Turns out, that's not true.
Arming locals in an unstable environment has been the continuing problem with all modern conflicts in the mid-east.

It kind of made sense in the 50s, when the government was reasonably stable and before religious zealots started getting government power.

I like you assumption that all Muslims want holy wars.
Also, that ISIS rule the mid east and Africa would somehow not impact anyone else.

-- Han Slowmo, Unix Wars, episode IV

Apple's using "thin" as a measure of engineering excellence. That is, they are engineering all sorts of tricky things, like special display stacking and chip arrangement techniques, in order to make their phones ever thinner. And, of course, thinner = more elegant, lighter and more convenient.

It's a bit like how Intel focused on clock speed as their key goal, and spent a fortune optimizing their clock speeds (with chip design tools optimized for clock speed, etc.).

In both cases, people who didn't care about that metric saw it as wasted effort, and argued that the companies were being stupid. But in both cases, by focusing on a clear goal they focused their engineering teams on, and delivered, ever improving products, and they gave consumers something that they cared about, even if the people doing the complaining didn't.

Apple never ships technology first - they take emergent technologies and push them into the mainstream. 3" floppy disks, mice, GUIs, USB, LANs, networked printers, MP3 players, DVD burners, smartphones, digital music stores, tablet computers, etc., all existed before Apple's versions, but they generally kinda sucked to use. Apple took the technology, make it more usable, and delivered it in mainstream consumer devices. So now they're trying to do the same thing with digital wallets and smart watches. Do you really want to bet against them?

With Apple Pay, the current digital wallets really suck, and Apple's got all the right players aligned, with what looks like great usability and security, so it might really win big.

With the Apple Watch, Pebble and Google have decent products, so it's not as clear a path to success - I'd bet that Apple makes a good business out of it, but don't dominate.

The US Constitution was an open declaration of treason against the Crown

Nonsense. The Revolution had been over for years when the Constitution was ratified.

I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, which didn't have any amendments, much less a second one. Now that was a suicide pact ("Live Free or Die!"). The Constitution on the other hand, was the result of many of those same authors figuring out how to create a government and maintain an orderly society. It was also a counter-revolutionary document, to rein in some of the more extremist notions of democracy and fairness that were going around at the time. It was also designed to preserve slavery, which is a discussion for a different day. And the Second Amendment, very specifically, was designed as a tool to maintain slavery. It had nothing to do with a personal right to own and carry It had nothing to do with making sure tyrants could be overthrown. It was meant to preserve the Southern slave patrols because they were worried that some abolitionist might become President and prevent slave patrols from forming their nasty little posses. The Second Amendment is an artifact of slavery and of a very ugly period in our history. It's something we should be ashamed of. I say this as someone who has owned a gun over 4 decades.

... you have confirmed that you have not abandoned your incorrect (and actually quite ludicrous) version of heat transfer, which violates the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law on its very face. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

... or maybe we disagree about which variable to hold constant.

Instead of holding electrical heating power constant, Jane held the source's radiative power output constant. That held source temperature constant and forced electrical heating power to change. Solving this problem using both sets of boundary conditions shows that Jane's solution forces electrical heating power to drop by a factor of two after the shell is added.

These two sets of boundary conditions are very different, just like Neumann boundary conditions are different from Dirichlet boundary conditions. Upon hearing that a disagreement might be caused by holding different variables constant, a real skeptic might consider working the problem again while holding that other variable constant. But Jane can't even admit there's a difference between holding electrical heating power constant and holding the source's radiative power output constant. Jane even insists he held electrical heating power constant, despite the evidence.

So Jane won't solve this problem with the electrical heating power constant. That's unfortunate, because it's critical:

"... critical to the whole experiment is that, like the sun heating the surface of the Earth, there is energy being continuously pumped into the system from outside. ..."

1. Holding electrical heating power constant while adding an enclosing shell is like doubling CO2 while holding solar heating power constant, then calculating how much Earth's surface warms.

2. Holding source temperature constant while adding an enclosing shell is like doubling CO2 while holding Earth's surface temperature constant, then calculating how much solar heating power would have to drop to keep Earth's surface temperature constant.

Even if Jane doesn't want to solve that first problem, he should recognize that it's different from the second problem Jane actually solved.

To see this difference, solve a problem with Neumann boundary conditions:

"In thermodynamics, where a surface has a prescribed heat flux, such as a perfect insulator (where flux is zero) or an electrical component dissipating a known power."

