qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
417,714 | I sometimes ask questions for which the answer is ["this is not possible"](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261168/is-this-is-not-possible-an-acceptable-answer). One common source of these (and I suspect this happens to other question askers as well) is the relative lack of power of certain tools, such as CSS or regex. CSS can accomplish a lot of things, but it can't accomplish everything. So, questions asking "How can I accomplish X using CSS" sometimes have a "not possible" answer.
However, things that aren't possible in CSS are usually possible with JavaScript. This tends to elicit answers that "this isn't possible in CSS, but it *can* be accomplished in JavaScript. See here:...". [e.g.](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71993071/how-can-i-scale-all-images-to-the-same-dimensional-area/72003152#72003152) (Note that in this question, @isherwood seems to have made a post hoc edit to the question to attempt to make the question accommodate his answer of "not possible... but". IMHO making the question more vague doesn't help clarify though - it hides the aspect of "trying to accomplish this in CSS" which obviates the useful "not possible" answer.)
I now have a question about CSS with a JavaScript answer. It seems that this answer actually answers *two* questions:
1. "Q: How to do this in CSS, A: Not possible" and
2. "Q: How to do this in JS, A: here's how...".
However, I can't edit my post so that it actually asks both of those questions; posts asking multiple questions get closed as **Needs More Focus**.
Does anyone have recommendations on general strategies to edit such questions post hoc or to a priori phrase questions that I suspect might be "not possible...but" so that they can accommodate both the original answer ("not possible", which is useful info to anyone looking to accomplish this) and *also* the new answer (the workaround) to the question I didn't ask? | 2022/04/26 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417714",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/2886575/"
] | Are you aware of [the XY problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem)?
If you know that there are other technologies which might solve the problem, it would be useful to either say you'd accept answers using them *or* give a brief reason why you can't use them (but don't be upset if people don't accept the reason).
Also, remember that the Stack Exchange sites are intended to be a repository of knowledge for everyone, so someone else with the same problem may be happy to find an answer which uses, say, jQuery, even if that particular answer was of no use to you. (The "[Wisdom of the Ancients](https://xkcd.com/979/)" XKCD cartoon is so nearly applicable here.) | As with many things in life: **it is a judgement call.**
When deciding whether to widen the scope of a question based on answers, always ask yourself if value will be lost were the answer to be removed? Some answers, even if they broaden the scope of the question are stellar: detailed, properly formatted, well-written, etc. They provide value, so it makes sense to tweak the question a little to make an allowance for it (that said, if the question *explicitly* states that solutions in other technologies are *unacceptable,* I would avoid making such an edit as we generally strive to [preserve authorial intent](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/303220/11407695)).
If answer does not provide great value, try to find a common duplicate target that explains how to solve the problem in the technology of the answer, and if so, then the answer is actually *harming* the repository of knowledge such as we are because every user landing on it is one user that seen the canonical *less.* I do not propose outright *deletion* of such answers, but they certainly do not merit widening the scope of the question.
---
An off-note about your example post: it seems that you misunderstood the nature of the edit — the user was simply [removing tag duplication from title](https://stackoverflow.com/help/tagging) as the question is already tagged [css](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/css "show questions tagged 'css'") (the original title started with "css how"). |
12,328 | As a budding Buddhist, one cannot help but investigate day to day phenomena with the magnificent tools made available to us by the Buddha.
An interesting thought occurred to me today and prompted me to ponder the nature of love. The conclusion that was arrived at the end of this particular stream of consciousness is that love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional. It is experiential, highly conditional, impinges on all faculties, and reverberates through the heartstring. As with all formations, it is impermanent. Wordly beings crave it, but few truly uncover it.
How do other lay people conceptualize love? And how would a monk approach this investigation? | 2015/11/01 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12328",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/7069/"
] | If you mean kind some kind of [romantic love](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)), my own experience isn't the same as yours. You said ...
>
> love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional
>
>
>
... but I'm not sure I agree:
* "non-hate" -- if the 'love' is the result of (i.e. conditioned by, conditional on) experience[s] that you like, then when the experience ends the love-you-experience becomes aversion-you-experience.
* "non delusional" -- to the extent that "identity view" (of self) is a delusion then love might be a similar type of delusion (e.g. seeing the object of your love as a person who has/is a fixed identity)
In summary I suspect that love is "attachment".
---
There's a book I mentioned in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7760/254) titled *[The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Buddhas-Teachings-Laypeople-Prosperity/dp/0861715470)*. It says that most of the suttas were written by and for monks, but that some of the Buddha's advice was for people in lay society, and it summarizes some of that advice.
---
In my limited experience the good side/aspect of love might be right/moral/ethical actions and views.
In retrospect (i.e. looking back) there was a time in my life when I was motivated by (i.e. when my love was expressed as) wanting to be kind and to do the right thing.
It's these "ethical" actions that I don't regret -- which is inline with the Buddhist suttas, for example the [Kimattha Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html):
>
> Skillful virtues have **freedom from remorse** as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward
>
>
>
---
It might be worth also considering the [doctrines about admirable friendship](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kalyanamittata.html). The various doctrines (e.g. "Keeping company with the wise" and "Never with an evil companion") suggest that the benefit is conditional on who you love -- i.e. not just on the nature of your love but on the nature of your beloved.
