Slashdot Mirror

"it is not codified into law anywhere..." Actually it is in 2 states:

Florida: 318.18(3)(b) requires warnings for speeding 5 or less over the limit outside a school zone

Georgia: No fine for speeding five MPH or less over the limit.

See http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.h... for a lot more details.

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?

Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?

Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.

... If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.

Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound. Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end. If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, th

MIT has developed methods of splitting water molecules by means of solar energy based on research into photosynthesis. Sadly I haven't heard anything new about this since I first heard about it awhile back and I hope they're still working on it.

They can anticipate opponents based on statistical probability and thereby win, on average, more often than even *a human being*.

Example: LZ-based Rock-Paper-Scissors bot. It's written in javascript that's inlined in the page.

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scig...

SCIgen, an automatic CS paper generator, which got several "authors" accepted to talk at conferences !

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstrea...

Tesla thought he could transmit power without wires. He evidently _didn't_ Grok electromagnetism. Despite what many non-EEs claim.

Do tell. Using the same principles Tesla was using.

There is a US satellite orbiting the Moon right now, another whose mission just ended, and yet another one 2 years ago.

No, we have not foresworn the Moon.

Boyce Rensberger, your erstwhile editor at the Washington Post, said this a year ago in the comments section of this article:

Gladwell is the same Gladwell as when I was his editor at The Washington Post. At first, I fell for his approach and brought him over to the science pod from the Post's business staff. Then I realized that he cherry picks research findings to support just-so stories. Every time I sent him back to do more reporting on the rest of the story, he moaned and fumed.

When I read his proposal for "The Tipping Point," I found it to be warmed over epidemiology. It was based on a concept and a perception so old it was already an ancient saying about straw and a camel's back. But gussied up in Malcolm's writing style, it struck the epidemiologically naive as brilliant. Brilliant enough to win an advance of more than $1 million.

What's your response?

They're kind of a dull read. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs and some version of Scheme will be interesting, challenging, and informative.'

Knuth's multi-volume opus is a very low-level (assembly language) presentation of classic algorithms. Its scope is very narrowly focused but very deep w.r.t. nuts and bolts details. If exposure to core algorithms is your goal (along with more modern techniques of algorithm analysis & design, and a CD-ROM of sample code from the book to tinker with), you may be better served by a more high-level / modern approach like Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Klein's Introduction to Algorithms:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Abelson and Sussman's S&ICP, by contrast, is a broad immersion in fundamental core concepts in programming at large, including algorithms, software engineering paradigms, language design & implementation, and more, all with an emphasis on trade-offs and alternative styles of approaching programming tasks. Its focus is very broad but still concrete enough to be comprehensive. This textbook, along with sample code from the book, representative problem sets (classroom assignments), a teaching guide, errata, and a complete implementation of the version of the Scheme programming language used in the book, are all available for downloading free on line from the MIT Press:

    http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/

This makes S&ICP an ideal fit for your goal of brushing up on programming fundamentals while off line.

Note that the goal of the book is not to teach you Scheme/Lisp per se nor functional programming as dogma: its goal is to teach you how to think about programming, how to effectively comminicate ideas via programs, and how to think like a professional programmer without letting baroque language details or pragmatic implementation constraints distract from the core ideas. It happens to use Scheme to accomplish that because Scheme is a minimal, simple yet powerful language in which to bootstrap, prototype and explore a broad space of ideas (including non-functional / stateful / OOPS programming, static -vs- dynamic typing, interpreters -vs- compilers, syntax extensions, and so on) without letting the trees obscure your vision of the forest.

Once you've grasped the material in the book, picking up some other more-industrial languages and development environments afterward should be relatively painless, since you'll be well equipped to read between the lines about implicit assumptions they may embody about various trade offs that might otherwise seem arbitrary or capricious or opaque. That's the intent of the S&ICP approach, anyway. Read the excellent forward and introduction closely, for example. They explicitly say as much, and more plainly and clearly than I could in this short(ish) missive.

-z

At the very least: Intro to algorithms

I feel that systemd in general addresses weaknesses listed here: http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/ww... Along with Wayland, ZFS, etc. of course.

Another article with video is in The Washington Post: Elon Musk: 'With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon.'

Or, see the entire webcast. (The MIT web site is probably overloaded.)

