Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Frozen (Score 1) 79 79

"Is it round" is even worse because it doesn't explain anything. And no, that wasn't their goal. The goal was to actually define what a planet means, because there wasn't one, and the discovery of more Kuiper belt objects meant the word was becoming meaningless.

And no, it doesn't ignore extrasolar planets or wandering planets. They'll get a category of their own when we find them. Like how adding the word "dwarf" to Pluto-class objects. There is absolutely NO trouble to add the word "extrasolar", for example, to denote the new category. It is simply not a problem. Adding an extra word as a qualifier has never been a problem. The world isn't going to end.

Comment Re:Frozen (Score 1) 79 79

Your imprecision is allowing a moon to be called a planet.

Pluto is called a dwarf planet. Your other points are non-problems. Yes, the planets that have been smashed up? They are no longer planets. Do you want to call the entire asteroid belt a planet just because it may have been one in the past?

Giving similar objects different names in context is not strange to science. Do you also complain about the difference between meteor, meteoroid and meteorite? They literally are the same object but at different points in its life. Get over it.

And yes, we should pick scientific definitions that at least tries to avoid confusion with pseudoscience. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world, and the average person has a much harder time telling the difference between the two. Leave the overreaching definitions to the quacks and the postmodernists.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97 97

Sorry, I should have used "patent lawsuits" instead of "patent trolls". Didn't think I have to draw intestines on stick figures, but there you go. Some people need hand holding to generalize upon an idea, and I guess you're one of these people.

It's as if you didn't even read the summary. The patents are filed with help from pro-bono lawyers working on behalf of Khan Academy. It costs them NOTHING to file patents.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97 97

Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company. You nitpick on the "patent troll" part. The issue is simple: Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97 97

I would encourage you to look at what the Khan Academy is. Maybe they're new to you, but from the years I've heard about their existence, they have been nothing but benign. Salman Khan still makes the bulk of those 10 minute videos himself using nothing but a paint program.

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...