Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it was 1937.

Gotta keep up with this stuff, man.

The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.

Compare to the SGS3. http://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_...

Except for storage these phones are on par with the 2012 champ SGS III. With millions more apps, better hardware video support, better battery life and India specific features like dual Sim, FM radio they should do well.

Except that I didn't. When my cable was installed I signed a small receipt acknowledging that the tech had been there. I signed no contract.

That might have been an oversight on their part, but that doesn't matter.

Further, the KIND of contract that Comcast has customers sign is known in the legal industry as a "contract of adhesion". What that means is that it was a non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it "contract". The problem being that contract law assumes that every party is free to negotiate before signing.

So in many genuine, legal senses of the term, it's not a "real" contract anyway, and honest judges are required in principle to view them "with a jaundiced eye", and lean toward the customer when a dispute arises.

I'm not saying all judges are honest enough to do that, but they're supposed to.

And one more thing I would like to make very clear:

The REASON there would not be as great a power DIFFERENCE if the chamber walls were also at 150F, is that the walls would themselves be radiating more power out, so there would be less heat transfer (in that case 0).

It is NOT, as you assert, because the heat source would be using less power. That's false, by the S-B equation. Its power output remains the same because (Spencer's stipulation) the power input remains the same.

The reason my solution does not violate conservation of energy, is that the power consumption of the chamber wall is allowed to vary. THAT is where the change takes place, not at the heat source. Again, this is a stipulation of Spencer's challenge.

Once again: power out of heat source remains constant, because P = (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * T^4. There is nothing in these conditions that changes this at all. Therefore, BECAUSE the power out and power in at the heat source remain constant, so does the temperature. It's all in that one little equation.

One important problem is that nuclear has a lead time of a minimum of 10 years whereas renewables have a lead time of about one year. We can't burn fossil fuels at the current rate for another 10 years waiting for nuclear.

In fact let's just face this directly, with no mincing of words:

We are not AT thermal equilibrium, so that is a ridiculous straw-man argument.

One question only: do you agree with the Stefan-Boltzmann relation: power out P = (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * T^4 ??

No more bullshit. "Yes" if you agree that equation is valid, or "No" if you deny that it is valid. Just that and no more.

I'm not asking your permission. I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting.

Nonsense. This is textbook heat transfer physics. We have a fixed emissivity. Therefore, according to the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law, the ONLY remaining variable which determines radiative power out is temperature. NOTHING else. That's what the law says: (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * T^4. That's all. Nothing more. This makes it stupidly easy to calculate the radiative power out, and therefore the necessary power in.

YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose.

You showed no such thing. Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself.

EVEN IF we accepted your idea that the "electrical" power required to be input to the heat source is dependent on the temperature difference between the heat source and chamber wall (a violation of the S-B law), you still contradict yourself because your answer of a hotter heat source would still then require MORE power, because the difference is greater. But that is not allowed by the stated conditions of the experiment, and you keep glossing over that simple check of your own work which proves it wrong.

So no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules.

This is a simple requirement of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The radiative power output of a given body does not depend on other nearby bodies. It's inherent in the law itself. And this is precisely where you are getting it wrong.

I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again.

I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it. Or show us your own replacement for the Stefan-Boltmann law. You don't get to have it both ways.

Strawman. Pure and simple.

Clean Air becomes "Carbon Tax" (CO2 is clean), and regulations regarding all sorts of things not related to "clean air", and is just a means to totalitarian controls set by people like Al Gore.

Safe Food becomes So many regulations and costs that while food is safe, it is so expensive that most people cannot eat it. Not to mention labeling of food as a "drug" because we need the government telling us Walnuts need a prescription.

Safe Working Conditions becomes OSHA regulations so deep and thick that on any given day your company probably violates a number of "safe working condition" regulations. Not to mention big fines for violations like your 3 foot barrier being only 2'11" tall, or your wheelchair ramp being 1 degree off.

Basically, your entire argument is nothing short of a Strawman, that keeps being perpetrated by those who WANT to remain stupid. And while we're on the subject, you forgot to mention Somalia.

Google and their hardware partners are doing a lot to bring the benefit of technology to more people than have had it before.

In other words pretty much exactly what some tried to say when Google first launched Chrome, except for OSS zealots who were blinded by their Mozilla support and "do no evil" slogan.

For Google open source is not a goal, it's a tool. Google funded Mozilla to run a browser war by proxy, as an open source and non-profit organization Mozilla could get massive support from organizations and volunteers that Google never could and a much higher tolerance of bugs and broken functionality. And I mean that both with respect to internal bugs as well as broken web sites due to MSIE-only code. As a means to an end to push a standards compliant web for Google to profit from it was a success.

With Android Google again used open source as a battering ram against an entrenched monopoly, this time against Apple in smart phones. Once again a host of unlikely allies - pretty much everyone except Apple and Nokia, really - jumped on board along with the open source rah-rah and low cost clone manufacturers looking to get a free ride. That you could have things like CyanogenMod and get root on your phone was new - even though some manufacturers blocked that it was a step up from the all-closed platforms.

I'm not saying those are bad things, but those mutually beneficial interests come to an end. Once we've been released from the old stranglehold, Google wants to make a new one with themselves in control. I don't think I can make a catchy acronym for it like embrace-extend-extinguish but it goes something like commodify-bundle-obsolete:

1. Commodify the functionality through open source
2. Bundle it with Google APIs/services
3. Let the open source version toil in obsolescence

Search results are still a major driver of Google's revenue. The default search engine is defined by your browser, the default browser is defined by the platform so from their perspective pushing Android and Chrome both makes very much sense - if you're using a Google product you'll never be pointed anywhere but a Google service. Chrome is also a vital part of that "all-or-nothing" bundle Google is selling to make companies use Google Play which is now their second cash cow.

Firefox is no longer a partner against MSIE, they're a threat against the OHA bundle. If you can take AOSP and install Firefox with no further strings attached that's one of the many pieces you need to replace filled. The less alternatives you have, the more power Google has over the Android ecosystem. If you're still stuck in the mindset where MSIE had 95% market share you'll fail to see that your one-time ally is no longer on your team. They're on their own team, as every for-profit company eventually end up being.

Why would there be any question that Chromium could still be compiled for 32-bit CPUs? It it's open-source, it can be. The only question is whether anyone cares enough to do it.

The Firefox devs walked away from PPC processors some time ago, but there's enough interest in that platform that an independent fork of its code has been maintained.

I think the point is that it should stay in the ground.
It should be replaced by renewable energy.

Note that this new "smart" gun won't save you from doing this.

The point of the penis shooting statistics is to pointedly refute that claim that gun owners are can be relied upon to be responsible.

Arguing that this particular tech doesn't stop guns owners from being irresponsible in one particular way doesn't refute the point.

Thus the point stands. "Gun owners" as a group cannot be assumed to be responsible. Therefore regulations to prevent the drooling mouthbreathers from being unduly dangerous to the public is reasonable.

Does that mean they should take away YOUR guns? Probably not, but if you accidently shot your self in the penis, maybe, just maybe you can't be trusted with a firearm. Maybe, just maybe, as a society we should prevent people like that from having guns. We require some minimal proof of competency before letting you drive in public, perhaps, just perhaps you shouldn't have a gun until you can at least demonstrate that you know to point it away from yourself when, especially when your finger is on the trigger.

Did you actually read the article you linked to? Take a look at the photo.. you can see the price tags... $10 to $25 for the rip off chargers, putting them smack in the price range for legitimate chargers. (BestBuy house brands Dynex and Insignia for example are exactly the same price range and has all the UL / CE certifications etc.)