To understand special relativity you must think clearly.
1) If Flash runs at the speed of light for 5 minutes STOP
5 minutes in whose frame of reference? a) In 5 minutes in the earth's frame of reference, the Flash would age 0 minutes. b) In the frame of reference traveling at the speed of light, time does not progress. You can't spend 5 minutes traveling at the speed of light!!!
This makes no sense, so perhaps you mean this question.
2) If Flash runs near the speed of light for 5 minutes (by his watch), how much time would have passed when he is finished?
The answer is that any amount of time between 5 minutes and infinity could have passed depending on how close the Flash was to the speed of light.
However, there is no where on earth that would take 5 minutes traveling near the speed of light, only seconds. That length of time is on the order of traveling to the Sun.
A calorie is a unit of energy, there are 1000 calories in a dietary calorie.
As far as gross structure of the physical universe is concerned (sizes much larger than the plank scale), the calories of food required is a "real" number and is not countable.
As far as reading food labels is concerned, the calories of food eaten is an "integer" number and is countable.
And considering the context, a physics class, there is no grammatical error in using the word "amount". It only seems akward, because you are thinking of the word "calorie" in a different sense.
I am afraid that storing the energy into angular kinetic energy would only cause you to miss fire. The momentum of the hammer would cause Thor to lift off of the ground early or lose his footing.
For this to work properly, Thor would have to hold the hammer out and spin around the center of mass. However this would look like Thor is dancing with the hammer, and that would look gay.
Any how, the hammer is magic, so physics doesn't have to apply.
Intel's compiler beat gcc badly on the Monte Carlo and Mazebench(w/o image saves). Both these two apps use rand() and there are multitudes of different algorithms for random numbers.
Perhaps the Intel compiler is using it's own algorithm for rand() that cuts corners?
GW made him self clear in that he is against government intervention.
The man likes a free economy, and to some extent I must agree. Microsoft's monopoly really only hurts the slow and stupid. The world of Microsoft products seems to have no bearing on my life and the Open Source movement is doing what no company or government could ever do against it.
If the statement "all human statements are fallable" is true, then the statement itself is fallable too, right? And that would mean that perhaps some statements are not fallable, right? Hmm, yes, no, maybe.
This foundation that you take, which many have taken, is also the foundation of the Jains. But they claim that there is no contradiction.
It is not an end in its self, but it leads to good things.
I met an american girl that, up until the 7th grade, thought we live inside the Earth.
In the middle of class, she asked how the space shuttles got out of the Earth.
When asked where the light comes from, she replied "lava I guess", then we asked her how we can see the sun . . . a big dose of satori slapped her upside the head.
(A) You are a human (B) Everything you think you know is a human concept (C) Humans are extremely fallable (D) You make countless assumptions in your everyday life: inference, distinctness, existence,...
Either you have fooled your self, or you are a Madyhamika Buddhist.
I think a point that many people forget when accusing theism of inhumanity is that if atheism is true then theism is empty and the church is hollow. And therefore, there is no real purpose to pointing out the evils of the church, because it is empty and the evil lies in man.
The immediate reply is "that what I am saying, the church is evil", but that is missing the point. If there is no god, then there is no church, it is man that is evil. Pointing to the church would be like a victim pointing to a gun.
The argument against atheism is dissimilar but still just as invalid.
I just wish that more people would think about these things before repeating them over and over. A perpetuated lie is the worst kind, because it has a certain inertia that is difficult to erase.
One day after a new RedHat release came out, I decided that instead of upgrading, I would convert to Debian.
The installer, while thorough (anally tedious), was a bit crappy (a big pile of shit, might as well install packages by hand).
But I digress, that was not the issue as it would have not stopped me from converting. The main issue was that the kernel modules were so old that my network card would not work (tulip) and the XFree version was so crufty that my video card was unsupported in anything but VGA looking resolutions and colors. (Oh and my sound card didn't work also, SBLive.)
Of course, as you may have guessed, both of these things were working in my older version of RedHat. And if it were not for the network card module farting everywhere, I might have even continued and attempted to download newer packages.
But lo, I was completely unable to do anything. RedHat seems to have improved, so I can't really complain about them anymore. But Debian should put some kind of a warning label on their distro, "Do not use with computers newer than 1998" or something.
