10 = 2
Actually, Duoas, I think that my way of thinking is superior to the so-called "Mac way of thinking" for my own purposes (but probably not others'), and I am entitled to that.
And... +1 helios.
-Albatross
And... +1 helios.
-Albatross
I find this amusing:
http://www.1000topics.com/shaving-with-a-bowling-pin/
Anyway, I personally think that "Mac = social movement" is retarded. You (probably) shouldn't buy stuff just because it makes you feel special...
http://www.1000topics.com/shaving-with-a-bowling-pin/
Anyway, I personally think that "Mac = social movement" is retarded. You (probably) shouldn't buy stuff just because it makes you feel special...
I only hate OSX because I can't run it on my hardware. I hate apple because they consistently say "macs don't get viruses". Then, when someone creates malware for OSX they don't release a patch for ages. I also hate their stupid iProduct naming system and I also hate that they sell computers with relatively low specs for ridiculous prices. I've planned a relatively powerful PC (and not even because I want to play Crysis (who would?) but because I'm a geek); including a Phenom II 965 ( going DDR3 :) ); 2 GiB PC3-1600 RAM and a ATi 4890 for < £600. The cheapest macbook you can buy according to apple.com is $999 which is about £690.
OSX would be a good OS if I could afford and run it. Apple will never be a good company.
OSX would be a good OS if I could afford and run it. Apple will never be a good company.
A good GNU/Linux distribution can be far easier to use and can produce far better results in the field of shaving than Windows, although that was only my experience.
-Albatross
-Albatross
closed account (z05DSL3A)
I dont need a mouse for my Mac, the Multi-Touch trackpad is all I need for precise cursor control.
But even if I did need a mouse, the magic mouse is pretty cool.
But even if I did need a mouse, the magic mouse is pretty cool.
| "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" Now, I personally dislike the question -- you can't "stop" gravity, but you can overcome it. And I don't think there's such thing as an immovable object. But, minor details aside, what do you think? |
My "answer" to this is problem actually pretty simple. I assume that an immovable object has infinite friction - not allowing speed change, therefor V and Sigma F are both 0. Whereas the the unstoppable force (object, really) has infinite V and/or Sigma F and no friction. Therefor, if the unstoppable object would hit the unmoving object, the unmoving object cannot supply a reacting force to push the unstoppable one out of it, since that would cause a reaction in it's own movement. Therefor, the unstoppable object will go THROUGH the immovable object (like you once did in those retro-platform games).
| (object, really) |
In order to break something, you have to move it, however slightly. You can't take something apart without moving parts of it relative to the whole. If there's such a thing as an immovable object, then it must also be indestructible.
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24580/page2.html#msg130379
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24580/page2.html#msg130398
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24580/page2.html#msg130430
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox
I misinterpreted the part where he actually meant force, whereas the sentence implied he meant an object.
Nevertheless, when something can't move, it cannot make other things move (or otherwise affect their movement) since applying such forces would cause a reaction and thus movement, which as earlier stated is not possible. Therefor anything that CANNOT move at all, is immovable, indestructible (true on what you said) but also non-solid in a certain manner.
Nevertheless, when something can't move, it cannot make other things move (or otherwise affect their movement) since applying such forces would cause a reaction and thus movement, which as earlier stated is not possible. Therefor anything that CANNOT move at all, is immovable, indestructible (true on what you said) but also non-solid in a certain manner.
If it's non-solid then it's a fluid. An unmovable fluid is an oxymoron.
The question of what exactly would happen when a movable object A and an immovable object B collide is equivalent to the original question. It's not necessarily true that B can't affect B's motion. If two objects meet, their motion must be somehow affected. If it wasn't, then they didn't collide, which means at least one of them is immaterial. That could be a solution, but it just raises more questions. How exactly is B an object while also being immaterial? How can you say that [the force A would've applied to B] and B met if A and B didn't actually collide?
The question of what exactly would happen when a movable object A and an immovable object B collide is equivalent to the original question. It's not necessarily true that B can't affect B's motion. If two objects meet, their motion must be somehow affected. If it wasn't, then they didn't collide, which means at least one of them is immaterial. That could be a solution, but it just raises more questions. How exactly is B an object while also being immaterial? How can you say that [the force A would've applied to B] and B met if A and B didn't actually collide?
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.