This is the principle of false equivalency - treating propaganda, vapid opinions, and just plain falsities with the same weight as facts, in the aim of being "fair and balanced." Letting the CIA, NSA, others speak at conferences where they are there to spread their own propaganda and to then treat these presentations as valuable facts is intellectually dishonest at best.

There is a time when various people need to be shunned to give them a wake-up-call, and not allowing these jerks to take time at our conferences.

The CIA fucking spied on the fucking Congress and made up "evidence" to turn over to Eric Holder to prosecute congressional staffers. Because they didn't like the investigation into plainly illegal torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...

These people need to be shunned and locked out, not catered to. Many need to be in jail at the very least.

--
BMO

Chomsky explained everything you need to know in the 70's. Educate yourself, idiots.

Here's news for you mate. There is no shortage of skilled workers. There is only capitalistic elites applying very strict selection requirements via flavor of the month bullshit requirements (ignoring that coders learn new languages without having to get a degree or cert). This is done so they can pretend to be looking for workers, when in fact they are trying NOT to hire anyone so they can meet the government's requirements and employ more lower paid H1B visa workers. There are actually HR seminars about how NOT to hire people while still complying with the requirements of looking for work. "Oh my, you don't have a Certificate or Degree in $LANG, I'm afraid that's a requirement. Yes, you may say you know it, but how do I know that?" In fact, they just filter all applicants by their strict filter and you don't even get interviewed. They have to interview a few folks, just to seem legit, but that's the nature of this beast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I reached that point in the 90's.

Now I write all my code in a meta language that compiles down into COBOL, C, C++, C#, Erlang, FORTH, Fortran, Google's Go, Haskel, Java, Javascript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust, and more.

It takes about two weeks for me to learn a new language and write the "runtime" for my meta compiler. Then I can deploy all of my existing solutions on the new platform faster than the other guys can get "Hello DB Connection" out the door.

Fuck all the shitty languages and "new" platforms. Now that you've actually grown up and stopped being a fucking fanboy, go write your own meta compiler. I'll open source mine when I retire, it's what gives me the edge over all the noobs still wasting time reimplementing their wheels.

The socket AM3+ does support ECC (if you choose the right motherboard, ASUS usually do...)

Yeah, I have standardized on Asus for all my builds, and the ECC support is one of the reasons.

If you want ECC for cheap you could buy a lower-end socket AM3+ processor like the FX4350

My most recent build was an FX8xxx part. FX8350 I think.

otherwise Xeon is clearly the better choice.

I have made the choice to not give Intel any of my money if I can help it. I don't like the unethical games Intel plays (example).

Processors are so fast these days anyway, that the difference between the best AMD and the best Intel are not that big a deal for my purposes. And while AMD loses on absolute performance, they generally win on performance-per-money-spent.

Um, JUST NO. I really don't know where you might have gotten that idea, but it's false.

I told you already: you're trying to argue with the wrong person. I'm going to answer this, and them I'm done. You've been hammering at this unsuccessfully for over 2 years now. To say that it has been an outrageous waste of my time even answering you is an understatement.

No, he didn't. I swear, you are the King of mis-stating other peoples' arguments, so you cay try to shoot down straw-men instead.

What he actually argues is that Spencer's argument, not "mainstream physics", would result in creation of energy. His actual argument is that "mainstream physics" (which he has used almost daily in his career as an expert in heat transfer) shows that it can't be so, therefore Spencer's argument is false.

That's not the same, and your claim that it is just shows you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter.

Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. Because you well know that even "arbitrarily small" is not zero. And any deviation from zero is enough to make the difference between T and T0 (or however you want to designate them) non-zero. A non-zero difference is all we need, no matter how "arbitrarily small" you try to make it. Remember that this is physical substance, not merely a mathematical abstraction.

He doesn't wrongly claim that absorbing any "cold back radiation" would violate the first law. Again, you are merely mis-stating his actual argument. Now YOU are confusing absolute transfer with net transfer. That's your problem, not his. His argument has always been about NET transfer, and he does NOT claim that "any" re-absorption would violate the first law. You are again trying to claim that his argument is not about net transfer, when it fact it always has been. You are tilting at windmills again. Or still, take your pick. Why do you persist in this? Who are you trying to convince? You sure as hell aren't convincing me of anything. I mean, hell, YOU just tried to imply that an enclosing mass can be made of negligible mass, to the point that we don't even have to take it into account. Hahaha.

I mean that's so wrong on so many levels. For one thing (I already mentioned another), if the mass were negligible (as it would have to be, to make the difference in dimension negligible), then it would also absorb and re-emit negligble radiation, which makes the whole argument moot. And I have to wonder again why you don't see these glaringly obvious problems with your arguments. If you reduced the mass (and thereby dimensions) to almost zero, you reduce the absorption and re-radiation to almost zero. You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to hypothesize about some mystery substance that is not known to exist in reality.

