NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.

It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So just to be clear: I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit.

NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws?

Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now.

Except Liberals making fun of Democrats. Or haven't you noticed? I wonder if you say the same thing every time someone makes fun of Sarah Palin? Nahhh

What happens when you boil water inside an sealed container?

Nothing at all if you completely fail to boil the water because the container you used shields the contents from the energy you were hoping to use to boil it.

Per the youtube video, the beer stayed cold. The metal can shields the water from heating, so it doesn't even heat it up, nevermind boil.

You forgot young earth creationists, probably the most popular conspiracy theory around. Evolution, geology, paleoclimatology, dendrochronology, astronomy, radiocarbon dating, fossil record and probably a dozen other sciences I forget all a hoax. A false flag operation by either god himself as a test of faith or the devil playing tricks, you don't have to go to the 1% nutters - who mostly lack sanity - to find total rejection of evidence, science and logic.

uh... no you couldn't, the angular resolution of even the largest telescopes coupled with elementary physics would prove that.

And even if we could, say via a flyby with a satellite or some futuristic hubble 2.0... the only people who could afford such a 'telescope' would clearly be in on the hoax, so you can't trust them.

The only solution is to take the hoaxers and send them to the moon to see it first hand with their own eyes. Something I am entirely in favor of.

If that doesn't convince them, fine, this wasn't really for them, it was for me. And I was satisfied the minute they were out of earths orbit and don't see any reason why we should bring them back.

"Actually, I've yet to see that come from anyone that's actually in the field of climate science."

Convenient Narrow Definition. I've yet to hear ANYONE that's actually in that field say anything.

Let me know when the AGW enthusiasts/scientists start correcting their spokesmen (like Al Gore, and various celebrities ) when they say stupid shit. I won't hold my breath.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Think about what you just said from the perspective of the person who has to live out those years.

Do you think they all don't know they are "feeble, ineffectual, and pathetic"? Do you think they enjoy that feeling? How many years should they have to live where they can't eat solid food, need someone else to change their diapers and bathe them, bereft of any dignity, suffering alternating panic and embarrassment when realize they've forgotten their daughter's name, or realize they can't remember where the coffee shop they visit every morning is located, living alone, or perhaps with strangers who take care of them but don't really care about them. Terrified that they'll wake up and not know their own childs face, while their friends die around them.

How long should they live like that and just how bad should it get for them just so you can feel less distressed when they die?

Sure in a perfect world, you get old, you slow down, you have tea with your friends, and play cards, your son comes to visit you share a simple meal, you say your feeling tired tell them you love them, go to bed, and pass away in your sleep.

Most of us don't get that death. Some us go a bit before our time and its a tragic loss.

But many of us live beyond our time, taken down for example, by age onset diabetes, bedridden, with our feet amputated, blind, deaf and alone, and its a "tragic life". And our death comes as a relief to our loved ones.

If I can't have the perfect death, I would choose the tragic quick one as preferable over living for years in a prolonged hell as my final chapter.

Certainly I won't argue with the very-old being a drain on society reasoning. To some extent it can certainly be true -- e.g. workforce, taxes, economy. Whether or not that is countered in terms of wisdom, historical knowledge, and otherwise unobtainable perspective is a subjective matter.

I do, however, take umbrage with the idea that remembering someone as "vibrant and engaged" is a good thing. Everyone that I know who's died "vibrant and engaged" has been the result of some crime or major illness, and has left friends and family distrought to the point of needing some amount of psychological therapy to get over the loss, sudden or otherwise.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Moreover, I'm 35 now. I'm not feeble, but I'm not fit. I'm not inefectual, but I'm lazy. I'm not pathetic, but, well, to some I am. I'm a pretty relaxed, happy guy, with no problems and no ambition and a lot of personal hobbies. If I cared to be seen as "vibrant and engaged", I wouldn't be content as I am today. That would be horrible. I don't live for the memory of others; I live for my own joy of the day.

