I don’t see much of a “Microsoft gadget fanboi” market. People buy Microsoft because of a combination of (a) they don’t know better (b) it’s cheaper than Apple (c) it’s easier than the cheaper but less-supported alternatives. They won’t drop $hundreds on a shiny gadget that duplicates the functionality of their existing computers.
Don’t be absurd. Most model slashdotters just fly off half-cocked. Sometimes it seems like it’s asking too much that they even read the headlines correctly.
Unless they decide to let you go and see if they can’t hire some job-hungry programmer with a fresh CS degree who’ll be happy to work for 80% of the salary you’re unhappy with. Employer/employee loyalty goes both ways.
Here’s a revelation: If you weren’t being paid less for your work than its real value to your employer, you’d be a net loss to them and they wouldn’t employ you. What you’re calling exploitative is the difference between having a job at all and having none.
And if said software screws up and costs a few hundred million, or otherwise causes other "bad things" to happen, what's the accountability of the programmer or the manager?
$150,000 a year that they’ll not be paying him any more.
Huh? I wouldn’t expect to be paid anywhere near as much on the day I walked in the door as I’d be getting after I had shown a few years worth of consistent performance and productivity.
No, the AC’s last sentence is not referring to friction.
It does not mean that [the energy that does do work] is the only energy expense nor that for energy to be expended work must be done.
Essentially, it means this: To do work, one must expend energy. However, expending energy does not necessarily do work; a fraction of the energy you expend may accomplish no work and in fact it is possible to expend energy and not do any work.
For instance, holding a brick out stationary at an arm’s length requires a good deal of energy (effort) but accomplishes no work in the physics sense (because it is stationary).
Work is the dot product of force and displacement. If you recall the definition of the dot product of two vectors, it is the product of their magnitudes multiplied by the cosine of the angle between them. In other words, if they are parallel vectors the magnitude of the dot product is at its maximum value (the product of the magnitudes of the original two vectors) while if they are at 90 degree angles (perpendicular) to each other their dot product is zero and no work is being done by the force.
I admit that I assumed so too, on first read – that Anonymous was showing unauthorized use of his own photos in the summary – but they aren’t even from the same Flickr photostream:
When looking at the hand, string, rock system as described, my hand and the string both experience a Centrifugal Force (put a spring in there and prove it).
No, they are experiencing the inertia of the rock pulling back against the centripetal force.
What you are calling centrifugal force is nothing more than a fancy name for the inertia of a rotating object.
There are not two forces, though. There is the object’s velocity (which is not a force but rather an inertia) going in one direction, and there is a force acting upon the object (which accelerates the object... i.e. produces a velocity component normal to its current line of motion).
Now, if you want to talk about adding the velocity vectors and creating a new vector to describe the object’s motion, we’re A-ok.
A reactive centrifugal force is the reaction force to a centripetal force. A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. it is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration.[10][11][12] This conception of centrifugal force is very different from the fictitious force (i.e. the centrifugal force of common experience). As they both are given the same name, they may be easily conflated. Whereas the 'fictitious force' acts on the body moving in a circular path, the 'reactive force' is exerted by the body moving in a circular path onto some other object. The former is useful in analyzing the motion of the body in a rotating reference frame. The latter is not. The concept of the reactive centrifugal force is used often in mechanical engineering sources that deal with internal stresses in rotating solid bodies.[13] Newton's reactive centrifugal force still appears in some sources, and is often referred to as just centrifugal force rather than as reactive centrifugal force.
That is inertia. It is not some special force that you can call centrifugal force. It is just inertia, and the fact that you or anyone else wants to call it a reactive centrifugal force does not make it anything other than inertia.
Pull on an object and its inertia pulls back. That is all.
Quit trying to apply Newton’s third law to a situation to which it does not and cannot be applied. It causes such nonsense as needing imaginary forces to make your equations balance out.
You’re the one who can’t write a post without a stream of profanities throughout.
