Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Faulty premise (Score 1) 82

by Jane Q. Public (#47979199) Attached to: Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.

Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.

I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.

You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.

Comment: Re:Did you find that hard drive yet? (Score 1) 253

Yes, they most definitely did.

Further, if I were any of the organizations that - we have lots of solid evidence - were harassed by the IRS under Lerner, I would charge her, and her cohorts as individuals under 18 USC 242, which carries some harsh penalties... up to life in prison.

Comment: Re:BS (Score 1) 189

by hairyfeet (#47978975) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months

Then we will get to see evolution in action as the stupid ones who raided the hospital to "rescue" their dying relatives from "bad white medicine" as the witch doctors called it, refuse to give up ritual washing of the bleeding sore covered dead, and generally refuse to listen to anything said by an outsider dies out and those smart enough to listen will survive.

I'm sorry but I have a real hard time feeling sympathy for those that act pants on head retarded and get themselves killed. Hell how many here know how this latest outbreak came about? Everybody from local governments to the Red Cross has been saying to the local population since the mid 1980s "Whatever you do DO NOT EAT BUSH MEAT,ESPECIALLY MONKEYS!!" so what did they find when they went looking for patient zero? A woman who has made a meal of bush meat, specifically monkey, and cut herself while chopping up monkey meat....I'm sorry but if you are THAT fucking stupid, that 30 years of warnings still don't work? Well maybe its time for some good old fashioned Darwinism to weed out the brainless so they can stop pissing in the gene pool.

I know it sounds heartless and cruel but to use a famed car analogy if I stick up 40 signs that say "If you step in front of trucks you will be maimed or killed" show you a video titled" Why stepping in front of trucks is bad" followed by handing you a pamphlet entitled "just say no to stepping in front of trucks" only to have you throw it in the trash, hand your friend a camera and go "Hi my name is Steve-o and this is stepping in front of trucks" and get yourself turned into a mangled mess of broken bones and screams why EXACTLY should I feel sorry for you? After all I did all i could to warn you of the danger, but if you simply refuse to listen what else can you do but let Darwin thin the herd?

Comment: Re:Will it come with... (Score 2) 35

by rgbatduke (#47977345) Attached to: Fedora 21 Alpha Released

I spent around a year with it on at least a few of the systems I use. But I have G2 hotwired to cycle windows, open xterms, switch desktops, and fully use its autohide bars which are already laid out with everything I need and little that I don't. I do most of my work in either a browser or xterms, but I have that work in many different subjects with several windows open per subject spread out over 6 desktops that are a keystroke away. G3's window switching mechanism when I used it was arcane and enormously slow in comparison.

The real problem is that while a fork was perhaps needed, they did it wrong. G2 was close to perfect for what it was designed to do -- if nothing else its flaws were all flaws we all had worked around, and it had/has (I'm still using it, personally) some really nice features. Forking off a tablet version of Gnome is just peachy, but it should have been a TABLET VERSION fork, not an abandonment of the mainstream, widely deployed G2 in favor of a tablet friendlier interface that was enormously clunky on a non-tablet desktop or even laptop.

Sometimes there is change because it is needed, sometimes there is change for the sake of change. I sadly think that G3 is ten parts of the latter for one part of the former. Change involves pain either way, but at least one can see some advantage to doing so.

What exactly are the advantages -- not the places where yeah, with work and possibly more slowly you can make it function but actual advantages -- of G3, in particular advantages that one couldn't have implemented just as easily as new features of G2 without necessarily breaking old features that were heavily in use?

I'm not seein' a lot of those. I can launch any application I want under G2 with a key combination, for every application I ever launch, and don't even use that feature any more for anything but xterms because I use a lot of those to do work in. Window )cycling and desktop switching, though, those I use all of the time. Miniapps and application bar launchers, I use those. I don't care about animation. I don't need finger swipe screens. I don't need to have to work to find applications listed in a neat sorted order, or to have to change "views" to access certain features. I login (rarely), pop a single instance of firefox up, and from then on most of what I do is either browser based or xterm based, and I can pop an xterm up with Ctrl-Alt-P in far less than 1 second on the fly, then cycle up through a whole stack of windows with Ctrl-Shift-F to the one I want, then jump to desktop 6 (F6) to set up some music, then back to desktop 3 (F3) to work on something I'm writing, and then...

