risk of doing the work and then having them removed as a defendant.
An example of this, I had a pretty solid case, and could have gotten gobs of evidence against a former roomate of mine who skipped town owing me a few grand. I wasn't even the only one, someone he screwed even worst than me (well for more money anyway, they were a landlord with multiple units and took almost a year to even notice he was bouncing checks every month... I was just scraping by in an entry level job, so judge how you will on that) told me she talked to a lawyer about it (as did I actually) and was told the same thing I was: Yes he can be sued, yes we would be likely to win, no, we would be unlikely to show that he had any assets and no we would be unlikely to ever see a dime.
Sure but I would argue there is a difference between who a lawyer will decide is worth including in a lawsuit and how to handle a customer being wronged, which, one hopefully is able to resolve without lawsuits.
Also, Just because you don't get included as a defendant doesn't mean that you couldn't have been either. Water drinks and many other mass market products are sold in mom and pop shops all over the place...adding distributors to the suit would have likely not resulted in enough gain to be worth it, especially if it complicates the case.
In this case, there distributor is Apple, there may be others but, if there are, they can likely be counted on one hand, and all of them have the kind of money that nobody is going to feel bad about bringing a suit against them. Where a mom and pop shop may have little to squeeze out of them and even a small squeeze may shut them down, neither of those is true of the companies which distribute the show.
It is their walled garden, is it not? They exercise editorial control over what is or is not offered, do they not? AMC may have been the ones who tried to screw customers, but they did it through the Apple App store, which apple polices and staffs.
It is pretty clearly apple's responsibility to step in here, a responsibility they gave themselves by the design of their store.
If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.
Same here. And by, "I will stop using", I mean well... Debian Wheezy is already frozen with a version of GNOME that works. So, once that is released, in another 3-4 years or so if they have made this changes AND it is included in the next Debian, then I will definitely stop using GNOME...sometime in the next 5 years, assuming that old versions are not easily available or I don't find an alternative that I like before then. So.... I can definitely say that the chances of me switching out GNOME in the next decade is looking more likely.
These things help but, if you are into a good problem, even cout is a minor annoyance. I wonder if there isn't some self-selection bias going on here. There have always been terrible bores of teachers. Hell when I was in college I got sick with the chicken pox and, on my way home, realized I needed to talk to my calculous prof, but I couldn't remember his name. My roomate asked if it was Prof SoandSo, "Tall pale humerless pale guy, talks in a monotone voice?" "Yah that is him"...turns out it wasn't.
Perhaps its just that the more interesting teachers who come up with more interesting approaches, tend to select more interesting or fun languages to teach? Frankly, I don't think it matters much what language you learn in...they all have their idiosyncrocies, but, with few exceptions (looking at you LISP) they are mostly the same, I can usually pick up code in a language and read it without
too much trouble, especially if there is a language reference I can peek at when the syntax gets unusual.
I really don't think the language itself matters that much.
So, they found this in the stratosphere, on their one flight. Ok fine. They think these are showeing earth.....
Has anyone on the ISS, in low earth orbit, taken a sample of space? Actually, come to think of it, hasn't nasa sent up a mission with specially designed cells of aerogel just for this purpose?
I don't recall them finding anything like this, and they are not too far outside the atmosphere.
Call me crazy but, this is a pretty extraordinary claim for such paltry evidence.
SAR is usually implemented by mounting, on a moving platform such as an aircraft or spacecraft, a single beam-forming antenna from which a target scene is repeatedly illuminated with pulses of radio waves at wavelengths anywhere from a meter down to millimeters. The many echo waveforms received successively at the different antenna positions are coherently detected and stored and then post-processed together to resolve elements in an image of the target region.
So, in this case this case the "moving platform" is, in fact, the earth itself and the "Antena" happens to be able to detect signals in the visible light range.
What..... "Dehydrate them as much as possible, because we need to get the water back. Those solid waste products get put into a bag, put right back against the wall,"
Huh? Isn't the very reason its a good radiation shield because...it contains a very high percentage of water...which is an excellent radiation shield? It seems to me that when you dehydrate it, you would lose that.
No, you have a misunderstanding. Your whitelisted binary being vulnerable is a problem, but, its not the same problem. I think the correct answer is, you whitelist AND fix the app.
Yes and no. I was thinking the same thing but, what if you do the process multiple times, shifting in different directions each time, and possibly again with different amounts of shift per frame? Then you have maybe 8 or even 80 different results to look at, which could be weeded out by algorythmically rejecting any that contain no bright spots.
Nah you could block the radiation with any number of materials, its just that lead happens to be dense enough to do it reasonably. Little is to be gained by pushing concrete walls several feet thick into space.