First you must consider the base language construct of the unconditional cast.
struct A {... }; struct B {... };
A * ptr_to_A = new A(); B * ptr_to_B = (B*)A;
In the base language "C" the above is legal, will compile just fine, and is totaly wrong. This program would likely fail catostrophically. This is the generic version of an actual problem we (at my company) just found in a comercial "C" product.
I am afraid I cannot follow you, because although you claim that this code is legal in "C", there is no "new" in C, as you must use malloc. Also "A()" makes no sense.
Although I know what you are trying to communicate is in the second line, I do not trust any of it, because it is not C.
Take some analysis and come back when you understand that the word "infinity" encompasses many different meanings and amounts, and that some of these are very well understood.
Take some upper level physics and come back when you understand that whenever "infinity" is in an integral or calculation, it is an approximation.
Science and math is very simple, it is the philosophy and epistomology that is complicated without certain solution.
Gimp is planned to have arbitrary color space support in the future.
They will get around the patents by linking to a library (I think) that is in development.
I suppose that if the color library's files were on a server in China and users were forced to download the file from there, then Apple and all of the other rotten fruits of the IP world couldn't attack the Gimp developers.
This is similar to the situation with encrypted PDF files.
Slashdot Mirror
To understand special relativity you must think clearly.
1) If Flash runs at the speed of light for 5 minutes STOP
5 minutes in whose frame of reference?
a) In 5 minutes in the earth's frame of reference, the Flash would age 0 minutes.
b) In the frame of reference traveling at the speed of light, time does not progress. You can't spend 5 minutes traveling at the speed of light!!!
This makes no sense, so perhaps you mean this question.
2) If Flash runs near the speed of light for 5 minutes (by his watch), how much time would have passed when he is finished?
The answer is that any amount of time between 5 minutes and infinity could have passed depending on how close the Flash was to the speed of light.
However, there is no where on earth that would take 5 minutes traveling near the speed of light, only seconds. That length of time is on the order of traveling to the Sun.
Or better yet, why is the space so dusty that all of the laser blasts have sooo much side scattering that you can see them from all around.
A calorie is a unit of energy, there are 1000 calories in a dietary calorie.
As far as gross structure of the physical universe is concerned (sizes much larger than the plank scale), the calories of food required is a "real" number and is not countable.
As far as reading food labels is concerned, the calories of food eaten is an "integer" number and is countable.
And considering the context, a physics class, there is no grammatical error in using the word "amount". It only seems akward, because you are thinking of the word "calorie" in a different sense.
When you do not look down, what is beneath your feet is in a super position of land, water, and air, these are the quantum states.
When you look down, you make a measurement. The wave function collapses.
Also to note is that road runners can tunnel through paintings of tunnels.
And LO, this is obvious evidence that the observer actually effects the physical system!!!
I am afraid that storing the energy into angular kinetic energy would only cause you to miss fire. The momentum of the hammer would cause Thor to lift off of the ground early or lose his footing.
For this to work properly, Thor would have to hold the hammer out and spin around the center of mass. However this would look like Thor is dancing with the hammer, and that would look gay.
Any how, the hammer is magic, so physics doesn't have to apply.
Nooo
Han is gay!
Theses two compilers both use glibc right?
Intel's compiler beat gcc badly on the Monte Carlo and Mazebench(w/o image saves). Both these two apps use rand() and there are multitudes of different algorithms for random numbers.
Perhaps the Intel compiler is using it's own algorithm for rand() that cuts corners?
GW made him self clear in that he is against government intervention.
The man likes a free economy, and to some extent I must agree. Microsoft's monopoly really only hurts the slow and stupid. The world of Microsoft products seems to have no bearing on my life and the Open Source movement is doing what no company or government could ever do against it.
But it's not really up to GW or myself, so WGAFF!
Outside of the math community Latex is not used very much (it never was, for obvious reasons of lack of user friendliness).
You forget physics, some chemistry, engineering, symbolic logic, and some computer science.
As far as I am concerned, that is everything.
They mean in terms of hardware not in sales.
