mkwt

Mathematics is a search for absolute truth, as proven from axioms.

Meanwhile, this is said about statistics: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Your car radiator is actually using convection to convect heat into the air.

The spacecraft radiators use radiation to dump heat by emitting infrared photons. Photons do not require a medium. This type of radiator works by maximizing the area of hot surface exposed to empty space (which has an effective temperature of 3 K). They have to be pointed into a dark area and away from the sun. There's no advantage to fins, because you want to maximize area perpendicular to the dark sky.

Both devices are called radiators, but they are different kinds of devices.

Solar sail effect is going to be dwarfed by regular atmospheric drag in low earth orbit. At perfect right angles the radiation pressure on the panels is 4.5 micro-Pascals. Meanwhile, in low orbit there's enough residual atmosphere to generate a dynamic pressure (for drag) of 5 milli-Pascals, give or take (and strongly depending on the space weather).

So atmospheric drag is around 1000 times more than photon pressure. And the drag is big enough to be noticeable over weeks and months, requiring regular boosts to stay in orbit.

You could put em on the moon with a heatpump into the ground.

The interior of the moon is not super cold. You could still run a heat pump, but I don't know what the conductivity is like.

She's asking the lower appeals court to speed up the process of finalizing the appeal judgement in her favor.

When a circuit appeals court makes a decision, that decision doesn't become final until a separate piece of paper called the "mandate" is issued.

If she didn't make this request the mandate would be issued anyway within a certain time frame, like 30 days or so. She just wants it to happen faster.

It sounds like Trump is thinking about annoying the supreme court with a motion to reconsider. If he does that, he would also file a counter motion in the circuit court to delay the mandate issuance.

The money should be held by the court in an appeal bond. Hopefully she doesn't have to try to extract it from Trump directly.

The vote was 5-4 for the proposition that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

The vote was 6-3 that a regular federal law guarantees the same right.

Kavanaugh is the switcher. He voted against the Constitution and for the federal law. This is crazy because the relevant text in the law is a copy paste job from the Constitution. It's the same text. Kavanaugh's position is that the same words mean two different things in two different places, because the federal law was enacted at a different time than the constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch voted against birthright citizenship both times, but in his opinion he's pretty clear that children born to parents who are domiciled in the US are citizens by birthright. Domicile means you are staying in the US long term and intend to remain. But you don't need legal immigration status to have domicile. So that's not really a Trump-friendly position if you dig into it.

Edit: I meant to reply to the other comment, but I messed that up.

His wife who filed for divorce on "Biblical grounds?" Yes.

Notice the scaffolding with a backdrop painted like the White House. Covering up the UFC stage that is blocking the view to the real White House.

That is some Roadrunner cartoon shit right there.

This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn't a warrant.

The supreme court ruling doesn't go this far.

The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.

There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:

• the "frisk" in a Terry stop to search for weapons.
• search with consent
• search incident to arrest
• hot pursuit and exigent circumstance allow police to follow suspects into a place, but not usually to then go looking for stuff.
• searches within the (generous) border zone for border enforcement
• searches at airport security and similar contexts
• public roadway DUI checkpoints and other road safety checkpoints that stop all drivers.

It's not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.

Something, something about "deep-rooted history and tradition" that protects the federal reserve and not any other Congressionally-created independent commission.

Never mind that the "history and tradition" of central banks in the United States is that two previous banks failed before the federal reserve, and the first one was considered by many founding fathers to be unconstitutional.

Basically, it's a made-up argument that makes no sense. And all done to protect Justice Robert's stock portfolio from Trump's fiscal mismanagement.

Misleading headline: The Court didn't actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.

What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.

The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.

When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for "reasonable" searches where no warrant is needed.