Pluto's New Moon

[danbaron]

We know that officially, Pluto is no longer a planet (now it's called a dwarf planet - I guess that's not so bad).

Pluto is spherical, and its surface area is almost exactly the same as the surface area of Russia.

So, if and when astronauts land on it, they will be landing not on a planet, but, a dwarf planet.

On the other hand, my guess is that no one will ever land on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, because they're made of gas.

Should the objects orbiting a dwarf planet, be designated as dwarf moons?

http://www.space.com/12374-pluto-moon-choice-cerberus-hell.html
(http://www.space.com/12374-pluto-moon-choice-cerberus-hell.html)
diameter = 1433 miles
gravity = 0.067 g
escape velocity = 2749 mph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

[Charles Pegge]

Got moons? Definitely a planet!


Dr Who visits Pluto in the far future. An allegory of plutocracy.

Story

http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_4w.htm
(http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_4w.htm)

Episodes on Video: 1977


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9e8rb_the-sun-makers-part-1_shortfilms (http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_4w.htm)

[kryton9]

I really enjoyed the Doctor Who episodes Charles. Many good lines in that one. The one that stuck with me is:
DOCTOR: Now listen. Bisham and Mandrell, stay with me. Now the rest of you, I want you to scatter through the city and tell the people what's happening. Remind them that they're human beings, and tell them that human beings always have to fight for their freedom. All right?

We have to always fight for our freedom, that sadly is a fact. Why is that the case though? Is it because we are social animals by nature? So we feel a need to be sheep to be lead by a Shepherd.

This was neat conversation too:
DOCTOR: You blood-sucking leech! You won't stop until you own the entire galaxy, will you. Don't you think commercial imperialism is as bad as military conquest?
COLLECTOR: We have tried war, but the use of economic power is far more effective.

On another note but similar:
Here is someone who wrote a good article and it surprised me that he drew the wrong conclusion. He did so by ignoring the main reason for the article and focusing on a deflection mechanism the elites love to use. I see this style of misdirection used by many of the talking heads for the New World Order. They can't win by logic, so they twist or focus on things that are at most fringe to the debate.

Here is the well written article. But first the idiotic conclusion:
"compelling and affecting in its depiction of life under totalitarianism, V for Vendetta ultimately endorses the lawlessness on which totalitarianism depends."
See the oxymoronic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoronic) response: "endorses the lawlessness on which totalitarianism depends"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272185-William-Norman-Grigg-Slams-the-quot-V-For-Vendetta-quot-Movie

Ayn Rand did a superb job in creating talking heads, well in her case (OpEd)Opinion Editor writers for newspapers who made their careers coming up with such frustrating tactics.

[danbaron]

I like this quote.

"He did so by ignoring the main reason for the article and focusing on a deflection mechanism the elites love to use. I see this style of misdirection used by many of the talking heads for the New World Order. They can't win by logic, so they twist or focus on things that are at most fringe to the debate."

I've never read anything by Ayn Rand. My impression is that she was a crazy chain-smoking A-hole, who promoted a cuckoo philosophy, and who enjoyed being the leader of a cult of robotic zombies.

This guy (Grigg) must be a jackass. If you look at the link, you'll see that he was a member of the John Birch Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Norman_Grigg

"compelling and affecting in its depiction of life under totalitarianism, V for Vendetta ultimately endorses the lawlessness on which totalitarianism depends."

Look at the idiotic quote below. According to him, people should remain subjugated forever as slaves to totally corrupt governments which are absolutely impossible to change without rebellion. He blames the people for the fact that the only way to change such systems is through violence. I guess, if he had his way, France would still be an absolute monarchy.

"The climax of V is an homage to versions of the revolutionary left's myth of "People Power," going back to the storming of the Bastille. The central conceit here is that the people, led by a charismatic figure freed from the restraints of law, can abolish tyranny by destroying oppressive institutions and beginning the world anew. The history of such movements, from the Bastille to the "liberation" of Iraq, demonstrates convincingly that leveling society's institutions simply creates a free-fire zone for the assault on individual liberty."

I read the Dr. Who outlines. My guess is that watching the shows would be more entertaining.

[kryton9]

Dan I think you would enjoy Ayn Band's novels.Atlas Shrugged is really neat. It is a big book, but it is my favorite of hers. It would be a great read on your train commute.

[danbaron]

You might be right, Kent.

But, from the little I know, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, was a kook.

If you look at the Wikipedia page, I think you'll see that her life was a train wreck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

About her philosophy, from Wikipedia, "She supported rational egoism and rejected ethical altruism."

To me, she was a kook, peddling a kook philosophy, who attracted weak-minded kooks.

(You could be absolutely correct that I would like her books as fiction.)

In my sophomore year in college, one of my next door neighbors in the dormitory, was one of her devotees.

He kept to himself, and was always brooding. Later, he dropped out of college, and who knows what happened to him.

My guess is that Ms. Rosenbaum did not lose much sleep about the many dimwitted sheep-like people, who followed her philosophy (walking) down an extremely long dirt road, to a dead end, and nowhere.

My impression of her from what has been written about her, and the photographs of her I have seen, is, "There went a true narcissist.".

I also have a natural aversion towards people, past or present, who seem to be proud of the fact that they smoke non-stop. You can especially notice it when these people pose for photographs while smoking. With respect to Ms. Rosenbaum, why should anyone believe that she had discovered the philosophy to live by, when, she could not (or had no desire to) overcome a drug addiction which most assuredly hastened her death? Concerning people whose best or only friends are cigarettes, I see internal psychological problems which they are slaves to. In that case, why should I pay any attention, when they pontificate about how everyone else (except them) should live their lives? (You might say, back then, they didn't know that smoking was bad for your health. My response would be, if they were too stupid for that fact to be self-evident, then, they were too stupid to be giving advice.)