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.
At a recent professional meeting, a woman made suggestive sexual remarks to me about a computer program. If I had said the same thing to another woman, the second woman could have interpreted it as harassment under that definition.
That's basically the 2013 'Donglegate' controversy in a nutshell.
Well, it's a shot in the dark.
But, take a stab at it.
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?
Some 3d printing services can print ceramics
Services like that exist online, and they're excellent, albeit rather slow. I personally use iMaterialize because they have such a wide range of material options (everything from rubber to titanium) and finishes (for example, 4 different options for silver), but there's lots of others out there, and some are cheaper.
If you've ever played around with 3d modelling, I definitely recommend giving 3d printing a try, even if just a little test piece.
And those nerdy kids will grow up playing around with and learning 3d modeling software to be able to make their toys.
This is a good thing.
What sort of 3d prints are you looking at?
Perhaps my expectations of 3d printers are too high because I buy from professional 3d printing services rather than using a low-end home 3d printer. They use high end products and sometimes do post-printing finishing work. But the quality of the stuff you can get is truly excellent, and out of a very wide range of materials.
Isn't that now the limiting factor?
So we have 3d printers in stores. Now we need all of the home devices that could potentially need spare parts printed to be available online, preferably in a unified database. You need manufacturer buy-in. Maybe some sort of certification mark that manufacturers can stick on their devices to show that printable replacement part models are freely available. I could use a new cheese compartment door in my fridge right now, for example. And I live in Iceland where shipping times are long and shipping costs / import duties high, so it'd make time and economic sense to print, too. But while having a 3d printer would be great, if the model isn't available, how does that help me?
Of course some companies, like iRobot, rely on profiting off of selling their spare parts.