... then solve the same problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions:

"In thermodynamics, where a surface is held at a fixed temperature.

Dr. Spencer's thought experiment placed Neumann boundary conditions on the source and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the chamber walls. Instead, Jane placed Dirichlet boundary conditions on the chamber walls and the source.

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 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

Note that conservation of energy through a boundary around the source leads directly to an equation describing the electrical power required to keep the source at temperature T1 inside chamber walls at temperature T4. This equation is valid for T1 > T4, T1 = T4, and T1 < T4. Jane might wonder why he can't derive a single equation which works for all these cases.

Again, warming the chamber walls is like partially closing the drain on a bathtub where water is flowing in at a constant rate. This raises the bathtub water level simply by reducing the water flow out. In exactly the same way, a source heated with constant electrical power warms when the chamber walls are warmed because that reduces the net power out.

... because T(p) < T(s), no matter now much of the radiation from P strikes S, no net amount is absorbed; it is all reflected, transmitted, or scattered according to S-B. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be? NET radiation from a cooler surface that passes the boundary is reflected, transmitted, or scattered and passes right back out through the boundary. This is a corollary of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, which states that NET heat transfer is always from hotter to cooler. ... by that same law, it just passes right back out again because the same NET amount of radiative power that crosses the boundary and intercepts the smaller sphere is either reflected, transmitted, or scattered. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

... Since the chamber walls are COOLER than the heat source, radiative power from the chamber walls is not absorbed by the heat source. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

Hopefully these are just more badly-worded sentences because they all require absorptivity = 0. But these gray bodies have emissivity = absorptivity = 0.11. Furthermore, the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation for emissivity = absorptivity = 1. In that case there are no reflections, just absorption.

Once again, a heated blackbody source is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T4 = 255.4K) also radiate power in. The source at 150F (T1 = 338.7K) radiates power out. At steady-state, power in = power out:

electricity + (s)*T4^4 = (s)*T1^4 (Eq. 1J.2)

Since Jane's proposed equation is missing the "(s)*T4^4" term, it doesn't reduce to this simpler Eq. 1J.2 for blackbodies where (e) = 1. So it's wrong.

It's also ironic that Jane claims to account for reflections, because:

... Calculate initial (denoted by "i") heat transfer from heat source to chamber wall. We are doing this only to check our work later. Using the canonical heat transfer equation for gray bodies...
p(i) = (e)(s) * ( T1^4 - T4^4 ) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

... You are ignoring (e*s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). Anything other than what I described does not add up. ... (e*s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

That equation is true for blackbodies with emissivity = 1, which is why it's consistent with my equation 1.

But for gray bodies it's just an approximation because it ignores reflections. After obviously failing to explain that we need to account for reflections, I decided to agree to disagree. For two gray bodies interacting with small view factors (e.g. Earth's tiny view factor of the Sun) reflections can be safely neglected. But the chamber wall completely encloses the source, so its view factor is 1. That's why MIT's equation is more accurate here: it accounts for reflections.

Again, here's MIT's equation using Jane's new variable names:

p(i) = (s)*(T1^4 - T4^4)/(1/(e) + 1/(e) - 1) (Eq. 2J.2)

Luckily this disagreement isn't important because it just shifts the emissivity values. We can translate because plugging emissivity = 0.058 into Jane's equation yields the same net heat transfer as MIT's equation with emissivity = 0.11. Furthermore, my black and gray body calculations yielded identical enclosed steady-state temperatures, so those don't depend on emissivity.

But after using Jane's equation in pointless attempts to illustrate more fundamental problems in Jane's analysis, I wanted to stress once again that MIT's equation is more appropriate for enclosing chamber walls because it accounts for reflections.

It's got nothing to do with holding it at right angles. It's a question of orthographic projection vs perspective projection. You're expecting orthographic projection, but it's actually perspective projection.

You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of perspective. The way to hide the projection is to view it from up close, not a long way away. In the same way that you can see a 3 foot house chimney from a distance but you can't see it when you are standing a few feet from the door.

Not even close. Ozone levels in Antarctica started being recorded in 1956 and the ozone hole didn't appear until the 1980's. Here's the graph.

Read just about any science and you get the same thing. Everything in science is subject to revision pending new information. When you see words like "very likely" or "extremely likely" as a layman you can consider it settled science.

You were doing so well then you just sailed right off the tracks. On what basis do you claim that feedback is more or less guesswork? Models are not tweaked to match previous years. Any adjustments are made on the basis of better understanding of the physics involved.