Luckily there is always Scratch :) http://scratch.mit.edu/

Same here. I've been using that "feature" to check how long the maid stays when she comes by to do weekly housekeeping.

Now I know how she can afford an iPhone, she charges for 3h but stays 2h!

Untill you knew how long it took her, were you happy with the quality of the cleaning and the price you were paying? If so, try not be be bothered by her "profit margin". If not, renegotiate the fee, or find someone else to do the job.

With all that said, are you paying her a "living wage"? For Alameda County, California that comes out to something like $24/hour for a single adult supporting one child or at least $11.50/hour to support just the working adult.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Of course people working jobs like house cleaning or computer consulting cannot typically get billable hours for 40 hours per week due to scheduling difficulties and travel time, so the hourly rate needs to be higher to account for that, or as your cleaner may attest, the "billing time" might be longer than the "working time". Other ways of offsetting this it to impose time minimums (at least two hours per job) or charge for travel time or distance. Considering that the IRS has a standard car expense of $0.56/mile, if someone is driving 60 mph they are generating an expense of $33.60/hour. Granted, the IRS is very generous on this expense calculation, but the actual expense for most people is probably close to at least half of that.

http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standa...

There are very few people getting rich cleaning houses.

False.
http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/com...

"The U.S. patent law system is among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application within one year of the publication or offer for sale."

here you go
and more related papers at http://web.mit.edu/hamsa/www/pubs.html

here you go
and more related papers at http://web.mit.edu/hamsa/www/pubs.html

With Scratch, you can program your own interactive stories, games, and animations — and share your creations with others in the online community.

Scratch helps young people learn to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively — essential skills for life in the 21st century.

Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is provided free of charge.

If you have kids, you should introduce them to scratch!

Here's the Wikipedia article on his project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Here's some research he was involved in at MIT that he was involved in at some unknown date: http://ssl.mit.edu/research/Fu...
Here's a video of one of the researchers talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do you mean like the inForm system from MIT?

While I'll agree with the "IAAFM" reply that simpler can be better, I'm sure these sorts of systems are the way of the future*

* for some value of future greater than today.

quietnet: Simple chat program using inaudible sounds

##

Simple chat program using near ultrasonic frequencies. Works without Wifi or Bluetooth and won't show up in a pcap.

Note: If you can clearly hear the send script working then your speakers may not be high quality enough to produce sounds in the near ultrasonic range.

https://github.com/Katee/quiet...

##

- Installation

Quietnet is dependant on pyaudio[1] and Numpy[2].

[1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/hu...
[2] http://www.numpy.org/

##

Better Projects

Quietnet is just a toy! Take a look at minimodem[3] or gnuradio[4] if you need something robust.

[3] http://www.whence.com/minimode...
[4] http://gnuradio.org/

quietnet: Simple chat program using inaudible sounds

##

Simple chat program using near ultrasonic frequencies. Works without Wifi or Bluetooth and won't show up in a pcap.

Note: If you can clearly hear the send script working then your speakers may not be high quality enough to produce sounds in the near ultrasonic range.

https://github.com/Katee/quiet...

##

- Installation

Quietnet is dependant on pyaudio[1] and Numpy[2].

[1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/hu...
[2] http://www.numpy.org/

##

Better Projects

Quietnet is just a toy! Take a look at minimodem[3] or gnuradio[4] if you need something robust.

[3] http://www.whence.com/minimode...
[4] http://gnuradio.org/

quietnet: Simple chat program using inaudible sounds

##

Simple chat program using near ultrasonic frequencies. Works without Wifi or Bluetooth and won't show up in a pcap.

Note: If you can clearly hear the send script working then your speakers may not be high quality enough to produce sounds in the near ultrasonic range.

https://github.com/Katee/quiet...

##

- Installation

Quietnet is dependant on pyaudio[1] and Numpy[2].

[1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/hu...
[2] http://www.numpy.org/

##

Better Projects

Quietnet is just a toy! Take a look at minimodem[3] or gnuradio[4] if you need something robust.

[3] http://www.whence.com/minimode...
[4] http://gnuradio.org/

European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye,
Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

Uh, who is "everybody"? Certainly not MIT itself. Stats on their international students show that about 50% of all international students and scholars come from Asia, much more than Europe.