He doesn't claim that. Repeat: you are mis-stating his argument. He actually claims the reverse: he USES "mainstream" physics to show that in reality it does not warm infinitely, and therefore Spencer's argument was wrong. I mean you're just absolutely trying to reverse the real argument here. But I really don't expect you to see that, because if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume), you don't even see the enormous gaping holes in your own argument which you made above. IN REALITY, the enclosing plate will be somewhat cooler. That's not even advanced physics, it's simple math. Repeat: why can a layman so easily poke holes in your "physics" arguments? I'm not a physicist, and haven't claimed to be one.

You're wrong about that too. Thermal insulation does not work by blocking radiative cooling. It inhibits convection and conduction. There is no convection or conduction between Earth's system and "the cosmic background". Only radiation. You have conflated two wholly unrelated concepts, and called it an argument.

I am DONE with your nonsense. If you think you really can refute Latour, then go do it, and stop bothering me. I have nothing to do with it. But I don't mind saying I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. So go do it, if you think you can, and leave me be. I am done here. I will respond no more to this stream of BS.

But before I leave, I'm going to do you a favor here. You don't deserve it, but I'm going to anyway. Here's a hint, if you really want to examine the difference that convection and conduction make, then take a strong look at how LONG it takes the Moon's surface, with no atmosphere, to cool off once it rotates into shadow.

Argue about that all you like, but with yourself. I won't be waiting to hear it.

I have a strong preference for using ECC RAM when I build a new computer.

I would be perfectly happy to use an APU to make a very quiet computer, but the chipsets that support the APUs don't have ECC support.

I admit I'm probably a weird outlier. People who want APUs probably don't want to pay extra for ECC RAM most of the time. Still, will there ever be even one chipset that will add ECC support?

Is there any technical reason why ECC shouldn't be used with an APU?

Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMED. Quite the contrary. He claimed that a completely enclosed plate DOES NOT reach infinite temperature, which of course agrees with observations. Are you seriously this dense? Or did you just word your sentence in an unfortunate way, the way Latour did in his original blog post?

Here's one way you are wrong. In any realistic system, the enclosing plate would be of larger dimensions than the internal source, however slightly. So while the total re-radiated energy might be the same, it is spread over a larger area, so the energy density (and therefore temperature) would be lower.

How did you allow a layman to catch you in such an elementary error?

Not that I had any obligation to do so. Your argument is with him, not me. Just consider it a free lesson in humility.

No, you aren't. You're arguing something completely different.

What you're doing is known as "straw-man argument", or in this case (it's a bit gray) it might be called "moving the goalposts".

If you've actually looked into what he wrote about this, then why do you continue to deny that his whole argument is about NET heat transfer? He has explicitly stated otherwise.

Even if you did not take his word for it, his career building control systems precisely for the purpose of managing heat transfer would strongly suggest that this is hardly something he is likely to neglect.

If you want to make this other argument, then I suggest you read about his later challenge to Spencer and Watts to disprove his thesis, their attempts to do so, and his analysis of why they failed. (Hint: keeping the input power constant is one of the subjects discussed.)

You are only showing yet again that you haven't really looked into this. The original argument you made above was made moot over 2 years ago. This more recent argument, about a year ago. More or less.

And lastly, I will remind you: 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.

Yes, but:

This may be true but it sidesteps one if the big points here: U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction abroad.

They might be able to sanction and punish the corporation for hiding its evidence, but it has no literal authority to otherwise force it to produce that evidence (like for example police action).

If the courts can punish Microsoft for not producing evidence in Ireland, why cannot it then punish Senators for not producing evidence of income hidden in the Bahamas?

We don't need to check your calculations because you're making a straw-man argument again. You are not refuting what Latour was actually arguing. And either you know that, or you just haven't paying attention. And the latter would be rather bizarre, given the nature of what you have been saying.

Stop making straw-man arguments. You aren't impressing anybody. You're making yourself look like a fool.

Absolute nonsense. He didn't do that simply because that was not the argument he was refuting. The argument he was refuting was clearly described, discussed, and linked to in his essay.

Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. I repeat: either you know it's wrong and are just spewing bullshit to make yourself look good (or in an attempt to make me look bad), or you just haven't done your due diligence.

My opinion is that you're just grasping at straws because you were shown to be wrong yet again. But those straws don't really exist. You were just plain wrong.

No, I am not certain "because I read it on the Internet". I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. Not all of them, of course. Some were just plain bullshit. Like your posts here. But some were true.

you know. Those various black societies are very inclusive and generally run by very nice people.

Black people in America have lived with 200 years of institutionalized racism. I've got a black trucker friend who doesn't do runs through the South to this day. So I can't really begrudge them their societies...

On the other hand I'd say Whites are tremendous victims of racism: their own. The right wing in this country has convinced the white man that "Welfare Queens" (read: Black people) are a bigger problem then declining wages and competing with slave labor. The think tanks aren't even very secretive about it. Google "Southern Strategy".