Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bricking or Tracking? (Score 2) 119

The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them. If you are referring to the Highway programs, those were not Federal Government ideas. Those were citizen and business owner ideas. The program went to the Feds because it was easy at the time, and saved States from having to negotiate connecting points.

The Government may have expedited some of the process, but we don't know how much because we only implemented one Federal highway program. In other words, it's impossible to measure help or harm from the Federal program. Did it add some benefit, sure, but you can't truthfully claim that it's all because of Government.

I'm not sure how many photos you have seen from the 1800s, back before the Government handled trash pickup, but I have never seen any that show giant trash piles in every lot. As with roads, trash pickup was happening without Government intervention as well. The Government didn't come up with concepts like "If you drink water with trash in it, it's not good water", we knew that well before a take over by the Government.

Your last example is the worst. Firefighters used to be all volunteers, and many fire departments still run on a measurable percentage of volunteers. Large cities collect taxes for dedicated people, and people can choose to live there or out in the sticks where they lack the services and don't pay the premiums. Believe it or not, Firefighting has happened in communities for as long as we have had communities without Government intervention.

In all of your examples, there is not a single case where you can claim that Government is needed. You can in some cases claim it adds benefits, but at the same time it's difficult to measure how much. Road building (construction in general) has, and historically has had, significant levels of political corruption.

It's impossible to provide hundreds of pages of concept in a post, so I'll recommend you read Stephan Molyneux or listen to his podcasts on anarchism. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's good for the brain to contemplate alternative opinion.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 192

Why would you think the experiment has changed?

Because your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid.

Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago.

No more replies. I am through. Again.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 192

Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion).

Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 192

Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

I have done nothing of the sort.

Are you saying that you have changed the nature of the experiment, such that it is no longer in vacuum?

The original experiment does not involve "enclosing a heated plate", except to the extent that it was already enclosed. In the experiment that has (always, as far as I am concerned) been under discussion, there is a heat source S, a passive plate P that is heated by that source, and an enclosure (which I have called W for "wall") that is actively cooled. Everything inside the enclosure is in vacuum, so that ALL heat transfer is by radiation only. No convection, no conduction.

Are you referring to the same experiment? If so, then I will repeat what I have already stated several times. And I will also repeat that if you have an argument with it -- other than your straw-man argument above, that is -- you go argue it with the proper parties, not with me. But I am indulging you to this extent.

1) Even if the passive plate completely surrounds the source, then in any real-world situation it is impossible for it to ever quite reach the same temperature as that source, even if only because the surface area is (however slightly) greater than that of the source. We have discussed this before. Therefore at equilibrium temperature Ts will always be warmer -- even if only a little -- than the passive plate Tp.

2) By the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, NET heat transfer will always be from hotter to colder. And since Ts - Tp is a positive number, net heat transfer is from the source to the plate. The plate cannot cause the heat source to be hotter because that would require NET heat transfer in the other direction. But that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (There is no need to re-derive how we apply the S-B law here. Again, that would be re-hashing old news.)

By asserting that at equilibrium the passive plate can cause the source to be hotter, you are contradicting the S-B law. You can make all the other arguments you like to try to sidestep this, but eventually you're just going to step in it again. Pun very much intended.

I have stated this all before. I repeat that you are making a mistake. But in order to find out what it is, you are going to have to address your argument to the person you are attempting to refute. Your argument is not with me and trying to make it with me is childish. Given that, and the abusive nature of your past behavior, I refuse to help you further. No more hints.

Comment: Re:I definitely share password with family (Score 1) 113

by s.petry (#47715561) Attached to: 51% of Computer Users Share Passwords

I would certainly agree that exceptions are both possible and possible, and would not argue that exceptions don't exist. Very little in the world is purely black or purely white. GP at least implied that the only option was to share, and my point was that there are better alternatives.

With no qualification of your point, like "Hey, what about exceptions?" it seems like you are in agreement with the GP that the only answer is to give away your password.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 192

Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.)

I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.

I admit that it took me a while to figure that out when originally presented with this idea (which was a few years ago now). But I did, and I'm no physicist. However, there are physicists (like Joe Postma, for example) who might be happy to explain it to you if, that is, you don't piss him off (or haven't already pissed him off) with your adolescent, antisocial behavior.

And no, your ad-hominem explanation of why you won't confront the actual engineer who made the argument won't wash. First, it *is* ad-hominem... not in the context of your scientific argument, but in the context of why you refuse to make your argument to the proper parties. So no, I did not "misuse" the phrase ad hominem. It was part of your argument, so it applies. Not to mention that it's just plain bullshit anyway.

Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. I'm happy to let you do it.

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 1) 134

by Jane Q. Public (#47715089) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

Your statement is based on an absolutely false assumption. You really don't have to look hard to find that most requests have nothing to do with illegal content. The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes.

And even if they weren't, a lot of things get censored in the process that never should be. Censorship, even by accident, is Not Okay.

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 2) 134

by s.petry (#47714871) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.

I'll give you a very easy starting point if you hate sifting data, assuming you really want to look. Alex Jones has had numerous take down orders, accounts cancelled, and content banned. I don't agree with much of what he says, but at the same time I don't believe that he should be censored. He's an easy one to find information on, there there are numerous other less sensationalist people that have similar stories.

GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie. Google even publishes some of the bogus requests.

Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit? Anyone that understands the basics of statistics should have a WTF moment by looking at this graph

These are not court processes with transcripts, but enough communications can be reviewed to determine that the majority of these are not people ripping off and sharing a song or movie.

Comment: Re:Has Jane/Lonny Eachus betrayed humanity? (Score 1) 192

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled".

Why are you discussing someone's tweets here in a blatantly off-topic manner here on Slashdot? Oh, right... because you continue to claim it's me. Though that doesn't make it any less off-topic.

After visiting those links, I think to native speakers of English it's pretty clear: "unsettled" is wordplay on the phrase "settled science".

But since you bring MY name up, I will repeat this: I DO NOT dispute that humans have contributed to an increase in CO2 concentration. How much of an increase is due to human activity is not known. The only thing *I* dispute (as opposed to someone else) is whether said increase in CO2 is a significant cause of "global warming". I have stated this to you repeatedly, yet you keep trying to claim otherwise. That's called denial.

But I should not even have replied to you at all, since your comment was, after all, entirely off-topic.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 192

There is an intent clause in the law. The "surveillance" has to be for the purpose of seeing onto my property, or the goings on there, specifically.

Note that this does not give a pass to mass photography by drones or helicopters, either, since then the intent would still be surveillance.

Comment: Re:Someone with no brain is running NASA (Score 1) 157

by Jane Q. Public (#47713507) Attached to: Wheel Damage Adding Up Quickly For Mars Rover Curiosity
Uh... yeah. How about 40 years ago?

Granted, those wheels were not exposed to as much rock, but they drove 2 passengers much farther than Curiosity has gone, at a far higher rate of speed. The astronauts even hotdogged it a little bit. No damage whatever.

GP was correct: it was a questionable design decision from the beginning. Somebody made a bad choice.

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Working...