No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.
Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen.
Nobody -- or almost nobody, anyway -- wants a harassing workplace, but some people are just plain thin-skinned and get all offended at the drop of a hat. Those people don't have the right to make everybody around them miserable just because they won't grow up.
After being told that "Whatever a woman considers Sexual Harassment is sexual harassment turned the workplace into one where men avoided women at all costs, had witnesses to protect themselves, and made the US-Russia cold war look like a honeymoon, What manner of workplace was that?
I had one even worse.
While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment."
Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment."
She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment."
The problem there, of course, being that we knew she got offended at comments about politics, at the front page of the newspaper, and any number of other things. It was a bit of a surprise to find that she considered ALL of those things to be sexual harassment.
I quit not long after that. That wasn't the primary reason, but it was certainly one of the reasons.
No, it's a problem with governments, being beholden to corporations, trying to force corporations to stop being regulated, but doing it in a ham handed way which can't work.
This in no way contradicts what I wrote above. So why you begin it with "No" is a bit of a mystery to me.
So every idiot who keeps telling us how awesome the free market will be once they force it on all of us is trying to make sure governments have no power over corporations, and undermining their ability to do anything.
A free market wasn't "forced" on you. Read some history. That's the way this country started. And I have a big clue for you: it has been doing WORSE the more the government has been interfering, in its admittedly ham-handed way.
The thing you're missing here is that government interference with markets will always be ham-handed. Government will never have the necessary amount of information to centrally plan the economy. Many have tried, all have failed.
Antitrust is one of the few legitimate roles government can play in the economy, and be effective. But it hasn't been bothering.
"Crony capitalism" is not capitalism. It is "corporatism", also known as Fascism. It's not my fault if you get them confused.
You could begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report. If you're too lazy to look it up yourself, you could have read a few inches further down the page and found links.
I agree it's a ridiculous number, but it is also true, according to the U.S. government itself. So read it and weep, or not. I don't care. But I sure as hell didn't make it up.
Gees dude you can even count, here is a list of the income of the largest oil companies.
Gees dude you can't even argue. The issue here isn't income, it's what the money is spent on. If I were to use your argument, I'd be saying the trillions of dollars in the whole U.S. budget all apply here.
If you had bothered to read a little further, you would have found appropriate links.
Also, I find it so amusing to get modded down by people who just can't stand to have their religion challenged. Not saying YOU are one of those, but obviously some are.
I don't think you know what an oligopoly is. Cable companies don't compete with each other because of exclusive municipal franchise agreements, which make it illegal for another company to run cable. Companies don't price fix with other companies because they're not competing with anyone. (In areas where they compete with fiber optics, they compete with the fiber company and you'll see lower prices.)
And I don't think you know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Today's ISPs are an oligopoly because they have near-exclusive access to the internet backbone, not JUST because municipalities give them exclusive contracts.
In 80% of the United States, the municipalities might as well give them an exclusive contract because there's only one player anyway! They've got the U.S. divided up among themselves and they don't compete, even when given the option. Hell, they even bragged about that to the FCC.
The "free market" is a complete and unmitigated fucking lie.
There will always be distorting factors -- like companies forming cartels to screw over everybody else, or morons who think corporations should have free speech, or idiots who think the free market is a real thing.
That's one of the things government is supposed to be for. A free market system requires real and enforced antitrust laws in order to remain free.
When government, as now, is not properly enforcing its antitrust laws and obligations, you end up with situations like we have now. That isn't a problem with "free markets", it's very clearly a problem with government.
notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks
I use links quite frequently, but I include them according to my priorities, moods, and convenience, not yours.
...but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that.
ALL of the things you mention here are research, except "assistance for developing countries".
Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.
And here you commit the same sin you accused me of: throwing out a meaningless total that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
No. Title II is intended to regulate monopolies. Not the same thing.
A monopoly is not a competitive market. That's why we have antitrust laws. In the case of broadband, we already have a de facto oligopoly. It therefore has to be either broken up, so there can be actual competition, or regulated, to ensure some semblance of fairness to the consumer.
