Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics
First, you MISREPRESENTED my words again. While I admit that I did write this post very coherently -- mea culpa -- it was NOT about "orbital mechanics". It was about non-orbital mechanics.
Yet again, you fail to grasp my meaning. Although in this particular instance, I can't honestly say I blame you much. I was not very clear about what I meant.
As for the rest: you lost that argument a long time ago. I am not going to re-argue it with you. I will just repeat what I've told you already, innumerable times:
Nonsense. I've repeatedly explained that my boundary is drawn around the heat source, so it's in vacuum and therefore contains radiative terms both for radiation going out and radiation going in.
The equation for radiative power output of a gray body in vacuum is as I stated long ago. No NET incoming radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed, therefore no NET radiation is crossing your boundary FROM those cooler bodies. It comes in and goes right back out.
The proper equation for radiative power out DOES NOT INCLUDE that cooler incoming radiation, because no NET cooler radiation is absorbed in the first place, so it cannot be included as part of the radiative power output.
You are counting the radiation from the cooler body twice. Or, conversely, neglecting to account for its (NET) failure to be absorbed by the warmer body, and therefore exiting your sphere without being absorbed. Either way, you don't get to do that. It's bad math, and it's a violation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
At steady-state, in purely radiative conditions (i.e., in vacuum with no conduction or convection), the equation for the radiative power output of a warmer body in the presence of cooler bodies does not depend on those cooler bodies. There is not even a variable for it in the equation. I repeat for the hundredth time: the radiative power output is related ONLY on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation sigma*epsilon(T^4). Nothing else is required. The equation is the same in the presence of cooler bodies as it is in the presence of no other bodies at all. Any textbook on radiative energy transfer will tell you this. As I have said before, I have 3 of them here which all disagree with you, and I haven't even bothered to check the 4th. I already knew the answer before checking the first 3.
And it also makes me laugh when people claim those studies do not exist, without a shred of evidence on their side.
It's a non-argument. This is not Wikipedia, this is not a science paper, and I don't owe you an hour of my time to look up the studies -- which I personally know to exist because I've read the papers -- on a holiday.
From the evidence you have presented here, I'd say you are too ignorant to vote.
---
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1785
No, I am not. I do not drink and get behind the wheel.
What I am, is someone who understands that you don't put innocent people in jail and mess up their lives out of FEAR. I know people who have been innocently caught in that "system", and it's a bloody nightmare.
The only alternative is to have enough fuel in Mars orbit to do a retro-burn that virtually zeros the orbital velocity before you enter the atmosphere. And, by definition, that takes as much fuel as it does to launch from the surface into orbit.
No. There is no "definition" here, unless you ASSUME you are beginning from an orbit in the first place. But why should that be necessary?
Tricky, I admit, to do it differently, but that doesn't violate any laws of physics.
Plus all the infrastructure necessary to refuel and launch that vehicle.
You are fixated on Earth gravity. It is vasly easier from Mars, and again there is no law that requires "refueling". Lower gravity gives enormous advantages. Look at the size of the engine of the old lunar lander vs. the size of the Saturn V, for example.
Granted, doing it different ways might be harder, in some ways. But you seem to be locked in to one mindset, which isn't even necessarily valid to start with.
I work with an asshole driving with an interlock. They don't work well in anyones case, from reports I've heard over the years.
That's because, like breathalyzers, they DON'T actually measure blood alcohol, but exhaled alcohol. Not the same thing.
And in order for them to be sensitive enough to detect actual alcohol, they must be calibrated such that they tend toward false positives.
They're a STUPID FUCKING IDEA. Worthy of a police state, not America.
So I guess next thing is you'll have to prove you aren't driving with a cell phone, eh?
They drive drunk endangering ME and MINE and suddenly I'm the insensitive one, LOL!!
NO! According to independent studies, 0.08% blood alcohol is well BEFORE the driving of most people is affected. So you're sending innocent people to jail, fining them, putting fucking Big Brother machines in their cars, and otherwise making their lives hell for years on end... all because you want Big Brother to make your world safe for you.
And yes, in my book, that makes you not just the insensitive one, but also a disgusting, ignorant, cowardly human being.
It isn't that it's not a worthwhile thing to do. It's that (A) the iPhone solution is meh, and (B) this whole subject is meh and not worthy of Slashdot. It has been done so often as to not be newsworthy.
