[–] 26 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It's all about the moments worth living for. Snuggle with your cat? Play with the pupper? Something else you love?

Those are the good times at any age.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    There could be many options. My favorite is a reclassification. Terrestrial planets(first 4), gas planets (next 4) and drwarf planets (numerous). Though mercury could fit into the dwarf planet category which is fine with me. The current classification was made specifically to demote pluto with rules that particularly apply to it so that mercury would not fit into it. It was to keep the "planet" category special and to not have too many(keep it traditional). Seems a bit geocentric and less scientific.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (8 children)

    I would completely agree with you except IAU specifically said Pluto is a dwarf planet and that, for some reason, a "dwarf planet" is NOT a sub category of planet. It's its own thing and not a planet.

    It was a weird conference and a weird vote.

    Edit: "planet" IMHO is more of a traditional category like constellation. Some how a tiny rock like mercury is more like Jupiter than the tiny rock Pluto. It doesn't make much scientific senseso it seems more traditional. It would be like removing the name for a constellation because one of the stars is really a bright nebula or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 13 points 21 hours ago (12 children)

    I imagine nasa would be perfectly fine with Pluto still categorized as a planet. It was just a handful of people at a IAU conference(many had left by the time the vote happened) that made the change.

  • source
  • view more: next ›