Those are the only 2 options in a free market system: either ensure there is a free market by breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies into smaller competitive companies, or regulating them because there isn't a free market. There is no third option.
Further, Ma Bell wasn't broken up for reasons having to do with Title II. Rather, it was broken up because it was leveraging its Title II monopoly in order to participate in the telephone hardware business, which it was explicitly enjoined from being a part of. Turns out Western Electric, which manufactured virtually every telephone in the United States, was a wholly-own subsidiary. Further, Bell imposed prohibitive restrictions on any 3rd-party phone that used its lines.
After violating the Federal court injunction for 20 years, the government gave up on it ever meeting its legal requirements, and broke it up. But to sum it all up and set the record straight: it wasn't broken up because of its telephone lines or telephone service. It was broken up because it wasn't supposed to be in the telephone manufacturing business.
So, what you are saying is that the market was stagnant for a century until Ma Bell was broken up. See, isn't it fun to draw vague generalities without an ounce of consideration for any greater context?
What the hell are you talking about? There was no "market". Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly (and after the breakup a regulated oligopoly).
Much like today: the ISP business is now a regulated oligopoly under Title II, just like Ma Bell was.
There still hasn't been any real "market". The internet backbone is tied up by a few big players, and that's all. That's not a "market", that's a de facto oligopoly. The ONLY new player to come along in broadband in a long time has been Google, and that's because Google had the monetary clout to elbow its way in. Almost nobody else does.
That's what oligopoly means. And that's why oligopolies have to be regulated.
Calhoun's point of view is pretty much the same as the righties running today. The same rhetoric about "appeasement", the same paranoia about their way of life being destroyed. That is the essence of the right, and it is hopelessly backwards, on the wrong side of history.
You don't seem to know your history very well. As already stated, Lincoln supported emancipation for reasons of his own, which had absolutely nothing to do with "equality". His reason for wanting to end the keeping of black slaves was so they could eventually be removed from the continent entirely.
And to be honest, I don't know a single person who holds Calhoun's views today.
That's hilarious. Calhoun wasn't a member of the "political right". The fact that you associate some of those things with the right today, does not mean he was a "right winger" in his own day.
How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century.
And who would you choose for a role model instead of Calhoun? Maybe Abraham Lincoln? What about what he said during the Douglas debate?
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]â"that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.
Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Most of those on board died from smallpox. He was preparing a second expedition when the Civil War broke out.
You are blaming people for living in the day they lived, and for the society in which they were raised. Granted, it might have been rough and bigoted by our standards, but those were the best standards those people knew at the time.
Let's just assume that the rumored tens of millions of dollars spent by U.S. fossil fuels to combat climate change rhetoric is true.
Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations, in order to oppose fossil fuels in the U.S.
According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher.
Even if you figure only a fraction of that has gone to actually study "climate change", it's still a shitload of money, and it still dwarfs any lobbying by fossil fuel industry.
You still don't seem to understand that power which doesn't pass through that boundary isn't included in that energy conservation equation. I've repeatedly failed to explain [slashdot.org] that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.
I understand the situation quite well, and I solved it using standard physics textbook methods. I am very definitely not the person who is confused here.
I've repeatedly failed to explain [slashdot.org] that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.
No, you haven't "failed to explain" this. What you did -- typically in your fashion, in my experience -- was change your story when you realized that it was not a viable avenue of attack.
I repeat: I have all this already on record.
GO AWAY. You are achieving NOTHING with this nonsense but making yourself look progressively more foolish.
Any 2014 or 2015 MBP has ram soldered, and the SSDs cost 2 or 3 times as much as consumer versions..
Also, I want to point out that part of the reason those SSDs are more expensive is because they are PCI Express SSDs... which are faster than SATA III. That's a big performance plus.
However, the fact that they don't use an industry-standard connector detracts from that somewhat. PCI Express storage is going to be mainstream soon (my desktop machine supports it) and those using these particular Macs will still be SOL when it comes to 3rd-party upgrades.
Any 2014 or 2015 MBP has ram soldered, and the SSDs cost 2 or 3 times as much as consumer versions..
Those were the "most recent versions" I was referring to, and I already mentioned the proprietary connector for SSDs.