You ALL seem to be forgetting interleave, which is the one motion-enabling technology most responsible for reasonable motion effects on television. (NTSC TV of course also has a higher frame rate: 29.97 fps.)
1080p (p for progressive, i.e. one full frame at a time like film) became the norm because of its higher pixel-per-second count. But let's not forget about 1080i, where the i is for interleave. 1080i shows motion much better.
I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.
This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.
And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.
Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.
The problem is more serious now than it used to be, because bogus ecological claims have caused water previously sent from the Columbia River to flow into the ocean.
Please elaborate. What are these "bogus" ecological claims?
There are exceptions, but in most states they are few and specific.
They can and have broken into buildings and houses in pursuit of suspects/criminals fleeing.
Ditto.
There is actually a long list of things- some of which even cause people to lose their life that the police seem to be absolved from which if you or I had done would be instant jail time.
"Seem to be absolved from" is not the same as legal. That's a straw-man argument. I wrote "they're not allowed". The dog is not allowed on the bed. That doesn't mean the dog doesn't get up there sometimes. Only that it isn't supposed to.
Having said that, again yes there are exceptions. But those exceptions are very specific and we know what they are.
Though they sometimes might not get prosecuted for breaking the rules, they sure as hell should. That's a genuine societal problem, not how things are "supposed to" be.
I don't think that these two assertions are simultaneously possible. If "they" corralled the snow melt - all of it - then where did they put it?
"They" put it in huge reservoirs. I used to live there, and I know them well. Also the Central Valley, where a close relative owned a farm / ranch. I am intimately familiar with these things.
And don't ben an ass. "All"? Of course not. Being deliberately literal when I was not doesn't make for compelling arguments. It's pretty obvious that I was oversimplifying.
Still, the basic point remains. Stand at the mouth of the San Joaquin "river" most of the year and see how much water comes out. I have pictures of my grandfather with strings of large salmon caught in that river, back before it was being mostly used up. Now, it's not very common to see more than a trickle most of the year. And ask residents of L.A. about their "river". You've probably seen it in movie "chase scenes"... a vast concrete canal with seldom more than puddles at the bottom of it.
And don't forget groundwater: they've been gradually depleting the aquifers for generations, and they were aware of it.
Guess what? Oregon and Washington make use of that water. Shipping it down to California seriously diminishes quality of life for those who live there, not to mention the environmental destruction that would ensue.
Let California go broke. Hell, it is anyway. People can buy their food from elsewhere.
And if so, what is the liability for the company if they do or don't make the account viable again.
IANAL, but my understanding is that you are not generally required to go out of your way to assist the police. You are not a policeman, you aren't being paid to be one.
Even phone companies insist on payment for allowing wiretaps, or government requests for information. And even those are only mandatory because there are specific laws that say so (such as CALEA).
Ignorance of the LAW generally isn't an excuse, but mistake of FACT IS an excuse.
Unfortunately, though, we now have far too many laws, including contradictory laws. Even if somebody had their own legal library, every year some things change. A hypothetical typical, reasonable citizen could not possibly know them all, much less be reasonably expected to. They wouldn't have time to do anything else.
So here's my question: since our common law system is supposed to be based on the reasonable man principle, and it is provably not reasonable to expect the average citizen to know most laws, much less all, how could ignorance of the law NOT be a valid excuse?
I don't think anyone has yet fought this one in the courts, so it may not stand up to judicial scrutiny, but it is most definitely used as the "stick" to convince someone to accept a plea bargain.
Have you been living under a rock the last 5 years?
Yes, prosecutors have tried to use the TOS thing as an excuse to prosecute. But that is being actively fought by EFF, EPIC, and a whole alphabet soup of other organizations acting as amici to the courts, and with actual legal defense as well.
It is pretty clear that Congress never meant the law to apply to situations like Aaron Swartz, for example. Government prosecutors have been fighting actually getting that one to court though because they know they'll lose, and they want to retain the ability to threaten people with it.
Also, and undercover cop can smoke a bowl with you and still arrest your ass for having/selling/using.
No.
Police are not allowed to break the law in order to enforce the law.
I'm not saying they never do it, but if they do, they're just as much criminals as anyone else. There is no law or principle that gives police a pass for breaking laws.