You claimed that there is a real force which you call centrifugal force. This has been refuted by multiple people multiple times in every way conceivable. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It is merely inertia, and Newton’s laws of motion do not apply because the frame of reference is accelerating. That you are too dumb to realise that you’re completely wrong, to dumb to realise that you have even been refuted, and in any case too dumb to quit arguing, I have concluded that stupid is a pretty good adjective to describe you.
Look, here’s a simple example of EXACTLY the same phenomenon that maybe even a moron like you will be able to comprehend.
You have a refrigerator on the back of your truck. Since you are a moron, you have it upright and don’t have it tied down at all. When you pull out of the parking space, lo and behold the refrigerator falls flat on its side and slides off the end of your truck bed.
Conclusion: Centrifugal force PUSHED that refrigerator over and right off the back of your truck. Refrigerators don’t just fall over! They have to be PUSHED. Oh yes indeed, it’s all the fault of that damn centrifugal force...
This is EXACTLY the same. The only difference is that it is a linearly accelerating frame of reference instead of a circularly accelerating one.
Yes, you are an asshat. The physical contact between your fingers and the keyboard on which you are typing this retarded shit is on the order of femtometers. ALL physical contact is on the order of femtometers at the least, unless we are talking about an atom-smasher that actually tries to get two bits of matter to touch just to see what sort of fireworks that causes.
I wrote something about the electromagnetic forces but apparently my quote tags got screwed up and Slashcode ate it. I must have left out a closing angle bracket. Something to the effect of we weren’t talking about electromagnetism at all, hence I forgot to include it, and if we are talking about it then we have a completely different system than one in which we are just considering centripetal forces – and I only threw in gravitation because it would almost always apply to any system we’d be considering even if we chose to ignore it for simplicity.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is you are wrong – ludicrously so – all along and at least two people who clearly know more about this than you have forgotten have both told you that you’re utterly dead wrong and now you’re just finding pedantic asshat excuses to quibble over a force that I omitted when I said that forces need physical objects in order to be transmitted.
Part of the solution is better accreditation systems to help (push?) the teachers to standardize their methods and exams. Another part of it is standardized testing (such as the GED, CAT, SAT, ACT, etc. in the US) so that you can grade all the students on one scale instead of trying to compare the grading scales of a million different teachers who vary in competency.
But there is no centrifugal force. You are talking about momentum. Momentum is inertia. It is not a force. Newton was wrong; his laws of motion do not apply to changing inertial frames of reference.
In a frictionless environment, the centripetal force need only be enough to accelerate the velocity vector while remaining at the same absolute value (same speed but a slightly different direction).
Now, since you want to take friction into account, the centripetal force needs to be slightly larger (than in the frictionless system) so as to accelerate the velocity vector so that, combined with the effect of the friction, the velocity vector still is accelerated so as to result in the same speed at a slightly different direction.
No, every molecule has a velocity and momentum and a centripetal force perpendicular to its direction of travel which accelerates it into a new velocity at the same absolute speed but at a slightly different direction such that its distance from the middle of the circle remains constant. There is no centrifugal force acting on the molecule. It’s imaginary. It does not exist.
What gives the rock it's momentum along the tangent? The String.
That is so wrong it’s not even funny any more. Momentum is a property of mass. Any mass that is moving has momentum. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRING. If the string vanished, the rock’s momentum would carry it in a perfectly straight line along its tangent. The string is only there to supply a force PERPENDICULAR to its line of motion. This is the ONLY force in action on the object.
In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv).
We’re done here. You can ask ANY college physics professor and he will tell you the exact same thing I have been telling you. Your claim that you have “calculated this using Calculus” is ludicrous; if you try calculate it with ANY OTHER FORCES besides centripetal force, IT DOESN’T WORK. The only force in the equation is the centripetal force. Not to mention that you don’t have any way of APPLYING your imaginary forces to the object. A string can only pull.
Slashdot Mirror
I don’t see much of a “Microsoft gadget fanboi” market. People buy Microsoft because of a combination of (a) they don’t know better (b) it’s cheaper than Apple (c) it’s easier than the cheaper but less-supported alternatives. They won’t drop $hundreds on a shiny gadget that duplicates the functionality of their existing computers.