As others have mentioned, with the newest models you should be sure to get the max RAM and SSD up front. Otherwise you're pretty much SOL unless you want to pay the outrageous upgrade price later.
Also as I mentioned, models earlier than those were far more upgradeable. I'd rather have one of the latest 17" models (even though it was back then) than a new model. You can upgrade the SSD, replace the optical drive with a second SSD or HDD, upgrade the RAM as you please, etc.
The more Apple goes "our way or the highway", it's going to see people hitting the highway. It has been losing laptop market share, not to mention desktops for some time now. Every bit of it is traceable to "Apple ecosystem or nothing". Back when its machines were friendly to hackish developers was its non-phone heyday, and that was no accident.
No, the electrical power input is however many watts are sent in through the boundary around the heat source. That's why it's included in the energy conservation equation through that boundary.
You have just contradicted yourself AGAIN, because I have records of you clearly arguing that the input power was to maintain a temperature difference between the heat source and the walls, while I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable.
So now you're contradicting yourself, in trying to argue otherwise.
I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. I showed you the correct answer, double-checked according to standard textbook physics, in both directions.
Anything else you have to say is self-serving prevarication. And you've had an awful lot of it to say. That's a real problem you have, man. It isn't mine.
You were wrong. Own it, accept it, and move on. Until then, you're being WORSE than an obnoxious ass. You're harassing me and being a PAIN in the ass.
I'll elaborate a little bit: the term "navigable" comes from the context of interstate trade routes, originally trails, roads, or waterways. In particular, in terms of airways and waterways, it means routes used for interstate travel.
5 feet off the ground -- or even 200 feet off the ground -- is not legally considered to be "navigable" airspace ANYWHERE... except around airports where it is necessary for takeoff and landing. Nobody routinely travels interstate at those altitudes.
The entire authority of the FAA comes from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It has no authority over in-state, non-interstate-commerce routes or airspace.
"Navigable airways", in this context and the legal sense, are designated altitudes and routes used for interstate travel and commerce. They only approach the ground around airports, where they HAVE TO, of course.
Look up the Air Commerce Act, and the Congressional debates surrounding it. The intent was very clear, and the Federal judge who has already ruled on this issue agrees with me.
I didn't see the point of addressing your "friction from a horse's ass" observation because that didn't seem productive,
It certainly wasn't, but it should have been. Most people would have gotten the point.
Pretending that we only need to know the power flowing in and not the power flowing out is like pretending we only need to know a bathtub's faucet flow rate to determine the steady-state water level in the bathtub, and it doesn't matter if the drain is open or closed.
I didn't pretend that, and in fact I explicitly stated as much in my last comment. Where did you learn to read?
Spencer's experiment stipulated that the outer wall be kept at a constant temperature. Given that it is being given input from interior heat sources, it would take energy (over time, power of course) to maintain that low temperature. This was obviously Spencer's attempt to model the radiation "escaping to space".
However, YOU have repeatedly stated that your electrical power input was considered to be maintaining a temperature difference between the heat source and the outer wall. In fact that was the stated basis for many of your arguments about conservation of energy.
But you you neglected to consider that when your heat source gets hotter, more thermal energy must be extracted from the walls to maintain that difference. Which consumes more electrical power.
But your input energy was supposed to be constant. So you're either violating the parameters of the experiment, or you are creating energy from nothing. You don't get to have it both ways, and again your "solution" contradicts itself.
The rest of this is similar mis-construction or mis-representation of my actual analysis of the problem. There is nothing new here, and nothing I have any reason to repeat yet again.
DONE. And I mean it. All you're doing is giving me fodder to make you look like a bigger fool later when I publish this. Your continued self-contradiction amounts to little more than clownish buffoonery and indirect insult.
Slashdot Mirror
TLDR: This person is full of shit.
We heard this crap about comic books, landline telephones, and then TVs. Then cell phones, and the Internet. And they haven't been right yet.
If anything is harming kids today, my vote for first place would be government.
No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.
Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen.
Nobody -- or almost nobody, anyway -- wants a harassing workplace, but some people are just plain thin-skinned and get all offended at the drop of a hat. Those people don't have the right to make everybody around them miserable just because they won't grow up.
