Jesse -- what you said.

still on project. hate.

I send an email with ten questions. I get a response telling me why I can't get an answer to #1. That's it. I know I shouldn't feel stupid replying with a "What about the other stuff?" email, especially since I've been owed the information awhile. I'm just surprised by the whole thing. And totally shouldn't be.

ita, do you work with the monkeys in that monster.com commercial? Because it kind of sounds that way.

This challenge really could have benefitted from some additonal time. I don't see how they expected anything other than a train wreck given that they really didn't give anyone time to *think* let alone try things out.

As I understand it, the general rule on the use of honorifics associated with advanced degrees was that you used them when they were relevant. This would include job-related settings, of course, but it is broader than that. For instance, if a psychologist is serving on the local school board or a geologist is serving on the local land use planning commission, you would continue to use Dr. on the grounds that the degree may be relevant to the expertise the person has in these roles.

But if the psychologist is leading nature hikes or the geologist is coaching little league they aren't doctors any more.

Why the traditional exceptions for clergy and physicians? There was an assumption that the minister's domain extended to all of human life so the degree was always relevant. And 100 years ago, the physician's expertise COULD be relevant at any time, if there was an emergency, and it was effcient to scan the guest list, passenger list, etc to see if there was a physician in the group. Do either of these exceptions make sense in a religiously diverse society with quick access to emergency medical care? Probably not. In a medical emergency, you'd be better off finding a paramedic or a nurse practitioner than a dermatologist or radiologist. It's a stupid rule.

Details on the results of the big planet debate:

So now we know what a planet is. As confirmed by the passage of a revised resolution at the International Astronomical Union’s general assembly today in Prague, a planet meets the following criteria:

* It must be in orbit around a star

* It must possess sufficient mass to allow it to assume a round shape; i.e., it assumes hydrostatic equilibrium

* It is large enough that it has cleared the orbit through which it moves

The third item, of course, is the interesting part, for it rules out Ceres, about which there had been some controversy. I mean, it was one thing to consider 2003 UB313 as a planet, but to delve into the middle of the Solar System and define a new planet in medias res seemed a stretch too far for some people (though not for me). Pluto is also ruled out because it moves for part of its orbit inside the orbit of Neptune; Charon likewise is left without planetary designation.

...

There is precedent for planetary demotion, incidentally. After its discovery in 1801, Ceres was generally thought to be a planet, but by the early 1850s so many of what we now call ‘asteroids’ were being discovered that planetary status for all was ruled out.

Huh. So, according to this, Pluto lost its planet status not because it's too small, but because its orbit croses that of Neptune.

[link]

But doesn't Neptune's cross the path of Pluto's? Is this some sort of plot?

I think that Pluto is totally being wronged and should be grandfathered in.

But doesn't Neptune's cross the path of Pluto's? Is this some sort of plot?

That crossed my mind too. Um... Neptune was there first.

OK, there must be more to the rules that what I quoted.