This is the regulatory regime being imposed on the business practices of ISPs.
It is pretty much the SAME "regulatory regime" that was imposed on landline telephones before the cell phone revolution was granted exceptions. Did you have a big problem with landline telephone regulation, too? Your communications were carried reliably, not interfered with in any way, and you had privacy.
The intent of the regulation is clearly stated: to ensure (a) neutrality of communications media and (b) privacy.
Clearly the FCC could enforce the rules arbitrarily. But it always could. So what? None of this is new.
To sum it all up briefly, which apparently may be necessary for some readers: one should not have to give up his or her privacy not just at the border but forevermore in all situations just in order to cross the border.
Ditto--since when is a border crossing something that could be considered anywhere in the same sentence with privacy? It's in the public interest of TWO nations!
This is far too narrow a view. You're only considering privacy AT the border crossing. The implications are vastly larger than that.
The problem is akin to the prohibition against searching your domestic "papers" without a warrant. That Constitutional prohibition (4th Amendment) isn't there because getting your papers searched is inconvenient! The problem -- and the whole reason the 4th Amendment exists -- is because of the knowledge such searches would give the government, and the potential abuses that arise later from that knowledge.
Similarly, the issue with biometrics at the border is NOT the inconvenience of providing that information AT THE TIME. The problem is what the government can do -- and the abuses that are possible -- after the government has that information. Among other things, it can be used to track you anywhere.
This is absolutely out of bounds. Not because of border crossings, at all. But because of just about everything else.
Sigh. I should have read your post a little more before replying.
And I replied to your earlier post before reading this one. So we're even.:o)
- You hired on to do X, for Consolidated Widgets, a company that does X, Y, and Z and isn't interested in doing Q (any time soon).
- When you hired on, Con Widgets had you sign a patent assignment giving ALL your inventions to them.
- While still employed, you had a bright idea that's a major breakthrough for Q.
- You develop your idea on your own time with your own resources.
In California, YOU own the Q invention, regardless of what your contract with Con Widgets says.
Well, that's a little different from the way you described it the first time. This much would be true in most states, except for the patent assignment agreement part. I think in most states the patent assignment would be binding. Which is why I would never sign one.
I had not heard that you can't assign ALL your patents to the company as a requirement of employment. If so, it must be a fairly recent law, because in fact my father, in California, had such an agreement, and lost the rights to his patent, which was something he did on his own time, without using company resources.
So while what you say might be true, if so the law must have been passed after 1970.
Energy is always conserved, so power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.
For the hundredth time: nobody is disputing this. Your own attempt at a solution was what violated this rule. I am aware that you don't seem to understand why, after it was explained to you several times. But YOU do not seem to be aware that is not MY problem. And I am very far from happy with your attempts to publicly MAKE IT my problem. In case you missed it, that isn't working.
As usual, that doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to you. My analysis made sense to everybody else I showed it to.
I've repeatedly explained that in every single equation I've derived, more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice versa. So my solution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (or the first).
And this is where YOU are mis-stating what is meant by "net". You say "more" goes from hot to cold, but you have also been claiming that SOME goes from cold to hot.
But what you're not getting is: given the nature of the experiment, that would be creating energy from nothing. You are increasing the thermodynamic energy of a hotter body by transferring heat to it from a colder body or bodies. And I'm not sorry to tell you: nature doesn't work that way.
I know what your argument is. I haven't misunderstood it. You're just wrong.
The statement that "no net energy is transferred to the warmer body from the colder" is exactly WHY the equation for radiant heat output does NOT change in the presence of colder bodies. BUT... you neglect the fact that it would have to, if it were absorbing and re-radiating radiation from those colder bodies.
Your statement is a contradiction. Whether you claim it is a "raising" of energy of the warmer body, or "less loss" from the warmer body, the only other input power is the same. So you end up with a "hotter" hot body. But if your hot body is hotter, then its radiative output CHANGES, and so then does the temperature of the colder body, and you have created a feedback loop, not a new equilibrium. As I have already mentioned, you don't get to do that. You're adding energy from nowhere.