MIT cares about "diversity" numbers, sure, but they already can claim that they are a "minority majority" campus with over 51% of undergraduates from minorities. So, they'd really have no reason to further inflate the Asian numbers... unless, well, the Asian students were actually more qualified.

Which means Asian researchers are probably working at MIT because MIT actually is looking for highly qualified people -- and thus, MIT hired/admitted them.

The only people "losing their mind" are racists, who clearly aren't "everybody." (If they were, MIT wouldn't have such high numbers of minorities in the first place.)

And why are we discussing this anyway? TFA has a photo of the lab team, which is certainly not all Asian in composition.

European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye,
Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

Uh, who is "everybody"? Certainly not MIT itself. Stats on their international students show that about 50% of all international students and scholars come from Asia, much more than Europe.

MIT cares about "diversity" numbers, sure, but they already can claim that they are a "minority majority" campus with over 51% of undergraduates from minorities. So, they'd really have no reason to further inflate the Asian numbers... unless, well, the Asian students were actually more qualified.

Which means Asian researchers are probably working at MIT because MIT actually is looking for highly qualified people -- and thus, MIT hired/admitted them.

The only people "losing their mind" are racists, who clearly aren't "everybody." (If they were, MIT wouldn't have such high numbers of minorities in the first place.)

And why are we discussing this anyway? TFA has a photo of the lab team, which is certainly not all Asian in composition.

European researchers work at MIT and nobody beats an eye,
Asian researchers work at MIT and everybody looses their mind.

Uh, who is "everybody"? Certainly not MIT itself. Stats on their international students show that about 50% of all international students and scholars come from Asia, much more than Europe.

MIT cares about "diversity" numbers, sure, but they already can claim that they are a "minority majority" campus with over 51% of undergraduates from minorities. So, they'd really have no reason to further inflate the Asian numbers... unless, well, the Asian students were actually more qualified.

Which means Asian researchers are probably working at MIT because MIT actually is looking for highly qualified people -- and thus, MIT hired/admitted them.

The only people "losing their mind" are racists, who clearly aren't "everybody." (If they were, MIT wouldn't have such high numbers of minorities in the first place.)

And why are we discussing this anyway? TFA has a photo of the lab team, which is certainly not all Asian in composition.

HADCRUT3 has even less coverage than HADCRUT4. Why not use the latest and greatest? Regarding mathematical artifacts, replication over many different reconstructions using different methods and different data gives us confidence in the results. Regarding malfeasance, I'm not sure that the resignation of a journal's editor when it becomes clear that the journal is pushing an agenda at the expense of the truth is malfeasance. I'm not inclined to discuss conspiracy theories although I know these narratives are popular. Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Regarding plotting from 2002, yes the trend line is negative for some data sets. It is more negative if you plot from 2010. What does that tell us? Note that the data is consistently above the trend until about 2007. Note that the data cycles above and below the trend as PDO and ENSO wax and wane. What we are seeing is a steady upward trend with natural variability superimposed on top. We're below the trend line now and the indicators show that we should be. That means we will go back above when the indicators flip back to the positive part of their cycle.

When you look at the data, do you have any expectation that the next El Nino will not be the new hottest year on record? That's even with the PDO strongly negative. You can subtract ENSO and PDO from the trend with this tool and you end up with something closer to the real trend: http://scratch.mit.edu/project...

P.S. if you have kids then you should introduce them to Scratch. I've been showing it to my kids and I've become addicted :) Please pardon the Scratch evangelism :)

I did fine.

Good for you! Want a gold star?

Anecdote is not data. Graduates from many prestigious schools in general have better outcomes. Highly motivated people can generally get ahead anywhere -- if you're such a highly motivated person, then it's not surprising that you did well in life, regardless of where you got your degree, or whether you even had a college degree AT ALL.

With far less debt.

Well, you might have a point if you were talking about some random expensive second-rate private college. But the schools brought up in the summary like the Ivies and your chosen example of MIT have incredibly generous financial aid packages that are generally entirely need-based. Some facts from MIT's financial aid info:

-- 72% of undergraduates receive either a need-based or merit-based scholarship.

-- 41% of undergraduates have student loan debt at graduation, and the average debt at graduation is $17,900. The median debt for all undergraduate financial aid recipients who graduated in 2013 was $10,948.

