So whi gets sued when they place one of these on a site that is completely legitimate? I hear that in Europe, slander and libel cases can be won even if the information is true but the intent was to harm a reputation. Clearly this would be that.

So what you are saying is either let them kill you or more people will try to kill you?

That seems to be the jist of the "but they will haye you if you do not let them get thier way" argument. So what will happen is that everyone will become an enemy and everyone will get killed. Sounds like eventually someone is going to say kill them all and let god sort it out. Hopefully, a rash of common sence breaks out and it ends before someone actually tries to do just that.

What part of all your money is wrapped up in the corporation do you not understand? If you spend it as it was your own speech, it would either be embezelment or the corporation's speech.

But how rediculous do you think it would be if they had no speech rights and the government does something that bankrupts the companies your retirment is invested in. Or perhaps you lose your job because they had no speech rights and couldn't speak out against whatever?

Sure. That is part of the idea. We can ignore everything else like the investing aspects, fiduciary duties and crap just to suggest a particular point of view.

Tell me. Suppose your retirement was soaked into a company or several of them and something like that was happening. You have no direct involvement in the company and do not know or understand the implications of the ban. Does the company not have a fudiciary duty to both make you aware and attemp to stay in business? What would you think if they could say nothing and you lost your retirement? Even if they notified only the share holders, the stock value would nose drive when they all attemped to dump the stock and you wpuld still lose.

The idea that they don't is plain silly to begin with.

Imagine stating a business and incorporating it. You soak ypur entire savings into it and it is bearly making money. Now imagine the government wanting to ban dihydogen monoxide because it is evil and you cannot say anything to sway public opinion because all your money is tied up in your compamy and because you incorporated and corporations have no speech rights.

Deflection doesn't really escape the point.

GP asked why a bunch of administration friends and family trying to exploit Ukrainian old had to do wiyh the situtation. I explained the perception of those who think it is important. The guy could have been batshit crazy and appearances would still appear.

As a Hydra, I scoff at mortal concepts like flattery. I also seem to have grown a sixth head judging by Jane's claim that I quoted myself complimenting myself. If Jane's referring to these compliments then my sixth Hydra head also has a real name which is different than mine. We Hydras are powerful and tricksy, and certainly not paranoid delusions. Nope.

... You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.

... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. ... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public]

He must have forgotten this nebulous unlinked correction because his blog post is still live and still contains all these badly worded sentences:

"... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ..."

In fact, he did more than suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."

That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than infinity.

Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, if Dr. Latour and the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Hint: the Slayers are wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect.

... I have no desire (or any motivation, for that matter) to engage you in some ridiculous argument about whether Venus is proof of "greenhouse warming", as compared to Mercury or the Earth. There are many reasons why even if it were true, it is hardly relevant: Mercury has an extremely long day, almost no atmosphere, and a very eccentric orbit. Venus has a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times (give or take) Earth's, it's atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2 (around 96% or so), versus Earth's 0.04% or less, again give or take a bit. Not to mention the vast clouds of sulfuric acid. You seem to want to ignore all these other variables and argue about just CO2, when the degree to which CO2 in particular affects Venus' surface temperature is speculative, to say the least. ... [Jane Q. Public]

No, I didn't ignore those variables. In fact, I pointed out differences that should make Venus cooler than Mercury in the absence of Venus's greenhouse effect. For instance:

• I compared Mercury's daytime surface temperature to Venus's nighttime surface temperature because Venus's long night should be cooler than Mercury's long day.
• I mentioned Venus's high albedo which is due to its vast clouds of sulfuric acid, and mentioned that this should keep Venus cooler than dark Mercury by reflecting more sunlight.
• I mentioned that Venus is farther from the Sun than Mercury even when Mercury is at aphelion, which should make Venus cooler than Mercury.
• I pointed out that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. So pressure only affects surface temperature by enhancing the greenhouse effect if and only if GHG's are present.

I've also explained that a planet with no atmosphere is a simple case where the effective radiating level is at the surface, so the equilibrium surface temperature can be determined using the planet’s albedo and distance from the Sun. The greenhouse effect modifies this simple case, which is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

After I explained that Venus is hot because of its greenhouse effect, you replied by quoting a paper saying "Such an amount of CO2 causes greenhouse warming by 500 K there. On the other hand, the mere 0.006 bars of CO2 on Mars cause warming by 5.5K."

How do Slayers explain 500K of greenhouse warming on Venus, other than basketball player gloves and gray Oreos?

You also linked a crackpot website claiming that on Venus "the solar energy simply does not reach the surface."

I've explained that Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus and found "surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day." Check out the panorama.

Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.

You can drive 11 hours a day with a 1/2 hour break after 8 consecutive hours since going on duty. All this has to be done before 14hours since you came on duty

However, if you come on duty at midnight and take a 10 hour break after 12 hours, you can drive another 2 hour before the next day and meet that 800 miles. But you took 10 hours off that you could be charging so you ate corect.

I've thought about that too. Some people can bearly drive a car in the first place. Putting a trailer behind them might not be a good idea.

And exactly who pays for this electficity on the other end of this majic plug concept?

When you live in apartment complexes, you do not always get to park in the same spots and you likely cannot dig up the parking lot to instal outlets connected to your meter.

If only it was as simply as parking and lluging in where ever you might be.

I can think of a third. I had no idea fdoid existed until reading these posts. Outside of rooting my phone ans removing a bunch of garbage, i never really looked for more than a few apps and i wont update those due to expanded permisions i find too intrusive.

That being said, now that i know, i will likely use it when i change phones again in about 2 weeks.