even if the populous voted
The populous what?
It's "the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact"
Your interpretation of that seems overly broad. All actions are intentional, and some of them create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, but does that imply that all intentional actions (which are all of them) creating the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact intend to create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? If I ask someone at night what's the time, 1) it's intentional, and 2) that person might mistakenly get the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, but 3) is it my intention to create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? It's not the same thing as throwing a stone at someone and missing, where a misunderstanding is much less likely.
I suspect he's been trying out some new laws on my wife.
In your place, I'd become suspicious somewhere around the 69th law.
... If body (b) is brought up to the same temperature as (a), Ta^4 - Tb^4 = 0, and no net heat transfer takes place. Although radiant power output of (a) at that temperature doesn't change, as a corollary of that same law.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]
If Ta = Tb, no electrical heating power is required. But radiant power output of (a) doesn't change. So radiant power output can't be equal to electrical heating power. Using conservation of energy, can you write down an equation which yields the required electrical heating power given Ta and Tb?
Why? Microsoft has a long history of hiring many top researchers, and then doing very little with the results.
Well, as long as they publish papers, who cares if they're doing very little with the results? Someone else is going to do it for them.
As people age their politics tends to become more conservative.
Yes, conservative, but in relationship to what? If you're conservative relative to average late 21st century values, you'll be awfully progressive in the early 21st century. What do you think, does this shift to conservatism include actual regressing in values, or is it simply staying in place?
The sun is setting in the British Empire's back yard.
But will anyone notice through the clouds?
Since the emissivity for every object in our system is the same, power output is proportional to the T^4. Period. End of story. Draw your boundary around the heat source. Power in = power out (your own principle). Therefore the power in is 41886.54 Watts, which is the power initially being radiated out. SPENCER stipulated that this power is held constant. It wasn't my idea. It's a condition of the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]
No. Once again, in this experiment there is a "... constant flow of energy into the plate from the electric heater... flowing in at a constant rate... the electric heater pumps in energy at a constant rate.
Jane's even stumbled across this point:
... Of course it wouldn't need a separate heat source if its environment were maintained at 150 degrees.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]
Of course! That's why the variable Jane's holding constant isn't the electrical power supplied to the separate heat source. If Jane can realize that there's no need for a separate heat source if its environment were maintained at 150 degrees, why can't Jane see that his equation for required electrical power doesn't reflect this obvious fact?