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.

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?

And when it was rumored that Chrysler was introducing another brand in the early 2010s, we "knew" that Plymouth was coming back. It didn't. RAM was split from Dodge instead.

Wow, news to me. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. I just went to dodge.com and RAM Truck was an option: but it took me to a different site with a warning that I was leaving dodge.com. I was not aware of this until this evening.

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.

Are you suggesting that it is okay for a Sysadmin to lack sufficient knowledge to answer those questions? Or that they are somehow discriminatory? I'm just not sure of your point here. I would be perfectly comfortable asking Sysadmin applicants these questions. (With the caveat that the moon is indeed sometimes visible during the day. That question is dumb. But asking why it's visible most nights is not. Interviewers can be stupid too.)

I'm not claiming they weren't being discriminatory. Maybe they were. But that's weak evidence at best.

There's another reason that people seem to be ignoring: something that is "past due" will change out of that status, one way or another, after a short time. Something "in collection", not so much. One has to consider why it went into collection in the first place.

Another factor that is rather passed over in OP is that despite a few changes that were made for the better some years ago, they were actually pretty weak changes and credit reporting is still egregiously one-sided today.

Most companies of any size have whole departments that regularly report "past due" debt to collection agencies. But a consumer has many time-consuming and often expensive hoops to jump through to get that back off their record. In many ways it's still guilty-until-proven-innocent.

The fact that over generations people have become used to this travesty of justice just makes it all the more insidious.

You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Almost Latour's entire thesis is that S-B law says net heat transfer is either 0 or in one direction, from the hotter area to the colder. If the roles are reversed, and the colder item becomes the hotter, then the sign changes and the net heat transfer is still only in one direction... from hotter to colder.

And you don't know this because you didn't actually do any actual research about it.You claim "his blog post is still live" but link to an web archive. You haven't researched the topic.

You ignored due diligence, and because of that your "refutation" is nothing but a straw-man, which you continue to deny, either because you know it's a straw-man, and are just doubling down, or because you still refuse to perform the due diligence necessary to make an intelligent argument. The rest of this nonsense falls down because it's all house-of-cards based on your initial misunderstanding of Latour's actual thesis.

Just to be clear: shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer.

As such, just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial?

I don't blame you for inferring -- from that one blog post, which you like to in archive -- that what he meant was any heat transfer, rather than net. But again: he corrected that right away and anybody who knows jack shit about the subject knows that. But you, on the other hand, apparently refused to be bothered with due diligence. Imagine that.

I wouldn't say it's the "cheapest" option. If you want to go strictly software, you can use something like BitTorent Sync.

Before anybody jumps on me: I wrote "something like". No, it's not open source. But using iCloud or Azure are proprietary solutions too!

I don't "trust" BitTorrent Sync's security. But odds are it's fine for this kind of use. You can also control access to files by simply putting them in different folders, and giving different people access to them, or give out temporary authorization codes.

So don't misunderstand: I would not endorse its security unless BitTorrent agreed to an open security audit. But it's also a "free" solution. And it's available for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS. I think Linux too but I don't remember for sure.

I hope you realize that you just gave us more evidence, consisting of yet another astounding "coincidence" on top of all the others.

I hope you realize just how remarkably similar your writing is to that of khayman80, and how the timings of your replies so neatly coincide and cooperate.

Regulations? Licenses? Hmm. As it happens, we already have pertinent "regulations".

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10: