B
Ben Bacarisse
James Kuyper said:
Is it just me, or is "any length of time" a wonderful example of what
this sub-thread is about? At the very least, there is too much irony
in it's use for it to pass unnoticed.
Is it just me, or is "any length of time" a wonderful example of what
this sub-thread is about? At the very least, there is too much irony
in it's use for it to pass unnoticed.
I
Ike Naar
Not sure what part of the sentence your commenting on, or where
you're getting at; perhaps you can elaborate?
A quick glance at the 1985 version of the Act reveals that it makes
no distinction between "mass" and "weight"; part I, sec 1, sub (2)
defines "weight" as equivalent to "mass" for the purposes of the Act.
The unit of measurement of mass or weight is the kilogram or the pound.
The Act doesn't mention gravitation at all, and only mentions the newton
once, in the definition of the ampere, where it's unrelated to weight.
Apparently, in a legal context, just like in everyday use, there
is no need to make a distinction between mass and weight. That does
not mean that in certain scientific contexts the distinction can't be
made or isn't a useful one.
The UK Act, by the way, has no jurisdiction where I live.
K
Keith Thompson
Judging by the quality of the other questions, I think it's *very*
likely that the author didn't know that certain identifiers are
reserved.
The actual question was whether it's a valid variable name.
And the sticking point is the meaning of the word "valid", a word
which is not defined by the C standard and whose English meaning
is not sufficiently precise to provide an unambiguous answer.
In any case, the fact that people with thorough knowledge of the
rules of C disagree about the correct answer suggest that it's a
bad question, at least if the goal of the question was to have a
single correct answer.
likely that the author didn't know that certain identifiers are
reserved.
The actual question was whether it's a valid variable name.
And the sticking point is the meaning of the word "valid", a word
which is not defined by the C standard and whose English meaning
is not sufficiently precise to provide an unambiguous answer.
In any case, the fact that people with thorough knowledge of the
rules of C disagree about the correct answer suggest that it's a
bad question, at least if the goal of the question was to have a
single correct answer.
K
Keith Thompson
Nick Keighley said:
Non-accelerating with respect to what? In low Earth orbit, you're
accelerating at nearly 1 G with respect to the planet.
Hey, wait, is this off-topic?
C
chad
Possibly.
C
chad
Isn't torque a form of a force? I guess I'm curious because I was
always under the impression that when you weigh yourself in the
bathroom, the weight you look at was the result of some kind of
vertical force (vs a torque). Of course, I believe the weight would
change if would abruptly turn on the scale because a naked woman just
walked into the room. I believe this abrupt turn is called a torque.
R
Rui Maciel
Richard said:
I doubt that, as tonnage is a measurement of mass while a Newton is a measurement of force.
If I'm not mistaken, in some languages the term ton is named "tonelada", a term that referred to the mass
amount that could be stored in a "tonel", which is a type of barrel. As a typical barrel usually had a
capacity of around 1m^3 and 1m^3 is the volume occupied by exactly 1000kg of water...
Rui Maciel
M
Moi
Is "angular force" a correct term in English?
Well it depends on the moment, IMNSHO.
AvK
J
jameskuyper
chad wrote:
....
No, torque is caused by application of force, but it is not itself any
kind of force. It's the force multiplied by the displacement from a
pivot point (to be precise, it's a vector cross-product), and the
choice of pivot point is arbitrary, so in general you need to specify
the pivot point in order to know what the torque means (though in many
contexts there will be an obvious choice for the pivot).
No. When you turn to face the woman, your legs apply forces to your
torso. Since your legs are attached to your torso at different points,
the forces cause a net torque, which makes your torso turn. The torque
is not the force, though it is caused by the force. The turn itself is
not a torque, though it is caused by the torque.
Note that there are balancing forces applied by your feet to the
scale, which is in contact with the earth. As a result, your legs are
also applying an equal and opposite torque to the entire earth.
Because the moment of inertia of the earth is much greater than the
moment of intertia of your torso, the resulting rotation of the earth
is far too small to measure, but in principle it must be occurring,
even if we can't measure it.
....
No, torque is caused by application of force, but it is not itself any
kind of force. It's the force multiplied by the displacement from a
pivot point (to be precise, it's a vector cross-product), and the
choice of pivot point is arbitrary, so in general you need to specify
the pivot point in order to know what the torque means (though in many
contexts there will be an obvious choice for the pivot).
No. When you turn to face the woman, your legs apply forces to your
torso. Since your legs are attached to your torso at different points,
the forces cause a net torque, which makes your torso turn. The torque
is not the force, though it is caused by the force. The turn itself is
not a torque, though it is caused by the torque.
Note that there are balancing forces applied by your feet to the
scale, which is in contact with the earth. As a result, your legs are
also applying an equal and opposite torque to the entire earth.
Because the moment of inertia of the earth is much greater than the
moment of intertia of your torso, the resulting rotation of the earth
is far too small to measure, but in principle it must be occurring,
even if we can't measure it.
M
Moi
Thanks.
BTW This is rather strange, because the corresponding terms "angular
moment", "angular velocity" would suggest the existence of "angular
force".
AvK
R
Rui Maciel
chad said:
No. While force is measured in [N], torque/moment is measured in [N.m]. It's a mathematical entity which may
be used to express, among other things, the stress distribution acting on a structure's given section.
Rui Maciel
C
cognacc
I also learned to deistifguish between mass and weight.
I had physics training in school in 7.grade it started.
thats 13 years old...
i was interested in physics like things, so i might have known some a
bit earlier.?
