Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Illness (Score 1) 26

by mcgrew (#48479221) Attached to: What is it like to be mentally ill?

There are lots of different mental illnesses. PTSD, depression, schitzophrenia, lots more and all are different. I suffered from "Adjustment disorder with depressed mood," fortunately for me that one is a temporary illness. Part of my therapy (which was better than anything the doctor suggested) was writing The Paxil Diaries.

User Journal

Journal: I'm dreaming of a secular Christmas 1

Journal by mcgrew

I'm dreaming of a secular Christmas
In these modern secular days
With a secular tree with secular lights
And a Santa in a secular sleigh

I'm dreaming of a secular Christmas
With lots of secular snow
With a secular wreath and some secular lights
And some secular mistletoe

No baby in a manger
No wise men at his bed
No thought of Jesus Christ at all
Just get him out of your head

Comment: Post-human capitalism (Score 1) 166

by PopeRatzo (#48476083) Attached to: Behind Apple's Sapphire Screen Debacle

GT said that to save costs, Apple decided not to install backup power supplies, and multiple outages ruined whole batches of sapphire. The terms Apple negotiated committed GT to supplying a huge amount of sapphire, but put Apple under no obligation to buy it.

Understanding how business is done in the second decade of the 21st century requires a level of cynicism that I'm just not willing to endure.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 366

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy.

... My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't. No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

No, Jane's repeatedly demonstrated that he's incapable of judging whether a solution violates conservation of energy, which is apparently an "ill-conceived notion". Furthermore, Jane's somehow convinced himself that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" at the same time that he completely ignores Prof. Grant Petty, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, and many other scientific societies.

Since Jane doesn't seem to think those societies understand mainstream physics, maybe Jane will listen to Prof. Steve Carson who also tried to educate a Sky Dragon Slayer. Notice that his eqn 9 with negligibly similar areas is equivalent to my equation, not Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation. Again, that's because Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy: power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.

Jane, don't you see how absurd it is for you to simultaneously insist that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" while completely ignoring the fact that mainstream physicists are telling you the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong? Doesn't that self-contradiction bother you even a little bit?

Riverat said Jane would need to actually witness the experiment to change his mind. After hundreds of pages of listening to Jane cuss and scream and endlessly insist that he's correct, I'm starting to agree with riverat. But I'm starting to doubt that Jane would even be convinced by an experiment performed right in front of him.

Jane, what would you do if you saw first-hand evidence that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature? Would you admit that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is wrong, and try to understand how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source? Or would you just retreat to some other absurd evasion, and keep endlessly arguing that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature?

Comment: Re:All Good Laws Have Costs (Score 1) 117

by NeutronCowboy (#48474125) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

You can scream and shout all you want, but corporations are merely collections of people organized for a purpose, no different than a union or political party.

I think you might want to revisit what a corporation is. It's a legal construct designed to shield individuals from losing everything if their business goes belly-up.

As for your idea that a corporation is exactly the same thing as a political party... well, it certainly explains the cluster fuck in this country. Congratulations, you ARE the root problem.

Comment: Re:Are they the same? (Score 3, Interesting) 117

by PopeRatzo (#48473849) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Or, imagine that the websites espousing certain political views do not count against your cap, but those with opposing political views do.

Which messages are more likely to be heard?

Net Neutrality is about whether or not we are going to trust corporate gatekeepers with no requirement of fairness to set the narrative about our society.

And how will this affect how companies that provide hosting services work, if some of them get caps and others don't? What will happen to the cost of hosting (which is basically the cost of speech on the internet)?

Comment: and the generica shall prevail (Score 1) 428

by epine (#48471347) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

the performance war

Because, as we all know, performance comes in only one flavour.

This is an even sneakier version of what Daniel Dennett calls "rathering". This is where you write "The proponents of A would say that A resolves this issue. As we can see, A does not solve the problem, so rather B." The trick here is that no-one ever said the issue was a dichotomy between A and B. It's been implied by a rhetorical device that few readers even notice. Apparently Stephen J. Gould used this technique a fair amount. This surprised me. He was a pretty solid author for the most part.

Do you really think that SSD is the best storage option for Google Earth's highest resolution imagery of the Nunavut territory? I guess your philosophy is that if the data isn't in high enough demand to justify SSD performance levels, there's no point keeping the data online in the first place.

Then there's a few hundred people who charter expensive hunting trips in the Canadian north and afterwards they go to Google Earth to review where they've been and Google Earth says "Imagery 404: not enough demand to make it cost effective to host the data on SSD".

If it's just a few hundred people, so who gives a shit?

Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham

Working...