Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:

... I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:

I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.

The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?

Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.

The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)

For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.

Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.

Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?

"If you don't think that's relevant, then you don't know what's relevant." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

Once again, a blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

Now go look at the down-modded ones as well. As I said - anything not toeing the line is at 1 or 2.

I did. I spent about half an hour looking at the downmodded ones, and trying to see something that I could easily point to, and I didn't find it. But let me remind you of your original reply and my original assertion:

>> 2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.
>>
>> If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken.
>
> http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
>
> I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.

You claim you were confirming my item 2, which makes an assertion about upmods and and misogyny being the dominant sentiment. It seems you cannot show that using the +5 rated comments. Therefore, I believe that we have already shown that your contradiction of my post, and demand that I apologize, was unjustified.

Now you are backing off to the less stringent, and harder to quantify, claim that comments which don't "toe the party line" were more likely to be downmodded. I suspect that misogynistic comments are relatively easy to categorize. Posts which don't "toe the party line" is a fuzzier issue, since I am not sure I know what you are saying "the party line" is. I'm not sure if you mean misogynistic comments are the party line, or if you are saying that the party line is a lack of support for affirmative action programs to balance the unequal treatment of women in STEM. Which is to say I think that the "party line" issue will be harder to show empirically.

But if you want to classify all the posts into misogynist versus not misogynist, or party-line-toeing versus party-line-anti-toeing, and upmodded versus downmodded, and present the data, I'd love to see it. It just seems like it would take a lot of work to get an objective answer. You presented a single example in your post. Individual anecdotes are extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.

While we're on the subject of confirmation bias, and your accusation that I have fallen victim; I think you are off base.

First, my assertion was that this forum does not have a dominant theme of misogyny demonstrated by the majority of misogynistic comments being upmodded. I think that looking at the +5 comments and trying to find a significant number which are misogynistic is an eminently fair test for that hypothesis.

Second, it would be rather hard for me to be a victim of it, since I do not have a strongly held belief of what the outcome will be. I haven't seen a strong pattern of misogyny here, but I've said, earlier in this thread, that I may simply be missing it, and I want to understand if that is the case. That is why I have been asking these questions in an unbiased and respectful manner. (though admittedly, you are testing my patience with your shifting of the specific facts in question and your impugning of my integrity)

Finally, it would also be difficult for me to be a victim of confirmation bias on the affirmative action question, because I am in favor of affirmative action programs to balance the unequal representation of women in STEM. I think that, much like the addition of women to the industrial labor force in the wake of WWII, increasing equality of women in STEM would be good for our nation both at the pragmatic economic level and in terms of the substantial ethical issue that is at stake.

But I do not see the objectively quantified empirical evidence of a pattern of misogynistic rhetoric on this site. Worse yet, I think that spurious suspicion of misogyny, particularly of people like me who want to see these kinds of programs move forward, is harmful to their advancement.

If that is because I do not understand what misogyny is, I am hoping you can enlighten me. But if I am not seeing it because upmodded misogynistic comments are actually not very common, perhaps that is an equally significant observation.

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increasing CO2 in the oceans, isotope ratios, etc.

And yet Lonny Eachus keeps spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation by linking to these ridiculous claims, even after acknowledging they're ridiculous. Jane/Lonny has either betrayed humanity, or he has the memory and scientific literacy of a goldfish.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

>> 2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.

> http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
>
> I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.

I read through the top rated comments, and it was not as clear to me as you suggest it is. It is possible that I do not understand what constitutes misogyny. I read this entry in Wikipedia, and am still not sure I see the cases that match that definition. There are 21 comments modded +5. To show that the dominant sentiment is misogyny, could you please link the 10 that you feel are most misogynistic?

Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.

Clarify this for me: Are you saying:
1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded.
- or -
2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.

If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken. If you're saying 1, it is better to allow a few fools to express their opinion -- and better yet for us to discuss it without rancor and help them get a clue -- than to become a community that does not speak freely.

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Clarify this for me; are you saying:

1. That the dominant meme in the Mozilla conversation was that it is perfectly okay to not like gays?
- or -
2. That a dominant meme was that he has a right to be a bigot, even though bigotry is wrong.