Maybe I can do all of this (and preserve the macros etc) in Mate. I suppose I should give it a try, maybe in a VM or something. Heck, maybe I'll install a full fedora VM to try it again -- I think I have the room. I used to use Fedora all the time before G3, but it was a serious show stopper.


Comment: Will it come with... (Score 2) 35

by rgbatduke (#47974849) Attached to: Fedora 21 Alpha Released

Gnome 2 as an option (by whatever name) or only the insanity of windowing systems designed for finger-picking-tablets forced upon keystroke oriented users of actual computers doing real work in many windows on several desktops?

Otherwise, Centos 6 may end up being the last release I ever use. G2 may or may not be perfect, but I've got it more comfortable than five year old denim jeans and G3 sucked and continues to suck and AFAICT will continue to suck, forever, amen.


Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 173

by Jane Q. Public (#47974011) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

I never said Jane objected to a term for "electrical power". I said Jane repeatedly [] objects [] to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. And Jane continues to do this:

Apparently you did not read what I wrote:

NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.

What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. Standard, textbook physics says the thermodynamic temperature of the heat source, since it is "the hottest thing in the room", as it were, is independent of radiation from the chamber walls. Since it cannot absorb net radiative power from the chamber walls, any electrical power calculation is similarly independent.

You are attempting to add a term to "account for" radiation from the cooler chamber walls, but no such accounting is necessary according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. No net radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source. The chamber wall do not somehow magically cause it to output either less or more radiative power, therefore the input power is not dependent on the chamber walls. QED. I've explained this (truly) about 10 times now.

Ranting about imaginary violations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law won't help Jane understand physics. It might help Jane to draw a boundary around the heat source and think carefully about exactly why Jane keeps ignoring the heat radiated in from the chamber wells. Accounting for that radiation doesn't "violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law" but ignoring it violates conservation of energy.

There is nothing imaginary about it. I am the one who told YOU to draw your boundary around your heat source. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed by the heat source from the chamber walls, and the chamber walls do not affect its radiative power out. I capitalized different words this time in a (probably vain) attempt to get you to understand what is being said here. YOU are apparently imagining some kind of magical net energy flow from less thermodynamically energetic to more thermodynamically energetic, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The chamber walls neither transfer any of their net radiative power to the heat source, nor do they cause the net radiative power of the heat source to be any less. They have NO EFFECT. Net energy flows only FROM the heat source to the walls, and the temperature of the walls effects heat transfer only, not radiative power of the heat source.

For about 100 times now, I do not claim "no radiation" is absorbed. Just no net radiative power.

Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Jane's equation assumes warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Here's an equation which only says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)

The above equation satisfies conservation of energy and says there's no NET radiative power input from cooler objects.

Right. Exactly. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, as I've stated many, many times now. Note that it is an equation for heat transfer.

But Jane's equation is different:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4

YES!!! This is a different equation! It's not an equation for heat transfer! It's the Stefan-Botlzmann RELATION between radiative power out and temperature for gray bodies. It is used for calculating RADIATIVE POWER OUT versus TEMPERATURE and vice versa. It is not for heat transfer and I'm not using it for heat transfer. YOU are the one who is getting them confused, not me. This other equation shows that radiative power is dependent ONLY on emissivity and temperature. It does not depend on other bodies. For the third time (today): it's a temperature vs. power equation, not a heat transfer equation.

Further, "electrical" is your own addition. The equation is for power. It doesn't specify "electrical".

That happens automatically. Jane's equation violates conservation of energy by completely ignoring the term describing radiative "power in" from the chamber walls. So Jane's equation says warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

"Jane's equation" is the textbook equation for calculating temperature from radiative power of a gray body, and vice versa. It is not an equation for heat transfer and therefore doesn't have to account for the chamber walls. At steady-state, it is independent of other bodies. Period. Look it the hell up.

But Jane's equation is nonsense, because absorption is controlled by absorptivity. So we could only ignore the power radiated from the chamber walls if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.