Well i always had a problem with only exists a force when
accelerating.
Which started on philosifying what "force" was, and if there were
differnt kinds of ""forces""
(bending the terminology somewhat)!
Therefore i liked "pulse" calculations better, (M*v) and it also very
easy to use with vector
calculations. "YEAH" it was 1 of my favorite physics subjects.
Any way mass is not the same as weight, is the side i take ..
This was drilled into us both school (folk), at high school, and more.
So in a science context is bad form uhuh to use those
interchangably.
And a link that agrees with me..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html
also look at wikipedia first sentence elegently and short tells the
difference.
Maybe i missed it in what context was it? (the interview!).
Any way forgive the interviewer if its in his field its hard not to be
rigourous about
this.
mic
I had physics training in school in 7.grade it started.
thats 13 years old...
i was interested in physics like things, so i might have known some a
bit earlier.?
Well i always had a problem with only exists a force when
accelerating.
Which started on philosifying what "force" was, and if there were
differnt kinds of ""forces""
(bending the terminology somewhat)!
Therefore i liked "pulse" calculations better, (M*v) and it also very
easy to use with vector
calculations. "YEAH" it was 1 of my favorite physics subjects.
Any way mass is not the same as weight, is the side i take ..
This was drilled into us both school (folk), at high school, and more.
So in a science context is bad form
uhuh to use thoseinterchangably.
And a link that agrees with me..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html
also look at wikipedia first sentence elegently and short tells the
difference.
Maybe i missed it in what context was it? (the interview!).
Any way forgive the interviewer if its in his field its hard not to be
rigourous about
this.
mic
R
Richard Tobin
Well, what do you expect? You should be checking the "masses and
measures act".
-- Richard
O
osmium
"luserXtrog" wrrote:
"Considered" is a waffling word, so a bad guess here should not change a
numerical score. They should remove the word or remove the question if they
want to be taken seriously.
"Considered" is a waffling word, so a bad guess here should not change a
numerical score. They should remove the word or remove the question if they
want to be taken seriously.
D
Dik T. Winter
Which implies that a statement like you made (quoted above) point-blank
is in fact wrong. In some contexts it is better, in other contexts it
is not better.
D
Dik T. Winter
Yes, power to the masses.
I
Ike Naar
I can only admid that.
S
spinoza1111
Good answer
We're not worthy
Oops. The clear answer is Visual Basic. All the others have a VERY
IMPORTANT feature, and this is explicit block structure. VB doesn't
have explicit block structure:
If a>b then
c = 0
else
d = 0
end if
As I show in my book, there is a "virtual" block structure. The "then"
keyword in VB both ends the if condition, disposing with C's, perl's
and Java's need for a curley brace, and starts a block that is ended
by the closest Else, which must balance in the same way as the curley
brace.
But this was a confusing add-in to an original Basic which was like
Fortran and assembler in that it used Go To to express block
structure. It works well once you know it (I've written a compiler in
VB) but it tends to expose the narrowness, incompetence, and utter
proviciality of C programmers who've learned only a syntactical rule,
and not what block structure actually means.
Use your common sense and test-taking knowledge. Reason that in this
question, the narrower definition of C (which prohibits // comments,
as Heathfield reminded me) is meant.
If you can't deal with ambiguity, don't talk to end users.
What does "requisite" mean? If it means boo hoo I didn't see what I
wanted, welcome to the real world. Surely C is not THAT bad. Surely
you don't need a newline to push the last character out. Let me try
it...
int main()
{
printf("Goodbye, cruel world");
return 0;
}
No, it is not necessary.
Now, this response is IDIOTIC, and its based on the Great Illusion of
the Dweeb: that unless words have fixed meanings, thought isn't
possible.
Oh, COME ON.
In a recent essay of Knuth, Knuth properly identifies the REAL
function of programming languages: to help human beings communicate
their intentions in using their computers.
If this wasn't necessary, you could wire plugboards or code machine
language!
But, human language is contextual, with ambiguity that is resolved
only when a communicative act is performed.
This is for the same reason, in fact, that what linguists call an
"open" part of speech can only be associated with a word when that
word is used: for example, in Hong Kong English, we can say "no
smoking I will crazy", using "crazy" not as an adjective but as a
verb. We can also say lan dak wu to, it's not easy to get stupid, but
das ist ein anders.
The fact is, that programmers, unless intimidated by fat thugs, use
words like "command" to refer to #include statements.
False precision is not fungible with regards to intelligence.
The vicious attacks here on good people like Herb Schildt and Jacob
Navia are the direct result of this fucking illusion about the nature
of human language.
Smartass. This means, in fact, that C is broken if it is true, for no
usable language depends upon external settings (compiler switches) for
its semantics. Many Options are a sign of sodom.
Well, you have failed the test.
J
James Kuyper
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
....
Most strictly conforming C code can, with re-writes that are usually
relatively minor, be compiled with either C or C++ to generate the same
behavior as the original code. I'd say that's a fair amount of similarity.
....
Most strictly conforming C code can, with re-writes that are usually
relatively minor, be compiled with either C or C++ to generate the same
behavior as the original code. I'd say that's a fair amount of similarity.
P
Paul
Or it means that C is useful in an embedded software programming
environment where the developers are responsible for all code starting
with the microprocessor/microcontroller reset vector including the C
static memory initialization. This is just one example of a free-
standing environment. Even then we sometimes use main() as the entry
vector but not always defined in one of its two primary forms in a
hosted environment.
<snip>