There also has to be a "chain of evidence". That is what appears to be a problem here.
The FBI can't back up its "chain" of evidence. It SAYS it went from X to Z via Y, but has no records of Y. Oops... that's a fuckup.
This smells from miles away as "parallel construction" which is ILLEGAL. The government does not have authority to lie to courts in order to obtain a conviction.
Correction, how it was. The world was perfectly fair in some mythological world that they believe existed before the liberals and blacks and feminists got hold of it.
I agree with many things you say, but not everything. And this is one of those exceptions.
I am NOT a Republican, and I don't even like Republicans very much. But the last 6 years have clearly shown that the Democrats are even more hateful and hypocritical than the Republicans are.
These aren't "conservative" groups. They're "crony capitalism" groups. Those aren't the same. And I think it's hilarious that Democrats are trying to turn this into a liberal-vs-conservative thing because over the last 6 years the Democrats have shown themselves to be more crony-capitalist than the Republicans ever were.
I am FOR Net Neutrality. But even more than that, I am FOR the truth. OP is liberal hypocrisy in the extreme.
It is not perfect, and it has a lot of downsides, but it is also whey the corporate world and government has embraced MS as the desktop operating system of choice.
To what government are you referring? The U.S. government has made strong moves toward Open Source, and the military barely glances at Windows anymore (with a few notable exceptions).
Many other governments (and I do mean MANY) won't touch Windows at all. They feel (in my opinion rightly): if it ain't Open, it ain't suitable for public agencies.
They might become porn when distributed as such. The purpose and manner in which they are distributed and used affects what they are.
Eh... that's pretty thin. I don't think the relevant court cases agree with you. At least in most states.
In general, courts have ruled that pornography is only pornography because of its content. Even when it's sexually explicit (generally speaking), it's only "obscenity" if it has ZERO social or artistic merit other than pornography.
Granted, child pornography is different in that the only requirement for being "obscene" is anything sexual explicit. It doesn't matter if it's "artistic".
Even so, that's why taking a picture of your kid in the bathtub is not "child pornography". There's nothing sexual about it.
I am pretty sure that in most states, now matter how it was marketed, even if there was cover art of porn stars, an innocent video clip of a kid splashing around in the tub would not be ruled child pornography. There are standards and there are reasons for them. It's not just someone's arbitrary opinion, and it doesn't matter what label is slapped on it. Probably the worst it would get is a charge for fraud because it wasn't pornography after all.
But please, for the sake of all the other victims of this law, don't treat her special because she's female, pretty, rich, and famous.
THAT part I agree with, but "she needs to go to jail", I do not. Necessarily. OP was vague on the details.
But I think a lot of what was exposed in OP's article is that these are teenagers being prosecuted for doing your average dumb teenage things. Hell... in a lot of states it is legal to actually have sex for 2 or more years before you're even legally allowed to give someone a nude picture of yourself. And I think that says there's something seriously wrong with the "sexting" laws.
The software you are using is garbage. Applications don't HAVE to store ANYTHING in the registry -- that's the vendor of your crappy games doing that. Also, each vendor supplies an uninstaller -- obviously yours aren't doing the job. I suggest you have a talk with the thick-headed developers who write your games. Or, just join the rest of us in 2014, get an SSD and don't worry about it.
Utter nonsense. Microsoft won't certify your product UNLESS you store certain things in the registry.
Certainly you can write your programs a different way (as I do), but don't expect to get your software Microsoft certified.
No. Just no. The Second and Third amendments deal with the nation's founders being paranoid of the potential for their new government to abuse its power. Much of a government's coercive power comes from its army, so, the constitution forbade the creation of a standing national army. On the other hand the founders recognised that the nation would need a way to defend itself against threats both internal and external. Militias would be the answer to that. This is why the second amendment not only give a directive, but also a reasoning.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is not that hard to understand. Unless, of course, you are intentionally failing to understand it so that it fits into your world view.
Nothing I wrote contradicts this. What makes you think it does?
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
Your server isn't getting games installed on it, which put all kinds of settings in the registry, then removed later when the game is old and tired, leaving behind cruft (including DRM bullsit) in the registry.
When a program is UNinstalled, all traces of it should be gone. Apple took a different approach, which arguably works far better. Even if stuff is left behind, it just takes up a bit of disk space, and doesn't affect the system at all.
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.
For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at all, and that States had the power to oppose the Federal government if it overstepped its Constitutional bounds... Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. (The latter was made clearer later by Jefferson and Madison.)
This much is clear: the Constitution would never have been ratified if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that the Federal government is a tool of the collective States, not the other way around. The Federal government has the authority allowed it by the States, and no more.
Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line.
You need to take some history lessons. The Second Amendment wasn't written by the South. And the writers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that in the day it was written, there was no way it would be ratified by the States if they tried to abolish slavery immediately and directly.
But if you notice, it was written in such a way that it guaranteed rights to every person... making it easy to amend it later to abolish slavery. They didn't HAVE to write it that way, you know.
The Second Amendment was written because the British government tried to control arms in order to suppress dissent and rebellion. Our Founding Fathers understood that denying arms to the people, no matter what excuse is given for it, is always a tool of oppression.
So if I download lots of copyrighted music and films, but never listen to them -- then I'm apparently okay right?
OP's basic premise is BS. It is not possible to "redefine" common words in a government document. That's not the way the law works.
Words have accepted meanings. In Common Law countries like the U.S., it is the original MEANING of a statute, or section of the Constitution, for example, that is the governing factor.
Official (like the President) do not have authority to "change" a law simply by saying "I think this word means something different now than when the law was passed." It doesn't matter what he thinks or how he tries to re-define it. What matters is what the ORIGINAL AUTHORS of the legislation meant when they wrote it.
It's just another example of the Whitehouse ignoring Constitutional law, and going off in its own rogue direction.
This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference
You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.
And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations.
Once again, Jane insists electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Once again, Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.
NO. That is NOT what I claimed, and that is not what I am claiming. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means.
I do not claim "no" radiation is absorbed. To repeat once again: no NET power from radiation is absorbed. Those are 2 completely different claims. You keep saying I claim the former, when I've actually only claimed the latter. And by now, there can be no remaining misunderstanding about that. You are simply lying. Again.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Prof. Brown. Now Jane claims that Prof. Brown is spreading "garbage" that contradicts just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. But Jane certainly isn't arguing with Prof. Brown or Dr. Shore or even me. Perish the thought.
No, I am not arguing with them right now, as I made clear. I was arguing with YOU about Spencer's experiment. And you lost the argument.
When A is warmer than B, (Ta^4 - Tb^4) yields a positive number. Which means all NET radiative energy transfer goes from A to B. That is clearly indicated by the minus sign, and is further dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no NET energy going from B to A. Only when B is hotter than A does any NET energy transfer in the other direction.
A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction.
Further, by the same equation the temperature (T) of warmer A does not depend on the cooler B. And as the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature-power relation (e*s)*T^4 clearly implies, the power output of A also does not depend on B.
Power output of A at a given temperature Ta is independent of B. Changing the temperature of B (as long as it remains cooler) does not affect the power output of A. This is exactly where you have been getting it wrong, by trying to use a heat transfer equation rather than a power output equation.
This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU.
I haven't used moderator points in over a year. But the fact that Jane is so convinced I am that he's cussing and screaming in ALL CAPS is emblematic of Jane's reasoning problems, just like when Jane was absolutely convinced that I'm a six-headed hydra.
It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.
You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?
GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.
"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.
I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.
It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.
In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.
Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.
Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.
Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.
His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.
But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?
And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.
Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.
So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.
When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."
NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.
Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?
Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.
And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a coole
I have repeated this here so many times now I've lost count.
A Federal judge ruled a few months ago that the FAA has no authority EXCEPT in controlled airspace. And "controlled" airspace isn't most or even much of the air around us.
The FAA's authority is derived from INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND COMMERCE. Anything else is none of its business.
If you aren't sending your drone commercially across State lines, or invading controlled airspace, they have no legal basis for "regulating" you.
The FAA has appealed the decision, but pending appeal they have seemed to want to put as many regulations in place as they can before the November election. I wonder why.
Just so we're clear: I respect Dr. Roy Spencer. But he's not immune from Getting Things Wrong. Even so, all things considered, he has been less wrong than you.
Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.
For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me.
Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.
As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.
As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way.
But again, this is all straw-man bullshit. NONE of them were ever able to actually refute Latour's math with real-world examples. Spencer failed, YOU failed in your analysis of Spencer, etc.
Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why.
The reason the Earth is not catastrophically warming due to CO2, and the reason you aren't literally burning alive due to your home's heating system, are the same: "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit.
Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.
You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".
These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)
Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.
And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.
Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [thermalradiation.net] I've repeatedly [slashdot.org] given Jane [slashdot.org] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.
I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.
But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.
No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".
I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.
I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.
But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
There also has to be a "chain of evidence". That is what appears to be a problem here.
The FBI can't back up its "chain" of evidence. It SAYS it went from X to Z via Y, but has no records of Y. Oops... that's a fuckup.
