back to article BOFH: Impatience

"You’re not listening to me!" the Boss snaps. "Hmm?" "You’re not listening to me!" "Course I am," I say distractedly. "What did I say then?" "The users are unhappy." "I… What about?" the Boss asks, temporarily foiled by my Geller-like guesswork. "Some user thing or the other – their stupidity, the computer doing what …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Dr. Mouse

    Hate to be pedantic...

    erm, actually no that's a lie, I LOVE being pedantic, it's everyone else who hates it :)

    Anyway back to my point, it's E=mc^2 (superscript 2, not subscript 2), and to be precise it is in that case (upper case E, lower case m and c) if I remember my physics correctly.

    It is SO true though. Myself, I prefer Freecell, but there is nothing more anoying than someone trying to help you when playing solitair

  2. Mike Morris
    Coat

    I need one....

    Really, I need to get my own PFY. So much energy, so useful.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  3. Vaidotas Zemlys
    Flame

    Anihilation

    Correct me if I wrong, but I thought atomic bomb comes nowhere near E=mc^2. Only by anihilation of particle and antiparticle you do get all the energy released by this formula. No?

  4. SnowHawk
    Go

    PFY energy

    Given the typical energy output I observe every day from my 7yo son, I would have to say that the PFY was quite restrained in his response.

  5. Dalen
    Gates Horns

    @Mike Morris

    Lucky me, I already do. :D

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re:Hate to be pedantic...

    Not being pedantic enough if you ask me. E=mc^2 is the Mass–energy equivalence the Einstein cam up with. The "Theory of relativity" is something a bit different.

  7. Philip Kroker
    Stop

    WHY???

    on earth is the BOFH story posted under the bootnotes heading instead of its own BOFH heading? I reckon its an evil plot to make it more difficult for us to get our weekly BOFH fix.

  8. Dave
    Happy

    Safer...

    Fortunately, there are safer computer games....such as nethack.

    Dave

    P.S. I'll get me coat. It's the one over there somewhere that's not moving (Heisenberg and all that).

  9. Joe Stalin
    Boffin

    @Hate to be pedantic...

    But is it not E=mc^2 / 1 - (v^2/c^2)? Something to do with the liberation of kenetic energy when a moving partical is anihilated as well as the energy from the mass itself.

  10. Herby

    Yes, we all need one, but...

    As everyone knows every BOFH started out life as a PFY at one time or another. Therein lies a problem. Yes, we need one, but if they get too much knowledge, the castle coup takes place at some time. It happens when the PFY gets the BOFH (or the pretender to BOFHdom) relieved at some time.

    Yes, I was a PFY at one time (it was the 60's). Then I became a BOFH, and then relieved. Changing of bosses, did me in.

  11. Ed
    Thumb Up

    E=MC2

    Personally, I like the idea that Energy is equal to Mass times two Carbon atoms. It makes things nice and easy.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    E=MC^2

    E=MC^2 only applies for annihilation of a particle and antiparticle which have no kinetic energy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence#Background

  13. Frumious Bandersnatch
    Flame

    Re: Anihilation

    No, you don't have to anihilate the full atom. If a U-235 nucleus decays into a smaller nucleus, only the difference in mass between the former and latter nucleus is converted into energy (though remember to take account of the mass of any new particles in the new configuration).

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    actually

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 +(pc)^2 where p is the momentum of the particle. E=mc^2 is the case with zero momentum.

  15. Scott

    @under bootnotes

    at least this episode showed up in my RSS reader...... unlike every other episode.

  16. Hugh McIntyre
    Boffin

    @Vaidotas Zemlys

    >>Correct me if I wrong, but I thought atomic bomb comes nowhere near E=mc^2. Only by anihilation of particle and antiparticle you do get all the energy released by this formula. No?

