Add IPX8 to the high specs.

... The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

... The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

If Jane is so sure that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is correct, why can't he write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Ironically, this is the very first equation needed to understand Spencer's experiment. And Jane can't even get the first equation right. Prof. Cox is right: this isn't even degree-level physics.

Jane, if you tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, you'd realize all this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

... maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature? I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-]

In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.

If Jane/Lonny Eachus were a real skeptic, he'd at least consider the possibility that Jane's "radiant power output" equation doesn't describe "electrical heating power". Jane's textbooks don't say to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power".

That's why Jane is too chicken to ask Prof. Cox if electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature. Because Jane's afraid that Prof. Cox will say yes. If not, why did Prof. Cox say all these things?

Remember, Jane's noted that CO2 warming models rely on the concept of "back radiation". So if Jane and the Slayers are right about Spencer's experiment, then why does Prof. Cox agree that increasing CO2 warms Earth's surface?

And Prof. Cox isn't alone, not by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, Grant Petty is a professor of atmospheric science and wrote A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. He wrote a letter:

"To all Slayers: ... The models aren’t perfect; no one says that they are. But they’re a damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but cocky “proofs” published in blogs by the self-taught, and the blanket unfounded assertions (“there is no two-way exchange of radiation because we say there isn’t”) that somehow passes for science in this group.

In each of your cases, I predict that one of two things is going to happen down the road: (1) the gaps and contradictions in your own collective understanding of physical and climate science will become so evident that you can no longer ignore them, and you just might even feel a little shame at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of experts among those who aren’t equipped to tell science from pseuodoscience; or (2) you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is. ..."

Positive people are dangerous. Because they assume everything is going to be fine, they fail to plan for things to go wrong, and then after you're stuck cleaning up the mess they caused, they sweep it all under the rug and act like everything went smoothly - so not only do you get no recognition for your heroic efforts to fix everything, but they're fully confident in their ability to handle the next situation just as well as the last.

But nobody wants to listen to the pessimists, because they're so negative.

> The Microsoft success (1980s) came prior to the anti-trust stuff (mid 90s).
>
> You may need to revisit your history of microsoft.

So do you.

Microsoft's first run in with the DOJ over anti-trust was the forced bundling of DOS. Now the fact that someone doesn't do something snarky like use the term "WinDOS" doesn't mean they aren't acknowledging the DOS era shenanigans of Microsoft.

Windows is ultimately the successor to DOS and Microsoft got slapped on the wrist for how they handled bulk licensing to clone vendors like Dell and Compaq.

The mania that caused people to fixate on msoffice in the mid-90s helped cement Microsoft's position as intractable.

Companies die in capitalism. No one gets a right to profit in perpetuity regardless of how conditions change. It's expected that newer and more limber competitors will come along and kill off old dinosaurs.

What you are clinging onto is corruption and pretending it's a virtue.

> My 2011 mac mini will last well into 2020. Do you have a point?

That's funny because all of my pre-ION era Minis are DEAD.

So is my ION style Mini. It DIED FIRST.

Now that's DEAD and not just obsolete. They become obsolete long before they gave up the ghost.

I nearly forgot. My pre-ION Minis were ORPHANED by Apple. So even if they weren't obsolete and not DEAD, there would be no current Apple OS to run on them.

Don't believe the hype.

So? There are plenty of AV components that are much larger than a current Mac Mini. The requirement for the Mac Mini to be as small as it is is entirely artificial.

This is evidenced by the legion of actual "living room" devices as opposed to the Mini which is just a wannabe.

File it under "stuff that matters".

A lot of arguments for open source are based on things which people outside the project could in principle accomplish, but in practice seldom do. So it's reassuring at least that an experienced developer can build the two most popular browsers from scratch. It means the arguments aren't hollow. I've seen closed source projects that were purchased by companies, only to find out that getting them to build on any computer but the one it was developed on is a serious engineering challenge.

That the process of building these browsers from scratch is somewhat arcane will come as no surprise to any experienced developer. But that it's not so arcane that it's impractical to figure out is good news.

Is it unreasonable for the average height of a population to grow by 7" in twenty generations? I should think so. But if you changed your initial conditions somewhat, maybe less unreasonable.

There are roughly 400 genes known to influence height. Imagine we have a small, isolated population that does not interbreed with other populations -- say on an isolated island. This population's average male height is, say 175 cm for men -- roughly the same as the average American. However the population contains all the alleles neede to generate individuals approacing 7' in height. We then take our population and put them under evolutionary pressure; let's say we shoot everyone who reaches the age of 16 and is below average height. It wouldn't many generations for that population's average height to become quite tall, as "tall genes" begin to predominate.

Let's change that initial condition by stipulating that there are no "tall genes" in the initial population. It's still average height, but maybe it lacks both "tall genes" and "short genes". It would be surprising if the genetic height potential for a newborn changed very quickly, because you've got to wait for a lot of "lucky" mutations and twenty generations is not that long.

Let's go back to our successful initial conditions and change something else. This time the population has all the necessary alleles to produce super-tall people, but it interbreeds extensively with a large external population which is not subject to our culling protocol. Under these conditions the population's height increase will be slow, or non-existent depending on the rate at which individuals interbreed with populations not under pressure.

The bottom line: it depends.

Or what? What are you going to do?

The Black Panthers had the only answer. The only thing that can stop a bad cop with a gun is a good citizen with a gun.

Thanks for upgrading Adobe Flash Player to fix this week's gaping security hole! You'd like to also install this FREE version of McAfee VirusScan too, right?

I think they can figure out how to upsell.

Not picking on you personally, but there sure are a lot of dumb ass conspiracy theories on a thread about critical thinking.

The purpose of the neurological changes that take place in a teenagers brain seems to be in part to inspire rebellion against their parents to the point where they flee the nest, once the rebellion succeeds grandchildren bring relative harmony for a decade or more.

Nope, good grammar does that, he just failed to state he was paraphrasing.

The actual meaning of the quote was NOT lost. ie: it explicitly states they oppose CT because they believe it will lead children to doubt their parents or as they put it "undermining parental authority", the wording also strongly implies they don't want the "authority" of fixed beliefs "undermined". The subtext of the quote is that parents and fixed beliefs are infallible and should not be questioned.

In simpler words the policy as you have quoted it says - We don't want educated children, we want obedient children.

Yes, the very nature of large organisations drains initiative, males in particular evolved to work in small groups of 5-6 and live in tribes of ~150 people, anyone not in their tribe was by definition "sub-human" but not necessarily a mortal enemy. A wise organisation acknowledges this and will give small teams a great deal of autonomy to achieve a particular goal, eg: think how the military would tackle the goal of "keep the park tidy and well maintained", you may have to explain to them that anyone can use the park, but you get the idea.

Disclaimer: I spent seven years in the 90's as technical lead on an automated job dispatch system that handled thousand of workers and tens of thousands of jobs each day, it covered the continent of Australia, at that time it was by far the largest mobile dispatch system in the southern hemisphere in volume of work and geographical coverage. The backend used "linear programming" techniques (WW2 logistics), no human could beat the daily work plan it churned out. A bunch of execs would get up at 5am and paw all over the plan, add some "special constraints" and end up with a less efficient solution. Often the "special constraints" were accepted anyway, since - we can't have (say) the telecoms minister waiting 2 days for a new install in his office, it has to be done first thing today, and it has to be done by employee X who drinks at the same pub, who gives a flying fuck if 25 nobodys drop off the original work plan?