The latter is what I saw in the Mozilla issue, and it is an important distinction.

I am a hard-core equal rights advocate. Nothing good comes from hate. I argued in that thread for him to be dismissed, and believe it was right for him to "choose to resign".

But here's the thing about "nothing good comes from hate" -- it cuts both ways. Nothing good comes from hate, even when the target of the hate is a bigot. While I may find a person's opinion repugnant, and I do not hesitate to tell such people their view is flawed, I will defend to the death their right to express it.

Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.

Seems reasonable. What's the next step; how do you recommend we do it? In this case, the stingable is the market economy, and the scorpion is collusive trade. How do we move our economic system out of the way of Bezos' actions?

Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?

Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient. I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.

It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

IMO, the apparent conflict of interest. In an ideal free market, ad placements are competitive. Exclusive deals between entities which enjoy very large market-shares in their respective markets have a high probability of inhibiting GDP growth in the long run, according to both empirical and theoretical economics.

In my state all the calls are recorded anonymously for my safety as well as the safety of my country. Freedom isn't free after all.

Hmm, let's see...

In my state all the calls are recorded anonymously for my safety as well as the safety of my country. Freedom isn't freedom, after all.

There, FTFY. :(

Hackers Demand Automakers Get Serious About Security

I misread the subject line as being about automake systems, like Maven, PIP, and easy_install, and was very excited. All of those are vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning attacks, allowing injection of arbitrary code into software builds.

An enormous first step in improving security is the incorporation of PGP signature checks, but at least in Maven, many of the most popular libraries aren't signed.

Given how many of the people here use these tools on a daily basis, perhaps pointing fingers at the automakers is not warranted until the automakes are not glass houses.

>> Finger print scanners are fooled by gummy bears.

> Where I work, the scanners are quite high.

Aww, come on, now, no need to point fingers. If you had to sit there and check people's fingerprints all day you might spark up a bowl and get tempted by gummi bears once in a while too.

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Dr. Oliver K. Manuel is a PSI member who was arrested for "multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his own children."

But back to the main point. He used this to distract from the fact that he can't refute a scientific argument that he has been calling garbage and worse for more than 2 years now. He has attempted, and failed, and now he says he isn't going to bother because the PEOPLE with whom he disagrees are not up to his social standards (and even that, a false claim), rather than arguing the science as a scientist should. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

I already argued the science ad nauseum, but I'd rather not argue with pedophiles and child rapists because they aren't up to my social standards. Since Dr. Manuel regularly comments at PSI Slayer websites that are run by John O'Sullivan, I'd rather not comment at those websites.

Calling this mere "ad hominem" would be doing khayman80 a favor he doesn't deserve. Khayman80: you seem to have zero understanding of what is proper (or even legal) in a scientific discussion. And to use these FALSE charges against someone who isn't even involved in the scientific argument just shows the depths to which you will sink just to (as far as I can tell) misdirect from your failings and salve your own ego. THIS is how desperate you've become to try to save yourself from being publicly proven wrong. But it won't work. You've been wrong for at least two years, you're still wrong, and you don't even have the courage to face the guy who proved you wrong. I have zero respect for people who have repeatedly shown themselves willing to stoop to character assassination, deliberately fallacious arguments, and libel rather than behave like respectable scientists and just argue the facts. How hypocritcal. How abjectly pathetic. How disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Once again, you're using "ad hominem" incorrectly. I'm not saying that the PSI Slayers are wrong because some of them are pedophiles and child rapists. I already explained why the Slayers are wrong. I'm just saying that I don't want to talk with pedophiles and child rapists. Outside of Jane's PSI Slayer bizarro world, this probably isn't a controversial position.

It's adorable that you keep insisting someone proved me wrong, but it would be more believable if you could finally answer this simple question:

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas ... do it to his face ... you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see. ... If you think you really can refute Latour, then go do it ... If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this ... his little group also does have physicists in it ... Why don't you present your argument to Latour? ... Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead? But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves. Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends ... why aren't you asking the author of the whole thing, rather than me? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.

But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?

I do remember the implication. I do not remember anything I would call substantiation. Implication without substance is propaganda.