For a school that estimates its ANNUAL tuition and fees now come to over $60,000/year (with 4-year cost in the $250,000 range), coming out with just over $10,000 in debt is pretty darn miniscule, I'd say. And that's less than the cost of ONE YEAR of college at many state universities these days. (Lest you think that these numbers are skewed because everyone comes from rich families, note also that at least 1/3 of MIT graduates come from familes with annual incomes of less than $75,000.)

So, sorry -- if you actually get into and graduate from MIT, chances are your debt levels are going to be at the levels of many state university graduates, perhaps lower.

(Note that MIT and the Ivies can do this because they have big endowments. Your argument would be better targeted at lesser private universities that change $50+k/year and don't have the resources to give such generous aid.)

Besides, you are surrounded by "normal" people, if there is such a thing. If you surround yourself with abnormal people you never learn to deal with the rest of the world. Which amounts to a bad education.

Meh. You have a point, I suppose. But there are many, many years and daily opportunities to learn to socialize with people who aren't as smart as you ("normal" people). Even if you go to a place like MIT, you can easily find plenty of opportunities to deal with "normal" people while you're there -- go outside your down, volunteer, join some non-university social groups, become active in local politics or non-profit organizations... whatever. Build up your resume AND learn to deal with "normal" people, all while going to a top-tier school -- what a concept!

However, there are far fewer opportunities to surround yourself with incredibly smart people to get a high-quality education. Not to mention that it's useful to get this training while you're young and your brain is still more malleable. And unless you end up at some really top-tier company, chances are you're not going to be challenged intellectually by those around you.

Sure, it's definitely possible for a well-motivated student to get a great education elsewhere and to do great things in life. But if you have the opportunity to attend a top school with decent financial aid rules, there are few downsides to it, contrary to your implications.

... you had calculated this number for thermal equilibrium using Kircchoff's radiation law. But as I've explained many times now, there is no thermal equilibrium so Kircchoff's law does not apply. ... as you state yourself that equation is derived from Kircchoff's radiation law, which does not apply here. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

... You pointed out to MIT's derivation of energy transfer between infinite gray bodies. It does not apply here because ... that derivation makes use of Kircchoff's law which does not apply in Spencer's challenge. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

... you'll still have to modify your equation if that is based on the one you borrowed from MIT. I repeat that Kircchoff's law does not apply here. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

No, I calculated this number for a system which doesn't change with time. From now on I'll call this condition "steady-state" but that doesn't change the fact that my equations are based on conservation of energy in a system that doesn't change with time. Again, I only mentioned Kirchhoff's law to explain MIT's gray body approximation. Since emissivity isn't a function of wavelength, all surfaces aren't required to be at the same temperature.

... You pointed out to MIT's derivation of energy transfer between infinite gray bodies. It does not apply here because (a) we have specifically defined areas, they are not infinite... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

Notice that the first example MIT applies their final equation to is a thermos bottle which doesn't have infinite walls. That's because a thermos bottle has no edges (just like our fully enclosed plate!) so the infinite plate approximation applies. If not, why did MIT use their equation to model a thermos? Were they talking about a thermos with infinite walls?

... any temperature of the source that is higher than the initial radiative equilibrium (150 deg. F) represents higher power output from that same source, any such higher temperature would violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

No, Jane. If power in != power out in steady-state, that would violate conservation of energy. Because my equations are based on the principle that in steady-state power in = power, their solutions satisfy conservation of energy.

Your figure of 233 deg. F radiant temperature at what you called "equilibrium" represents a constant radiative power output from the heat source greater than its initial power output at 150 deg. F. Where is this additional power coming from? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

No. The radiative power output is exactly the same as before the heat source was enclosed. It's hotter because radiative power output is proportional to T_h^4 - T_c^4. Before the heat source was enclosed, it was radiating to the chamber walls at T_c = 0F. After it's enclosed, it's radiating to the inside surface of the enclosing plate which is at T_c > 0F.

But as you said, it's pretty damned hard to prove anything without calculating it all the way through. So let's finally take the very first s

• Climate Change Causes Insurers to Rethink Price of Risk After Hurricane Sandy
• Insuring a Better Future: Sustainability at Swiss Re

... The problem is that there is no such thing as a thermal superconductor of this kind, and you aren't seeing that it leads to contradictions. The only way it could exist would be if it had NO thermal effect on its surroundings whatever. So it's the ultimate straw-man argument. There is no way it can be legitimately used to demonstrate anything. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-01]

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about thermal superconductors. That's why I've repeatedly pointed out that I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell, and it also warms the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") to ~233.8F.

