If you replaced "businesses" with "large corporations", and "99%" with "85%", I might agree.

Our economy is still mostly driven by small business. Most small businesses and government do not have their hands in each other's pockets like big corporations do. Which of course is part of the problem. Nobody should.

I basically agree with you but the complaint seems to be that many people are coming out of university without the basic programming skills needed for real-world jobs. I'm not claiming it's true, I'm just saying that's the complaint.

Meh. It seems there is no end to clarifying. But it is also simplifying, in a sense, because it is eliminating irrelevant sidetracks:

I can conceive of a situation in which an enclosing, passive plate, of specific dimensions, might manage to be the same temperature on the inside and the outside in these circumstances. But I'm not going to bother getting sidetracked trying to do the calculations to either prove it or disprove it, because if it ever arose at all it would be a very rare special case, and whether it does or not is irrelevant to the central point.

To be even more clear, because I want to eliminate all misunderstands, this statement that I made above is incorrect:

Mea culpa. The outside of the enclosing passive plate would eventually reach radiative equilibrium with the chamber walls. But not thermal equilibrium. Further, the inside of the passive heated plate would reach radiative equilibrium with the heat source. But not thermal equilibrium in that case either. Nor, for that matter, is that same plate in thermal equilibrium even with itself, since realistically its inside and outside surfaces must be at different temperatures, in order to be at radiative equilibrium with those opposing surfaces.

Because I was incorrect to state that there is no radiative equilibrium, I was incorrect to state that a roughly analogous situation does not apply to Spencer's experiment. The opposing surfaces do reach radiative equilibrium. But it is still not very relevant here, because thermal (and therefore thermodynamic) equilibrium still does not exist.

However: a coproation does not have arms & legs so it cannot write documents, send emails, etc. These things have to be done by people on behalf of the company, typically these are employees. It is these people who should be made to be held responsible for what they have done with their arms & legs.

Does this also mean that any product made by, say, General Motors, actually belongs to the people who used their arms & legs to build them? Or does it only apply when it happens to benefit the corporation?

Imagine a world where it was legal to run up to people on the street, punch them in the face and take their money, and it was illegal to fight back.

No need to imagine, most of us have gone to elementary school.

Thermodynamic equilibrium is when every object is in thermal and radiative equilibrium as its surroundings.

Not a single object in Spencer's described challenge -- at any time -- meets these criteria. When everything is in thermal equilibrium -- as you have noted -- they are all at the same temperature. That never happens here.

The passive plate MAY be said to reach radiative equilibrium at some point... I stated that incorrectly before, and I apologize for doing so. I'm correcting it here so we don't have any misunderstandings.

There is no thermal equilibrium. Period. None. There MAY (and eventually would) arise a condition of radiative equilibrium for the (enclosing, passive, however you want to describe it) plate. But the other objects (heat source and chamber walls) do not meet this criteria because they are heated/cooled by means that may be other than radiative. "The system" is not in radiative equilibrium.

Without thermal equilibrium (which unequivocally does not occur here), Kircchoff's law does not apply, except perhaps in coincidental specific cases. It may not be assumed.

I repeat that these are under conditions of Earth-absorptive-surface insolation, which was what Spencer's experiment was supposed to emulate. But whatever.

No, they are not. They are reported for the previously stated conditions: 1367 W/m^2 in incident radiation. But again: whatever. I already stated that this is not important enough to argue the point. I'm not conceding your point, but I'm willing to move on with gray bodies.

Yes, you did say that, and anybody who wants to can read it on your website. And you wrote it BEFORE any discussion with me of "thermal superconductors". I will quote it again here:

You were referring to "the second plate", as opposed to the "heated plate". That corresponds to what I have been calling the "passive" or "enclosing" plate. And you further referred to a supposed thermal equilibrium that doesn't exist.

Which fantasy would you prefer we believe? A thermal superconductor that makes no sense in this context, or an equilibrium which does not exist in this context? And you don't have the excuse that you meant "steady state", because the figure you gave would only be appropriate for actual equilibrium.

