Two objects that have always contained numerical values, were assigned numerical values, are treated as strings. You always have to explicitly cast them as numbers. Which is bogus. Just the typing alone hurts my fingers.
Bu-u-u-llshit! Try the following
var i = 1;
var j = 2;
alert ( "This is a test : " + ( i + j ) );
As much as I'd like for this to be true, what they sold you was, "X Gigabytes/Month @ Y Data Rate, consumed by normal usage of the device without tehering an external device." It's in your contract. I you don't like the terms, don't agree to them. Now, of course, it's not like there is actual competition, but, nobody says you have to buy the service. Just forgo it.
Typing in slashdot sucks in anyy browser in my experience. Ever since their latest round of updates it is obivious that they areo doing soe heavy and badly optimized JS sutff on every single keystroke. My guess is they are doing really inefficient queries oby class or somesuch using something like JQuery. It is a travesty.
Nice response. I'm pretty sure this guy is trolling because I have nothing like that experience. I bounce back and forth between FF 4 (actually mindefield), Epiphany Webkit, and Chromium. They all prform similarly while FF is much more feature rich. Keep up the good work. Thanks for making the Web great!
Wrong-o! Gotta say, Unity/GnomeShell is a train wreck! Please, someone tell me how I can keep my beloved Spatial Nautilus/Compiz Fusion desktop I know and love!
Reading through the discussion above and below, it's clear that posters are talking about different systems - this is why the first thing an applied mathematician or physicist does is to draw a diagram, and to state any assumptions. For example I think gbutler69 was talking about a system with the "hand" moving in a circle to impart a force to maintain the kinetic energy of the rock, where KE was being lost to air friction, and the responders were assuming a frictionless system with a rigid, fixed "hand".
Yes, that is what I've been saying all along. They keep wanting to talk about the system as the ROCK and what forces are acting on it in its non-inertial frame of reference. Or they want to talk only about the forces acting on the rock in the inertial frame of reference. I was talking about the forces acting within the system of hand, string, rock. Where there is clearly a notion of Centrifugal Force that agrees with all accepted definitions of the term and is commonly used in engineering calculations etc when determining internal stresses of a system. Thank You kindly for bringing further clarification to the point.
No, what you keep claiming that I am calling Centrifugal Force is inertia. What I am calling Centrifugal Force is Centrifugal Force. From Wikipedia:
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.
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.
Wow! You really are a complete piece of shit! You have repeatedly called me stupid and names while refuting something I never claimed. You are a fool. You don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. Fuck you you lousy, rotten, stupid jack-ass.
The WHOLE WORLD used centrifugal force to refer to the rock even though it doesn't exist? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY context I've ever heard centrifugal force be rightly used is when applied to the rock and the string (i.e. the thing exerting the centripetal force). This is basic. I was only responding to the contention that "there is no such thing as Centrifugal Force". Yes there is. Centripetal Force (center seeking) means a force directed towards the center of a circle. It means that you are defining a force vector that is constantly changing in direction with respect to time so as to always point towards the center of a circle. Centrifugal Force is the opposite. It is a force that is dynamically changing in direction with respect to time such that it always points outward from the center of a circle. Centripetal vs. Centrifugal are just words to describe the dynamically changing direction of a particular force in a system. 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). The rock is experiencing a centripetal force. What is so fucking hard for you to grasp? You are an ASSHAT!
Replace a part of the string with a spring. Now, cut the string between the string and the rock. The rock flies off tangent to the circle, obviously no centrifugal force on the rock. The spring instantaneously springs back. What was pulling outward on the spring? A centrifugal force! Duh! Yeah, I'm a blow-hard and a simpleton. I think not. You foolishly argued with me about there not being a centrifugal force on the rock when I never said there was. I said, over, and over, and over, and over again I was talking about the force exterted outward on the string or on my hand. You are repeating something you KNOW to be sure without truly thinking or listening to the other person. In summary, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!
You are an asshole because you keep pointing out how I'm wrong that the rock is experiencing CENTRIFUGAL FORCE when I never made any such claim. I said, very clearly, that my hand and the string was experiencing a CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. You cannot deny this is true without sounding like an asshole to me. And as far as profanity is concerned, I consider it completely acceptable to call an asshole an asshole. So bite me!
What is that force my hand feels pullling on it? Which direction does it point? Answer: Away from the center of the circle about which the rock is revolving. So, is is CENTRIFUGAL (i.e. a force pointing away from the center) FORCE exerted against my hand. How can you not see this? You keep saying, "There is no centrifgual force on the rock". Yep, I agree. But, to deny that there is a CENTRIFUGAL FORCE on my hand is ludicrous!
I'm an asshat because, "strong and weak nuclear forces DO require physical contact, UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SEPARATION DISTANCES IN THE FEMTOMETER RANGE". So, first we are talking about separation and not physical contact for these forces to act on the scales that they normally are applicable. But, then you completely ignore the HUGE PINK ELEPHANT in the room, "Electro-Magnetic" which have effects over very large distances. So, yeah, I guess I'm an asshat for pointing out that gravity is not even close to the only force that doesn't require contact to have an effect. Yeah, I'M THE ASSHAT! RIGHT!
Slashdot Mirror
Two objects that have always contained numerical values, were assigned numerical values, are treated as strings. You always have to explicitly cast them as numbers. Which is bogus. Just the typing alone hurts my fingers.
Bu-u-u-llshit! Try the following
var i = 1; var j = 2; alert ( "This is a test : " + ( i + j ) );
This has got to be one of the stupidest criticisms of Javascript I have ever read.