This smells from miles away as "parallel construction" which is ILLEGAL. The government does not have authority to lie to courts in order to obtain a conviction.
Correction, how it was. The world was perfectly fair in some mythological world that they believe existed before the liberals and blacks and feminists got hold of it.
I agree with many things you say, but not everything. And this is one of those exceptions.
I am NOT a Republican, and I don't even like Republicans very much. But the last 6 years have clearly shown that the Democrats are even more hateful and hypocritical than the Republicans are.
These aren't "conservative" groups. They're "crony capitalism" groups. Those aren't the same. And I think it's hilarious that Democrats are trying to turn this into a liberal-vs-conservative thing because over the last 6 years the Democrats have shown themselves to be more crony-capitalist than the Republicans ever were.
I am FOR Net Neutrality. But even more than that, I am FOR the truth. OP is liberal hypocrisy in the extreme.
It is not perfect, and it has a lot of downsides, but it is also whey the corporate world and government has embraced MS as the desktop operating system of choice.
To what government are you referring? The U.S. government has made strong moves toward Open Source, and the military barely glances at Windows anymore (with a few notable exceptions).
Many other governments (and I do mean MANY) won't touch Windows at all. They feel (in my opinion rightly): if it ain't Open, it ain't suitable for public agencies.
They might become porn when distributed as such. The purpose and manner in which they are distributed and used affects what they are.
Eh... that's pretty thin. I don't think the relevant court cases agree with you. At least in most states.
In general, courts have ruled that pornography is only pornography because of its content. Even when it's sexually explicit (generally speaking), it's only "obscenity" if it has ZERO social or artistic merit other than pornography.
Granted, child pornography is different in that the only requirement for being "obscene" is anything sexual explicit. It doesn't matter if it's "artistic".
Even so, that's why taking a picture of your kid in the bathtub is not "child pornography". There's nothing sexual about it.
I am pretty sure that in most states, now matter how it was marketed, even if there was cover art of porn stars, an innocent video clip of a kid splashing around in the tub would not be ruled child pornography. There are standards and there are reasons for them. It's not just someone's arbitrary opinion, and it doesn't matter what label is slapped on it. Probably the worst it would get is a charge for fraud because it wasn't pornography after all.
But please, for the sake of all the other victims of this law, don't treat her special because she's female, pretty, rich, and famous.
THAT part I agree with, but "she needs to go to jail", I do not. Necessarily. OP was vague on the details.
But I think a lot of what was exposed in OP's article is that these are teenagers being prosecuted for doing your average dumb teenage things. Hell... in a lot of states it is legal to actually have sex for 2 or more years before you're even legally allowed to give someone a nude picture of yourself. And I think that says there's something seriously wrong with the "sexting" laws.
I'm using government's own data. Where's the graph on YOUR page?
Funny, that page says it's "below normal" but doesn't say how much.
The fact is, it's barely below the 1981-2010 mean.
It's about normal.
OP is pretty funny since there normally isn't ANY sea ice within about 100 miles of Alaska this time of year.
The software you are using is garbage. Applications don't HAVE to store ANYTHING in the registry -- that's the vendor of your crappy games doing that. Also, each vendor supplies an uninstaller -- obviously yours aren't doing the job. I suggest you have a talk with the thick-headed developers who write your games. Or, just join the rest of us in 2014, get an SSD and don't worry about it.
Utter nonsense. Microsoft won't certify your product UNLESS you store certain things in the registry.
Certainly you can write your programs a different way (as I do), but don't expect to get your software Microsoft certified.
No. Just no. The Second and Third amendments deal with the nation's founders being paranoid of the potential for their new government to abuse its power. Much of a government's coercive power comes from its army, so, the constitution forbade the creation of a standing national army. On the other hand the founders recognised that the nation would need a way to defend itself against threats both internal and external. Militias would be the answer to that. This is why the second amendment not only give a directive, but also a reasoning. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not that hard to understand. Unless, of course, you are intentionally failing to understand it so that it fits into your world view.
Nothing I wrote contradicts this. What makes you think it does?
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
Not really. It's just bad design.
Your server isn't getting games installed on it, which put all kinds of settings in the registry, then removed later when the game is old and tired, leaving behind cruft (including DRM bullsit) in the registry.
When a program is UNinstalled, all traces of it should be gone. Apple took a different approach, which arguably works far better. Even if stuff is left behind, it just takes up a bit of disk space, and doesn't affect the system at all.
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.
For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at all, and that States had the power to oppose the Federal government if it overstepped its Constitutional bounds... Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. (The latter was made clearer later by Jefferson and Madison.)
