Umm.. if you would have watched that charlie rose interview with Iran's last president "imadinnerjacket" or whatever his name was, you would know that Iran has no gays. That is a western thing.

This was on the "Bush is teh satan" tour to the UN if you want to look it up. He hit quite a few of the news shows on thst tour.

They likely sold your debt to another company who packaged it and sold it yet again. The debt is probably so far down the line that they probably sell it as soon as they figure they won't collect.

If they take you to small claims court, counter sue them for the amount. Someone will show up, or you will win by default and can pay them with their own money.

Also, send request for a validation of the debt in writing. Your state may have other solutions, but I believe federal law requires them to validate the debt once you do this. If they do not, they lose the right to try and collect it.

I don't think you understand what he was talking about.

It isn't a matter of no insurance or inability to pay that he describes, it is a matter of something not being billed correctly or coming in later and being missed by the insurance payments (as well as you needing to pay your portion too). So you go through life thinking everything has been taken care of and review your credit report because you are thinking of some major purchase (car, home, RV- whatever) and discover that you have a bill in collections.

You see, this would be in spite of having insurance.

Revolving Tuition? Is that where you pay to learn a trade and they give you a job after you graduate?

No one is going to start a revolution. For all the ills, too many people are too comfortable for it to be seriously considered.

Minor correction, it is perfectly legal under US law and constitution to spy on other nations and their citizens (provided they are not in US controlled territories). It may be highly illegal under their laws and system of government.

But yes, I otherwise completely agree. The people in charge of our system of law don't seem to think the same laws apply at all when they do not agree with them. For instance, instead of removing Marijuana from a schedule 1 drug and creating a law leaving it to the states, we are ignoring federal law and making provisions in other laws. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders, we seem to be encouraging people to come to the country completely ignoring our immigration laws processes and so on.

People may or may not like the idea of enforcing those laws, but it specifically leads to and enables a concept where some don't seem to think the same laws apply to them.

Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?

All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?

lol.. that could be part of it but the biggest part is that the ISP over sells it's bandwidth because not all customers will be online at the same time. If they were, their service would come to a crawl if it was still available. If you host servers or resell bandwidth, you (potentially) use up the cushion of bandwidth they maintain and effectively end the not all users will be online at the same time by introducing outside users and uses taking up more time.

So yes, it is for price discrimination but not exactly in the sense you describe. If your servers are not hogging all the bandwidth, they likely won't bother you
(except for blocking mail ports and common infection ports). When they do use up the extra bandwidth, they will cut you and send you a bill for the difference between residential and commercial rates while insisting you pay the commercial rate going forward.

The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.

This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.

We don't know what you know. You haven't told anyone. However, you do sound a lot like a politicians with I have a plan but offer nothing specific or concrete on it. So if your day job goes south, perhaps you could run for office to put bread on the table.

I'm hoping you will share some of these options with us and they will amount to more than "can't we just get along". Even bad ideas might sound better than what we got right now so don't hold back.

Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.

Again, he must have forgotten this nebulous correction which you still haven't linked. I linked to an archive of his blog post that I made yesterday, but here's another archive I just made showing that his blog post is still live today and still contains nonsense like this: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."

He's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.

Apparently unlike you, sir, I have a basic understanding of math and physics. Please explain to us all where the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in error. I am sure we would all love to know. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-20]

... just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-29]

Again, the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. As I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of [the upwelling long-wave IR], and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

Andrew Dessler also explains how the greenhouse effect depends on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He even explains that an isothermal atmosphere wouldn't have a greenhouse effect: the Slayers' holy grail! Ironically, the greenhouse effect disappears if the upper troposphere isn't colder than the surface. The cold upper troposphere isn't a problem for the greenhouse effect. It's a fundamental requirement, along with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So whi gets sued when they place one of these on a site that is completely legitimate? I hear that in Europe, slander and libel cases can be won even if the information is true but the intent was to harm a reputation. Clearly this would be that.

So what you are saying is either let them kill you or more people will try to kill you?

That seems to be the jist of the "but they will haye you if you do not let them get thier way" argument. So what will happen is that everyone will become an enemy and everyone will get killed. Sounds like eventually someone is going to say kill them all and let god sort it out. Hopefully, a rash of common sence breaks out and it ends before someone actually tries to do just that.

What part of all your money is wrapped up in the corporation do you not understand? If you spend it as it was your own speech, it would either be embezelment or the corporation's speech.

But how rediculous do you think it would be if they had no speech rights and the government does something that bankrupts the companies your retirment is invested in. Or perhaps you lose your job because they had no speech rights and couldn't speak out against whatever?

Sure. That is part of the idea. We can ignore everything else like the investing aspects, fiduciary duties and crap just to suggest a particular point of view.

Tell me. Suppose your retirement was soaked into a company or several of them and something like that was happening. You have no direct involvement in the company and do not know or understand the implications of the ban. Does the company not have a fudiciary duty to both make you aware and attemp to stay in business? What would you think if they could say nothing and you lost your retirement? Even if they notified only the share holders, the stock value would nose drive when they all attemped to dump the stock and you wpuld still lose.