| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snap page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
(High-order derivative)
editAlso a dirivative of position. I think the 5th.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARiina (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 April 2006
- A full acct:
- 0. Position
- Velocity
- Acceleration
- Jerk (physics)
- Jounce a.k.a. snap
- Adding to the accompanying Dab.
--Jerzy•t 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The one web page that every article on Wikipedia references says itself the names "snap", "crackle" and "pop" are made up. This is that page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html. I am a physicist and have never seen this term used in any text. I am removing from the list. To re-add please first provide a reference to a classic physics text that uses the term.
- Phancy Physicist (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
sections
editI do not believe that all the topics covered in the computing aspect fit to science and engineering -- specifically a search engine would actually fit closer to a product than a science/engineering concept and some people might argue whether a specific protocol is a product or an engineering issue. (ie that protocols in general are computer science/engineering but that a specific protocol might be considered a product to solve a particular system issue.) As a result I think is appropriate to keep the IT and Science aspects more separate. Nashikawa 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Many very small sections worsen reaidng and searching, and generally discouraged in wikipedia..
`'mikka (t) 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)- The following contrib was made with no indentation, and is indented (to a normally unjustified depth!) to avoid the confusion it would impose on any further contributions if left where i found it. Most likely it responds to the contribution of "mikka", and agrees that additional sections would be counterproductive, but there's really no telling!
- I agree completly with you my friend!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.154.233 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2006
- I agree completly with you my friend!!
- The following contrib was made with no indentation, and is indented (to a normally unjustified depth!) to avoid the confusion it would impose on any further contributions if left where i found it. Most likely it responds to the contribution of "mikka", and agrees that additional sections would be counterproductive, but there's really no telling!
(Snap of the fingers)
editWhat about snapping your fingers. Is there no insanely in-depth article on the mechanics of the snap? As far as I know, this is the origin of the word, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.29 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2006
Snap-on
editWhy was Snap-on , the tool manufacturer removed?
It has an article in Wikipedia...why not reference it here?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.243 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2007
- It does not seem that a reader searching for Snap-on is likely to make the mistake of looking for Snap instead. This page is to help resolve very frequent confusions or dual uses of the same word. The word Snap-on is unique and distinctive and is unlikely to have the problem of being mixed up with some other snap-on with different meaning, or being mixed up with snap itself.
EdJohnston 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) - Because it is not called "Snap".
`'Míkka 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
🙏🏿 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.119 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)