Further, even if you tried to maintain that it wasn't a feedback loop but just a new equilibrium, with the hotter temperature you would still have to increase the power to maintain the exterior walls at a constant temperature. Which means you would be extracting more thermal energy from the system... but not adding any more. Contradiction.
A given input energy is only going to raise a body of given properties to a certain maximum temperature. It doesn't matter whether that energy is electricity or cow farts. Any other assertion is... well... hot air.
I am completely done here. I have nothing further to say to you about this, regardless of whether you try to distort the issue even further.
The drone operators must touch their toes five times an hour, say 10 hail Marys, make a widdershins circle with the controller every time they change the drone's direction, and apply for a variance for each different package the drone carries. More regulations to follow.
And as I've stated here too many times to count now, the FAA does not have lawful authority to regulate drones that do not intrude on "Navigable" airspace, whether they are commercial or not. Navigable airspace are common altitudes and airways used for interstate commerce (including areas around airports).
Neither the Constitution, or the Air Commerce Act, which authorized the creation of the FAA in the first place, give it authority to regulate all the air, everywhere. A Federal judge has already ruled on this matter. His injunction against the FAA is on hold pending appeal, but for reasons already given (which the judge mentioned in his ruling by the way), it is unlikely it will win the appeal.
In the meantime, it's trying to regulate everything in sight in hopes of having a "done deal" by the time it's shot down.
To paraphrase: If
- you Invent something,
- you didn't use the company's resources, and
- building and selling it isn't in the company's current or expected business model
It's yours.
But this isn't a "quirk of California's labor law". This is true in almost all the States.
In general, in the absence of a prior agreement to the contrary, what you wrote is true in most states. Certainly every state I've lived in, and I've lived in more than a few.
What you left out is that if you were explicitly paid to develop your product or invention, in general it then belongs to whoever employed you to do it. It doesn't have to be in "the company's business model" if you were being directly and explicitly paid to do it.
Libertarian crank theory #44732: Contract law trumps all!
Don't be an ass. It is illegal to MAKE a contract that discriminates in certain ways, breaks certain laws, etc.
Nobody I know thinks "contract law trumps all". You don't know much about Libertarians, do you?
The Libertarian philosophy says that in an ideal world, such laws would not be necessary. But only an idiot thinks we currently live in an ideal world.
Upgradable hardware - decide you need a bigger SSD or more RAM later? No can do on a MBP.
That's just plain false. Except for the very newest versions, you can upgrade a Macbook just as easily as any other laptop. With the newest versions there is an issue with a proprietary connector for the PCI Express SSD, which could cause problems. But the Macbook Pros are pretty well upgradeable.
One of my Macbooks, I upgraded the RAM (to 2GB more than the supposed "max" it was supposed to take), added my own 500GB SSD, replaced the optical drive with a 500GB HDD. It was actually pretty easy to do and everything works great.
I second this. Not only is the native mac command line interface a bona fide variant of Unix, if you really need some specific version of Linux you can always just put it in a VM. If you like, you can even create a small partition on your drive without disturbing the existing OS, then install Linux on that partition using your choice of tools. Here is one of many ways to do that.
Then, if you like, you can either boot straight into the other OS, or into OS X and use VMWare or the like to load that partition as a VM.
I've had my Mac laptop set up before with Windows in boot camp so I could boot into it or use it in VMWare, with Kali Linux and Kubuntu linux also in their own separate VMs.
An "agrarian society" generally means at least half the population is engaged in agriculture. By that definition, all first-world nations are most assuredly "technological" or "industrial" as opposed to "agrarian", and have been for quite some time.
Okay, but that contradicts their initial definition, at the top of the page:
An agrarian society (or agricultural society) is any society whose economy is based on producing and maintaining crops and farmland.
For many decades, we were the #1 food producing country in the world. I don't know if that's still true, but I believe it is.
In any case, if you go by that definition further down the page, I agree that the U.S. would not be considered agrarian.
You missed his point. His point was that something will always be prohibited and they'll just move into selling that instead. It doesn't have to be drugs.
For this high of a profit potential, yes, it pretty much does have to be drugs.