Don’t be absurd. Most model slashdotters just fly off half-cocked. Sometimes it seems like it’s asking too much that they even read the headlines correctly.
True, but it still might not be worth the extra money to move out if you liked your old job and just wanted a raise.
Unless they decide to let you go and see if they can’t hire some job-hungry programmer with a fresh CS degree who’ll be happy to work for 80% of the salary you’re unhappy with. Employer/employee loyalty goes both ways.
Exploitative?
Here’s a revelation: If you weren’t being paid less for your work than its real value to your employer, you’d be a net loss to them and they wouldn’t employ you. What you’re calling exploitative is the difference between having a job at all and having none.
And if said software screws up and costs a few hundred million, or otherwise causes other "bad things" to happen, what's the accountability of the programmer or the manager?
$150,000 a year that they’ll not be paying him any more.
Huh? I wouldn’t expect to be paid anywhere near as much on the day I walked in the door as I’d be getting after I had shown a few years worth of consistent performance and productivity.
No, the AC’s last sentence is not referring to friction.
It does not mean that [the energy that does do work] is the only energy expense nor that for energy to be expended work must be done.
Essentially, it means this: To do work, one must expend energy. However, expending energy does not necessarily do work; a fraction of the energy you expend may accomplish no work and in fact it is possible to expend energy and not do any work.
For instance, holding a brick out stationary at an arm’s length requires a good deal of energy (effort) but accomplishes no work in the physics sense (because it is stationary).
Work is the dot product of force and displacement. If you recall the definition of the dot product of two vectors, it is the product of their magnitudes multiplied by the cosine of the angle between them. In other words, if they are parallel vectors the magnitude of the dot product is at its maximum value (the product of the magnitudes of the original two vectors) while if they are at 90 degree angles (perpendicular) to each other their dot product is zero and no work is being done by the force.
I admit that I assumed so too, on first read – that Anonymous was showing unauthorized use of his own photos in the summary – but they aren’t even from the same Flickr photostream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gord/4728742939/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/3911790207/in/set-72157622221823079/
Fine, go back and edit the post then to say what you meant to say originally.
When looking at the hand, string, rock system as described, my hand and the string both experience a Centrifugal Force (put a spring in there and prove it).
No, they are experiencing the inertia of the rock pulling back against the centripetal force.
What you are calling centrifugal force is nothing more than a fancy name for the inertia of a rotating object.
There are not two forces, though. There is the object’s velocity (which is not a force but rather an inertia) going in one direction, and there is a force acting upon the object (which accelerates the object... i.e. produces a velocity component normal to its current line of motion).
Now, if you want to talk about adding the velocity vectors and creating a new vector to describe the object’s motion, we’re A-ok.
That is inertia. You are pulling an object and causing it to accelerate. Its inertia resists this.
A reactive centrifugal force is the reaction force to a centripetal force. A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. it is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration.[10][11][12] This conception of centrifugal force is very different from the fictitious force (i.e. the centrifugal force of common experience). As they both are given the same name, they may be easily conflated. Whereas the 'fictitious force' acts on the body moving in a circular path, the 'reactive force' is exerted by the body moving in a circular path onto some other object. The former is useful in analyzing the motion of the body in a rotating reference frame. The latter is not. The concept of the reactive centrifugal force is used often in mechanical engineering sources that deal with internal stresses in rotating solid bodies.[13] Newton's reactive centrifugal force still appears in some sources, and is often referred to as just centrifugal force rather than as reactive centrifugal force.
That is inertia. It is not some special force that you can call centrifugal force. It is just inertia, and the fact that you or anyone else wants to call it a reactive centrifugal force does not make it anything other than inertia.
Pull on an object and its inertia pulls back. That is all.
Quit trying to apply Newton’s third law to a situation to which it does not and cannot be applied. It causes such nonsense as needing imaginary forces to make your equations balance out.
You’re the one who can’t write a post without a stream of profanities throughout.
