Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Here's the solution (Score 3, Insightful) 198

by Jane Q. Public (#48042097) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?
Not really. It's just bad design.

Your server isn't getting games installed on it, which put all kinds of settings in the registry, then removed later when the game is old and tired, leaving behind cruft (including DRM bullsit) in the registry.

When a program is UNinstalled, all traces of it should be gone. Apple took a different approach, which arguably works far better. Even if stuff is left behind, it just takes up a bit of disk space, and doesn't affect the system at all.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 2) 423

by Jane Q. Public (#48039875) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.

The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.

For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at all, and that States had the power to oppose the Federal government if it overstepped its Constitutional bounds... Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. (The latter was made clearer later by Jefferson and Madison.)

This much is clear: the Constitution would never have been ratified if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that the Federal government is a tool of the collective States, not the other way around. The Federal government has the authority allowed it by the States, and no more.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 423

by Jane Q. Public (#48039733) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line.

You need to take some history lessons. The Second Amendment wasn't written by the South. And the writers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that in the day it was written, there was no way it would be ratified by the States if they tried to abolish slavery immediately and directly.

But if you notice, it was written in such a way that it guaranteed rights to every person... making it easy to amend it later to abolish slavery. They didn't HAVE to write it that way, you know.

The Second Amendment was written because the British government tried to control arms in order to suppress dissent and rebellion. Our Founding Fathers understood that denying arms to the people, no matter what excuse is given for it, is always a tool of oppression.

Comment: Re:No collection happens until examination (Score 1) 111

by Jane Q. Public (#48039577) Attached to: The Executive Order That Redefines Data Collection

So if I download lots of copyrighted music and films, but never listen to them -- then I'm apparently okay right?

OP's basic premise is BS. It is not possible to "redefine" common words in a government document. That's not the way the law works.

Words have accepted meanings. In Common Law countries like the U.S., it is the original MEANING of a statute, or section of the Constitution, for example, that is the governing factor.

Official (like the President) do not have authority to "change" a law simply by saying "I think this word means something different now than when the law was passed." It doesn't matter what he thinks or how he tries to re-define it. What matters is what the ORIGINAL AUTHORS of the legislation meant when they wrote it.

It's just another example of the Whitehouse ignoring Constitutional law, and going off in its own rogue direction.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#48039173) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

This isn't a quantum effect. The reason IR detectors measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation, is because electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). If that weren't true, there would be no way to detect this difference

You didn't bother to read my reference on pyrometers, did you? Because if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. That's not the "difference" they measure.

And that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And... that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations.

Once again, Jane insists electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Once again, Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.

NO. That is NOT what I claimed, and that is not what I am claiming. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means.

I do not claim "no" radiation is absorbed. To repeat once again: no NET power from radiation is absorbed. Those are 2 completely different claims. You keep saying I claim the former, when I've actually only claimed the latter. And by now, there can be no remaining misunderstanding about that. You are simply lying. Again.

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Prof. Brown. Now Jane claims that Prof. Brown is spreading "garbage" that contradicts just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. But Jane certainly isn't arguing with Prof. Brown or Dr. Shore or even me. Perish the thought.

No, I am not arguing with them right now, as I made clear. I was arguing with YOU about Spencer's experiment. And you lost the argument.

When A is warmer than B, (Ta^4 - Tb^4) yields a positive number. Which means all NET radiative energy transfer goes from A to B. That is clearly indicated by the minus sign, and is further dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no NET energy going from B to A. Only when B is hotter than A does any NET energy transfer in the other direction.

A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction.

Further, by the same equation the temperature (T) of warmer A does not depend on the cooler B. And as the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature-power relation (e*s)*T^4 clearly implies, the power output of A also does not depend on B.

Power output of A at a given temperature Ta is independent of B. Changing the temperature of B (as long as it remains cooler) does not affect the power output of A. This is exactly where you have been getting it wrong, by trying to use a heat transfer equation rather than a power output equation.

This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU.

I haven't used moderator points in over a year. But the fact that Jane is so convinced I am that he's cussing and screaming in ALL CAPS is emblematic of Jane's reasoning problems, just like when Jane was absolutely convinced that I'm a six-headed hydra.

It fit the pattern I saw in the past. It's possible that it was someone else. Just not very likely.

Comment: Re:Welcome to Walmart of Things... (Score 1) 172

by Jane Q. Public (#48016063) Attached to: When Everything Works Like Your Cell Phone

You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?

GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.

"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.

I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.

It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.

Comment: Re:Another terrible article courtesy of samzenpus (Score 1) 383

by Jane Q. Public (#48015043) Attached to: Seattle Passes Laws To Keep Residents From Wasting Food

In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.

I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#48014987) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.

Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.

Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.

His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.

But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?

And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.

Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.

So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.

When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."

NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.

Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?

Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.

And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. What I claimed, I repeat, is that no NET radiative energy transfer occurs from cooler bodies to warmer. That concept does not conflict with the ability of infrared cameras or pyrometers to detect "cooler" radiation. Energy can be absorbed and re-emitted... and often (for non-gray-bodies) it is re-emitted in different wavelengths. But the fact remains that there is still no NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer. If there were, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

My argument has always been about NET heat transfer. I have explained to you many times that I do NOT claim no radiation from cooler bodies is ever absorbed. My argument is, and has been, about NET. And further, contrary to your own assertions, since the NET energy transfer from cooler bodies is ZERO, it is not included in the "radiative power out" term of heat transfer equations. Which is a concept that (apparently, if we assume you're being honest, which I doubt) you have had supreme difficulty getting through your head.

So just knock off the straw-man crap. You're very good at it, but I'm better at seeing it than you are at dishing it out.

Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.

And the ad-hominem too. You can claim all you want that your personal attacks have nothing to do with your arguments, but you have many times proved otherwise. Just knock off the bullshit. It isn't getting you anywhere.

Comment: Re:I get it (Score 1) 50

by Jane Q. Public (#48000783) Attached to: FAA Clears Movie and TV Drones For Takeoff
I have repeated this here so many times now I've lost count.

A Federal judge ruled a few months ago that the FAA has no authority EXCEPT in controlled airspace. And "controlled" airspace isn't most or even much of the air around us.

The FAA's authority is derived from INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND COMMERCE. Anything else is none of its business.

If you aren't sending your drone commercially across State lines, or invading controlled airspace, they have no legal basis for "regulating" you.

The FAA has appealed the decision, but pending appeal they have seemed to want to put as many regulations in place as they can before the November election. I wonder why.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#48000695) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch
Just so we're clear: I respect Dr. Roy Spencer. But he's not immune from Getting Things Wrong. Even so, all things considered, he has been less wrong than you.

Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.

For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#48000669) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.

As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.

As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way.

But again, this is all straw-man bullshit. NONE of them were ever able to actually refute Latour's math with real-world examples. Spencer failed, YOU failed in your analysis of Spencer, etc.

Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why.

The reason the Earth is not catastrophically warming due to CO2, and the reason you aren't literally burning alive due to your home's heating system, are the same: "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#47993745) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".

These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)

Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.

And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 0) 58

by Jane Q. Public (#47989657) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [] I've repeatedly [] given Jane [] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.

I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.

But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"