There just isn't that much domestic demand for online sale of things like explosives and firearms. Dealers of any quantity would likely sell them overseas. Hell, as far as I know the biggest illegal domestic gun dealer in the U.S in recent decades was the Federal government itself in that outrageous Fast and Furious screwup. For which nobody has gone to jail, as I recall. Why is Eric Holder still walking around outside of jail?
Likewise for other products. What else are you going to sell? Poison? Brass knuckles? Those are already available (in most states, AFAIK) in legitimate retail outlets.
Lots of illegal things can be sold. But high demand + high prices? Drugs are pretty much it domestically.
But during times of prohibition their ability to make money has drastically increased because the law has created a situation ripe for their exploitation with a huge market. Drugs is the current profit center for most of the worlds organized criminal organizations. Yes, if we legalized drugs they would continue to exist, but they would lose their primary funding stream. With less funding comes less influence and we'd see a reduction in their ability to continue operations.
That's only one side of the equation. Law enforcement and the legal system also benefit during prohibition (on average), due to the higher number of cases, asset forfeiture, police budgets, the prison "industry", etc.
So both sides like prohibition. It makes them lots of money. The damage to society, on the other hand, is palpable, on both "sides". Criminals shooting each other in the streets, overzealous police departments, etc.
Once again [slashdot.org], no matter how many times Slayers are told that the second law of thermodynamics isn't violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa, that fact never seems to penetrate their skulls.
And once again, this is a mis-statement of the facts. Nobody I am aware of claims -- and I certainly did not claim -- that thermodynamics is violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa. Show me where somebody did say that.
In order for YOUR argument to work, a sphere of one substance suspended in a vacuum cavity surrounded by the same substance at the same temperature, would spontaneously increase in temperature. If it did that, it would be at a higher temperature (i.e., radiate more power to the wall of the cavity), which would then itself become warmer, and you would have a universe-destroying positive feedback.
That doesn't happen, man. Physics just doesn't work that way. It's a ludicrous self-destructive argument. It doesn't work. I've explained that to you in plain English, and with simple textbook physics equations, and it just doesn't work.
The only thing left, then, is that you're either a troll or a loon. I don't care to guess which. I just want you to go away and STOP HARASSING ME.
Once again [slashdot.org], Jane has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4". Since I've repeatedly agreed with that statement, those textbooks don't disagree with me.
I will, however, correct this one straw-man, which you have made over and over and over again.
The textbooks say a great deal more than that. And you have been unwilling to admit that they're right about the rest of it, too.
Your answer was wrong. I showed you where it was wrong. I used standard textbook radiant heat transfer equations to prove it. I explained to you WHY it was wrong.
I have nothing further to say, unless you want me to just keep coming back here and showing people where you're trying to misleading everybody yet again.
You don't get to keep trying to make your problem my problem without consequences. I strongly suggest you knock it off.
So you dispute my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, while simultaneously insisting that you don't dispute the standard physics definition?
I am disputing nothing at this time. I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. I have exactly zero reason or desire to do so.
Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.
Completely irrelevant. You found a temperature difference = power equation that applied to a completely different situation and you've been inappropriately applying it to this problem ever since. Much like when you tried to call a heat transfer equation the equation for radiative power out. (Hint: it isn't.)
But the reality is: the power source doesn't matter. Only power input matters. It doesn't matter whether that power is an electrical source, or a kerosene heater, or friction from a horse's ass... which I seem to be seeing a lot of lately for some strange reason.
As it turns out, raising and educating kids in a non-agrarian society is really expensive.
Let me know when you find one.
The fact that the majority of people live in cities doesn't make them "not agrarian". Our entire population is dependent on the greatest, most productive agriculture in the history of the world.
I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. If you want to prove yourself right, you're going to have to prove those textbooks wrong. I will only repeat here what I've stated before. Given the conditions we discussed (i.e., gray bodies with same emissivity, vacuum, steady-state, etc.:
(A) NET radiative heat transfer is always from warmer object to cooler. Anything else is a violation of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
(B) The equation for radiative power output of a body at steady-state does not change in the presence of cooler bodies. It remains exactly the same. It is dependent ONLY on emissivity, thermodynamic temperature, and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Jane, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?