Frankly I think its as much about complexity as anything. an RTG is fairly simple, basically a nuclear battery, with radioactive materials as a stand in for chemical bonds... when they break down, they cause heating, which is harvested for energy...simple.
Now a nuclear fission pile can be simple too....look at the radioactive boyscout, anything he can do NASA can do better.... but the question becomes.... how long can it output power at a workable rate? A space probe kind of needs to be "set it and forget it", you want as few adjustments needed as possible, not the least of which because any adjustment mechanism has weight and can degrade or break.
Its not just about making fission happen, its about extracting consistent predictable energy over a period of decades with no maintenance.
Reminds me of a weird one I had where I was talking to a friend of mine. Of course, the thing was, I knew who I was talking to, and I knew that the person in question was white and over 300 lbs, and not a skinny little asian girl, like the person I was talking to....but... I "knew" it was her; there was no question, in the moment, it was as natural as could be.
Wouldn't the only way to answer such a question be to, in fact, record dreams? How else would you determine if there is an evolutionary advantage to not remembering them?
Slashdot Mirror
Did they really? The information was, at the time the trade was executed, already announced and public. I do believe that, if a person has insider information, the restriction on them is that they cannot use it until it becomes public information.
So maybe they broke the law in how they got the information, but by waiting until its public to execute the trade, they seem to have, in actuality, complied with at least a lay understanding of the relevant regulations. My own company sends out reminders at various times to be wary of making statements because of worries about insider leaks, but as far as any training I have ever had to take has said, once the information is public, trading based on it is fair game.
So how about this.... trader came about insider information, knew when it was to be announced, and timed his trade for as soon as possible after the announcement in an attempt to profit while still being in compliance?
Does the law/regulation take into account information travel time from the point of announcement in determining the order of events?
Not saying its wrong to, clearly its right by any understanding of physics that I have, but, isn't expecting people to understand such nuances a bit unrealistic?
I love waze but, it has definitely gotten me a few times too.
Once, I was on my way to a friend's farm. I had heard there was another way to get there for "people who know the route", and assumed that Waze must have picked up on that and was taking me that way, so I followed it instead of taking my normal route.
We got off the highway, and it turned down a dirt road. I was ok with that, been down dirt roads before....then...the road ended. I looked down at Waze and saw the route swung to the left, so I looked over to the left and saw a 4 wheeler path, which was big enough for my car so I tried following it, only to find it came out to an empty overgrown field....at which point I turned back and went back to the road.
Another time, it took me off the highway I should have stayed on, and through some side streets back towards the road, ending in a right turn only where it wanted me to go left... and then proceeded to try to take me back down that circuit as I tried to find my way back.
Waze is wonderful for so many reasons (I have been known to pull it out and fire it up to report police sitting in front of my house) but, I doubt anybody has really gotten it 100% right when it comes to maps...just too much area to cover.
Oh I disagree entirely, I see no evidence that government involvement actually helps. Drug abuse is, at its worst, a medical problem. Prohibition does jack shit to address the real issues. In fact, what it really does is create these drugs.
Yes create them. Over and over we see prohibitionists setting their sights on whatever happnes to be popular at the moment, disrupting the market, and then something else crops up. Prohibition encourages increasing potency, encourages ignoring safety protocols and releasing untested and unsafe drugs onto the street.
Many of these drugs would never have gained any serious popularity at all if not for prohibitionists creating the market for them.
And beyond all that.... my body my choice. Fuck you for even having an opinion about what I, or anyone else, might or might choose to use.
I think its ludicrous that there are classes, defined by a bunch of stuffy old politicians, few of whom have any medical credentials.
Simple fact is, marijuana use is drug use. Period. There are more pot users than the next 3 major illicit drugs COMBINED. You take pot out of the mix and it is hard to justify any of this crap.
Even worst is the drug related crime, an entire class of petty crimes that happen really, for no other reason, than the artificially inflated price of drugs. Just look at portugal or the swiss heroin study. Criminality amongst drug users is clearly driven not by drug use but by drug high prices.... prices which prohibitionist tactics aim to raise.
Just look at alcohol problems today, and tell me that they are real problems when compared to the alcohol problems during prohibition. When was the last time some people were executed by a street gang over alcohol distribution? When was the last rash of people blinded by methanol added to bootleg liquor?
Its not just bad scheduling of marijiuana, its the very idea that the government should regulate what people can choose freely to put into their own bodies that was wrong.
Dude, the DEA was founded on a shark jump.
It all came out of alcohol prohibition and the FBN having precious little bit of jack shit to do after it ended. So they started drumming up support for giving themselves more work, and...it worked. The path to making marijiana illegal was a farce so comical that nobody would believe it were it fiction.