No, they didn't, because it's a different problem, being given a theoretical treatment. You keep doing that, but I'm not buying. Two infinite plates, neither of which is heated, is not even remotely the same situation, and it's also theoretical only. They're not taking into account certain real-world factors pertaining to Spencer's experiment. Latour does. Not that they're doing anything wrong... given the context of their situation: infinite non-heated grey bodies. This is not Spencer's experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-01]

No, it's exactly the same problem. The same infinite sum of absorption and reflection. The plates are only "infinite" to avoid having to model fringing field effects around the plate edges. And note that Dr. Latour doesn't model edge effects either, so his plates are either infinite or the passive plate completely encloses the "source". Either way, there would be no edges.

Notice that the first example MIT applies their final equation to is a thermos bottle where the inside wall is heated by hot fluid.

You did not point to a calculation he performed on Spencer's situation and prove it wrong. You took what you incorrectly called an analogous situation and called that wrong. Which has been my whole point here. You keep claiming something else represents Spencer's experiment, but you won't tackle Spencer's actual, original experiment. You have consistently refused, for over 2 years. ... You continue to refuse to actually do what you said you'd done: refute Latour's treatment of Spencer's challenge. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-01]

Again, Dr. Spencer's actual, original experiment included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour's treatment of it. If you don't agree, please show where Dr. Latour specifies the dimensions of the plates before wrongly concluding that T remains 150.

In fact, as far as I can tell nobody's specified the plate dimensions except for me. Since the argument I'm refuting never specified the plate dimensions, why would the plate dimensions matter?

... I repeat: get the experiment with the two separate plates (actively heated plate and passive plate) right first. Then you can move on to a fully-enclosing plate. You say it's simpler but in a way it's not; you're trying to ride a bicycle when you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off. ...

http://web.mit.edu/
On a more serious note, although I agree with the sentiment of your comment, the first twelve monkeys to hit the typewriter won't always be the best informed. Sometimes it can take hours before someone with practical knowledge of the subject at hand chimes in. Added to that that moderation may take some time too there's always going to be crud before pearls. You can find more information on specialist websites, but there is often no discussion due the low visitor numbers on those sites or even no possibility to leave comments at all.

Let me tell you the story Of a man named Charlie On a tragic and fateful day He put ten cents in his pocket, Kissed his wife and family Went to ride on the MTA

Charlie handed in his dime At the Kendall Square Station And he changed for Jamaica Plain When he got there the conductor told him, "One more nickel." Charlie could not get off that train.

Did he ever return, No he never returned And his fate is still unlearn'd He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston He's the man who never returned. http://www.mit.edu/~jdreed/t/c...

I got distracted and broke my links. An Electrical Engineering View of a Mechanical Watch is at http://video.mit.edu/watch/an-..., and the SICP lectures are at http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ele...

I got distracted and broke my links. An Electrical Engineering View of a Mechanical Watch is at http://video.mit.edu/watch/an-..., and the SICP lectures are at http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ele...

No, I'm not wrong. You calculated the outside temperature from the inside temperature, saying it's LOWER because of its greater area. This much is correct. THEN you try to say that with a thermal superconductor, the inner temperature would be the same as outside. Except you just calculated that outside temperature from a WARMER interior. You quite literally can't have it both ways. EITHER you're claiming a superconductor has a different temperature on both sides, or you're claiming that the inside has 2 different temperatures simultaneously. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Remember that the inner surface of the enclosing shell is different than the surface of the heated plate. The inner and outer surfaces of the enclosing shell are at exactly the same temperature because it's a thermal superconductor. That's what I've always been saying, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.

The surface of the heated plate at equilibrium, however, is warmer than the inner surface of the enclosing shell. It has to be.

Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured. This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I've repeatedly linked to that excellent example. Despite your incoherent protests, it's a relevant example where a passive plate reduces radiative heat loss from a warmer source, warming it to a higher equilibrium temperature. It's a real world example which shows Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong.

