Comment Re:War! (Score 1) 221
Don't forget the "War on Poverty."
Don't forget the "War on Terrorism".
Don't forget the "War on Poverty."
Don't forget the "War on Terrorism".
Is FDD here to stay?
It seems like you're extrapolating from that experience, to thinking "FDD" is a current trend. AFAIK it's not. A small number of dysfunctional shops like that has virtually always existed. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've only been doing software development for a few years, so you're working from a limited sample size.
I have been in a few jobs where the managers were verbally and/or emotionally abusive. In both cases I left ASAP.
This has always puzzled me why some developers list this as a negative. What is wrong with wearing a suit?
They're expensive. They generally need dry-cleaning. Spilling stuff on them is expensive. They're typically less comfortable than some alternatives. They tend to be hotter in the summer than what I'd normally wear.
Every professional workplace has an expectation of a formal atire.
Either you have an unusually narrow definition of "workplace", or your statement is just factually incorrect.
However, since if it is still being used, then it still has some capability that is not available in other solutions.
No, no, no, no!
COBOL is still in use because because mid-to-large corporations spend many millions of dollars on systems that WORKED, and now it's far cheaper to keep them working, the same old way, than it is to do it all over again with modern equipment and languages.
This is called "installed base" and it's a particular problem for COBOL because that was one of the first business languages, and has one of the largest, large-corporation "installed bases".
COBOL has nothing to offer that newer languages don't do better. Not. One. Thing.
Every professional workplace has an expectation of a formal atire.
No, they don't. This is a statement made by someone about ready to REtire.
Most high-paying tech jobs today do not require a suit and many not even an office to go into. Often you can work at home in your pajamas, if you like.
Yes, really.
seems like the average life expectancy of SSDs are well beyond the needs of most people at the moment, unless you're doing some serious content creation with massive amounts of read/writes.
The lifetime has been exaggerated from Day 1. Further, multiplying this problem manyfold, is that when an SSD fails, it tends to fail totally. In contrast, when a hard drive i failing, you tend to get a few bad sectors which flag an impending problem, and you main lose a file or two. Bad SSD usually means "everything gone with no warning".
If you use SSD you should have a good HDD backup.
Once again, if the electrical heating power is held constant, the heat source has to warm. Once agin, Jane's heat source keeps the source temperature constant by halving its electrical heating power. Jane/Lonny Eachus might ask himself why his required electrical heating power goes down by a factor of two after the enclosing shell is added.
That is neither correct, or an answer to my question.
In other words, the electrical heating power is determined by drawing a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Right?
No. Not right. Since the chamber walls are COOLER than the heat source, radiative power from the chamber walls is not absorbed by the heat source. Because the only power transfer taking place here is heat transfer, which is a function of (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).
You DO know what a minus sign is, yes?
Since emissivity doesn't change the input required to heat source to achieve 150F is constant, regardless of where it comes from. But as long as the walls of the chamber are cooler than the source, NONE of the power comes from the chamber walls, because of that minus sign in the equation above. Nothing has changed in that respect, and that's what the Stefan-Boltzmann law requires.
The only time that changes is if the walls are at an equal temperature, in which case heat transfer is 0 and you can begin to use "ambient" temperature as input. You are still supplying the same input power, you are just supplying it a different way.
If the chamber walls were hotter than the central source, then heat transfer would be in the other direction (because the sign of the solution to the equation above changes), and only THEN are you getting net heat transfer TO the central sphere.
And BOTH of those situations are a violation of Spencer's conditions.
Again, that's completely ridiculous. I've explained why the power used to set the chamber wall temperature is irrelevant. Any power used is simply being moved from some point outside the boundary to another point which is also outside the boundary. Because that power never crosses the boundary, it's irrelevant.
Nonsense. It would take power to bring the chamber walls up to 150F (338.71K). How else do you expect them to get to that temperature? Where are you getting that power from? This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it.
For example, you could simply place the vacuum chamber somewhere with an ambient temperature of 150F. That would require zero power, but once again it doesn't matter even if the vacuum chamber were on Pluto. Because that power never crosses the boundary.
You could, but we haven't. Regardless, it still remains the same. Power output at that temperature remains constant because P = (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * T^4 says it has to.
The only thing you are doing is ADDING energy to the system by putting it in an ambient environment of 150F. That's not irrelevant at all, because if you're at thermal equilibrium, there is no heat transfer. Since this is all about heat transfer, how could it be irrelevant?
I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics.
The ONLY time the power output changes is if you change the temperature. You can do that by making the walls HOTTER than the "heat source", thereby causing a net heat transfer TO it from the walls, OR you can input more electrical power to the heat source, thereby making it hotter, but that would be a violation of the conditions Spencer stipulated.
Here's our disagreement. Conservation of energy demands that a heat source at 150F requires no electrical heating power inside 150F vacuum chamber walls.
That's not our disagreement at all. Not even frigging close. Of course it wouldn't need a separate heat source if its environment were maintained at 150 degrees. I just got done saying that. But it still does have power input. It' just that it comes from the environment in this case rather than an electrical element.
Because its radiant output power remains constant according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All you have done is raise the environment's output power to match, and raised the input to that environment enough to achieve that temperature. Big deal. That takes energy of its own, and proves exactly nothing. You haven't proved that it needs no power, you just changed the source of that power. And used up even more power in the process, because the environment is larger than the central sphere.
You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong.
And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too.
So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include your exact words.
"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben