Manual DC Demotion [modified]
-
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 )
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
Yes, I agree. The ambiguity made the joke fun. Now it's just, "ok, physics 101 - ha ha :zzz:"
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
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
-
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!
-
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!