See? Same shit different day. You won't sit down and do the calculations start-to-finish, instead you do one small part, then start indulging in your hallmark game of out-of-context he-said, she-said, toss in a straw-man, then claim it's all proved. ... It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish. All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Don't you see the irony here? I've repeatedly done the calculations "start-to-finish" by deriving and solving equations describing the final equilibrium temperature of the enclosed plate using increasingly realistic scenarios. I've repeatedly told you that you'd only be able to understand this thought

I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:

"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. ... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."

Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured.

This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish.

All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong.

Here is the PhD thesis of Thomas J. McGuire who is designing the compact fusion device mentioned in the parent comment. This 2007 thesis argues for the need to build compact fusion devices and surveys some options with their strengths and flaws. I don't think it describes in detail the high beta reactor he is currently designing at Lockheed Martin. Still, it shows the idea of him designing this reactor is plausible.

Wasn't 'solving problems with basic thinking' the long-discounted Aristotelean method of scientific deduction?

Have you read Aristotle or just relied on what you think he said? Aristotle based his scientific writings on careful observation. Most people just don't bother to read what he wrote.

For instance, when Aristotle wrote that heavy things fall faster than light things, this came from careful observation of heavy things falling faster than light things. He also observed that the difference in rate of fall depended on the density of the medium (e.g., air vs. water), from which he inferred the role of viscosity and concluded that in a vacuum heavy and light things would both fall equally fast. (See Physics, book IV, part 8)

From this view of the business firm, in turn, comes an obvious conclusion: somehow release those who are technically and imaginatively proficient from the restraints imposed by the business system and there will be unprecedented productivity and wealth in the economy."

From Bridging the Gap Between Stewards and Creators.

We had that for a short while, example would be bell labs.. then the business got greedy and killed innovation.

You know it's interesting when you look at organizations, people seem to think that innovation is focused in start-ups but once they get large you can't have it, but this just isn't true. If you look at a lot of the really successful organizations (compare Market Cap vs. Head count) you will see a trend where the culture values the thoughts and ideas of the engineers, the problem solvers, over that of the sales, market, MBA crowd. The business group is there to watch, and see what they can monetize, but they do not control the problem solvers, they just figure out how to sell what they are creating. (Apple, Google, Intel, + many more). Sadly it is just so damn rare that it says that way.. i applaud the few that have kept it going.

The idea of an ongoing struggle between results-oriented managers and technical visionaries is not new. Economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen noted it in his 1904 book The Theory of Business Enterprise.1 Eighty-some years later, John Kenneth Galbraith cited Veblen's view to describe a dynamic still at work in a more modern economy:

"The businessmen, for good or ill, keep the talents and tendencies of the scientists and engineers under control and suppress them as necessary in order to maintain prices and maximize profits. From this view of the business firm, in turn, comes an obvious conclusion: somehow release those who are technically and imaginatively proficient from the restraints imposed by the business system and there will be unprecedented productivity and wealth in the economy."

From Bridging the Gap Between Stewards and Creators.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right....

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ga...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

Basically if the traffic around you is speeding. Keep up.

Why would they write the law this way? Basically what causes many accidents is not the speed. But the differential between speed and other cars. Basically keep up with the flow. If everyone is going 5 mph and you go the speed limit of 55 you can get cited. If everyone is doing 75 and you are doing the limit of 55 you can also get cited. The ticket is NOT because you are going fast its because you are driving dangerous.

As the other poster mentioned, and as described in this page, obstructing traffic and driving the speed limit are entirely orthogonal legal concepts.

Actually, at least an order of magnitude more money is created by the private sector than by government. The private sector invented "kicking the can down the road".

Planned economies don't have to accompany a basic income. Give everyone a choice whether they want to enter the free market, or pursue their happiness on their own. Our goal is knowledge advancement; business is not the most efficient way to advance knowledge, because it is too short-sighted and focused on next quarter's stockholders' report.

What incentive was Kleinrock, et al. responding too, when they created the internet? Not economic. They simply wanted to connect computers long distances apart so they could communicate easier. Kleinrock has explicitly denied any economic motivation for the internet.

From http://www.latimes.com/busines...:

Today's anniversary gives us a chance to remember a salient fact about the Internet's origins. It was a government project, built with your tax money, because private companies (namely AT&T and IBM) didn't see enough profit in the idea. That's what government is supposed to do--take on important jobs shunned by the private sector.

