http://time.com/3429938/pluto-planet-vote/

fuck yeah!

Finally some good news.

Rare said

fuck yeah!

I'm too busy watching that golf cart in your sig spinning around to click that link. I can't tear my eyes away.

Uhm. No. Please read the article, dude. A public audience vote at a single debate doesn't reinstate Pluto as a planet.
I rather doubt they'll reinstate it arbitrarily. They have defined what a planet is, now, and until there's a reason to change that definition they won't. As was said in the article, we don't really have enough evidence to construct an accurate definition of "planet", yet - so they'll keep the current definition, the one that excludes Pluto, until there is.

It's actually a very interesting issue, though. Not because of Pluto or even because of planets/space/astrophysics/whatever, but because of the universally applicable problem: how do we scientifically define things, and, thus, categorise them? How unique does a category have to be? And so on. It strikes right at the way we conduct scientific research.

There is no reason to reinstate it. That would be stupid. It's time to put this topic to bed. No one cares anymore, it wasn't even anyone's favorite planet when it was actually a planet.

Jster said
There is no reason to reinstate it. That would be stupid. It's time to put this topic to bed. No one cares anymore, it wasn't even anyone's favorite planet when it was actually a planet.

You have brought dishonor upon your family.

Antarctic Termite said

"It's so fashionable and quirky to defend Pluto, LOLOL"

Absolutely disgusting.

And responding logically to that shit is just someone's excuse to act pretentious.

I hate everybody.

Awson said
"It's so fashionable and quirky to defend Pluto, LOLOL"Absolutely disgusting.And responding logically to that shit is just someone's excuse to act pretentious. I hate everybody.

Termite, I think you broke Awson.

Are people being serious on spam? This is shockin to me.

Rare said
Are people being serious on spam? This is shockin to me.

We are capable of being serious when we think something or someone is idiotic. We also usually maintain a high level of seriousness when a crisis or deeply personal situation is brought to our attention.

The true beauty of Spam is that you can never tell when some people are going to ignore a thread like this one or gather around and grump in it.

Halo said
Uhm. No. Please read the article, dude. A public audience vote at a single debate doesn't reinstate Pluto as a planet.I rather doubt they'll reinstate it arbitrarily. They have defined what a planet is, now, and until there's a reason to change that definition they won't. As was said in the article, we don't really have enough evidence to construct an accurate definition of "planet", yet - so they'll keep the current definition, the one that excludes Pluto, until there is.It's actually a very interesting issue, though. Not because of Pluto or even because of planets/space/astrophysics/whatever, but because of the universally applicable problem: how do we scientifically define things, and, thus, categorise them? How unique does a category have to be? And so on. It strikes right at the way we conduct scientific research.

You disappoint me.

It's goddamn Pluto, the perennial underdog

Pluto sucks. Uranus for president.

The people have spoken!!

Kangaroo said
You disappoint me. It's goddamn Pluto, the perennial underdog

I'm English. I consume underdogs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Which unfortunately turns into self-cannibalism during the World Cup, but aside from then...

Halo said
I'm English. I consume underdogs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.Which unfortunately turns into self-cannibalism during the World Cup, but aside from then...

Explain the American revolution.
Underdogs ftw.

Aragorn said
Explain the American revolution. Underdogs ftw.

ahahahhahahahhaha
hahahha
hah
no
lrn2history
I was gonna write out a huge post explaining why, but I don't want to get into a debate with all the 'murrikans here. It suffices to say that a colossal portion of the rebellion's victory was to do with luck, and to do with the aid of foreign nations who wanted to mess with Britain (the French in particular, as well as the Spanish and Dutch, all sided with the US at various points, if I recall correctly). And also, I think, to do with the fact that (particularly, but not solely, at the beginning of the war) the British (or, rather, Howe) were not willing to go all-out. Had they been, the rebellion would have been crushed very early on.

Although thinking about it, I prefer the question "were the rebels actually the underdogs?" more than "could the British have beaten them?" That'd be much more fun to argue. >:3

EDIT: Not that I'm claiming to be an expert on the Revolutionary War. I've never studied it in detail; my opinions on it are based mainly on what I've read around the internet from historians every single time this argument comes up.

Foxxie said
We are capable of being serious when we think something or someone is idiotic. We also usually maintain a high level of seriousness when a crisis or deeply personal situation is brought to our attention.The true beauty of Spam is that you can never tell when some people are going to ignore a thread like this one or gather around and grump in it.

I think you're the true beauty of spam