Answer:
Explanation:
1) C program file addressOfScalar.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
//intialize a char variable, print its address and the next address
char charvar = 'a';
printf("address of charvar = %p\n", (void *)(&charvar));
printf("address of charvar - 1 = %p\n", (void *)(&charvar - 1));
printf("address of charvar + 1 = %p\n", (void *)(&charvar + 1));
//intialize a int variable, print its address and the next address
int intvar = 1;
printf("address of intvar = %p\n", (void *)(&intvar));
printf("address of intvar - 1 = %p\n", (void *)(&intvar - 1));
printf("address of intvar + 1 = %p\n", (void *)(&intvar + 1));
}
In C programming language, an int variable takes 4 bytes of memory. So any arithmetic on integer address, always considers it as 4 bytes of data. So intvar-1 refers to a location 4 bytes before intvar's address and intvar+1 refers to 4 bytes after intvar's address.
..........23÷357=0.0644257703........
Answer:
Artefacts can influence our actions in several ways. They can be instruments, enabling and facilitating actions, where their presence affects the number and quality of the options for action available to us. They can also influence our actions in a morally more salient way, where their presence changes the likelihood that we will actually perform certain actions. Both kinds of influences are closely related, yet accounts of how they work have been developed largely independently, within different conceptual frameworks and for different purposes. In this paper I account for both kinds of influences within a single framework. Specifically, I develop a descriptive account of how the presence of artefacts affects what we actually do, which is based on a framework commonly used for normative investigations into how the presence of artefacts affects what we can do. This account describes the influence of artefacts on what we actually do in terms of the way facts about those artefacts alter our reasons for action. In developing this account, I will build on Dancy’s (2000a) account of practical reasoning. I will compare my account with two alternatives, those of Latour and Verbeek, and show how my account suggests a specification of their respective key concepts of prescription and invitation. Furthermore, I argue that my account helps us in analysing why the presence of artefacts sometimes fails to influence our actions, contrary to designer expectations or intentions.
When it comes to affecting human actions, it seems artefacts can play two roles. In their first role they can enable or facilitate human actions. Here, the presence of artefacts changes the number and quality of the options for action available to us.Footnote1 For example, their presence makes it possible for us to do things that we would not otherwise be able to do, and thereby adopt new goals, or helps us to do things we would otherwise be able to do, but in more time, with greater effort, etc
Explanation:
Technological artifacts are in general characterized narrowly as material objects made by (human) agents as means to achieve practical ends. ... Unintended by-products of making (e.g. sawdust) or of experiments (e.g. false positives in medical diagnostic tests) are not artifacts for Hilpinen.
To solve this problem we will apply the concepts related to translational torque, angular torque and the kinematic equations of angular movement with which we will find the angular displacement of the system.
Translational torque can be defined as,
Here,
F = Force
d = Distance which the force is applied
At the same time the angular torque is defined as the product between the moment of inertia and the angular acceleration, so using the previous value of the found torque, and with the moment of inertia given by the statement, we would have that the angular acceleration is
Now the angular displacement is
Here
= Initial angular velocity
t = time
Angular acceleration
= Angular displacement
Time is given as 1 minute, in seconds will be
There is not initial angular velocity, then
Replacing,
The question neglects the effect of gravitational force.