Cops should NEVER be allowed to lie outside of specific, warrant backed undercover operations. I will never understand when it became ok for those charged with enforcing the law to lie without shame.
Lying, by itself, is not a crime. So why should they not be able to lie?
Generally speaking, they may not commit a crime in their pursuit to solve or prevent crimes. Police don't have diplomatic immunity. Again generally speaking, the same laws that apply to you also apply to them too.
What they are NOT allowed to do is commit crimes. They might be able to lie, but not commit fraud or "entrap", which basically means to talk or fool someone into doing something illegal they would not normally do.
In one state I know of, the police were trying to have it both ways. They claimed they were "always on duty", even though of course they were only being paid for 8-hour shifts. They wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted when not on shift, yet still carry their guns and make arrests, and act like police, any time of the day or night, whenever they wanted.
The State said no, if they were "always on duty" they'd have to be job-insured 24 hours a day, and get "on-call" pay in addition to their regular wages. Since the State wasn't about to do that, it declared officially that police were only "really" police when they were on their paid shift. Any other time, they can only make citizen's arrests, just like everybody else. Also, as a result, the few exemptions the police got for firearms carry are only in effect when they're on paid duty. All firearms laws in the state apply to off-duty police in exactly the same way they do to everyone else. The police really howled about that one.
Prior to the State "cleaning house", the police were also busting prostitutes by paying them and having sex with them, then arresting them and taking the money back. The state said "no way". No more hands-on for the police. They howled about that one too.
The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on,
No, it isn't. It says
allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers
[emphasis added]
It is very clear that the cameras showed yellow lights under 3 seconds, this year.
Slashdot Mirror
s/did write this post/did NOT write this post
Pardon the typographical error.
Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics
First, you MISREPRESENTED my words again. While I admit that I did write this post very coherently -- mea culpa -- it was NOT about "orbital mechanics". It was about non-orbital mechanics.
Yet again, you fail to grasp my meaning. Although in this particular instance, I can't honestly say I blame you much. I was not very clear about what I meant.
As for the rest: you lost that argument a long time ago. I am not going to re-argue it with you. I will just repeat what I've told you already, innumerable times:
Nonsense. I've repeatedly explained that my boundary is drawn around the heat source, so it's in vacuum and therefore contains radiative terms both for radiation going out and radiation going in.
The equation for radiative power output of a gray body in vacuum is as I stated long ago. No NET incoming radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed, therefore no NET radiation is crossing your boundary FROM those cooler bodies. It comes in and goes right back out.
The proper equation for radiative power out DOES NOT INCLUDE that cooler incoming radiation, because no NET cooler radiation is absorbed in the first place, so it cannot be included as part of the radiative power output.
You are counting the radiation from the cooler body twice. Or, conversely, neglecting to account for its (NET) failure to be absorbed by the warmer body, and therefore exiting your sphere without being absorbed. Either way, you don't get to do that. It's bad math, and it's a violation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
At steady-state, in purely radiative conditions (i.e., in vacuum with no conduction or convection), the equation for the radiative power output of a warmer body in the presence of cooler bodies does not depend on those cooler bodies. There is not even a variable for it in the equation. I repeat for the hundredth time: the radiative power output is related ONLY on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation sigma*epsilon(T^4). Nothing else is required. The equation is the same in the presence of cooler bodies as it is in the presence of no other bodies at all. Any textbook on radiative energy transfer will tell you this. As I have said before, I have 3 of them here which all disagree with you, and I haven't even bothered to check the 4th. I already knew the answer before checking the first 3.
That's not unreasonable.
And it also makes me laugh when people claim those studies do not exist, without a shred of evidence on their side.
It's a non-argument. This is not Wikipedia, this is not a science paper, and I don't owe you an hour of my time to look up the studies -- which I personally know to exist because I've read the papers -- on a holiday.
And that's precisely what I was talking about.
From the evidence you have presented here, I'd say you are too ignorant to vote.
---
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1785
No, I am not. I do not drink and get behind the wheel.
What I am, is someone who understands that you don't put innocent people in jail and mess up their lives out of FEAR. I know people who have been innocently caught in that "system", and it's a bloody nightmare.
