NONSENSE. The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. You're contradicting yourself, trying to have it both ways.

Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics!

What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)

If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree.

I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion.

Hybrid or not, I'm not buying a Chinese car.

I'll pay twice as much for a Tesla first.

But this isn't a "methodology" at all. It's a statement of goals.

This isn't an "alternative to Agile", because it isn't a methodology. You can use Agile to achieve this "reactive system".

Frankly, it looks like a bunch of BS buzzwords to me. I write software to meet my customer's needs. "Reactive" attempts to define those needs... but NO, that's what the customer does.

This might be something good to show a client who wants a web site built, which you then proceed to build using Agile or some other methodology. But it isn't a methodology itself, and calling that thing a "Manifesto" is a joke.

"We want a machine that makes things cold. We don't care how it's built. We'll call this... The Refrigerator Manifesto".

Give me a frigging break. In fact I have to think this is actually somebody's idea of a joke.

If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance.

I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it.

Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit.

NOW what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull?

Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did.

Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before?

Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies.

I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time?

I have concluded that is all you are trying to do.

Experiment needed, bozo.

Put a smallish (30 cm^3) piece of styrofoam on water that has a decent amount of ripples, and try to hold it still.

You don't need Wikipedia to do that.

They were plain iron chains. It is not a very suitable material for making finish screws.

If they can build offshore oil platforms, they can do this. (They ARE doing this.)

It's only part of the problem. The REAL big part of the problem, is that Android (so far) has insisted that your encryption password and unlock code be the same.

So if you encrypt your phone with a secure password, like upper-and-lower-case, numbers, non-alphanumeric, and 10 characters long, then every time your phone is locked and it rings, you have to enter the entire damned thing before you can answer.

Understandably, not many people want to do that. It's a huge pain in the ass.

I don't have a problem so much with encryption being irreversible, but it should be separate from your unlock code.

I wasn't referring to crony capitalism, although I admit I could have worded it better. Mea culpa; it is reasonable to think that's what I meant from what I wrote. But it isn't actually what I meant.

To be clearer: EPA for example is "crony capitalism" by way of "market capture". Obamacare is a rather huge attempt at socialism.

I wouldn't quite say that either. It is totalitarianism wearing padded gloves. When China's leaders really got it through their heads that their economy was genuinely starting to fail, big time, they introduced "incentives": allowing businesses to be just a little bit capitalist. When that worked, they allowed a little more.

But make no mistake: the central leadership still rules things with an iron fist, and controls the economy. That's socialism (which, truth be told, isn't that different from fascism, after all). They just know which side of their bread the butter is on, and allow "capitalist" activity where it suits them.

Such systems are being built today and I helped build one myself in a small way, when I was working for an engineering firm.

Pumped storage is an excellent way to store that energy, because infrastructure is relatively cheap, and losses are minimized. (Compare to trying to store the same energy with chemical batteries.) But you are mistaken about one thing. You don't build just one super-huge tank; you soon run into diminishing returns. Instead you build a lot of smaller tanks. That's more reliable anyway.

You are probably correct. They looked like brass, but they were most likely bronze. In any case: the original screws held up to seawater, while the stainless screws were gone in a short time.

I've done both.

VB6 was well-organized and coherent (but not entirely object-oriented).

But .NET, when it came around, was an attempt to do 2 things at the same time: [1] create a common underpinning (bytecode runtime) for all their IDE languages, and [2] insert object-orientation at the same time.

.NET was a mess. I liked VB6, as incomplete as it was, but .NET felt like a random conglomeration of just "stuff" thrown together to make it web-compatible. And I really hated that even when you created a pre-defined web object in .NET, you still had to manually define actions that should have been defaults for any such object. It is just plain weird.

In my personal opinion, having used both: VB6 was a great product for its time. .NET was made to be a successor to it, but never quite made the grade.

Utter nonsense. It was Agile Development that STARTED my work-at-home. Where did you get the idea that they are incompatible? In fact, it is Agile that made the whole thing possible.

I meant to add:

When a hard drive fails, it is almost always the electronics or the bearings. The interface boards can be replaced, leaving the data on the drive intact. When bearings sieze, it is usually possible to free them up long enough to recover the data. As I mentioned before: I know because I've done it.

The only truly permanent, unrecoverable error on a hard drive is a catastrophic head crash, and those are extremely rare. But they do happen. I opened one up once to try to recover a guy's data and the surface of one platter was literally grooved by one head, which prevented the whole head assembly from moving properly. But because it tried, it was actually a series of concentric grooves.

It was completely toast. But as I say: this is extremely rare. In almost all cases it is possible to recover the vast majority of information from a hard disk that has failed.