There is the difference between TM and (r), you know?
You're right, of course. I really wanted to respond to the statement that Google were at fault for not checking for already-existing trademarks. I could be wrong - please correct me if so - but it must be trickier to check for unregistered trademarks.
I'm not saying Google should get their own way, but it may not be entirely their fault that this situation arose.
I mentioned this somewhere earlier, but... IIIR have been using the name since 2002, but did not register it with the EU's trademark office, or the USPTO, until after Google announced their Gmail idea. Source.
According to the BBC IIIR did not already own the TM before Google announced their version of Gmail:
After Google announced its Gmail plans in spring 2004, IIIR rushed to register the Gmail trademark with Ohim, the European Union's trademark office, and the US Patent and Trademark Office.
I definitely agree that AJAX is a misnomer if XML is not used anywhere. But where did you read that? I've had trouble investigating this (I can't download the source because I'm at work).
almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
I read it as asynchronous (JavaScript + XML) rather than (asynchronous JavaScript) + XML. Oh well, whether you call it AJAX or JAAX or whatever - "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet" etc.
In the UK, it is still possible to buy handsets that will accept any SIM card. However, a lot of shops are selling phones that will only work with one network (for example mine only works with Vodafone, my partner's only works with Orange). I believe with some effort (i.e. cost) you can get them "unlocked" though.
I though the Microsoft self-destructing DVD story was just a rumour? That aside, I don't see anything wrong with Comcast's idea - provided (a) you can return/refuse the DVD if the movie was crap and (b) the DVD you get isn't an inferior copy (lacking some of the extras perhaps).
Newton's gravity is what you get from relativity when your velocity is a lot less than the speed of light and your mass density is small enough
Not always. The density does not need to be high, nor does the velocity, in order to see relativistic effects. For example, an event horizon will form if you have mass M packed inside a radius R < 2M (with G = c = 1). Note that, if M is sufficiently high then the density which is roughly M / (R^3) can be as low as you please, and still you get a horizon.
From TFA:
...in dismissing [GR] in favour of Newtonian [theory]... insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that the stars... are essentially in motion under gravity alone (gravitationally bound). It has been known since the time of Eddington that the gravitationally bound problem in [GR] is an intrisically non-linear problem even when the conditions are such that the field is weak and the motion is non-relativistic, at least in the time-dependent case...
Note that the authors' analysis leads to non-linear equations of motion. This is what the Newtonian model fundamentally misses.
General Relativity is far more complex than Newtonian physics
That depends on the mathematical framework you cast it in. I heartily recommend Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" - they show you how ugly Newtonian gravity can seem when expressed in the same geometric framework as GR.
But if scientists "proved" not-X at t1, then "proved" X at t2, the re-proved not-X at t3, ad infinitum, something is wrong with the people we've trusted to do science
That is not what has happened here. Dark matter was not "proved" to exist in the first place, it was suggested as a way of explaining certain phenomena for which no alternative explanation was evident. Admittedly, a popular explanation in some circles. But even then, it was never fleshed out to the point where you could conclusively say what dark matter was (numerous suggestions have been made).
This paper aims to show that "dark matter" is not necessary in order to explain galactic rotation. It will be interesting to see how this story develops over the coming years.
But now: you go to a store, you pay with cash, and the f**kers can still snoop on your spending habits by scanning the RFID tags in your trash, without even getting their hands dirty.
Thus, acceleration of first body = G * m_2 / r^2 which is proportional to the mass of the second body. Similarly the acceleration of the second is proportional to the mass of the first. I think this is what the GP meant - heavier stars, more accn.
Slashdot Mirror
My reply was meant to be to Quaryon's comment. But yes you are right in what you say(again!).
There is the difference between TM and (r), you know?
You're right, of course. I really wanted to respond to the statement that Google were at fault for not checking for already-existing trademarks. I could be wrong - please correct me if so - but it must be trickier to check for unregistered trademarks.
