Comments for Murky

Comment on Six Nations 2010 – Match 11 – Scotland vs. England by American Football NFL » New England Patriots Take Care of Their … | New England Patriots NFL Announcer

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:45:52 +0000

[...] Six Nations 2010 – Match 11 – Scotland vs. England [...]

Comment on Using Spruchnummer to crack Lorenz by Chris Meiklejohn

Chris Meiklejohn — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:47:13 +0000

After writing a blog on RC4, this was the missing piece I was looking for. I had no clue how the XOR of the ciphertexts was used to derive the plaintext.

Thank you!

Comment on Kangaroo Meat by Sandra Corbett

Sandra Corbett — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:14:46 +0000

I have to admit I’ve never tried kangaroo but, after watching ‘Biggest Loser’ (Australia), where they said it has less fat than chicken breast I’m going to give it a try! I’m very weight conscience, so mainly eat white meat, except for beef lasagne once a week, so am eager to try roo as not only is it low in fat but apparently very high in iron. Will let you know what I thought.

Comment on Person of Indian Origin by Murk

Murk — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:58:30 +0000

Of descent.

There is a limit to how many generations – I think the person’s parents must be Indian passport holders.

Comment on Person of Indian Origin by craggs

craggs — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:16:15 +0000

Did you get PIO by marrying an Indian National Citizen or a person of Indian descent. I am Kenyan of Indian descent and my husband is British. Would he get it, as I am not Indian Citizen?

Comment on Murkymatic by Murk

Murk — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:53:17 +0000

Note – murkymatic is no longer used on this site. Instead, I use murkytheme – which shares some code, but was written from scratch, nicking bits from murkymatic

Comment on River Song and Doctor Who by Murk

Murk — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:59:06 +0000

Yep, picked up on that from the trailers.

Comment on River Song and Doctor Who by brad

brad — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:08:43 +0000

River song is coming back in the 5th series

Comment on Happy Birthday, Pluto by Murk

Murk — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:03:25 +0000

‘I don’t think the IAU is the only “authority” in this matter’

There may be individuals whose opinion should be taken into account – but there is no rival international body (of which I’m aware).

In either case, I don’t think the definition of ‘planet’ is vital to understanding the objects.

Comment on Happy Birthday, Pluto by Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:21:13 +0000

I think the only issue on which we disagree is, whose definition is “the” definition? I don’t think the IAU is the only “authority” in this matter, especially since they bungled the process, came up with a very flawed definition, and then, when asked by dissenting astronomers to reopen the discussion three years later at the next General Assembly, they adamantly refused. This is problematic. It means the IAU expects both astronomers and lay people to blindly follow its dictate and allows no room to amend or improve that dictate.

I and many others, including many professional astronomers, don’t believe that a bad definition is better than none or that a bad definition should stand just because this one group decreed it. They had a chance to fix it, and they didn’t. I would rather see two competing categories be given equal legitimacy than one forced on everyone in the name of “authority.”

A definition should stand or fall on its own merit. With so many planetary scientists rejecting the IAU definition, one can easily say it fails to do that. You admit their definition is not clear, yet still grant it legitimacy. I don’t understand this. An unclear definition does not help communicate understanding of the solar system. It just causes more confusion.

Pluto may have many anomalies compared to the terrestrial and jovian planets, but these do not make it not a planet. They make it a different kind of planet. Most of the 429 exoplanets we have discovered are far more anomalous than Pluto. According to the IAU definition, none of these are planets. Does this make sense to you?

The process by which we get a definition is as important as is the definition itself. Given today’s technology, people do not need to be in the same room to discuss an issue and vote on it. The group that rushed through the resolution knew they were violating the IAU bylaws. Yet they continue to refuse to reopen the issue.

There are issues at stake here such as how do we know what we know and who decides on a definition? Since the debate clearly remains ongoing, why not teach that there are two different ways of understanding the solar system–the dynamical way, which the IAU definition follows, and the geophysical way, which Stern and those who dissent with the IAU follow.