After being told that "Whatever a woman considers Sexual Harassment is sexual harassment turned the workplace into one where men avoided women at all costs, had witnesses to protect themselves, and made the US-Russia cold war look like a honeymoon, What manner of workplace was that?
I had one even worse.
While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment."
Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment."
She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment."
The problem there, of course, being that we knew she got offended at comments about politics, at the front page of the newspaper, and any number of other things. It was a bit of a surprise to find that she considered ALL of those things to be sexual harassment.
I quit not long after that. That wasn't the primary reason, but it was certainly one of the reasons.
No, it's a problem with governments, being beholden to corporations, trying to force corporations to stop being regulated, but doing it in a ham handed way which can't work.
This in no way contradicts what I wrote above. So why you begin it with "No" is a bit of a mystery to me.
So every idiot who keeps telling us how awesome the free market will be once they force it on all of us is trying to make sure governments have no power over corporations, and undermining their ability to do anything.
A free market wasn't "forced" on you. Read some history. That's the way this country started. And I have a big clue for you: it has been doing WORSE the more the government has been interfering, in its admittedly ham-handed way.
The thing you're missing here is that government interference with markets will always be ham-handed. Government will never have the necessary amount of information to centrally plan the economy. Many have tried, all have failed.
Antitrust is one of the few legitimate roles government can play in the economy, and be effective. But it hasn't been bothering.
"Crony capitalism" is not capitalism. It is "corporatism", also known as Fascism. It's not my fault if you get them confused.
I... don't know where to begin with this figure.
You could begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report. If you're too lazy to look it up yourself, you could have read a few inches further down the page and found links.
I agree it's a ridiculous number, but it is also true, according to the U.S. government itself. So read it and weep, or not. I don't care. But I sure as hell didn't make it up.
Gees dude you can even count, here is a list of the income of the largest oil companies.
Gees dude you can't even argue. The issue here isn't income, it's what the money is spent on. If I were to use your argument, I'd be saying the trillions of dollars in the whole U.S. budget all apply here.
But they don't.
If you had bothered to read a little further, you would have found appropriate links.
Also, I find it so amusing to get modded down by people who just can't stand to have their religion challenged. Not saying YOU are one of those, but obviously some are.
I don't think you know what an oligopoly is. Cable companies don't compete with each other because of exclusive municipal franchise agreements, which make it illegal for another company to run cable. Companies don't price fix with other companies because they're not competing with anyone. (In areas where they compete with fiber optics, they compete with the fiber company and you'll see lower prices.)
And I don't think you know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Today's ISPs are an oligopoly because they have near-exclusive access to the internet backbone, not JUST because municipalities give them exclusive contracts.
In 80% of the United States, the municipalities might as well give them an exclusive contract because there's only one player anyway! They've got the U.S. divided up among themselves and they don't compete, even when given the option. Hell, they even bragged about that to the FCC.
Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended.
Which is actually Article II of the Bill of No Rights.
The "free market" is a complete and unmitigated fucking lie.
There will always be distorting factors -- like companies forming cartels to screw over everybody else, or morons who think corporations should have free speech, or idiots who think the free market is a real thing.
That's one of the things government is supposed to be for. A free market system requires real and enforced antitrust laws in order to remain free.
When government, as now, is not properly enforcing its antitrust laws and obligations, you end up with situations like we have now. That isn't a problem with "free markets", it's very clearly a problem with government.
Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.
Here's one for starters, since you asked.
notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks
I use links quite frequently, but I include them according to my priorities, moods, and convenience, not yours.
...but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that.
ALL of the things you mention here are research, except "assistance for developing countries".
Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.
And here you commit the same sin you accused me of: throwing out a meaningless total that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Title II is intended to perpetuate monopolies.
No. Title II is intended to regulate monopolies. Not the same thing.
A monopoly is not a competitive market. That's why we have antitrust laws. In the case of broadband, we already have a de facto oligopoly. It therefore has to be either broken up, so there can be actual competition, or regulated, to ensure some semblance of fairness to the consumer.
