Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Manual DC Demotion [modified]

Manual DC Demotion [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
performancequestiondiscussion
22 Posts 12 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L Lost User

    It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

    █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

    E Offline
    E Offline
    Expert Coming
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    It is a quote. I'll fix it, I never look at it, I don't know why I don't have the person who said it stated.

    The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • E Expert Coming

      Reread that. 9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity, I hope you get it now, if not, I can't help you.

      The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

      T Offline
      T Offline
      Tim Craig
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      ExpertComing wrote:

      9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity

      That's acceleration, not speed.

      E 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

        █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Christian Graus
        wrote on last edited by
        #8

        Only for the benefit of people who don't know that the value given represents gravity. I got it.

        Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

        E 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • T Tim Craig

          ExpertComing wrote:

          9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity

          That's acceleration, not speed.

          E Offline
          E Offline
          Expert Coming
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

          The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

          S P 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • C Christian Graus

            Only for the benefit of people who don't know that the value given represents gravity. I got it.

            Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Expert Coming
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            Some people need more help than this forum, or any forum for that matter, can give.

            The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • E Expert Coming

              My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

              The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

              S Offline
              S Offline
              Stan Shannon
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              But "speeding up" a computer has nothing to do with acceleration, so now the quote makes no sense at all.

              Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

              C 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Stan Shannon

                But "speeding up" a computer has nothing to do with acceleration, so now the quote makes no sense at all.

                Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                C Offline
                C Offline
                Christian Graus
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                If an object accelerates, it's speed increases, doesn't it ?

                Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                S 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • C Christian Graus

                  If an object accelerates, it's speed increases, doesn't it ?

                  Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                  S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Stan Shannon
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  Of course, but just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there. If my machine is faster today than it was yesterday just because I turned it off and added memory to it then turned it back on, that does not represent acceleration in any physical sense, as in gravity for example.

                  Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                  G 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • E Expert Coming

                    My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

                    The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    Paul Conrad
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    ExpertComing wrote:

                    It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course.

                    I agree. Some universities and colleges do not require physics in the Computer Science/Computer Engineering programs. I went to one university that let the student choose between physics/geology/chemistry. I started to go the geology way, but wound up with physics when I went to the last college I was at (they didn't give the option of these three different areas). I ended up really liking physics alot :-D

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Stan Shannon

                      Of course, but just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there. If my machine is faster today than it was yesterday just because I turned it off and added memory to it then turned it back on, that does not represent acceleration in any physical sense, as in gravity for example.

                      Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                      G Offline
                      G Offline
                      Gary Kirkham
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      Stan Shannon wrote:

                      just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                      It would if you threw it out the window, which I think was the point of the quote. :)

                      Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                      S 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • G Gary Kirkham

                        Stan Shannon wrote:

                        just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                        It would if you threw it out the window, which I think was the point of the quote. :)

                        Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                        S Offline
                        S Offline
                        Stan Shannon
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #16

                        Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                        Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                        G J 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • S Stan Shannon

                          Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                          Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                          G Offline
                          G Offline
                          Gary Kirkham
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #17

                          I agree In a physical sense to speed up requires an acceleration, which is in reference to this statement:

                          Stan Shannon wrote:

                          just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                          Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Stan Shannon

                            Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                            Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                            J Offline
                            J Offline
                            Jorgen Sigvardsson
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #18

                            Yes, I agree. The ambiguity made the joke fun. Now it's just, "ok, physics 101 - ha ha :zzz:"

                            -- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L Lost User

                              It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

                              █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

                              1 Offline
                              1 Offline
                              123 0
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #19

                              [Message Deleted]

                              R 7 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • 1 123 0

                                [Message Deleted]

                                R Offline
                                R Offline
                                Rajesh R Subramanian
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #20

                                The Grand Negus wrote:

                                I agree. How about 32 FEET/sec/sec?

                                I thought it ought to be foots ;p


                                Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • 1 123 0

                                  [Message Deleted]

                                  7 Offline
                                  7 Offline
                                  73Zeppelin
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #21

                                  The Grand Negus wrote:

                                  How about 32 FEET/sec/sec?

                                  You know, I was taught the imperial system as a kid. Then the government switched to metric. When I did my physics degree I used all metric, so physical measurements pertaining to scientific papers only make sense to me in metric. If you tell me how much you weigh in kilograms or the outside temperature in degrees Celsius, it's meaningless to me. I need it in pounds and Fahrenheit. So 32 feet/sec/sec is like fingers on a chalkboard to me, but saying you weigh 180 lbs is nice!


                                  J 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • 7 73Zeppelin

                                    The Grand Negus wrote:

                                    How about 32 FEET/sec/sec?

                                    You know, I was taught the imperial system as a kid. Then the government switched to metric. When I did my physics degree I used all metric, so physical measurements pertaining to scientific papers only make sense to me in metric. If you tell me how much you weigh in kilograms or the outside temperature in degrees Celsius, it's meaningless to me. I need it in pounds and Fahrenheit. So 32 feet/sec/sec is like fingers on a chalkboard to me, but saying you weigh 180 lbs is nice!


                                    J Offline
                                    J Offline
                                    Johnny
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #22

                                    Likewise Fahrenheit and pounds is completely meaningless to a lot of people (myself included). Funny how the world works.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    Reply
                                    • Reply as topic
                                    Log in to reply
                                    • Oldest to Newest
                                    • Newest to Oldest
                                    • Most Votes


                                    • Login

                                    • Don't have an account? Register

                                    • Login or register to search.
                                    • First post
                                      Last post
                                    0
                                    • Categories
                                    • Recent
                                    • Tags
                                    • Popular
                                    • World
                                    • Users
                                    • Groups