Whether there is a "centrifugal force" or not depends on if you take the techical definition of a force or not. There is a force that keeps the object in rotation that is directed radially inward (this is the centripital force). Ignoring gravity, drag, etc., this is the only force (strict sense) acting on the rotating object.
However, put someone on one of those things some science museums have that you get on and can spin and try to convince them that they are not experiencing a force...
To me, this kind of parallels the discrepency between the psysics and popular definition of work... most people would say they are doing a lot of work if they struggle to pick up something really heavy but are unable to move it, but since the displacement is zero, by the physics definition or work, they are not doing any. (In fact, the popular definition of work mirrors the psysics concept of impulse, but again, try to get people to start using "impulse" in place of work...)
No, see... his swing is twisting, not swinging sideways.:hits head: Hey! Maybe I can patent twisting back and forth on a swing!:runs to patent office:
(If you can't tell, this post is oozing with sarcasm)
The reason he used dynes and stuff (part of the cgs - centemeter, gram, second - system) and not the SI (formerly the mks - meters, kilograms, seconds) system is that most of his measurements would have been different by many orders of magnitude. Who wants to see something with a force of 0.0000001 newtons (kg*m/sec/sec) when you could see 0.01 dynes (gm*cm/sec/sec)?
Except, is it legal to link to a page that is linking to a page that violates the DMCA? The addresses of the blocked pages are not directly linked to by Google, and I'd wager that that holds them legally guiltless. So chillingeffects.org is the one going against the DMCA here, and I bet the subject of the next CoS attack (anyone notice the single letter change from DoS?)
Corporations will be more likely to step in because: -while I'm not saying the RIAA was right in shutting Napster down, I see no good legal argument to support Napster (though I don't know too much law), so -Google's use is almost entirely one of legal means, and corporations won't have to stick their neck out to support it.
My understanding is that certain states have laws against sueing someone in cases were it's clear there is no evidence to support their position. In other words, COS sues Google to shut up xenu.net, but say all of their claims are obviously unsupportable (I'd guess they are not supportable, but I didn't do any research on the topic). Xenu.net can file countersuit charging that COS is violating this kind of law, and if Xenu wins, COS is forced to pay Xenu's legal fees. Anyone know is COS is located withing the juristiction of one of these laws?
Well, that's what I was thinking originally (I posted the message where I quoted the dictionaries, forgetting to sign on), but the wording of that Merriam-Webster made me think otherwise. I get it now with you sentence "An improper retroactive ruling would declare the copyright to be expired long ago" clearing things up in a very nice manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether there is a "centrifugal force" or not depends on if you take the techical definition of a force or not. There is a force that keeps the object in rotation that is directed radially inward (this is the centripital force). Ignoring gravity, drag, etc., this is the only force (strict sense) acting on the rotating object. However, put someone on one of those things some science museums have that you get on and can spin and try to convince them that they are not experiencing a force... To me, this kind of parallels the discrepency between the psysics and popular definition of work... most people would say they are doing a lot of work if they struggle to pick up something really heavy but are unable to move it, but since the displacement is zero, by the physics definition or work, they are not doing any. (In fact, the popular definition of work mirrors the psysics concept of impulse, but again, try to get people to start using "impulse" in place of work...)
No, see... his swing is twisting, not swinging sideways. :hits head: Hey! Maybe I can patent twisting back and forth on a swing! :runs to patent office:
(If you can't tell, this post is oozing with sarcasm)
The reason he used dynes and stuff (part of the cgs - centemeter, gram, second - system) and not the SI (formerly the mks - meters, kilograms, seconds) system is that most of his measurements would have been different by many orders of magnitude. Who wants to see something with a force of 0.0000001 newtons (kg*m/sec/sec) when you could see 0.01 dynes (gm*cm/sec/sec)?
Uh oh, now look at what you've done. Now the COS has a reason to send a letter to /. for the copyright infringement in your post...
Except, is it legal to link to a page that is linking to a page that violates the DMCA? The addresses of the blocked pages are not directly linked to by Google, and I'd wager that that holds them legally guiltless. So chillingeffects.org is the one going against the DMCA here, and I bet the subject of the next CoS attack (anyone notice the single letter change from DoS?)
Corporations will be more likely to step in because:
-while I'm not saying the RIAA was right in shutting Napster down, I see no good legal argument to support Napster (though I don't know too much law), so
-Google's use is almost entirely one of legal means, and corporations won't have to stick their neck out to support it.
My understanding is that certain states have laws against sueing someone in cases were it's clear there is no evidence to support their position. In other words, COS sues Google to shut up xenu.net, but say all of their claims are obviously unsupportable (I'd guess they are not supportable, but I didn't do any research on the topic). Xenu.net can file countersuit charging that COS is violating this kind of law, and if Xenu wins, COS is forced to pay Xenu's legal fees. Anyone know is COS is located withing the juristiction of one of these laws?
Well, that's what I was thinking originally (I posted the message where I quoted the dictionaries, forgetting to sign on), but the wording of that Merriam-Webster made me think otherwise. I get it now with you sentence "An improper retroactive ruling would declare the copyright to be expired long ago" clearing things up in a very nice manner.