If you're solo-driving an SUV around to commute you're doing it wrong. If you're sitting in that SUV in stalled commuter traffic in Chicago, you're doing it way wrong. There are many lower-cost personal vehicle choices. It doesn't even have to be something 'weird' like a Toyota 'Preach-at-us' to be a better alternative.

So your cost figures are so screwed up right away up front that it's hard to want to dig further into anything else you wrote.

I have always loved it when people in favor of 'more regulation' have to reach back to 19th century horrors.

The drug and medical device industries LOVE regulations. It protects them and blocks any new competitors from entering the marketplace. Also keeps the 'base' cost high so they can slap on their profitable percentage on top.

One of the most successful examples of a safety compliance enforcer in the United States is the Underwriter's Laboratory. Which is an entirely private organization.

It's like when you drill that important in the aluminum fixture you're working on, but then break off a tap in the hole while threading it. Now you've got a little bit of hardened tool steel stuck in the hole.

If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path. And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.

That also nixes the "redundant" argument. There is no other way to get to Mars except by crossing the intervening space. There's no other way to get to Mars. So manned spaceflight is not redundant.

No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.

Because Lockheed Martin would rather sell low margin F-16s than high margin F-35s, amirite?

This is a discussion of IT Personnel. It'd be hard not to feel superior.

(the toner cartridge in that LJ5 on third floor east isn't changing ITSELF, btw...)

The most hackable car would probably be the VW Beetle. So many cool addons and mods exist. I am talking about the original Beetle, of course, not the rounded-Rabbit.

Hacking is supposed to be good stuff here, right? Or did something change?

You can't be liable for having knowledge of information that people couldn't be bothered to encrypt. Executives can be lazy with their data and you can't be expected to do special efforts when they didn't do any to begin with.

I completely disagree. It is in fact your job to assist in this if you are IT. You are in a trusted position and if you gain access to something due to that trust, it is a duty to keep that trust (unless it reveals something so unconscionable that you have to remove yourself from that position of trust).

The rest, I agree with. An example was not something that happened to me but to a lawyer in a firm I administrated. The IT for another law firm for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit was having drinks bragging about some things he saw. He was making the statements as if in idolization of a couple of the lawyers at the firm. Turns out, one of the defendants of the same suit was there also and over heard some of the conversations. This led to finding evidence that completely nullified the lawsuit as the contract had been essentially broken but not officially broken by the plaintiffs before the breach in question they were suing over. In essence, the plaintiffs wanted out of a contract and were taking steps to void it before those steps ended up causing a failure in another party to the contract from delivering. Their steps to secure resources when they voided the contract removed the availability of resources from the market making the defendant in default of the contract obligations. Instead of voiding the contract, they decided to sue for the breach to recover expenses of setting up their in house facilities to do the contract work themselves- which they planned to do all along.

So even just telling friends outside of the job can cause things to come back at awkward moments. You have to forget you even noticed the information.

Even so, this shows what happens when you plan a one-shot operation with a single point of failure.

In this case, two: the drill itself and the seals. Either one means failure. When it's a one-shot operation with no provision for pause or repair, you're SOL. Fixable in this case? Yeah. For a fortune.

Repeat Latour's comment here:

(I have added [net] to indicate his argument is net heat transfer there, as Latour has explained many times elsewhere. I have also replaced "less than symbol" with [is less than] due to Slashdot's character restrictions.)

I repeat: you are completely (and wrongly) ignoring real-world conditions that apply to the experiment.

The experiment requires the passive plate to be some unspecified distance from the heat source. (This is a condition of the experiment; no contact is allowed since this is only about radiative transfer.) And no matter its configuration, it will radiate some of its absorbed energy outward to the chamber walls. This much we know.

The chamber walls C are actively cooled, although at a fixed power input. So it absorbs radiation from the internal space. We know at equilibrium T(c) will always be less than T at the source S: T(c) [is less than] T(s) because the wall is actively cooled. (We know for another reason too, but this is sufficient.)

We also know that the passive plate P will always be at a temperature less than that of the source, for the simple reason that no matter what its position, it does not absorb all the radiation from S. Or even if it did, as in the case of completely enclosing S, it would still re-radiate some of its absorbed energy out to the chamber walls C. Therefore as long as the conditions of the experiment are met, no matter what else varies such as relative mass, in this experiment T(p) will be lower than T(s). The amount is of no consequence, as long as it is non-zero (and it is).

Therefore, from S-B law, we can directly infer the following things:

T(c) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to walls, never the other way around]

T(p) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to plate, never the other way around]

We can also infer from the experimental conditions that T(c) [is less than] T(p), but that is irrelevant to the argument.

When equilibrium is achieved, these conditions still hold.

An elementary, obvious, and perfectly sound conclusion from this is that the source is not made hotter under any of these conditions. Even if plate P completely encloses source S, we know for at least two different reasons (greater radiative area, and the simple fact that it does radiate outward to the wall, which cools it) that T(p) will always be less than T(s), even at equilibrium.

Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit, it is straightforward application of Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Q.E.D., indeed. If the above inequalities hold (and they do), Latour's conclusion is the only one that is mathematically valid.

He's making the distinction between phones you can purchase which were never part of a contract compared to those that were part of a contract at one time. It's not a contradiction as it's more redundant on itself if you insist on viewing it that way.

For instance, even if you purchase your phone from the carrier, you can purchase it outright without it ever being under a contract. That would be one not tied to a contract. Of course you can also purchase it under a contract in which it is tied to a contract.

What is this trollfest lately with all the bashing on republicans about shit taken completely out of context. I know there is an election coming up in which they are expected to cream the democrats but It's getting pretty idiotic when it is obvious that the bash is completely contrived, contorted, and shoehorned into the topic under discussion in ways that make reality itself blush for being so stupid.

So lets ride your example and stretch reality a little more.. except this won't be a stretch.

Yes, when those damn republicans insist you are free to do whatever you want with your life, you are able to move around freely without government control, you are able to eat, drink, relax, and participate in recreation at your own volition instead of the scheduled direction of the government, you have the ability to trade effort and value for compensation, you are second class to prisoners. So everyone vote democrat where the government will tell you exactly how to live your life- no large soft drinks for you fatty-, where the government will tell you when to work or where to live, what kind of car you can actually purchase if you are even allowed to get one.

Yes, this will be a triumphant day when there is no distinction between the current treatment of prisoners and wards of the state and the general populace at large. Everyone vote against those damn republicans who according to the GP are the only things holding this reality back.

See, I can pretend to be stupid too.

This is not about political parties, it is about direct responsibility of those in your care. It's why parents are required to provide health insurance and child support for their children after divorce and so on. Except when it is the government, the government is responsible.

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law.

I think he was being facetious.

Anyone paying attention enough to know congress is a do nothing would have had to pick up on how legislation works in order for that to mean anything to make it worth repeating.