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.

Backdoors are a threat to national security; because there is ALWAYS a risk they will be discovered by other parties or that the mechanism for their operation will prove to be exploitable.

That could leave us in a situation where an enemy, very likely even an enemy without state resources could find themselves in a position where they can disrupt/eavesdrop/other wise access just about all non-military equipment. Its terrible idea when we face threats like ISIS to deliberately weaken our information security posture. It could be economically crippling.

I am leaving out all arguments about civil liberties basic freedoms etc because the Intelligence committee types, and the FUCKING FREEDOM HATING ASSHOLES like Holder don't care about those arguments.

It comes down to this while backdoor the whole world might prevent a tiny number of crimes against children it puts the entire American way of life at risk. We had this conversation before in the 90's with Skipjack and our society made the right choice back then, for whatever reasons wrong or right. It was only 20 some years ago, the world has not changed that much; this is not the time to re-evaluate this.

Holder is bad rubbish and its good a thing he will soon be gone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.

Ok, the calculating of volume is a very good argument for metric. I didn't think of that one. Thanks for pointing that out. But then again, going from feet to square feet and then to cubic feet doesn't seem to hard to me.

It's not, it's going from there to gallons which is the problem. The units I've seen in use include floz, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, cubic inches, cubic feet, cubic yards and acre-feet. That's two completely different systems with many different bases.

When calculating weight it may help some, but that is only if you are using water. Any other matter and you will need a factor for the density in there anyway. At that point it is just as much of a calculation using either measurement system.

Well, only if the density is in the right units, given there are so many choices. There's also a rather pleasent piece of serendipity that water is about 1 kg/litre, heavy stuff (iron, lead) is roughly 10x that, and air is about 1/1000 of that.

I'm not going to claim imperial is impossible to use: as I said, the industrial revoloution was built with imperial units.

The other examples don't seem to be relevant to me. If I was hooking up a heater, it would tell me how many amps it draws. I don't need any BTU factors or whatever. Perhaps I don't fully understand this example, but thing I have worked with have told me the amperage needed and it is simple to add them up to figure out the rating of the circuit.

You have a garage workshop on a 30A circuit. You need to run say 2 HP of motors at most, 300W of lighting. How many BTU/hr of heating can you fit on that to keep it warm in winter?

To answer that sort of question in imperial you have no less than 3 different units of measurement for power one of which is in fact metric! Of course you can do it. You can go to your machine tools and look up the current draw on the label. Then you can go to the heaters you're thinking of installing and look on the lavel for the current and check it all adds up (don't forget the lights!). Or if they were all in Watts, you just add up, divide by 230 (or 110 depending on the region) and you have the answer.

Or other things. You have a server room. You know how much power the computers take (seems to be measured in Watts). How many BTU/hr air conditioning do you need? And whay size circuit is that going to be on? Again more than possible in imperial but a darn sight easier in metric.

Sure you can always look it up and work out the current, but with metric, you don't need to bother, and that's why it's easier. That's the kind of conversions I'm talking about. You can keep coming up with ways to calculate it in imperial, and you'd be correct, but the metric one is always much easier.

Another might be working how much force some air pressure might exert. OK for working it out in lbf if it's in lbf/in^2, but if it's atmospheric based and you have the pressure in mm/Hg, then that's another conversion (and woe betide you if you want poundals instead of lbf because you're trying to accelerate something).

Miles or used for long distances and fractions of a mile are as accurate as you need when you are using them in daily life.

People use both. That's about a hundred yards away down the road. Or 200 or 400. At some point they switch to using 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, mile etc. Generally there's not much need to convert, but the use does overlap.

Imperial works, but it was not designed. It grew up and is a vast mishmash of different measurements for the same things, with large numbers of different conversion factors. Ignoring even the fractional things like inch/foot/yard etc (and is it 16ths of an inch or thous?), imperial has two entirely independent bases of measuring volume, one based on cubic lengths, the other based on weights of water.

There are two bases for measuring pressure: based on weight-force per unit area and mm of fluid in a tube.

For power you have BTU/hr (heat), HP (rotational power), Watts (!) for lighting and so on because none of the imperial units seem to fit well.

For energy, there's BTU/calories/kilo (lol) calories, HP-hour foot-pound-force (commonly abbreviated as foot-pound) and probably a few others.

If you ever do anything that crosses those boundaries you have to look up figures in a conversion table. With metric, you never do.

Guns.

Neat.

*yawn*

The conversion argument is merely a bit bogus, as is the divisibility one. The more compelling argument is when you're converting across dimentions.

In metric, it's easy to go from lengths to areas and volumes, and from there via the density to weights, and so on and so forth. With imperial there are all sorts of annoying conversion factors, not to mention totally different units for the same thing, such as cuft/gallon or BTU/hr and horsepower.

Yeah if you're just measuring simple things then you have to contend with a mere insane profusion of units (at what point do you switch from mils to 16ths of an inch or tenths). Oh and also why are distances given in decimal fracions of a mile, not miles and yards?

If you want to do estimates things get much, much harder due to all the wretched conversion factors.

No one sane is going to argue that imperial units are impossible to use: the industrial revolution happened off the back of them and US industry is healthy enough. But anything but the most trivial use is a pain in the ass in imperial. Fortunately for imperial, most use of units is trivial.

Here's some day to day examples: how much does my water tank in the loft weigh (this came up recently in building work). Trivial with metric. Can I fit three heaters on this 30A circuit (lolz worthy if you use BTU/hr, trivial in metric) and so on.

That was the big fear which never panned out. Almost all supermarkets label the price per unit volume or weight as well, so if you're shopping on price you just read that.

That was my initial reaction but then Tetris' total lack of plot and cannon also gives the writers near total freedom.

I mean hell you could make a movie about a struggling deliver service improving their efficiency through better packing efficiency and call it Tetris.

I think East Anglia on the whole might be a hotbed of the Angles, if not the Saxons.

Yeah. 4 pints to the quart!

So, that makes a stone a mere 1 3/4 of a gallon of water.

for the lazy minded people who cannot or refuse to think.

Certainly is for the lazy minded people. A good engineer or programmer is fundementally a lazy person. Why do the same error-prone tedious task by hand if you can automate away the difficulty by a bit of cunning.

Metric is that principle applied to units.

So: lazy, certainly. Refusing to think: quite the contrary.