With TPB mainly running on magnet links, it's not even that it's a hash of pointers to content these days. Even the actual pointers have gone off-site, which reduces the bandwidth by 99%. My guess is TPB actually serves up more ads than content, if you count bytes.

So? It's still inconvenient because now you're stuck in a manual process that they will eventually get around to when you want to play right now. I've done something similar when a game without warning refused to activate - granted, I'd been playing with WINE settings and uninstalled/reinstalled quite a few times but this was Friday afternoon. A few hours later and no reply, I said fuck it and downloaded a cracked version off TPB. Support came back to me on Monday and started asking questions about why I'd used so many activations, I just sent back a reply basically saying I've found a permanent solution so go fish. Okay so fraud prevention is a bit more valid reason but it still doesn't fix the immediate problem.

We've had this discussion many times before here on /. with regards to Linux, no matter how many valid reasons there is for "CANTFIX" problems ranging from crap Linux support, undocumented formats and hardware, "embrace extend extinguish" incompatibility and lockout users don't care. This doesn't work, give me something that works. I must admit my tolerance has grown extremely slim, when you know that there's a not-so-legal alternative that always works flawlessly it really doesn't take much before I say "screw this, I'll get it from TPB. Heck, I still download GoT even though I pay for HBO Nordic.

My last phone (Just upgraded) was a Galaxy S3, running the latest Android KitKat 4.4.4. While not supported by Samsung until recently, it was supported by 3rd Party ROM makers, something that Apple doesn't have. And the upgrades along the way made my phone better, smoother, better battery etc.

And it is amazing, the biggest "Pro Apple" response I have is "Consistency", meaning that Apple never really evolves. Then there is the greatest complaint about iOS8 is that it is "too different" and "Sluggish".

My newest phone was less than 1/2 the price of the iPhone6s, with better or comparable specs across the board, and has features that Android has had for two years (or more) that iOS is just now getting. Guess what, at that rate, I can have the one of the best Android phones, twice as often compared to if I bought Apple. If you spend $900 on a phone, you best be getting a very long life out of it, you almost have to.

Comparisons are a two way street. Which is why, when all else is said and done, Apples are equivalent to two year old Androids, and cost twice as much. But they have their walled garden .

Obviously. I'm a little disturbed that apparently at least two people thought otherwise...

So if you're primarily a scientist there to do zero-g experiments on the ISS, are you still an astronaut? Why, because you're a professional - but not really in space flight? If we ever get to airplane-like conditions, is the steward(ess) an astronaut, is it like the crew? Or do you have to actually have a part in flying the spaceship, like is the cook on a big sailboat a sailor? Not that it really matters, but...

Real zero-g (not Vomit Comet or theme park rides) would be pretty damn cool. Right now I'm looking at SpaceX and I really don't see a good reason why Dragon doesn't take more than 7 passengers, it seems they have plenty space and it's supposed to be able to return 2500kg of pressurized cargo, so from what I can tell they should be able to put more like 20 people in that cabin if they stack the seats nicely. It's $140m/flight so that'd bring it down to $7 million and that's for a genuine LEO flight. If they're just going for 101km with a supersized capsule I'm guessing the rocket is good for shooting up 140 people at a time at $1 million/seat.

Sure if you disregard the Cold War, the thousands of warheads pointed at each other and the Cuban missile crisis then there was no military benefit. NASA was the velvet glove around the iron fist but I think everyone except you saw what the real message was: "Our rocket technology is so advanced, don't you f*cking try anything." The moon is of course of no military significance, but the Apollo program was.

The alternative would have been a military program under the DoD, but pushing those kinds of amounts into the military budget would look aggressive and militant. Instead they got all the essential technology, plenty opportunity to show off and talk to the media, good old-fashioned heroes, honoring the great visions of a dead president and all under a formally civilian authority. The drive was the military need, the moon was just a convenient rallying flag.