By that definition, there's only 8 planets in the entire Universe. They may need to update their definition of planet, especially the first point.

Planets are made of matter, matter is a gravity source. If that matter pulls together, but fails to ignite, you have a gas giant instead of a star. The same could happen with rocky planets. Obviously, smaller planets would take much longer to form on their own, but it could happen. And even more likely is that the planets form inside of a star system, but are ejected rather than settling into a stable orbit.

Not a physicist, but there's a few reasons. First and foremost, I believe there simply aren't enough wandering planets to explain it. Dark matter accounts for something like 90% of the gravitational effects that we see. If wandering planets were to blame for that much mass, they would definitely be much, much more noticeable even without giving off light like stars. Secondly, wandering planets simply don't fit the bill for what we're seeing in regards to gravity - if it were all planets, we would be seeing much different galactic formations.

Nah, the Pope just has his priorities in order. "Argue about shit that doesn't matter a whole lot to the church or God" is waaay down the Pope's list, but waaay up the list of many people who just like to argue because it gives them a sense of superiority.

That's how we know Scientology is real. I'm not saying it's because of aliens, but.... aliens.

" How exactly is is he then worthy of worship or awe from us?"

Throughout history, the more technologically advanced societies tend to think they deserve awe, and in some cases outright worship, from the much more primitive tribes they encountered. Why should we think this kind of mindset is limited to humans? Why couldn't an alien species share the same philosophy or take it even further?

It's Linux, if it didn't come with spyware pre-installed, how would Grandma get it installed?

Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.

""Isn't this the definition of identity theft?""

Nope. It's identity eminent domain.

I disagree. I think a 54 year marriage is a success even if it ends in divorce. People change over time. After 54 years, both people have changed considerably and it's entirely possible to mutually agree that you're no longer married to the person you want to be.

However, people don't normally change all that much after only two years. So if you get divorced that quickly, then you probably lose.

"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"

"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""

Those two seem to be at odds with this one:

"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"

Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?

"It's way too handy and there's no alternative."

My understanding is that, with very few (and increasingly fewer with each new version) exceptions, anything you can do in VB.NET, you can do in C#. Does Office only understand VB.NET?

I had to look up some of it, but knowing the internal version number can be seriously helpful if you're writing a script that needs to do different things depending on what version of Windows it's running on (such as looking for "C:\Users\Public\Public Desktop\" vs "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\", as a simple example). Getting that version number from the command line is as easy as "ver"

What part is speculation? The internal version number isn't exactly a secret. Open up a commandline and type "ver". There's a lot of other things about Windows that are well known whether or not you have the source.

Here's the thing... those are are marketing numbers, not version numbers. If you go by their internal version numbers, they make a lot more sense, and better reflect incremental changes vs total rewrites.

Windows 2000 - 5.0
Windows XP - 5.1
Windows XP 64-Bit/Server 2003 (incl R2) - 5.2
Windows Vista/Server 2008 - 6.0
Windows Server 2008 R2 - 6.1
Windows 7 - 6.1
Windows 8 - 6.2
Windows Server 2012 R2 - 6.3
Windows 8.1 - 6.3

Before Windows 2000/XP, there were two completely separate OSes (NT and DOS), rather than simply different editions of the same OS. Because 2000 and later are the successors to NT, that's why it starts with 5.0.

So why did NT start at 3.x? Because it started life as the successor to OS/2 1.3 and 2.0, known as OS/2 3.0. When it shifted to become Windows rather than OS/2, it kept the version number.

The DOS based Windows go: 1.01, 1.03, 1.04, 2.0, 2.10, 2.11, 3.00, 3.10, 3.11, 3.2, 4.0 (Win95), 4.10 (Win98), 4.90 (WinMe)

Windows versioning numbers makes a lot more sense once you separate the marketing name from the actual version number. MS Office works the same way (e.g. Office 10 is Office XP).