You have Harry Anslinger, a name everyone should read up on.... first he tells congress marijiana makes people violent and how just one joint could make a person kill their own brother... then later on, changes up his story to how it makes people lazy and apathetic.
During all this, the AMA came out against making it illegal, and their doctor was asked to "go home if you don't have anything good to say" in the Senate... followed up by the house of reps debate on the measure.... which consisted of two questions:
"What is marijuana?" and "What does the AMA have to say about it?"...which amusingly was answered that their doctor was up on the hill a few days ago, and they support it.
After this, Anslinger himself spent years sending letters to police chiefs around the country, asking them to keep tabs on jazz musicians because they smoke pot, and one day, there is going to be a big event, where they are going to round up all the pot smoking jazz musicians. Seriously.... you can't make this shit up: http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/48/anslinger.html
That was 1947. Shark well past jumped.
I don't particularly care what they are trying to do. Perhaps those "shady doctors", as you put it, are doing what doctors who prescribed alcohol during prohibition did: Realizing that arrest and jail is more harmful to the health of their patient than the drugs.
However, in any case, it doesn't matter what they are trying to do....ends do not justify means. Maybe I am "just trying to catch child pronographers" so I break into your house and inspect every file on your computer. Sure its wrong but hey, I am trying to catch child pornographers, so you should be happy I violated your privacy. As long as the intention is good, all is good in your mind right?
and some of the docking was baindramaged too.
Maybe its fixed now, but a couple of years ago it was an absolute mess to try and use multiple instances of firefox with different profiles. The dock could only track the windows from one of them, which would be fine if it wasn't for the lack of any real other options for dealing with various application windows except the dock.
That was the real deal breaker for me. Aside from that I almost liked unity, I gave it a solid few days of trial before I reverted back to the gnome environment.
at a previous job we all built our own desktops, new guy came in all gung ho about Gentoo.... I remember it was like his third day and the compiler messages were still scrolling by, and he didn't even have X yet.
I totally get wanting the ability to recompile anything on the system, for several reasons, not the least of which is, yes, you may have some things you want to tweak the optomisations on and eek every little bit of performance you can out of your modern hardware.
What I don't get is thinking setting them globally and then recompiling everything including ls for perfomance.... just seemed a bit too much like chroming the engine block.
alt-drag to move windows is actually a very old default. I first learned about it over a decade ago when a co-worker and I were talking about WM customization. For a LONG TIME I ran with no window decorations on my terminal windows, total borderless, and just used alt-drag and its companions (like all middle drag and alt right drag) to move and resize them.
I was pretty miffed when I found it was getting harder and less reliable to make windows borderless unless I want to be swapping out window managers... I feel like I have spent enough of my life swapping out and configuring window managers.
> As people have already pointed out, the parents who complain about
> violent video games are not the same parents as those buying it
Not only that, but this is not a new issue. Long after movie ratings were in effect, many theaters didn't really enforce them. Eventually they became more strict about it (I was never sure why, it was right around the time I hit 18 though). I remember hearing about parents, not in line buying the tickets...down at the theater complaining to the manager because their son had permission to go see an R rated movie they didn't want to see. Yes, complaining that it was being enforced AT ALL.
They were not the same parents asking for it to be enforced of course, but they did exist too. Overall, I always thought it was silly. At least the game ratings list why content is rated as it is, but, overall, it always seemed like it shouldn't be anyones job to police except....the vocal minority of parents who are so fragile about the thought that little timmy might be exposed to anything other than puppies and sunshine.
Apropriate Captcha: maniacs
> I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible
> and who the customer feels is responsible
But I would argue there is another category of potentially responsible but not worth it due to what evidence would be needed or the likelyhood of winning anything substantial vs the risk of doing the work and then having them removed as a defendant.
An example of this, I had a pretty solid case, and could have gotten gobs of evidence against a former roomate of mine who skipped town owing me a few grand. I wasn't even the only one, someone he screwed even worst than me (well for more money anyway, they were a landlord with multiple units and took almost a year to even notice he was bouncing checks every month... I was just scraping by in an entry level job, so judge how you will on that) told me she talked to a lawyer about it (as did I actually) and was told the same thing I was: Yes he can be sued, yes we would be likely to win, no, we would be unlikely to show that he had any assets and no we would be unlikely to ever see a dime.
Sure but I would argue there is a difference between who a lawyer will decide is worth including in a lawsuit and how to handle a customer being wronged, which, one hopefully is able to resolve without lawsuits.
Also, Just because you don't get included as a defendant doesn't mean that you couldn't have been either. Water drinks and many other mass market products are sold in mom and pop shops all over the place...adding distributors to the suit would have likely not resulted in enough gain to be worth it, especially if it complicates the case.