The private sector resisted the internet. From http://sloanreview.mit.edu/art...:

The idea of an ongoing struggle between results-oriented managers and technical visionaries is not new. Economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen noted it in his 1904 book The Theory of Business Enterprise. Eighty-some years later, John Kenneth Galbraith cited Veblenâ(TM)s view to describe a dynamic still at work in a more modern economy:

"The businessmen, for good or ill, keep the talents and tendencies of the scientists and engineers under control and suppress them as necessary in order to maintain prices and maximize profits. From this view of the business firm, in turn, comes an obvious conclusion: somehow release those who are technically and imaginatively proficient from the restraints imposed by the business system and there will be unprecedented productivity and wealth in the economy."

A basic income is one way to "release" individuals from having to work for little Napoleon bosses more interested in playing control games than disruptive innovation. Hold challenges (like DARPA, Google Bug Bounties, X Prize, kaggle.com, Netflix Prize, etc.) to stimulate creativity.

People sign up and never finish because the courses are downright awful. And there's no mind nor incentive for them to get better. Instructors think that just recording a lecture and putting it online is good education, but it isn't.

Watch Daphne Koller droning on about graphical models as the video shows her standing at a lectern talking, or showing a powerpoint-style frame while she reads the text on the frame to us.

Watch Anant Agarwal go through a *hugely* dense and boring derivation, only to stop before the end and say "but this derivation is too hard, there's an easier way". Twice. For the same result.

Try to figure out how many degrees of freedom a soccer ball has, then argue with Sebastian Thrun because the answer he thought you should have entered is not the mathematically correct one. (Also, see if you can figure out what this has to do with AI.)

For a breath of fresh air, watch Donald Sadoway take you through a delightful and satisfying explanation of chemistry. (Ignore the 1st lecture which is about class scheduling.) It's wonderful.

I could cite two dozen *major* problems with selected online courses - things that go counter to the fundamental goal of learning that would be obvious to someone familiar with human learning mechanisms or a testing group or even a member of Toastmasters. When I point these out to the chief scientist at edX, he responds with "we can't change the way we do things because of X".

Let me repeat that: the *chief scientist* at edX has no control over teaching techniques or video methods or course quality.

Some people (ie - Dr. Sadoway in the link above) have figured out how to do it right, but the vast majority aren't interested in quality. It's unfortunate that edX got all those millions in seed money, because we'll have to wait until they burn through it before they get hungry enough to worry about quality and effectiveness.

It's insane.

People sign up and never finish because the courses are downright awful. And there's no mind nor incentive for them to get better. Instructors think that just recording a lecture and putting it online is good education, but it isn't.

Watch Daphne Koller droning on about graphical models as the video shows her standing at a lectern talking, or showing a powerpoint-style frame while she reads the text on the frame to us.

Watch Anant Agarwal go through a *hugely* dense and boring derivation, only to stop before the end and say "but this derivation is too hard, there's an easier way". Twice. For the same result.

Try to figure out how many degrees of freedom a soccer ball has, then argue with Sebastian Thrun because the answer he thought you should have entered is not the mathematically correct one. (Also, see if you can figure out what this has to do with AI.)

For a breath of fresh air, watch Donald Sadoway take you through a delightful and satisfying explanation of chemistry. (Ignore the 1st lecture which is about class scheduling.) It's wonderful.

I could cite two dozen *major* problems with selected online courses - things that go counter to the fundamental goal of learning that would be obvious to someone familiar with human learning mechanisms or a testing group or even a member of Toastmasters. When I point these out to the chief scientist at edX, he responds with "we can't change the way we do things because of X".

Let me repeat that: the *chief scientist* at edX has no control over teaching techniques or video methods or course quality.

Some people (ie - Dr. Sadoway in the link above) have figured out how to do it right, but the vast majority aren't interested in quality. It's unfortunate that edX got all those millions in seed money, because we'll have to wait until they burn through it before they get hungry enough to worry about quality and effectiveness.

It's insane.

Particularly as it is the community in which the lab is based that will inevitably suffer most should there be an incident.

A weapons-grade bioagent lab in the middle of downtown Boston? Sure, why not!

WSOD? http://civic.mit.edu/blog/nate...