When a discipline spend so much time in vacuous definitions, it is not a good sign.
iWho knows maybe the next year a new gender studies on planetary bodies would help with some new recomendations 2014-05-28 16:58 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > On 28 May 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote: > >> Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status >> >> Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis >> places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. >> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter >> >> > > Good news! > > I have never really understood the disgrace of Pluto. > > To me, something big enough and quasi-spherical, and heavy enough to > go around a star, is a planet enough. > > I know that definition might made the number of Solar Planets very > big, but in the everything list that should not be a problem. How > many? About 2014 I think :) > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