In this case, there distributor is Apple, there may be others but, if there are, they can likely be counted on one hand, and all of them have the kind of money that nobody is going to feel bad about bringing a suit against them. Where a mom and pop shop may have little to squeeze out of them and even a small squeeze may shut them down, neither of those is true of the companies which distribute the show.
It is their walled garden, is it not? They exercise editorial control over what is or is not offered, do they not? AMC may have been the ones who tried to screw customers, but they did it through the Apple App store, which apple polices and staffs.
It is pretty clearly apple's responsibility to step in here, a responsibility they gave themselves by the design of their store.
If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.
Same here. And by, "I will stop using", I mean well... Debian Wheezy is already frozen with a version of GNOME that works. So, once that is released, in another 3-4 years or so if they have made this changes AND it is included in the next Debian, then I will definitely stop using GNOME...sometime in the next 5 years, assuming that old versions are not easily available or I don't find an alternative that I like before then. So.... I can definitely say that the chances of me switching out GNOME in the next decade is looking more likely.
These things help but, if you are into a good problem, even cout is a minor annoyance. I wonder if there isn't some self-selection bias going on here. There have always been terrible bores of teachers. Hell when I was in college I got sick with the chicken pox and, on my way home, realized I needed to talk to my calculous prof, but I couldn't remember his name. My roomate asked if it was Prof SoandSo, "Tall pale humerless pale guy, talks in a monotone voice?" "Yah that is him"...turns out it wasn't.
Perhaps its just that the more interesting teachers who come up with more interesting approaches, tend to select more interesting or fun languages to teach? Frankly, I don't think it matters much what language you learn in...they all have their idiosyncrocies, but, with few exceptions (looking at you LISP) they are mostly the same, I can usually pick up code in a language and read it without
too much trouble, especially if there is a language reference I can peek at when the syntax gets unusual.
I really don't think the language itself matters that much.
So, they found this in the stratosphere, on their one flight. Ok fine. They think these are showeing earth.....
Has anyone on the ISS, in low earth orbit, taken a sample of space? Actually, come to think of it, hasn't nasa sent up a mission with specially designed cells of aerogel just for this purpose?
I don't recall them finding anything like this, and they are not too far outside the atmosphere.
Call me crazy but, this is a pretty extraordinary claim for such paltry evidence.
Sounds like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_aperture_radar
So, in this case this case the "moving platform" is, in fact, the earth itself and the "Antena" happens to be able to detect signals in the visible light range.
While you are correct that maintaining them doesn't, dismantling them does.
What.....
"Dehydrate them as much as possible, because we need to get the water back. Those solid waste products get put into a bag, put right back against the wall,"
Huh? Isn't the very reason its a good radiation shield because...it contains a very high percentage of water...which is an excellent radiation shield? It seems to me that when you dehydrate it, you would lose that.
An apartment block would be about .04 furlongs across. You should be able to figure it out from there.
No, you have a misunderstanding. Your whitelisted binary being vulnerable is a problem, but, its not the same problem. I think the correct answer is, you whitelist AND fix the app.
Yes and no. I was thinking the same thing but, what if you do the process multiple times, shifting in different directions each time, and possibly again with different amounts of shift per frame? Then you have maybe 8 or even 80 different results to look at, which could be weeded out by algorythmically rejecting any that contain no bright spots.
Nah you could block the radiation with any number of materials, its just that lead happens to be dense enough to do it reasonably. Little is to be gained by pushing concrete walls several feet thick into space.
Frankly I think its as much about complexity as anything. an RTG is fairly simple, basically a nuclear battery, with radioactive materials as a stand in for chemical bonds... when they break down, they cause heating, which is harvested for energy...simple.
Now a nuclear fission pile can be simple too....look at the radioactive boyscout, anything he can do NASA can do better.... but the question becomes.... how long can it output power at a workable rate? A space probe kind of needs to be "set it and forget it", you want as few adjustments needed as possible, not the least of which because any adjustment mechanism has weight and can degrade or break.
Its not just about making fission happen, its about extracting consistent predictable energy over a period of decades with no maintenance.
> not sure how I knew that but I did
Reminds me of a weird one I had where I was talking to a friend of mine. Of course, the thing was, I knew who I was talking to, and I knew that the person in question was white and over 300 lbs, and not a skinny little asian girl, like the person I was talking to....but... I "knew" it was her; there was no question, in the moment, it was as natural as could be.
Wouldn't the only way to answer such a question be to, in fact, record dreams?
How else would you determine if there is an evolutionary advantage to not remembering them?