I am NOT going over this with you again. It isn't going to happen.
Your "solution" broke the laws of thermodynamics 2 different ways. If you want to prove yourself right, you'll have to prove those textbooks wrong.
And that's why this slow erosion of our rights will continue apace.
Because people, as a large, unified group don't stand up and say "No" to this sort of bullshit, and then back it up with force if necessary.
No, you're reading too much into what I wrote. I do stand up, and I do speak, and I do resist. What I don't buy is this whole "It's too late! There's nothing we can do!" bullshit.
Jane, my "line of argument" was very simple. If you weren't disagreeing about the definition of the word "net" then why did you scream "NO!!!!!" in response to my comment?
I've explained this to you in public about 10 times now. I'm not going to do it again. I consider your incessant re-questioning about things I've already answered to be harassment.
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
And this is where you're misusing "net". With all objects having the same emissivity, in a vacuum, no NET radiation is absorbed by the hotter body from the colder body. Therefore, that radiation cannot also be claimed to be part of the net radiated power of the hotter body.
I repeat once again: you're counting the radiation twice.
And I've explained that to you many times now. I've also explained that at least 3 textbooks on radiative heat transfer agree with me. And I've given you the titles of at least one of those textbooks, but if I remember, all three.
So you can look up YOURSELF that you are wrong. And you have NEVER, even once, tried to show me how the textbooks were wrong about this issue.
And I will repeat this again, too: your insistence on requiring me to defend my position about an argument you LOST months ago is harassment.
If you want to win, you will have to show that those textbooks were wrong. You haven't even tried to do so. So take it elsewhere, I am even less than not interested.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the regulatory regime being imposed on the business practices of ISPs.
It is pretty much the SAME "regulatory regime" that was imposed on landline telephones before the cell phone revolution was granted exceptions. Did you have a big problem with landline telephone regulation, too? Your communications were carried reliably, not interfered with in any way, and you had privacy.
The intent of the regulation is clearly stated: to ensure (a) neutrality of communications media and (b) privacy.
Clearly the FCC could enforce the rules arbitrarily. But it always could. So what? None of this is new.
So, everyone expects to be perfectly anonymous at a Customs Checkpoint, eh?
This is such a massive missing of the point that I really have to write: WHOOOOOSH!!!
The issue is NOT privacy "at the checkpoint". The issue is privacy everywhere and everywhen ELSE.
To sum it all up briefly, which apparently may be necessary for some readers: one should not have to give up his or her privacy not just at the border but forevermore in all situations just in order to cross the border.
Ditto--since when is a border crossing something that could be considered anywhere in the same sentence with privacy? It's in the public interest of TWO nations!
This is far too narrow a view. You're only considering privacy AT the border crossing. The implications are vastly larger than that.
The problem is akin to the prohibition against searching your domestic "papers" without a warrant. That Constitutional prohibition (4th Amendment) isn't there because getting your papers searched is inconvenient! The problem -- and the whole reason the 4th Amendment exists -- is because of the knowledge such searches would give the government, and the potential abuses that arise later from that knowledge.
Similarly, the issue with biometrics at the border is NOT the inconvenience of providing that information AT THE TIME. The problem is what the government can do -- and the abuses that are possible -- after the government has that information. Among other things, it can be used to track you anywhere.
This is absolutely out of bounds. Not because of border crossings, at all. But because of just about everything else.
Sigh. I should have read your post a little more before replying.
And I replied to your earlier post before reading this one. So we're even. :o)
- You hired on to do X, for Consolidated Widgets, a company that does X, Y, and Z and isn't interested in doing Q (any time soon).
- When you hired on, Con Widgets had you sign a patent assignment giving ALL your inventions to them.
- While still employed, you had a bright idea that's a major breakthrough for Q.
- You develop your idea on your own time with your own resources.
In California, YOU own the Q invention, regardless of what your contract with Con Widgets says.
Well, that's a little different from the way you described it the first time. This much would be true in most states, except for the patent assignment agreement part. I think in most states the patent assignment would be binding. Which is why I would never sign one.