Every generator I've ever worked with could have the RPM adjusted to achive the desired Hz. You could get 50, 60, 40, whatever you wanted.
......and they were ANAL BEADS! Get of MY lawn.
As much as I'd like for this to be true, what they sold you was, "X Gigabytes/Month @ Y Data Rate, consumed by normal usage of the device without tehering an external device." It's in your contract. I you don't like the terms, don't agree to them. Now, of course, it's not like there is actual competition, but, nobody says you have to buy the service. Just forgo it.
Typing in slashdot sucks in anyy browser in my experience. Ever since their latest round of updates it is obivious that they areo doing soe heavy and badly optimized JS sutff on every single keystroke. My guess is they are doing really inefficient queries oby class or somesuch using something like JQuery. It is a travesty.
Nice response. I'm pretty sure this guy is trolling because I have nothing like that experience. I bounce back and forth between FF 4 (actually mindefield), Epiphany Webkit, and Chromium. They all prform similarly while FF is much more feature rich. Keep up the good work. Thanks for making the Web great!
Wrong-o! Gotta say, Unity/GnomeShell is a train wreck! Please, someone tell me how I can keep my beloved Spatial Nautilus/Compiz Fusion desktop I know and love!
I thought all real men came with a tool for spew preinstalled?!? Oh, Well, you live and you learn.
You don't know THE TRUTH! I DO! OK, I'll stop yelling now!
Yeah, exactly like goin to the moon. There was no food or water there when you got there and you would be killed by radiation.
I can't wait to start toying with Perl 6. So, they'll be seeing me come back. Fortunately, you are not the world.
it's ambiguous.
No it isn't.
Is the string an integer? A floating point number? Is it hex, binary, or octal?
Perl will figure out which it is automatically and correctly every time
because Solaris is still a niche market,
There, fixed that for you.
Reading through the discussion above and below, it's clear that posters are talking about different systems - this is why the first thing an applied mathematician or physicist does is to draw a diagram, and to state any assumptions. For example I think gbutler69 was talking about a system with the "hand" moving in a circle to impart a force to maintain the kinetic energy of the rock, where KE was being lost to air friction, and the responders were assuming a frictionless system with a rigid, fixed "hand".
Yes, that is what I've been saying all along. They keep wanting to talk about the system as the ROCK and what forces are acting on it in its non-inertial frame of reference. Or they want to talk only about the forces acting on the rock in the inertial frame of reference. I was talking about the forces acting within the system of hand, string, rock. Where there is clearly a notion of Centrifugal Force that agrees with all accepted definitions of the term and is commonly used in engineering calculations etc when determining internal stresses of a system. Thank You kindly for bringing further clarification to the point.
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.
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.
Wow! You really are a complete piece of shit! You have repeatedly called me stupid and names while refuting something I never claimed. You are a fool. You don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. Fuck you you lousy, rotten, stupid jack-ass.
Did you read my correction that I made immediately after posting? I already corrected myself.
used is when applied to the rock and the string
Correction: I meant, "...when applied to the HAND and the string..."
The WHOLE WORLD used centrifugal force to refer to the rock even though it doesn't exist? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY context I've ever heard centrifugal force be rightly used is when applied to the rock and the string (i.e. the thing exerting the centripetal force). This is basic. I was only responding to the contention that "there is no such thing as Centrifugal Force". Yes there is. Centripetal Force (center seeking) means a force directed towards the center of a circle. It means that you are defining a force vector that is constantly changing in direction with respect to time so as to always point towards the center of a circle. Centrifugal Force is the opposite. It is a force that is dynamically changing in direction with respect to time such that it always points outward from the center of a circle. Centripetal vs. Centrifugal are just words to describe the dynamically changing direction of a particular force in a system. 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). The rock is experiencing a centripetal force. What is so fucking hard for you to grasp? You are an ASSHAT!
Replace a part of the string with a spring. Now, cut the string between the string and the rock. The rock flies off tangent to the circle, obviously no centrifugal force on the rock. The spring instantaneously springs back. What was pulling outward on the spring? A centrifugal force! Duh! Yeah, I'm a blow-hard and a simpleton. I think not. You foolishly argued with me about there not being a centrifugal force on the rock when I never said there was. I said, over, and over, and over, and over again I was talking about the force exterted outward on the string or on my hand. You are repeating something you KNOW to be sure without truly thinking or listening to the other person. In summary, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!
You are an asshole because you keep pointing out how I'm wrong that the rock is experiencing CENTRIFUGAL FORCE when I never made any such claim. I said, very clearly, that my hand and the string was experiencing a CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. You cannot deny this is true without sounding like an asshole to me. And as far as profanity is concerned, I consider it completely acceptable to call an asshole an asshole. So bite me!
What is that force my hand feels pullling on it? Which direction does it point? Answer: Away from the center of the circle about which the rock is revolving. So, is is CENTRIFUGAL (i.e. a force pointing away from the center) FORCE exerted against my hand. How can you not see this? You keep saying, "There is no centrifgual force on the rock". Yep, I agree. But, to deny that there is a CENTRIFUGAL FORCE on my hand is ludicrous!
I'm an asshat because, "strong and weak nuclear forces DO require physical contact, UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SEPARATION DISTANCES IN THE FEMTOMETER RANGE". So, first we are talking about separation and not physical contact for these forces to act on the scales that they normally are applicable. But, then you completely ignore the HUGE PINK ELEPHANT in the room, "Electro-Magnetic" which have effects over very large distances. So, yeah, I guess I'm an asshat for pointing out that gravity is not even close to the only force that doesn't require contact to have an effect. Yeah, I'M THE ASSHAT! RIGHT!