This much is clear: the Constitution would never have been ratified if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that the Federal government is a tool of the collective States, not the other way around. The Federal government has the authority allowed it by the States, and no more.
Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line.
You need to take some history lessons. The Second Amendment wasn't written by the South. And the writers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that in the day it was written, there was no way it would be ratified by the States if they tried to abolish slavery immediately and directly.
But if you notice, it was written in such a way that it guaranteed rights to every person... making it easy to amend it later to abolish slavery. They didn't HAVE to write it that way, you know.
The Second Amendment was written because the British government tried to control arms in order to suppress dissent and rebellion. Our Founding Fathers understood that denying arms to the people, no matter what excuse is given for it, is always a tool of oppression.
So if I download lots of copyrighted music and films, but never listen to them -- then I'm apparently okay right?
OP's basic premise is BS. It is not possible to "redefine" common words in a government document. That's not the way the law works.
Words have accepted meanings. In Common Law countries like the U.S., it is the original MEANING of a statute, or section of the Constitution, for example, that is the governing factor.
Official (like the President) do not have authority to "change" a law simply by saying "I think this word means something different now than when the law was passed." It doesn't matter what he thinks or how he tries to re-define it. What matters is what the ORIGINAL AUTHORS of the legislation meant when they wrote it.
It's just another example of the Whitehouse ignoring Constitutional law, and going off in its own rogue direction.
This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference
You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.
And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations.
Once again, Jane insists electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Once again, Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.
NO. That is NOT what I claimed, and that is not what I am claiming. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means.
I do not claim "no" radiation is absorbed. To repeat once again: no NET power from radiation is absorbed. Those are 2 completely different claims. You keep saying I claim the former, when I've actually only claimed the latter. And by now, there can be no remaining misunderstanding about that. You are simply lying. Again.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Prof. Brown. Now Jane claims that Prof. Brown is spreading "garbage" that contradicts just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. But Jane certainly isn't arguing with Prof. Brown or Dr. Shore or even me. Perish the thought.
No, I am not arguing with them right now, as I made clear. I was arguing with YOU about Spencer's experiment. And you lost the argument.
When A is warmer than B, (Ta^4 - Tb^4) yields a positive number. Which means all NET radiative energy transfer goes from A to B. That is clearly indicated by the minus sign, and is further dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no NET energy going from B to A. Only when B is hotter than A does any NET energy transfer in the other direction.
A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction.
Further, by the same equation the temperature (T) of warmer A does not depend on the cooler B. And as the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature-power relation (e*s)*T^4 clearly implies, the power output of A also does not depend on B.
Power output of A at a given temperature Ta is independent of B. Changing the temperature of B (as long as it remains cooler) does not affect the power output of A. This is exactly where you have been getting it wrong, by trying to use a heat transfer equation rather than a power output equation.
This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU.
I haven't used moderator points in over a year. But the fact that Jane is so convinced I am that he's cussing and screaming in ALL CAPS is emblematic of Jane's reasoning problems, just like when Jane was absolutely convinced that I'm a six-headed hydra.
It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.
I am curious. Example?
You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?
GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.
"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.
I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.
It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.
In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.
Also, STOP sock-puppet modding down my comments. THAT'S AGAINST SLASHDOT'S RULES and it's just plain an asshole thing to do.
Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.
Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.
Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.
His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.
But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?
And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.
Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.
So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.
When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."
NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.
Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?
Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.
And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a coole
I have repeated this here so many times now I've lost count.
A Federal judge ruled a few months ago that the FAA has no authority EXCEPT in controlled airspace. And "controlled" airspace isn't most or even much of the air around us.
The FAA's authority is derived from INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND COMMERCE. Anything else is none of its business.
If you aren't sending your drone commercially across State lines, or invading controlled airspace, they have no legal basis for "regulating" you.
The FAA has appealed the decision, but pending appeal they have seemed to want to put as many regulations in place as they can before the November election. I wonder why.
Just so we're clear: I respect Dr. Roy Spencer. But he's not immune from Getting Things Wrong. Even so, all things considered, he has been less wrong than you.
Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.
For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me.
Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.
As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.
As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way.
But again, this is all straw-man bullshit. NONE of them were ever able to actually refute Latour's math with real-world examples. Spencer failed, YOU failed in your analysis of Spencer, etc.
Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why.
The reason the Earth is not catastrophically warming due to CO2, and the reason you aren't literally burning alive due to your home's heating system, are the same: "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit.
Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.
You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".
These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)
Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.
And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.
Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [thermalradiation.net] I've repeatedly [slashdot.org] given Jane [slashdot.org] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.
I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.
But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.
No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".
I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.
I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.
But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.