because something exists and is important to niche users, it must not be true that it isn't used "a lot?" Huh?
If you read my earlier post (about "attacking obvious examples of abandoned industries") after writing all of that you must feel really stupid for wasting so much of your time
You missed the obvious example AND got things wrong in your criticism when you got "hung up on absolutes" by taking it literally and not as an obvious example, Were you drunk?
Also why all the anecdotal shit when you can look up freight numbers that will correct it anyway?
Right, but the conversation that's being had around this is what are we going to do with all these people that we don't need anymore.
Employ them. That's what China will do. The two or three "lost generations" is a developed world problem coming from an uncompetitive labor force.
I agree that it's a *bit* rare to change terms that are already in wide use. But in this case they had to. Their hand was forced because of all the new KBOs that were found.
Because school kids would be forced to memorize a few hundred planets, if measures weren't taken. There was no reason to care that there were a lot of new planets. That's actual science. Now, our "scientific vocabulary" includes "dwarf planets" that aren't "planets". It's just dumb.
Right... and this will happen peacefully, without property price increase and the land uphill magically will be unoccupied.
Hasn't been a problem so far.
The global population hasn't declined - the rate of global population growth has declined from 2.2% in 1963 to 1.1% per year.
I'm speaking of 50 years from now, assuming we don't place a higher priority on global warming than we do on overpopulation and global poverty.
Turn on the news people. Thousands upon thousands are dying every day in a brutal civil war in Syria and the ME. Problems like this happen throughout the world.
Imagine what kind of a civil war it'll be over there when they're hit by a never-ending drought, then.
fruit (hence the infamous debates about tomatoes)
Tomatoes are axiomatic components of both pizza sauce and spaghetti sauce. You fuck with tomatoes, you are fucking with the fundamental forces that hold the universe together. Back the fuck off before you do something we'll all regret.
The barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter system lies at 1.068 solar radii, outside the Sun. Do you think they should be called a binary?
No. Because they aren't both stars.
Without Pluto what is Mona going to be standing under?
Pompous asses.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's orbiting a star, and it itself isn't another star, and it's got, or had, enough mass such that it pulled whatever it is made of into a spheroid, it's a planet. If it's orbiting another planet and the center of the orbit is within the other body, it's a moon, spheroid or not. If the center of the orbit is in space, they're both planets. If there isn't enough mass to pull the thing into a spheroid, and it's not orbiting a planet, then it is either an asteroid (primarily rocky) or a comet (primarily gassy/icy.) If it's pulled itself into a spheroid and is floating out away from any star, it's still a planet, but it is a rogue. We can have a moon orbiting another moon and so on, but that doesn't make the first one into a planet.
If an object is manufactured and not meant to navigate to arbitrary destinations under its own power, but only resides in orbit about something or sits in free space, if it can host humans, it is a space station. If it cannot host humans, and it's in orbit, it is a satellite. If it is in free space, it is a platform. If it can travel under its own power to arbitrary destinations, arbitrarily change orbits and so on, it is a spacecraft. Station keeping effectors do not count, and being able to carry humans doesn't make a difference.
If the object is, or ever was, host to a natural fusion reaction due to the usual culprits, it's a star. Live, dead or otherwise.
I could go on for quite a while, but most likely, no one cares anyway.
If someone convinces me that these ideas are inconsistent, I'll do my best to fix 'em so they aren't.
The Great Extinction, caused by Siberia becoming one gigantic lava bed (probably after an asteroid strike), was a bit further back in time. Geologically, Siberia is old. You might be confusing the vestiges of Ice Age dessication (which was 10,000 years ago) but which involves the organics on the surface with the geology (aka rocks).
Regardless, though, of how the craters are forming, the fact remains that an awful lot of greenhouse gas is being pumped into the air, an awful lot of information on early civilization is being blasted out of existence, and a lot of locals are finding that the land has suddenly become deadly.
That is a good question. The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Personally, I'm all in favour of Thor turning up to the Supreme Court, but he probably wouldn't be allowed in on account of not having a visa.
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.