I had not heard that you can't assign ALL your patents to the company as a requirement of employment. If so, it must be a fairly recent law, because in fact my father, in California, had such an agreement, and lost the rights to his patent, which was something he did on his own time, without using company resources.
So while what you say might be true, if so the law must have been passed after 1970.
Really? Are you saying that, in most other states, the state law voids your patent assignment contract with your employer?
NO. I wrote "In general, in the absence of a prior agreement to the contrary...
Your patent assignment contract is "a prior agreement to the contrary."
Try reading next time.
Energy is always conserved, so power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.
For the hundredth time: nobody is disputing this. Your own attempt at a solution was what violated this rule. I am aware that you don't seem to understand why, after it was explained to you several times. But YOU do not seem to be aware that is not MY problem. And I am very far from happy with your attempts to publicly MAKE IT my problem. In case you missed it, that isn't working.
As usual, that doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to you. My analysis made sense to everybody else I showed it to.
I've repeatedly explained that in every single equation I've derived, more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice versa. So my solution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (or the first).
And this is where YOU are mis-stating what is meant by "net". You say "more" goes from hot to cold, but you have also been claiming that SOME goes from cold to hot.
But what you're not getting is: given the nature of the experiment, that would be creating energy from nothing. You are increasing the thermodynamic energy of a hotter body by transferring heat to it from a colder body or bodies. And I'm not sorry to tell you: nature doesn't work that way.
I know what your argument is. I haven't misunderstood it. You're just wrong.
The statement that "no net energy is transferred to the warmer body from the colder" is exactly WHY the equation for radiant heat output does NOT change in the presence of colder bodies. BUT... you neglect the fact that it would have to, if it were absorbing and re-radiating radiation from those colder bodies.
Your statement is a contradiction. Whether you claim it is a "raising" of energy of the warmer body, or "less loss" from the warmer body, the only other input power is the same. So you end up with a "hotter" hot body. But if your hot body is hotter, then its radiative output CHANGES, and so then does the temperature of the colder body, and you have created a feedback loop, not a new equilibrium. As I have already mentioned, you don't get to do that. You're adding energy from nowhere.
Further, even if you tried to maintain that it wasn't a feedback loop but just a new equilibrium, with the hotter temperature you would still have to increase the power to maintain the exterior walls at a constant temperature. Which means you would be extracting more thermal energy from the system... but not adding any more. Contradiction.
A given input energy is only going to raise a body of given properties to a certain maximum temperature. It doesn't matter whether that energy is electricity or cow farts. Any other assertion is... well... hot air.
I am completely done here. I have nothing further to say to you about this, regardless of whether you try to distort the issue even further.
The drone operators must touch their toes five times an hour, say 10 hail Marys, make a widdershins circle with the controller every time they change the drone's direction, and apply for a variance for each different package the drone carries. More regulations to follow.
And as I've stated here too many times to count now, the FAA does not have lawful authority to regulate drones that do not intrude on "Navigable" airspace, whether they are commercial or not. Navigable airspace are common altitudes and airways used for interstate commerce (including areas around airports).
Neither the Constitution, or the Air Commerce Act, which authorized the creation of the FAA in the first place, give it authority to regulate all the air, everywhere. A Federal judge has already ruled on this matter. His injunction against the FAA is on hold pending appeal, but for reasons already given (which the judge mentioned in his ruling by the way), it is unlikely it will win the appeal.
In the meantime, it's trying to regulate everything in sight in hopes of having a "done deal" by the time it's shot down.
To paraphrase: If
- you Invent something,
- you didn't use the company's resources, and
- building and selling it isn't in the company's current or expected business model
It's yours.
But this isn't a "quirk of California's labor law". This is true in almost all the States.
In general, in the absence of a prior agreement to the contrary, what you wrote is true in most states. Certainly every state I've lived in, and I've lived in more than a few.
What you left out is that if you were explicitly paid to develop your product or invention, in general it then belongs to whoever employed you to do it. It doesn't have to be in "the company's business model" if you were being directly and explicitly paid to do it.
