Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:beyond the realm of plausibility (Score 1) 99

by ledow (#48475215) Attached to: Australia Elaborates On a New Drift Model To Find MH370

"I would think that military systems are watching EVERYTHING".

No. They are not. Your average commuter airport needs dozens of people just to understands the situation for day to day stuff, let alone secretly watching from afar and trying to get a grasp on why one plane moved. There's a reason that air traffic control also control military aircraft manoeuvres to some extent too.

This is the point - if there were so many people watching, from so many countries, so perfectly, with equipment that performs your impossible miracles, then there are dozens of countries who would happily stand up and say "We saw something suspicious" because they could accuse their enemies. Fact is, nobody has.

So it's either a global conspiracy with perfect equipment, totalitarian surveillance, absolute collusion and everyone knows this. Or we just don't do that kind of stuff. And we don't.

One country's military doesn't care about anything except something which isn't on its registered flightpath within their airspace (which they are normally notified OF, not notice themselves), or something that doesn't appear with a registered flightpath at all.

Flying out into international waters is of no concern to the military of a particular country whatsoever. They have control only up to a limit from the boundary and no more and although they can survey outside that and often do (which is how the UK often spots Russian aircraft approaching its airspace, they are constantly testing but nowhere near stupid enough to actually violate it) they cannot do anything until it's in their territory - and then they have 100 miles in which to see it and get it. Some plane detouring could be anything from a drunk on board to airline recalling an empty aircraft to help with a schedule change.

And outside of that national boundary, literally nobody cares. There are no laws out there, there is no ownership out there, and thousands of planes (and ships!) come and go and change flight plans every day and do not notify every damn country in the world of themselves doing so. It only matters when you enter an airspace without a flightplan or deviate from one inside it.

If what you said was true, the Bermuda Triangle would not have the reputation it does, you wouldn't get helicopters being landed on top of protected-sites like wildlife reserves, the military would be first on the scene in a crash, etc.

Occam's razor. Either everything is absolutely perfect except for the something extraordinary that happened in front of the world's press involving convoluted conspiracy theories, or things just don't operate like you imagine they do.

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:But the press has stopped talking about it... (Score 1) 188

by riverat1 (#48474745) Attached to: Health Advisor: Ebola Still Spreading, Worst Outbreak We've Ever Seen

So you think the fact that nobody in the US besides the two nurses who were caring for Duncan at his sickest have come down with Ebola is just dumb luck? The fact is the Ebola virus unlike the flu virus does not survive outside of the body for any length of time. Once any Ebola containing mucus dries out the virus is history. If there were any examples of random people catching it by the methods you speculate about I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint but it hasn't happened. I won't be wetting my pants until it does.

Comment: Re:All Good Laws Have Costs (Score 1) 93

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 2) 93

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)?

That does not compute.

Working...