The only alternative is to have enough fuel in Mars orbit to do a retro-burn that virtually zeros the orbital velocity before you enter the atmosphere. And, by definition, that takes as much fuel as it does to launch from the surface into orbit.
No. There is no "definition" here, unless you ASSUME you are beginning from an orbit in the first place. But why should that be necessary?
Tricky, I admit, to do it differently, but that doesn't violate any laws of physics.
Plus all the infrastructure necessary to refuel and launch that vehicle.
You are fixated on Earth gravity. It is vasly easier from Mars, and again there is no law that requires "refueling". Lower gravity gives enormous advantages. Look at the size of the engine of the old lunar lander vs. the size of the Saturn V, for example.
Granted, doing it different ways might be harder, in some ways. But you seem to be locked in to one mindset, which isn't even necessarily valid to start with.
Yeah, but experience with gigantic hypersonic parachutes is also rather limited.
Yes, but there is no reason it must stay that way. We have lots of upper atmosphere with even higher gravity with which to experiment.
I work with an asshole driving with an interlock. They don't work well in anyones case, from reports I've heard over the years.
That's because, like breathalyzers, they DON'T actually measure blood alcohol, but exhaled alcohol. Not the same thing.
And in order for them to be sensitive enough to detect actual alcohol, they must be calibrated such that they tend toward false positives.
They're a STUPID FUCKING IDEA. Worthy of a police state, not America.
So I guess next thing is you'll have to prove you aren't driving with a cell phone, eh?
They drive drunk endangering ME and MINE and suddenly I'm the insensitive one, LOL!!
NO! According to independent studies, 0.08% blood alcohol is well BEFORE the driving of most people is affected. So you're sending innocent people to jail, fining them, putting fucking Big Brother machines in their cars, and otherwise making their lives hell for years on end... all because you want Big Brother to make your world safe for you.
And yes, in my book, that makes you not just the insensitive one, but also a disgusting, ignorant, cowardly human being.
A swing and a miss? More like knocking himself out with the follow-through.
Anybody who honestly thinks Libertarians are tools of the Right is too ignorant to be dangerous.
And anyone who thinks Ted Cruz is a Libertarian could probably learn a lot from a school of those trout.
No. This is where I say Whoosh.
It isn't that it's not a worthwhile thing to do. It's that (A) the iPhone solution is meh, and (B) this whole subject is meh and not worthy of Slashdot. It has been done so often as to not be newsworthy.
You ALL seem to be forgetting interleave, which is the one motion-enabling technology most responsible for reasonable motion effects on television. (NTSC TV of course also has a higher frame rate: 29.97 fps.)
1080p (p for progressive, i.e. one full frame at a time like film) became the norm because of its higher pixel-per-second count. But let's not forget about 1080i, where the i is for interleave. 1080i shows motion much better.
People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them.
WHOOOOOSH!!!
That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.
Hell, TFS was TL;DR.
TFA in a nutshell:
"We're going to discover all these neat behavioral things via neurobiology, and change the world!"
It doesn't say they've actually discovered any of these things yet. Just that they plan to.
It reads very much like this.
I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.
This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.
And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.
Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.
The problem is more serious now than it used to be, because bogus ecological claims have caused water previously sent from the Columbia River to flow into the ocean.
Please elaborate. What are these "bogus" ecological claims?
Actually, there is.
There are exceptions, but in most states they are few and specific.
They can and have broken into buildings and houses in pursuit of suspects/criminals fleeing.
Ditto.
There is actually a long list of things- some of which even cause people to lose their life that the police seem to be absolved from which if you or I had done would be instant jail time.
"Seem to be absolved from" is not the same as legal. That's a straw-man argument. I wrote "they're not allowed". The dog is not allowed on the bed. That doesn't mean the dog doesn't get up there sometimes. Only that it isn't supposed to.
Having said that, again yes there are exceptions. But those exceptions are very specific and we know what they are.
Though they sometimes might not get prosecuted for breaking the rules, they sure as hell should. That's a genuine societal problem, not how things are "supposed to" be.
I don't think that these two assertions are simultaneously possible. If "they" corralled the snow melt - all of it - then where did they put it?
"They" put it in huge reservoirs. I used to live there, and I know them well. Also the Central Valley, where a close relative owned a farm / ranch. I am intimately familiar with these things.