RIGHT HERE is where you contradict yourself. You cite the S-B radiation law, above, saying no NET radiative power is absorbed by the warmer body. Apparently you don't understand the concept of NET, even though you have derided me for supposedly "ignoring" it.

I do not claim no radiation is absorbed. I claimed no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed. Those are not the same things. The effect is as if all incident radiation from cooler bodies is reflected, scattered, or transmitted. But since these are diffuse gray bodies of significant mass, they don't transmit. So draw your precious boundary around the heat source. All incoming radiation from the chamber walls is reflected or scattered and goes right back out, so you have no net power IN through your boundary. This is at least the second time I have explained this in detail.

There is no magical flow of NET power into your heat source from the chamber walls. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore I do not need to account for radiation from the chamber walls in calculating the temperature of the heat source. That is nothing but imaginary nonsense on your part. The Stefan-Boltzmann RELATION (not radiation law) for gray bodies has only 2 variables: emissivity and temperature.

And that is why, when calculating power needs, I use the appropriate equation for temperature versus power, not the one for heat transfer.

This is textbook stuff, and you just aren't getting it straight. Are you sure you're a physicist?

But Jane's equation is nonsense, because absorption is controlled by absorptivity. So we could only ignore the power radiated from the chamber walls if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.

Look at your S-B equation above. What does it say? No net radiative power is absorbed by warmer bodies from cooler bodies. You said so yourself. But NOW, you're claiming that it is. You contradict yourself.

I will repeat: I did not and do not claim that no radiation is absorbed. Just no net radiative power. Any that does get absorbed is just re-transmitted, with a total power (and therefore heat transfer) effect of ZERO. That's why it is not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation.

Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change this fact. Unless Jane/Lonny Eachus would like to correct his equation for required electrical heating power and derive an answer other than 82 W/m^2?

The second equation you cited above is the STANDARD equation for calculating radiative power out of a gray body. I showed you where it was in Wikipedia. It also just happens to be in my heat transfer textbooks. The answer is 82.12 W/m^2. It is the textbook answer. It isn't going to change. Why don't you look it up in a textbook and discover that for yourself?

The first equation you cite, and claim to be using, is an equation for heat transfer between two bodies. It is not the equation for radiant power output of a single body. It is the wrong equation for this calculation.

I repeat: if you truly don't understand this, due to your "greenhouse gas religion" or something, that's just too bad. I'm using textbook physics for situations like this. You are not. You are espousing magical net power transfer from cold to hot, rather than actual physics.

Radiative power out of the warmer body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. Anything else violates the second law of thermodynamics. It isn't controlled or mitigated by nearby cooler bodies. All else being equal, energy doesn't spontaneously travel from cooler to warmer. That's complete bullshit. Doesn't happen.

Knock off the fantasy physics and pick up a textbook.

Comment: Maybe read the thread (Score 0) 206

by dbIII (#47971853) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux

Citation needed. I have never seen anyone declaring Windows Server 2012 the best ever OS because of the CLI.

With respect, the above poster is replying to someone that appears to be asserting that. I suggest reading other posts higher up in the thread before wasting time writing such long replies that miss the point.

Comment: Re:min install (Score 3, Informative) 206

by dbIII (#47971799) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux
He had it on one floppy for a while, but eventually due to a lot of kernel modules (that means drivers for MS centric folks) it grew to a boot floppy and a separate root floppy.
I used it as a general purpose toolkit for stuffed MS and linux machines for a few years, before using DamnSmallLinux, knoppix and now clonezilla for that role.

Comment: That was a political requirement and subverted (Score 1) 310

by dbIII (#47971347) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal
That was a political requirement imposed that clashed with the requirement of the person on the spot being able to do the task they were trained and employed for. Thus to tick the box and not get in the way the password was set to all zeros. If you or I got into the right building with the "password" we wouldn't have had a clue how to launch missiles, we'd just have a number but wouldn't know the procedure to use it.
The "password" just created the illusion that civilians were in charge of operational military matters. It was set to all zeros so that they were not, so that an order to start a war would be a "one step" thing from a civilian authority and not micromanaging.
Besides, who would you trust more with final launch authority, a group of military personal prepared to shoot anyone that wasn't going by the book in an operation that required several people or the likes of Dan Quale, Spiro Agnew, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton?

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James