Ajax form submit not working second time
Event binding on dynamically created elements?
How does Newtonian gravitation conflict with special relativity? In the Wikipedia article , it says     After Newtonian gravitation was found to be inconsistent with special relativity, . . .   I don't see how Newtonian gravitation itself is inconsistent with special relativity.  After all, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is completley analogous to Coulomb's Law, so it would seem that, if there were an analogous "gravitational magnetic field", one could formulate a theory of gravitation in exact analogy with Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism, and of course, this would automatically be consistent with Special Relativity.  What about this approach to gravitation does not work?  The only problem I could see with this is the lack of evidence for a "gravitational magnetic field".  That being said, gravity is "weak" as it is, and my guess is that it would be extremely difficult to set up an experiment in which a massive body were moving fast enough for this "magnetic field effect" to be obsevable.  EDIT:  As has been pointed out to me in the answers, Newton itself is inconsistent with SR.  Similarly, however, so is Coulomb's Law, yet, electromagnetism is still consistent with SR.  Thus, how do we know that it is not the case that Newton's Law is the special "static" case of a more general gravitomagnetic theory exactly analogous to Maxwell's Theory:  Let $\mathbf{G}$ be the gravitation field, let $\rho$ be the mass density, and $\mathbf{J}$ be the mass current density, let $\gamma _0$ be defined so that $\frac{1}{4\pi \gamma _0}=G$, the Universal Gravitation Constant, let $\nu _0$ be defined so that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma _0\nu _0}}=c$, and suppose there exists a field $\mathbf{M}$, the gravitomagnetic field, so that the following equations hold: $$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{G}=-\frac{\rho}{\gamma _0} $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{M}=0 $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\times \mathbf{G}=-\frac{\partial \mathbf{M}}{\partial t} $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\times \mathbf{M}=\nu _0\mathbf{J}+\gamma _0\nu _0\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}}{\partial t} $$ where theses fields would produce on a mass $m$ moving with velocity $\mathbf{v}$ in our inertial frame the Lorentz force $\mathbf{F}=m\left( \mathbf{G}+\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{M}\right)$.  This theory would automatically be consistent with SR and would reduce to Newton's Law of Gravitation for the case of gravitostatics:  $\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial \mathbf{M}}{\partial t}=\mathbf{J}=0$.  (To be clear, you can't just set the time derivatives equal to $\mathbf{0}$ as it seems I have done.  Upon doing so, you obtain the corresponding static theory, which is technically incorrect (as you can easily see because it won't be relativistically invariant), but is nevertheless often a useful approximation.)  My question can thus be phrased as:  without appealing directly to GR, what is wrong with this theory? Recently, the titles to some questions have been displaying as "undefined":    "undefined" is replaced with the question's true title upon refreshing the page. Is this a bug? Do I need an ESTA to enter the US with the Victoria Clipper ferry? I am thinking of visiting Victoria, BC in Canada and then going to Seattle, WA in the US, with the .  I am a national of a country under the Visa Waiver Program. I think that if I enter by air, I need to fill an ESTA form. If I enter by car, I don't need one, I can fill a form when crossing the border.  With the ferry, what is the procedure? Should I necessarily have an ESTA? How do I open the user folder of a hard drive that I transfered? My Windows 10 notebook died but fortunately I was able to rescue the hard drive and put it into another PC.   Unfortunately, the other PC can't open the C/Users/Joe folder. What do I have to do to open the folder? For me at least,  has answers that are not sorted by score:    Is this normal?  I've tried refreshing the page a few times, but the order doesn't change... Finding the fallacy in this broken proof Today, a friend gave me a "proof" of $1=2$ and challenged me to find the fallacy.     $1 = 1$      $1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ...$      $1 = 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...$      $1 = 2 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...$      $1 = 2 + 0 + 0 ...$      $1 = 2$   My answer was that once you turn the initial $1 + 1$ into a 2, everything is offset so a $-1$ is always left at the end no matter how many times it is repeated. This negative one balances out the $2$ at the beginning so $1=1$ still holds true. I.e.  $$1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ... = 1 + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) = 2 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) - 1$$  However, my friend claimed that my answer only applies if the $+ 1 - 1$ repeats for a finite number of times. He argues that because the sequence repeats infinitely and things work differently when working with infinity, my answer is not valid.  Can anyone enlighten me to the true fallacy in this proof? The new top bar is out on meta. Consider it a beta in elisp's let, how do you reference a variable bound in the same let while binding another variable? How to run a command that requires sudo at login $\sum_i x_i^n = 0$ for all $n$ implies $x_i = 0$ Here is a statement that seems prima facie obvious, but when I try to prove it, I am lost.  Let $x_1 , x_2, \dots, x_k$ be complex numbers satisfying:  $$x_1 + x_2+ \dots + x_k = 0$$  $$x_1^2 + x_2^2+ \dots + x_k^2 = 0$$  $$x_1^3 + x_2^3+ \dots + x_k^3 = 0$$  $$\dots$$  Then $x_1 = x_2 = \dots = x_k = 0$.    The statement seems obvious because we have more than $k$ constraints (constraints that are in some sense, "independent") on $k$ variables, so they should determine the variables uniquely.  But my attempts so far of formalizing this intuition have failed.  So, how do you prove this statement?  Is there a generalization of my intuition? Awesome symbols and characters in a bash prompt I just ran across a screenshot of someone's terminal:    Is there a list of all of the characters which can be used in a Bash prompt, or can someone get me the character for the star and the right arrow? 1.In classical mechanics, using Newton's laws, the ellipticity of orbits is derived. It is also said that the center of mass is at one of the foci.   2.Each body will orbit the center of the mass of the system.  My question is : Are the assumptions in 1 and 2 correct?   Follow up question : Assuming the distance from the centre of the mass to each body remains the same, do we have two bodies orbiting the centre of the mass of the system in an elliptical or circular orbit?   Finally : With elliptical orbits, if the heavier mass is supposed to be in one of the foci, if there is any significance to second focus, what is it? Is it a Lagrange point by any chance or does it have some other mathematical property? Are there consequences to stamps in my passport that are not from border control? Server login attempts NOT blocked after configuring fail2ban So, I installed (and configured) fail2ban on three Ubuntu VPS servers. I configured (imo) a maximum of 3 failed login attempts (via Putty as root) within 2 minutes. Then I restarted the fail2ban service (according to ).    But when I look at my auth.log files in /var/log/ I still see 4, 5 or more failed attempts from certain IP's. So obviously I did something wrong as the IP is not blocked after 3 failed attempts.   It might have to do something with iptables, but that's where it gets a bit "foggy" for me..   Not sure how to setup a max-three-failed-login-attempts rule..  Additional: I see that the login attempts mostly have different ports for every attempt. Does that influence the count to max-three?  Because I see a port being "poked" twice and then no more attempts. Then the IP tries a different port (again 2 times). (all bots of course) It isn't any of the words on this  and I believe it started with the letter 'e' (though please offer your word even if it doesn't).  Example sentence: Because he researched what he had heard from his friends, he was able to refute many of their _________________.  Factoid seems to be the closest one, but the word I am looking for only refers to a belief that is false. How does the T-1000 see? In Terminator 2: Judgement Day, how does the T-1000 sense things? It's made of mimetic poly alloy; however, does it have a retinal scan camera like the T-X or T-800, or is just molecules that allow it to see what it does? In other words: let's say it is made out of nanobots. Would a group of these nanobots provide the capability of sight? Kind of like humans with cells that  make up the brain? I have always wondered whether James Cameron explained this on a special edition or if the topic was left up for insight from Terminator fans. From what I get from the whole mimetic poly alloy and some of the extra scenes, it seems to feel its way out to get information. Of course, it's very much not blind! Thoughts? Shadows along edges of mesh in 3D View Why is potential energy negative when orbiting in a gravitational field? User suggested great corrective edit to my answer, but the edit was rejected. What can I do to approve it? Print  only? How do I print the indicated div (without manually disabling all other content on the page)?  I want to avoid a new preview dialog, so creating a new window with this content is not useful.  The page contains a couple of tables, one of them contains the div I want to print - the table is styled with visual styles for the web, that should not show in print.