Libertarian crank theory #44732: Contract law trumps all!
Don't be an ass. It is illegal to MAKE a contract that discriminates in certain ways, breaks certain laws, etc.
Nobody I know thinks "contract law trumps all". You don't know much about Libertarians, do you?
The Libertarian philosophy says that in an ideal world, such laws would not be necessary. But only an idiot thinks we currently live in an ideal world.
Upgradable hardware - decide you need a bigger SSD or more RAM later? No can do on a MBP.
That's just plain false. Except for the very newest versions, you can upgrade a Macbook just as easily as any other laptop. With the newest versions there is an issue with a proprietary connector for the PCI Express SSD, which could cause problems. But the Macbook Pros are pretty well upgradeable.
One of my Macbooks, I upgraded the RAM (to 2GB more than the supposed "max" it was supposed to take), added my own 500GB SSD, replaced the optical drive with a 500GB HDD. It was actually pretty easy to do and everything works great.
First I'd just get a mac.
I second this. Not only is the native mac command line interface a bona fide variant of Unix, if you really need some specific version of Linux you can always just put it in a VM. If you like, you can even create a small partition on your drive without disturbing the existing OS, then install Linux on that partition using your choice of tools. Here is one of many ways to do that.
Then, if you like, you can either boot straight into the other OS, or into OS X and use VMWare or the like to load that partition as a VM.
I've had my Mac laptop set up before with Windows in boot camp so I could boot into it or use it in VMWare, with Kali Linux and Kubuntu linux also in their own separate VMs.
An "agrarian society" generally means at least half the population is engaged in agriculture. By that definition, all first-world nations are most assuredly "technological" or "industrial" as opposed to "agrarian", and have been for quite some time.
Okay, but that contradicts their initial definition, at the top of the page:
An agrarian society (or agricultural society) is any society whose economy is based on producing and maintaining crops and farmland.
For many decades, we were the #1 food producing country in the world. I don't know if that's still true, but I believe it is.
In any case, if you go by that definition further down the page, I agree that the U.S. would not be considered agrarian.
You missed his point. His point was that something will always be prohibited and they'll just move into selling that instead. It doesn't have to be drugs.
For this high of a profit potential, yes, it pretty much does have to be drugs.
There just isn't that much domestic demand for online sale of things like explosives and firearms. Dealers of any quantity would likely sell them overseas. Hell, as far as I know the biggest illegal domestic gun dealer in the U.S in recent decades was the Federal government itself in that outrageous Fast and Furious screwup. For which nobody has gone to jail, as I recall. Why is Eric Holder still walking around outside of jail?
Likewise for other products. What else are you going to sell? Poison? Brass knuckles? Those are already available (in most states, AFAIK) in legitimate retail outlets.
Lots of illegal things can be sold. But high demand + high prices? Drugs are pretty much it domestically.
But during times of prohibition their ability to make money has drastically increased because the law has created a situation ripe for their exploitation with a huge market. Drugs is the current profit center for most of the worlds organized criminal organizations. Yes, if we legalized drugs they would continue to exist, but they would lose their primary funding stream. With less funding comes less influence and we'd see a reduction in their ability to continue operations.
That's only one side of the equation. Law enforcement and the legal system also benefit during prohibition (on average), due to the higher number of cases, asset forfeiture, police budgets, the prison "industry", etc.
So both sides like prohibition. It makes them lots of money. The damage to society, on the other hand, is palpable, on both "sides". Criminals shooting each other in the streets, overzealous police departments, etc.
Once again [slashdot.org], no matter how many times Slayers are told that the second law of thermodynamics isn't violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa, that fact never seems to penetrate their skulls.
And once again, this is a mis-statement of the facts. Nobody I am aware of claims -- and I certainly did not claim -- that thermodynamics is violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa. Show me where somebody did say that.
In order for YOUR argument to work, a sphere of one substance suspended in a vacuum cavity surrounded by the same substance at the same temperature, would spontaneously increase in temperature. If it did that, it would be at a higher temperature (i.e., radiate more power to the wall of the cavity), which would then itself become warmer, and you would have a universe-destroying positive feedback.
