Re:On Primes and Pluto
by the_af on Friday March 07, 2014 @08:28AM
(#7360029)
Not sure what your point is.
The OP pretty much dismisses the article and cites the one thing that is well-known, less interesting, and not the focus of the article. The article is way more interesting and lists a variety or reasons (the one the OP quotes, historical reasons, wrong reasons, and even one final twist).
The OP's comment looks like a case of "did not RTFA". Color me unimpressed.
The OP pretty much dismisses the article and cites the one thing that is well-known, less interesting, and not the focus of the article. The article is way more interesting and lists a variety or reasons (the one the OP quotes, historical reasons, wrong reasons, and even one final twist).
The OP's comment looks like a case of "did not RTFA". Color me unimpressed.