I'm not saying Google should get their own way, but it may not be entirely their fault that this situation arose.
I mentioned this somewhere earlier, but... IIIR have been using the name since 2002, but did not register it with the EU's trademark office, or the USPTO, until after Google announced their Gmail idea. Source.
According to the BBC IIIR did not already own the TM before Google announced their version of Gmail:
After Google announced its Gmail plans in spring 2004, IIIR rushed to register the Gmail trademark with Ohim, the European Union's trademark office, and the US Patent and Trademark Office.
2000 years ago the roman empire ended. Most what left of is are some ruins and some idea's
Don't forget the roads!
the article doesn't even use XML
I definitely agree that AJAX is a misnomer if XML is not used anywhere. But where did you read that? I've had trouble investigating this (I can't download the source because I'm at work).
almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
I read it as asynchronous (JavaScript + XML) rather than (asynchronous JavaScript) + XML. Oh well, whether you call it AJAX or JAAX or whatever - "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet" etc.
Asynchronous JavaScript + XML - what would you call it? What am I falling for?
Relatedly... why has the titlebar of one of the windows in screenshot 3 been blurred? You can still read the title in the taskbar! D'oh!
Cheers :-)
In the UK, it is still possible to buy handsets that will accept any SIM card. However, a lot of shops are selling phones that will only work with one network (for example mine only works with Vodafone, my partner's only works with Orange). I believe with some effort (i.e. cost) you can get them "unlocked" though.
I though the Microsoft self-destructing DVD story was just a rumour? That aside, I don't see anything wrong with Comcast's idea - provided (a) you can return/refuse the DVD if the movie was crap and (b) the DVD you get isn't an inferior copy (lacking some of the extras perhaps).
For 2005 Q2: US$25 billion (1,399,077 million PhP - source).
Newton's gravity is what you get from relativity when your velocity is a lot less than the speed of light and your mass density is small enough
Not always. The density does not need to be high, nor does the velocity, in order to see relativistic effects. For example, an event horizon will form if you have mass M packed inside a radius R < 2M (with G = c = 1). Note that, if M is sufficiently high then the density which is roughly M / (R^3) can be as low as you please, and still you get a horizon.
From TFA:
Note that the authors' analysis leads to non-linear equations of motion. This is what the Newtonian model fundamentally misses.
General Relativity is far more complex than Newtonian physics
That depends on the mathematical framework you cast it in. I heartily recommend Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" - they show you how ugly Newtonian gravity can seem when expressed in the same geometric framework as GR.
But if scientists "proved" not-X at t1, then "proved" X at t2, the re-proved not-X at t3, ad infinitum, something is wrong with the people we've trusted to do science
That is not what has happened here. Dark matter was not "proved" to exist in the first place, it was suggested as a way of explaining certain phenomena for which no alternative explanation was evident. Admittedly, a popular explanation in some circles. But even then, it was never fleshed out to the point where you could conclusively say what dark matter was (numerous suggestions have been made).
This paper aims to show that "dark matter" is not necessary in order to explain galactic rotation. It will be interesting to see how this story develops over the coming years.
In fact, Einstein's nationality was not constant throughout his life (although he was born German) - see here.
But now: you go to a store, you pay with cash, and the f**kers can still snoop on your spending habits by scanning the RFID tags in your trash, without even getting their hands dirty.
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
--- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Just thought I'd mention that there are some serious free speech issues in China, despite ICANN's control of the root DNS servers.
Jeez, not even Mr Gates has that kind of money.
Your link to the Google press release gives me a 404. Try this instead.
Force of attraction = G * m_1 * m_2 / r^2
Thus, acceleration of first body = G * m_2 / r^2 which is proportional to the mass of the second body. Similarly the acceleration of the second is proportional to the mass of the first. I think this is what the GP meant - heavier stars, more accn.
Damn those stupid humans :-( even prescience can't save them.