But enough of old arguments. Let's move on.

Great. Except that it doesn't pertain to Spencer's challenge for several reasons. First, the chamber walls in Spencer's experiment are not "empty" space, but a material body that is being actively refrigerated, while the "enclosing passive plate" is being heated on the other side. So that plate is not in radiative equilibrium with the chamber wall or with anything else for that matter. In fact that would be impossible. There are other reasons why that description does not match Spencer's challenge, but that is irrelevant for now. One is enough.

It is unfortunate that Spencer plays almost as fast-and-loose with terms as you do. That is a steady state. It is NOT "equilibrium". They are different things.

Yes, I mind very much. There is no point in doing any calculations at all until we rid you of the false assumptions you have been making about this experiment (as I have been trying to do). They have been leading to incorrect results, and moving on would be a waste of everybody's time. Further, you can take out the epsilons, since I thought we had already agreed we don't need them. (If they represent emissivity.)

There is no equilibrium in this experiment, either thermal or radiative. Period. You may not assume them, or use formulas that are only appropriate for equilibrium. Get past that and move on, or stay stuck here. That's up to you. But unless and until you do, there is simply no need for me to go any further. Your refutation to this point has been demonstrated to be invalid.

And even that equation is grossly unethical and doesn't backfire as often as it should. But it can, as Ford found out in the Pinto fiasco.

This is a ridiculously small settlement. How much is that per person? $3.70? AND -- this is just as big of a problem -- will ANY of those people who were actually harmed see any of that money?

This is what corporate cronyism (or what some people call "market capture") is all about. Government revolving door. It's a travesty and a tragedy. And it's also why I won't do business with Verizon.

Security questions do not work for public figures.

Security questions do not work for ANYONE.

Most attackers know you, and have better than even odds of guessing your security questions. Your ex-girlfriend... She knows your birthday (duh), your mothers maiden name? (she was even at grandma's funeral), she knows all about your first gerbil Roscoe, and she knows your youngest siblings name, your favorite colour, what city you were born in, your first car, your likely answer to favorite food...

Most of your friends can probably do better than 50% on the list above.

And if you are on facebook, good odds a random stranger can get most of what they need to. Even if you don't announce it all or put fake info in your profile. Your mom send you "Happy Birthday" message anyway and you are sunk.

I never once thought about the "God of War" as a living thing as you describe it, but you are totally right.

And of course the rest of the gang are also still out there, from Venus to Dionysus, made all the more powerful by being hidden from view. Any fool could had seen that trying to legislate the "God of Wine" out of existence would be an epic fail, but we had somehow managed to convince ourselves that it didn't exist, thus Prohibition and War on Drugs. Or look at Catholic Church and what their attempts to banish "Goddess of Sex" led to.

I think there's a whole new branch of psychology we desperately need, and could conceivably develop by going through ancient myths, this time without assuming the people who came up with and believed them were blind idiots. Which was pretty weird to begin with, after all, we sum up observed reality by anthropomorphising various aspects of it all the time, from countries to capitalism to the abstract concepts of justice and freedom.

The premise in the summary is wrong. Employers have not learned that actual skill outweighs the fact that someone survived college.

The fact is that such a degree in no way indicates that obtaining it involved actually learning what was presented for longer than it takes to pass the relevant examinations.

On the other hand, if the programmer presents a series of complex projects they have completed, this does positively indicate they have both the knowledge (what the degree should attest to, but really doesn't rise to the challenge) and the ability to employ that knowledge (which the degree does not assure anyone of, at all.) Those completed project should also serve to demonstrate that the required portions of theory have both been absorbed and implemented, presuming the project works well and as intended.

Employers and HR departments are rarely focused on actual performance, except in the very smallest of companies. Most use a combination of bean-counting, related age-discrimination, and the supposedly valuable rubber stamp of a degree to winnow out programming job applicants. After all, if said employee screws it up, that's the employee's fault. Not the HR person.

This, in fact, is why most corporate software goes out the door with so many problems, and it is also why those problems typically remain unfixed for very long periods of time.

