True, and in most cases that is just fine. I realize they are addressing the majority of situations, but sometimes you do not want to slow down when rapidly changing lanes, depending on where other vehicles are. I know, its not the most probably of situations, but I have more than once in my many years of driving encountered such conditions. In fact, I've had to accelerate to change lanes safely and avoid a car that suddenly moved in front of me after first almost running off the road.

If the thought experiment ignores a significant factor, is it better just because it is simpler?

Low humidity = low heat capacity Low heat capacity = faster cooling given a set amount of radiance (be it soil or air) which equates to high temperature swings.

Obviously, heat from the sand is lost almost entirely by radiance. I agree little is absorbed by the dry, low heat capacity air. I agree radiance is a primary factor in cooling.

But you must understand that surface characteristic play into it as well as moisture in the air. If you have ever been to a desert city where asphalt absorbs much heat during the day, you will find that even with dry air and clear skies, the surface air temperatures do not follow such drastic, rapid swings.

Congrats! You win three internets and Skymall gift card for your honesty.

I never said any of the poster were right or wrong, I was just elaborating on factors that were being overlooked. There are multiple factors at play, simplifying it to "just radiant cooling" is fine if you want to keep it simple, but I guarantee a higher heat capacity soil would provide more heat to the surface air for a longer period during the night if all other factors were the same. There is simply less stored heat to radiate.

The 'warmer' just below the surface is exactly what you expect from a low heat capacity, reflective soil.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you read what I said, the sand cool quickly because of its low heat capacity. That cooling is can be from radiant heat loss, I never said it was not. Obviously you have both factors at play.

Can't you freaking read? I specifically was talking about sand. Pay attention and don't get so defensive. Clouds = moisture in the air.. .another thing I specifically mentioned. Moisture in air retains heat. As for paying attention, if you had done so to start with I could still take you seriously.

Not arguing your point, but it would be just as interesting to see the stats on accidents avoided. In many situations, swerving with controlled braking is more effective than braking alone or 'panic braking'. I'd hate to lose that ability to have that braking control. But I do understand the point of the proposed requirement is those that have no clue what is happening in front of them.

Its hard to pre-emptively determine who is safe or not except through our driving tests, which are pretty much a joke. Even with tougher driving tests, a person would do just fine in the test when they aren't texting or allowing other distractions to take hold like the do all to often.

But, its hard to have any hope of good drivers overall when it seems that 20% of people seem to stupid to how to use a passing lane properly.

OK, I've always wondered who actually has ever bought anything from Skymall. I mean, we've all looked, but who has actually done the deed?

Anyone? Don't be afraid to admit it... come out of the shadows and confess.

Without doing the research, I'd say a significant factor in desert cooling speed is the low heat retention and transfer characteristics of desert sand. Sand is low density, low heat capacity, and in the absence of moisture simply doesn't retain much energy, nor does it conduct much energy to very far below the surface, so as soon as the heat source is gone, the sand quickly cools. Many desert surface are relatively reflective, which further reduces heat absorption.

With the absence of significant surface heat radiation, then all you have is the air, generally dry and therefore low heat capacity itself, to retain the heat. Add the inevitable convection and you have rapid cooling. A big, moist forest would absorb and hold a lot of heat, and interfere with convection.

It is a business, not public property of course. The point is that a large swath of the public use it.

I made no analogy.

You can be pissed all you want, and you can believe they would be in the right to require vaccinations, but that doesn't mean they will force employees to vaccinate and expose themselves to the possible legal hassles and costs without a regulatory or legal requirement or at least a solid legal precedent.

Simply convince Disney not to worry about discrimination lawsuits, those that blame health issues on a forced vaccination, or those that believe their medical privacy rights are violated. It sure would be a lot easier to get Disney to do that 'right thing' if it were clearly backed by the law. That would be the easy way to get it to happen, IMO.

Now, what to do about all those vaccinated customers......

RTFA, they are not internet connected. They can be access over the internet if someone takes a device to the pump, connects to the serial interface, and connected to a gateway device to the internet.

Well, I assumed you were talking in practical, real world terms, where risk and exposure are realities that drive corporate decisions rather than idealistic and generalized logic. I wasn't making a philosophical statement, but rather pointing to how best it should be approached to achieve an end goal of actually requiring vaccinations.

But, through all that and your odd attempt to twist it to make yourself feel better, my original point is well backed by my statements. It should be public policy, thus enabling the companies to do it.

What they 'should do' and what the feel like the 'can do' aren't always the same. And with all that, there is little to suggest that vaccinating employees would prevent the problem, as customers, some percentage not vaccinated, will continue stroll though...

A non-sequitur. Companies always try to minimize legal risk, the fact that there are many is irrelevant. What is relevant is the extent and likelihood of the risk and the exposure.

I would not agree with that from a risk standpoint. I would say that, if they required vaccination, they are much more likely to see legal problems from 1) those claiming discrimination (religious objections & 2) those claiming required vaccinations caused health problems.

Since no public places presently have any assurance that others are vaccinated, it would be hard to prove that employees are at exposed to risks that would indicate negligence, and it would be a particularly difficult legal basis since requiring vaccinations is not a normal employer practice in the US. Yes, there may be some legal challenges, but much easier to deal with and much less likely to cost a lot to resolve.

Your opinion may differ, that is fine, but I've seen the types of lawsuits that employees bring to large corporations, and having a legal basis behind what you do makes things much, much easier and less risky.