    If you check the weights in an atomic table, they are not exact integers. So in a reaction such as

    235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY

    the atoms don't have exact integer weights of 235, 92, and 142 (because of binding energy). instead this works out as:

    235.0439231 + 1 -> 2 + 91.9261528 +141.9164482+ ENERGY

    energy = 235.0439231 - 91.9261528 + 141.9164482 - 1

    energy = 0.201322 (atomic mass units)

    That 0.201 of missing mass after the reaction shows up as energy based on E=MC^2. It's not *all* of the energy in the 235U nucleus, but it's still a pretty big valua and is based on E=MC^2.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Atomic weights

    In periodic tables are averages of the different atomic masses of the different isotopes of the element, weighted for their relative abundance. To get the actual relative atomic mass you need to look a bit further than your bog standard periodic table.

    http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=

    Hmm we need a science icon

    Efros

  18. Paul
    Alert

    binding energy

    very very briefly. atomic bombs, fusion or fission, work on the change in binding energy which holds the nucleus together. Light nuclei (H, He, Li etc) when combined release energy, the heaviest (U, Pu) release energy when broken up. IIRC, Iron is the most "efficient" nucleus in terms of mass vs binding energy.

    but all this is from 20 year old memories of physics.

  19. Neil Daniels
    Alert

    @Scott

    Too right, I suspect a plot by the boss to have past episodes float by unnoticed...

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Not Lame

    Not Lame

  21. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Going Nuclear ...

    All this talk of atomic fussion, fission, atomic weight and whatnot begs the question of what the outcome would be if the BOFH and PFY got two Paris Hiltons and banged them together ?

  22. raulDuke
    Paris Hilton

    I would assume something like this

    http://www.jimbastard.com/Jim_pwns_a_womans_cell_phone_on_the_train.html

  23. Scott Jones

    More pedantry

    Dr. Mouse, I also love being pedantic, so I must of course point out that you've misspelt "solitaire". ;-)

  24. Chris Peschke
    Happy

    BOFH RSS Feed

    Best Feed Ever: http://feed.theregister.co.uk/atom?q=bofh

  25. Hugh McIntyre

    @Atomic Weights (Efros / AC)

    > In periodic tables are averages of the different atomic masses of the different isotopes of the element, weighted for their relative abundance. To get the actual relative atomic mass you need to look a bit further than your bog standard periodic table.

    Good point. But I did check the per-isotope weights on a per-isotope web site, so the posted numbers should be correct, I think.

  26. Michael
    Boffin

    @Joe Stalin

    "But is it not E=mc^2 / 1 - (v^2/c^2)? Something to do with the liberation of kenetic energy when a moving partical is anihilated as well as the energy from the mass itself."

    Order of operations, gentlemen. Either the "/ 1" is superfluous, or that formula should read E=mc^2 / (1 - (v^2/c^2)). Quite a difference there...

  27. DJ
    Pirate

    E=MC + DJ + Alchohol = Good time by all.

    Damn, and I though I was nerdy.

    You all need to chill out and just appreciate the storyline.

    Now, While you are pondering that, Wheres my CattleProd....

    <BRZZZZT>

    OoPS WroNG End

  28. SPiT
    Boffin

    Einstein stuff

    The proper equations are

    E = MC^2 where M is the current mass of the object

    or

    E = mC^2/(1-V^2/C^2) where m is the rest mass of the object

    The second equation is simply a way of deriving the energy (or indirectly the active mass) of an moving object.

    The key understanding is that energy and mass are in fact the same thing. Once you pick up that part of it things all start to make more sense.

    Also, the equations are from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity (the first one) rather than General Relativity. Special Relativity only properly handles objects travelling with constant velocity in free space. Once you introduce any sort of acceleration you need General Relativity and the world gets a whole lot more complicated.

  29. Scott
    Boffin

    @Chris Peschke

    nice! ;)

    cheers

  30. Fuzzy
    Boffin

    Pfftt - E=mc^2

    The best explosive force is not as many believe the reaction of matter and anti-matter it is that of a 7y.o. with a half a can of red bull and a fairy floss coursing through his veins

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021