You claimed that there is a real force which you call centrifugal force. This has been refuted by multiple people multiple times in every way conceivable. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It is merely inertia, and Newton’s laws of motion do not apply because the frame of reference is accelerating. That you are too dumb to realise that you’re completely wrong, to dumb to realise that you have even been refuted, and in any case too dumb to quit arguing, I have concluded that stupid is a pretty good adjective to describe you.
IT IS NOT!
Look, here’s a simple example of EXACTLY the same phenomenon that maybe even a moron like you will be able to comprehend.
You have a refrigerator on the back of your truck. Since you are a moron, you have it upright and don’t have it tied down at all. When you pull out of the parking space, lo and behold the refrigerator falls flat on its side and slides off the end of your truck bed.
Conclusion: Centrifugal force PUSHED that refrigerator over and right off the back of your truck. Refrigerators don’t just fall over! They have to be PUSHED. Oh yes indeed, it’s all the fault of that damn centrifugal force...
This is EXACTLY the same. The only difference is that it is a linearly accelerating frame of reference instead of a circularly accelerating one.
What you keep calling “centrifugal force” is INERTIA. Stop calling it centrifugal force. It isn’t.
Yes, you are an asshat. The physical contact between your fingers and the keyboard on which you are typing this retarded shit is on the order of femtometers. ALL physical contact is on the order of femtometers at the least, unless we are talking about an atom-smasher that actually tries to get two bits of matter to touch just to see what sort of fireworks that causes.
I wrote something about the electromagnetic forces but apparently my quote tags got screwed up and Slashcode ate it. I must have left out a closing angle bracket. Something to the effect of we weren’t talking about electromagnetism at all, hence I forgot to include it, and if we are talking about it then we have a completely different system than one in which we are just considering centripetal forces – and I only threw in gravitation because it would almost always apply to any system we’d be considering even if we chose to ignore it for simplicity.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is you are wrong – ludicrously so – all along and at least two people who clearly know more about this than you have forgotten have both told you that you’re utterly dead wrong and now you’re just finding pedantic asshat excuses to quibble over a force that I omitted when I said that forces need physical objects in order to be transmitted.
Part of the solution is better accreditation systems to help (push?) the teachers to standardize their methods and exams. Another part of it is standardized testing (such as the GED, CAT, SAT, ACT, etc. in the US) so that you can grade all the students on one scale instead of trying to compare the grading scales of a million different teachers who vary in competency.
But there is no centrifugal force. You are talking about momentum. Momentum is inertia. It is not a force. Newton was wrong; his laws of motion do not apply to changing inertial frames of reference.
The strong and weak nuclear forces DO require physical contact, unless you’re talking about separation distances in the femtometer range.
You’re clearly an asshat.
In a frictionless environment, the centripetal force need only be enough to accelerate the velocity vector while remaining at the same absolute value (same speed but a slightly different direction).
Now, since you want to take friction into account, the centripetal force needs to be slightly larger (than in the frictionless system) so as to accelerate the velocity vector so that, combined with the effect of the friction, the velocity vector still is accelerated so as to result in the same speed at a slightly different direction.
No, every molecule has a velocity and momentum and a centripetal force perpendicular to its direction of travel which accelerates it into a new velocity at the same absolute speed but at a slightly different direction such that its distance from the middle of the circle remains constant. There is no centrifugal force acting on the molecule. It’s imaginary. It does not exist.
What gives the rock it's momentum along the tangent? The String.
That is so wrong it’s not even funny any more. Momentum is a property of mass. Any mass that is moving has momentum. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRING. If the string vanished, the rock’s momentum would carry it in a perfectly straight line along its tangent. The string is only there to supply a force PERPENDICULAR to its line of motion. This is the ONLY force in action on the object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv).
We’re done here. You can ask ANY college physics professor and he will tell you the exact same thing I have been telling you. Your claim that you have “calculated this using Calculus” is ludicrous; if you try calculate it with ANY OTHER FORCES besides centripetal force, IT DOESN’T WORK. The only force in the equation is the centripetal force. Not to mention that you don’t have any way of APPLYING your imaginary forces to the object. A string can only pull.