That doesn't happen, man. Physics just doesn't work that way. It's a ludicrous self-destructive argument. It doesn't work. I've explained that to you in plain English, and with simple textbook physics equations, and it just doesn't work.
The only thing left, then, is that you're either a troll or a loon. I don't care to guess which. I just want you to go away and STOP HARASSING ME.
Once again [slashdot.org], Jane has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4". Since I've repeatedly agreed with that statement, those textbooks don't disagree with me.
I will, however, correct this one straw-man, which you have made over and over and over again.
The textbooks say a great deal more than that. And you have been unwilling to admit that they're right about the rest of it, too.
Your answer was wrong. I showed you where it was wrong. I used standard textbook radiant heat transfer equations to prove it. I explained to you WHY it was wrong.
I have nothing further to say, unless you want me to just keep coming back here and showing people where you're trying to misleading everybody yet again.
You don't get to keep trying to make your problem my problem without consequences. I strongly suggest you knock it off.
So you dispute my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, while simultaneously insisting that you don't dispute the standard physics definition?
I am disputing nothing at this time. I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. I have exactly zero reason or desire to do so.
Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.
Completely irrelevant. You found a temperature difference = power equation that applied to a completely different situation and you've been inappropriately applying it to this problem ever since. Much like when you tried to call a heat transfer equation the equation for radiative power out. (Hint: it isn't.)
But the reality is: the power source doesn't matter. Only power input matters. It doesn't matter whether that power is an electrical source, or a kerosene heater, or friction from a horse's ass... which I seem to be seeing a lot of lately for some strange reason.
As it turns out, raising and educating kids in a non-agrarian society is really expensive.
Let me know when you find one.
The fact that the majority of people live in cities doesn't make them "not agrarian". Our entire population is dependent on the greatest, most productive agriculture in the history of the world.
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
I am NOT going to re-argue this with you. If you want to prove yourself right, you're going to have to prove those textbooks wrong. I will only repeat here what I've stated before. Given the conditions we discussed (i.e., gray bodies with same emissivity, vacuum, steady-state, etc.:
(A) NET radiative heat transfer is always from warmer object to cooler. Anything else is a violation of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
(B) The equation for radiative power output of a body at steady-state does not change in the presence of cooler bodies. It remains exactly the same. It is dependent ONLY on emissivity, thermodynamic temperature, and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Jane, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?
I am NOT going over this with you again. It isn't going to happen.
Your "solution" broke the laws of thermodynamics 2 different ways. If you want to prove yourself right, you'll have to prove those textbooks wrong.
And that's why this slow erosion of our rights will continue apace.
Because people, as a large, unified group don't stand up and say "No" to this sort of bullshit, and then back it up with force if necessary.
No, you're reading too much into what I wrote. I do stand up, and I do speak, and I do resist. What I don't buy is this whole "It's too late! There's nothing we can do!" bullshit.
No, it says what it says. And, it says no such thing.
Wrong: "... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The exception for vehicles is because vehicles themselves are considered to be a physical "place".
Jane, my "line of argument" was very simple. If you weren't disagreeing about the definition of the word "net" then why did you scream "NO!!!!!" in response to my comment?
I've explained this to you in public about 10 times now. I'm not going to do it again. I consider your incessant re-questioning about things I've already answered to be harassment.
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
And this is where you're misusing "net". With all objects having the same emissivity, in a vacuum, no NET radiation is absorbed by the hotter body from the colder body. Therefore, that radiation cannot also be claimed to be part of the net radiated power of the hotter body.
I repeat once again: you're counting the radiation twice.
And I've explained that to you many times now. I've also explained that at least 3 textbooks on radiative heat transfer agree with me. And I've given you the titles of at least one of those textbooks, but if I remember, all three.
So you can look up YOURSELF that you are wrong. And you have NEVER, even once, tried to show me how the textbooks were wrong about this issue.
And I will repeat this again, too: your insistence on requiring me to defend my position about an argument you LOST months ago is harassment.
If you want to win, you will have to show that those textbooks were wrong. You haven't even tried to do so. So take it elsewhere, I am even less than not interested.