If the statement
"all human statements are fallable"
is true, then the statement itself is fallable too, right? And that would mean that perhaps some statements are not fallable, right? Hmm, yes, no, maybe.
This foundation that you take, which many have taken, is also the foundation of the Jains. But they claim that there is no contradiction.
It is not an end in its self, but it leads to good things.
I have you beat.
I met an american girl that, up until the 7th grade, thought we live inside the Earth.
In the middle of class, she asked how the space shuttles got out of the Earth.
When asked where the light comes from, she replied "lava I guess", then we asked her how we can see the sun . . . a big dose of satori slapped her upside the head.
this was honors class too
Aghh
He assumes atmospheric pressure in hell.
THE FOOL!!!
Your own argument would destroy you!
...
(A) You are a human
(B) Everything you think you know is a human concept
(C) Humans are extremely fallable
(D) You make countless assumptions in your everyday life: inference, distinctness, existence,
Either you have fooled your self, or you are a Madyhamika Buddhist.
I think a point that many people forget when accusing theism of inhumanity is that if atheism is true then theism is empty and the church is hollow. And therefore, there is no real purpose to pointing out the evils of the church, because it is empty and the evil lies in man.
The immediate reply is "that what I am saying, the church is evil", but that is missing the point. If there is no god, then there is no church, it is man that is evil. Pointing to the church would be like a victim pointing to a gun.
The argument against atheism is dissimilar but still just as invalid.
I just wish that more people would think about these things before repeating them over and over. A perpetuated lie is the worst kind, because it has a certain inertia that is difficult to erase.
You don't have to believe in science, troll.
You don't have to trust anyone.
That is the whole point of science.
Sometimes I wonder if we are the first generation to have better toys than this generation.
One day after a new RedHat release came out, I decided that instead of upgrading, I would convert to Debian.
The installer, while thorough (anally tedious), was a bit crappy (a big pile of shit, might as well install packages by hand).
But I digress, that was not the issue as it would have not stopped me from converting. The main issue was that the kernel modules were so old that my network card would not work (tulip) and the XFree version was so crufty that my video card was unsupported in anything but VGA looking resolutions and colors. (Oh and my sound card didn't work also, SBLive.)
Of course, as you may have guessed, both of these things were working in my older version of RedHat. And if it were not for the network card module farting everywhere, I might have even continued and attempted to download newer packages.
But lo, I was completely unable to do anything. RedHat seems to have improved, so I can't really complain about them anymore. But Debian should put some kind of a warning label on their distro, "Do not use with computers newer than 1998" or something.
And yes I am trolling, but I have the right to!
First you must consider the base language construct of the unconditional cast.
struct A {
struct B {
A * ptr_to_A = new A();
B * ptr_to_B = (B*)A;
In the base language "C" the above is legal, will compile just fine, and is totaly wrong. This program would likely fail catostrophically. This is the generic version of an actual problem we (at my company) just found in a comercial "C" product.
I am afraid I cannot follow you, because although you claim that this code is legal in "C", there is no "new" in C, as you must use malloc. Also "A()" makes no sense.
Although I know what you are trying to communicate is in the second line, I do not trust any of it, because it is not C.
But for the price of a CD you could find a 56k modem in a dumpster.
You think that is simple, check this false explanation out
"Photons naturally loose energy over time, and thus redshift over long distances."
It is so simple and so wrong, but it could seriously fuck up the understanding of everything.
Bah
Take some analysis and come back when you understand that the word "infinity" encompasses many different meanings and amounts, and that some of these are very well understood.
Take some upper level physics and come back when you understand that whenever "infinity" is in an integral or calculation, it is an approximation.
Science and math is very simple, it is the philosophy and epistomology that is complicated without certain solution.
Gravity has everything to do with time.
Space&Time and Mass&Energy are the "variables" of gravitational theory.
Gimp is planned to have arbitrary color space support in the future.
They will get around the patents by linking to a library (I think) that is in development.
I suppose that if the color library's files were on a server in China and users were forced to download the file from there, then Apple and all of the other rotten fruits of the IP world couldn't attack the Gimp developers.
This is similar to the situation with encrypted PDF files.
It's called doublespeak and it is true of stupid people all over the world.
You need to read 1984.