Those are the only 2 options in a free market system: either ensure there is a free market by breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies into smaller competitive companies, or regulating them because there isn't a free market. There is no third option.
Further, Ma Bell wasn't broken up for reasons having to do with Title II. Rather, it was broken up because it was leveraging its Title II monopoly in order to participate in the telephone hardware business, which it was explicitly enjoined from being a part of. Turns out Western Electric, which manufactured virtually every telephone in the United States, was a wholly-own subsidiary. Further, Bell imposed prohibitive restrictions on any 3rd-party phone that used its lines.
After violating the Federal court injunction for 20 years, the government gave up on it ever meeting its legal requirements, and broke it up. But to sum it all up and set the record straight: it wasn't broken up because of its telephone lines or telephone service. It was broken up because it wasn't supposed to be in the telephone manufacturing business.
So, what you are saying is that the market was stagnant for a century until Ma Bell was broken up. See, isn't it fun to draw vague generalities without an ounce of consideration for any greater context?
What the hell are you talking about? There was no "market". Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly (and after the breakup a regulated oligopoly).
Much like today: the ISP business is now a regulated oligopoly under Title II, just like Ma Bell was.
There still hasn't been any real "market". The internet backbone is tied up by a few big players, and that's all. That's not a "market", that's a de facto oligopoly. The ONLY new player to come along in broadband in a long time has been Google, and that's because Google had the monetary clout to elbow its way in. Almost nobody else does.
That's what oligopoly means. And that's why oligopolies have to be regulated.
Calhoun's point of view is pretty much the same as the righties running today. The same rhetoric about "appeasement", the same paranoia about their way of life being destroyed. That is the essence of the right, and it is hopelessly backwards, on the wrong side of history.
You don't seem to know your history very well. As already stated, Lincoln supported emancipation for reasons of his own, which had absolutely nothing to do with "equality". His reason for wanting to end the keeping of black slaves was so they could eventually be removed from the continent entirely.
And to be honest, I don't know a single person who holds Calhoun's views today.
How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century.
And who would you choose for a role model instead of Calhoun? Maybe Abraham Lincoln? What about what he said during the Douglas debate?
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]â"that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.
Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Most of those on board died from smallpox. He was preparing a second expedition when the Civil War broke out.
You are blaming people for living in the day they lived, and for the society in which they were raised. Granted, it might have been rough and bigoted by our standards, but those were the best standards those people knew at the time.
The whole of your post is fossil fueler bullshit.
Except that it isn't.
Let's just assume that the rumored tens of millions of dollars spent by U.S. fossil fuels to combat climate change rhetoric is true.
Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations, in order to oppose fossil fuels in the U.S.
According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher.
Even if you figure only a fraction of that has gone to actually study "climate change", it's still a shitload of money, and it still dwarfs any lobbying by fossil fuel industry.
You still don't seem to understand that power which doesn't pass through that boundary isn't included in that energy conservation equation. I've repeatedly failed to explain [slashdot.org] that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.
I understand the situation quite well, and I solved it using standard physics textbook methods. I am very definitely not the person who is confused here.
I've repeatedly failed to explain [slashdot.org] that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.
No, you haven't "failed to explain" this. What you did -- typically in your fashion, in my experience -- was change your story when you realized that it was not a viable avenue of attack.
I repeat: I have all this already on record.
GO AWAY. You are achieving NOTHING with this nonsense but making yourself look progressively more foolish.
good. please shut the hell up.
There is no good answer to THAT, either, except "fuck off".
I won't do that. End of story.
It's not that I trust the FCC to not fuck up the internet, it that I see them as less likely to fuck it up than Verizon, Comcast and AT&T.
There is no possible way I could respond to this and be honest without being insulting at the same time.
So I won't. Please don't ask me to.
Any 2014 or 2015 MBP has ram soldered, and the SSDs cost 2 or 3 times as much as consumer versions..
Also, I want to point out that part of the reason those SSDs are more expensive is because they are PCI Express SSDs... which are faster than SATA III. That's a big performance plus.