And don't ben an ass. "All"? Of course not. Being deliberately literal when I was not doesn't make for compelling arguments. It's pretty obvious that I was oversimplifying.
Still, the basic point remains. Stand at the mouth of the San Joaquin "river" most of the year and see how much water comes out. I have pictures of my grandfather with strings of large salmon caught in that river, back before it was being mostly used up. Now, it's not very common to see more than a trickle most of the year. And ask residents of L.A. about their "river". You've probably seen it in movie "chase scenes"... a vast concrete canal with seldom more than puddles at the bottom of it.
And don't forget groundwater: they've been gradually depleting the aquifers for generations, and they were aware of it.
Can you figure out the rest?
Yes, I certainly can, and the answer is no.
Guess what? Oregon and Washington make use of that water. Shipping it down to California seriously diminishes quality of life for those who live there, not to mention the environmental destruction that would ensue.
Let California go broke. Hell, it is anyway. People can buy their food from elsewhere.
And if so, what is the liability for the company if they do or don't make the account viable again.
IANAL, but my understanding is that you are not generally required to go out of your way to assist the police. You are not a policeman, you aren't being paid to be one.
Even phone companies insist on payment for allowing wiretaps, or government requests for information. And even those are only mandatory because there are specific laws that say so (such as CALEA).
Ignorance of the LAW generally isn't an excuse, but mistake of FACT IS an excuse.
Unfortunately, though, we now have far too many laws, including contradictory laws. Even if somebody had their own legal library, every year some things change. A hypothetical typical, reasonable citizen could not possibly know them all, much less be reasonably expected to. They wouldn't have time to do anything else.
So here's my question: since our common law system is supposed to be based on the reasonable man principle, and it is provably not reasonable to expect the average citizen to know most laws, much less all, how could ignorance of the law NOT be a valid excuse?
I don't think anyone has yet fought this one in the courts, so it may not stand up to judicial scrutiny, but it is most definitely used as the "stick" to convince someone to accept a plea bargain.
Have you been living under a rock the last 5 years?
Yes, prosecutors have tried to use the TOS thing as an excuse to prosecute. But that is being actively fought by EFF, EPIC, and a whole alphabet soup of other organizations acting as amici to the courts, and with actual legal defense as well.
It is pretty clear that Congress never meant the law to apply to situations like Aaron Swartz, for example. Government prosecutors have been fighting actually getting that one to court though because they know they'll lose, and they want to retain the ability to threaten people with it.
Also, and undercover cop can smoke a bowl with you and still arrest your ass for having/selling/using.
No.
Police are not allowed to break the law in order to enforce the law.
I'm not saying they never do it, but if they do, they're just as much criminals as anyone else. There is no law or principle that gives police a pass for breaking laws.
Mod up.
Cops should NEVER be allowed to lie outside of specific, warrant backed undercover operations. I will never understand when it became ok for those charged with enforcing the law to lie without shame.
Lying, by itself, is not a crime. So why should they not be able to lie?
Generally speaking, they may not commit a crime in their pursuit to solve or prevent crimes. Police don't have diplomatic immunity. Again generally speaking, the same laws that apply to you also apply to them too.
What they are NOT allowed to do is commit crimes. They might be able to lie, but not commit fraud or "entrap", which basically means to talk or fool someone into doing something illegal they would not normally do.
In one state I know of, the police were trying to have it both ways. They claimed they were "always on duty", even though of course they were only being paid for 8-hour shifts. They wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted when not on shift, yet still carry their guns and make arrests, and act like police, any time of the day or night, whenever they wanted.
The State said no, if they were "always on duty" they'd have to be job-insured 24 hours a day, and get "on-call" pay in addition to their regular wages. Since the State wasn't about to do that, it declared officially that police were only "really" police when they were on their paid shift. Any other time, they can only make citizen's arrests, just like everybody else. Also, as a result, the few exemptions the police got for firearms carry are only in effect when they're on paid duty. All firearms laws in the state apply to off-duty police in exactly the same way they do to everyone else. The police really howled about that one.
Prior to the State "cleaning house", the police were also busting prostitutes by paying them and having sex with them, then arresting them and taking the money back. The state said "no way". No more hands-on for the police. They howled about that one too.
The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on,
No, it isn't. It says
allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers
[emphasis added]
It is very clear that the cameras showed yellow lights under 3 seconds, this year.