It sure would be of great benefit to end users and companies if actual skill *did* outweigh a degree. But that's most definitely not happening. It's wishful thinking, that's all. And if you're an older programmer, even your sheepskin won't help you -- you cost too much, your health is significantly more uncertain, they don't like your familial obligations, they don't like your failure to integrate into "youth culture" as in no particular fascination with social media... or even your preference for a shirt and tie. Welcome to the machine. You put your hand in the gears right here. Unless you've enough of an entrepreneurial bent that you can go it on your own. In which case, I salute you and welcome you to the fairly low-population ranks of the escapees.

No. You're completely ignoring what the 4th says. It says "unreasonable" is prohibited, and then it goes on to explicitly define what reasonable means.

If all it takes is some functionary going "well, I think it's reasonable" then the 4th has absolutely no meaning at all, which is not a sustainable position one can take for the framer's intent.

Verizon can so choose if their contract with me so stipulates (just as a house helper can treat the information gleaned from searching my home as public if I agree they can.) They may not be coerced into this legally, or exempted by the government from keeping my privacy, either. That's just an end run, and it amounts to exactly the same thing: a search without the cover of a properly executed warrant.

I just finished watching the entire proceeding, with a few short rewinds.

I'm appalled even at the suggestion that because the government thinks it "needs" to do something, it can. This theory permeates several of the points made; it is invalid from the ground up. If the government believes it needs something that is constitutionally prohibited, its remedy is found in the pursuit of the processes laid out in article five of the constitution -- not in outright ignoring the hard limits set upon it by the bill of rights or other sections of the constitution.

Likewise, the "is it reasonable" sophistry was very upsetting to encounter again. It's an outright stupid tack to take. The 4th does indeed include the word unreasonable, but it then proceeds to describe what is reasonable: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, may cause a warrant to be issued though that warrant must be specific as to place(s) and item(s) to be searched for. Those conditions all being met, the search is then both reasonable and authorized. The fact is, if all it takes is someone saying "well, I think it's reasonable that we search fyngyrz premises (or whatever)" and this over-rides the very specific instruction that a warrant is required, then the entire 4th amendment is without any meaning at all other than perhaps, optionally, advisory.

On the subject of who can search what...

If I hire a house-helper to whom I assign the roles of answering the phone, keeping the larder up to date, cleaning and laundering, this person clearly has my permission to search. They will search under furniture, appliances and cushions for debris; they will search cabinets and the refrigerated devices for out of date or missing foodstuffs, they will open my drawers and organize and store my clothing. They will, in large part, know who has called me on my home phone, and who I may have called out to.

Fine. I can give such permission. But this, in and of itself, in no way serves to authorize the government to search my premises -- for anything. The 4th limits the government with regard to my person, houses, papers and effects. It does not (obviously) limit me, or someone I hire a service from and extend such permission to, from searching. The 4th is clearly not limiting action in the public sphere. It is limiting action in the government sphere.

Relating this to Verizon and its peers: By contracting to make phone calls through their capabilities, in no way have I extended the government access to my communications, in any part or parcel. What I have done is arrange for a service by Verizon/peers without extending the government any permissions at all, and the government, absent my explicit permission pretty much identical to that as given to my house-helper, is restrained, intentionally so by the 4th amendment from searching for anything, anywhere, in regard to my communications. Which, in case anyone is wondering, is also the rationale that underlies title communications law with regard to the content of my calls, and also forms the basis for the prohibition of any person monitoring cellular radio links.

Every time the government succeeds in arguments from need instead of authorization, we become subject to the whim of individuals, rather than to a constitutionally limited government. It should frighten the living daylights out of anyone who understands the issues when the rationale is "but we NEED to", as was seen multiple times in the government side of this proceeding; and the more so when the judges don't laugh in the face of the person presenting that argument.

Remember: If the idea is that the constitution is merely advisory, then there is no functional difference between the US government and that of any tin pot dictatorship. Someone says "I wanna", and it happens. That's most definitely not how our country was intended to operate; otherwise the framers were completely wasting their time.

Sigh.