However, the fact that they don't use an industry-standard connector detracts from that somewhat. PCI Express storage is going to be mainstream soon (my desktop machine supports it) and those using these particular Macs will still be SOL when it comes to 3rd-party upgrades.
Any 2014 or 2015 MBP has ram soldered, and the SSDs cost 2 or 3 times as much as consumer versions..
Those were the "most recent versions" I was referring to, and I already mentioned the proprietary connector for SSDs.
As others have mentioned, with the newest models you should be sure to get the max RAM and SSD up front. Otherwise you're pretty much SOL unless you want to pay the outrageous upgrade price later.
Also as I mentioned, models earlier than those were far more upgradeable. I'd rather have one of the latest 17" models (even though it was back then) than a new model. You can upgrade the SSD, replace the optical drive with a second SSD or HDD, upgrade the RAM as you please, etc.
The more Apple goes "our way or the highway", it's going to see people hitting the highway. It has been losing laptop market share, not to mention desktops for some time now. Every bit of it is traceable to "Apple ecosystem or nothing". Back when its machines were friendly to hackish developers was its non-phone heyday, and that was no accident.
No, the electrical power input is however many watts are sent in through the boundary around the heat source. That's why it's included in the energy conservation equation through that boundary.
You have just contradicted yourself AGAIN, because I have records of you clearly arguing that the input power was to maintain a temperature difference between the heat source and the walls, while I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable.
So now you're contradicting yourself, in trying to argue otherwise.
I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. I showed you the correct answer, double-checked according to standard textbook physics, in both directions.
Anything else you have to say is self-serving prevarication. And you've had an awful lot of it to say. That's a real problem you have, man. It isn't mine.
You were wrong. Own it, accept it, and move on. Until then, you're being WORSE than an obnoxious ass. You're harassing me and being a PAIN in the ass.
I'll elaborate a little bit: the term "navigable" comes from the context of interstate trade routes, originally trails, roads, or waterways. In particular, in terms of airways and waterways, it means routes used for interstate travel.
5 feet off the ground -- or even 200 feet off the ground -- is not legally considered to be "navigable" airspace ANYWHERE... except around airports where it is necessary for takeoff and landing. Nobody routinely travels interstate at those altitudes.
The entire authority of the FAA comes from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It has no authority over in-state, non-interstate-commerce routes or airspace.
No, it doesn't, except around airports.
"Navigable airways", in this context and the legal sense, are designated altitudes and routes used for interstate travel and commerce. They only approach the ground around airports, where they HAVE TO, of course.
Look up the Air Commerce Act, and the Congressional debates surrounding it. The intent was very clear, and the Federal judge who has already ruled on this issue agrees with me.
I didn't see the point of addressing your "friction from a horse's ass" observation because that didn't seem productive,
It certainly wasn't, but it should have been. Most people would have gotten the point.
Pretending that we only need to know the power flowing in and not the power flowing out is like pretending we only need to know a bathtub's faucet flow rate to determine the steady-state water level in the bathtub, and it doesn't matter if the drain is open or closed.
I didn't pretend that, and in fact I explicitly stated as much in my last comment. Where did you learn to read?
Spencer's experiment stipulated that the outer wall be kept at a constant temperature. Given that it is being given input from interior heat sources, it would take energy (over time, power of course) to maintain that low temperature. This was obviously Spencer's attempt to model the radiation "escaping to space".
However, YOU have repeatedly stated that your electrical power input was considered to be maintaining a temperature difference between the heat source and the outer wall. In fact that was the stated basis for many of your arguments about conservation of energy.
But you you neglected to consider that when your heat source gets hotter, more thermal energy must be extracted from the walls to maintain that difference. Which consumes more electrical power.
But your input energy was supposed to be constant. So you're either violating the parameters of the experiment, or you are creating energy from nothing. You don't get to have it both ways, and again your "solution" contradicts itself.
The rest of this is similar mis-construction or mis-representation of my actual analysis of the problem. There is nothing new here, and nothing I have any reason to repeat yet again.
DONE. And I mean it. All you're doing is giving me fodder to make you look like a bigger fool later when I publish this. Your continued self-contradiction amounts to little more than clownish buffoonery and indirect insult.