"The whole of the holy life" is I suppose (in context) about the benefit of the monastic sangha; perhaps if you're lucky or wise or both then you might experience something like that in a lay relationship. | The deepest description of love I have come across in my walk is a state where one does not oblige oneself to draw a distinction between one and the subject of one's love. One can give freely to the other, not out of obligation or expectation or even altruism, but simply because one does not see a reason to distinguish between giving to their love and giving to oneself. |
212 | I'm looking to install drivers for my "Brother HL-2170W" network printer. I can't seem to find the correct driver on the Brother site. Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS x86\_64. | 2010/07/28 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/212",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/170/"
] | I've (mostly) solved this problem, by doing something simple. I went into printer properties and changed the "Device URI". I chose "LPD/LPR Host or Printer" and used my ip address instead of one of the network printers Ubuntu suggests.
This solves my general printing slowness as pages go to the printer immediately. The only exception is PDFs that still take a while to print. | I don't have any experience with this printer, but from what I've found it either "just works" when you plug it in using USB; if you'd like it to communicate over a network it needs to be configured and there is only software for Windows or Mac. This means you'll need to either use a Windows or Mac computer or VM to configure it, and then be able to use it from Ubuntu.
From [UbuntuForums.org](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1389914):
>
> I have that printer. WHen hooked up with USB, it just works, however, the printer does not have a control panel built in and requires Windows or Mac based software to configure it for use with a wireless network. I used Windows XP in VirtualBox to configure it, the printer configuration in Ubuntu was able to see it on the wireless network and connected just as easily as it did via USB. Its a great printer, just sucks that you have to use windows to configure the network...
>
>
>
([source](http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8721426&postcount=6))
From [another thread](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=897227) I found a link to a PPD file that can be used to install your printer, however those posters were using Ubuntu 8.04, although it could be worth trying. |
212 | I'm looking to install drivers for my "Brother HL-2170W" network printer. I can't seem to find the correct driver on the Brother site. Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS x86\_64. | 2010/07/28 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/212",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/170/"
] | This guy at: <http://mikebeach.org/2010/06/ubuntu-and-brother-hl-2170w/>
says there is a problem in 10.04 with a fault in the cups drivers, at least for the HL-2170W.
Text worked okay but printing graphics took a long time. This was true for me. I followed his advice precisely and now my pdf files are printing great. I have only tested one page, probably should test a few more complex graphics but for now I'm a very happy camper. So I wanted to share the wealth.
Lots of other people on the ubuntu forums seem to be complaining about slow printing so I suspect that it is not only the HL-2170W printer driver that is bad. But step 8 in his instruction list will need to be changed, I think for printers other than HL-2170W.
Hope this helps. | I don't have any experience with this printer, but from what I've found it either "just works" when you plug it in using USB; if you'd like it to communicate over a network it needs to be configured and there is only software for Windows or Mac. This means you'll need to either use a Windows or Mac computer or VM to configure it, and then be able to use it from Ubuntu.
From [UbuntuForums.org](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1389914):
>
> I have that printer. WHen hooked up with USB, it just works, however, the printer does not have a control panel built in and requires Windows or Mac based software to configure it for use with a wireless network. I used Windows XP in VirtualBox to configure it, the printer configuration in Ubuntu was able to see it on the wireless network and connected just as easily as it did via USB. Its a great printer, just sucks that you have to use windows to configure the network...
>
>
>
([source](http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8721426&postcount=6))
From [another thread](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=897227) I found a link to a PPD file that can be used to install your printer, however those posters were using Ubuntu 8.04, although it could be worth trying. |
212 | I'm looking to install drivers for my "Brother HL-2170W" network printer. I can't seem to find the correct driver on the Brother site. Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS x86\_64. | 2010/07/28 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/212",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/170/"
] | I've (mostly) solved this problem, by doing something simple. I went into printer properties and changed the "Device URI". I chose "LPD/LPR Host or Printer" and used my ip address instead of one of the network printers Ubuntu suggests.
This solves my general printing slowness as pages go to the printer immediately. The only exception is PDFs that still take a while to print. | Without any specific knowledge of this printer -- does the printer support Postscript?
If so you can try a generic ps driver. |
212 | I'm looking to install drivers for my "Brother HL-2170W" network printer. I can't seem to find the correct driver on the Brother site. Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS x86\_64. | 2010/07/28 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/212",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/170/"
] | This guy at: <http://mikebeach.org/2010/06/ubuntu-and-brother-hl-2170w/>
says there is a problem in 10.04 with a fault in the cups drivers, at least for the HL-2170W.
Text worked okay but printing graphics took a long time. This was true for me. I followed his advice precisely and now my pdf files are printing great. I have only tested one page, probably should test a few more complex graphics but for now I'm a very happy camper. So I wanted to share the wealth.
Lots of other people on the ubuntu forums seem to be complaining about slow printing so I suspect that it is not only the HL-2170W printer driver that is bad. But step 8 in his instruction list will need to be changed, I think for printers other than HL-2170W.
Hope this helps. | Without any specific knowledge of this printer -- does the printer support Postscript?
If so you can try a generic ps driver. |
212 | I'm looking to install drivers for my "Brother HL-2170W" network printer. I can't seem to find the correct driver on the Brother site. Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS x86\_64. | 2010/07/28 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/212",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/170/"
] | This guy at: <http://mikebeach.org/2010/06/ubuntu-and-brother-hl-2170w/>
says there is a problem in 10.04 with a fault in the cups drivers, at least for the HL-2170W.
Text worked okay but printing graphics took a long time. This was true for me. I followed his advice precisely and now my pdf files are printing great. I have only tested one page, probably should test a few more complex graphics but for now I'm a very happy camper. So I wanted to share the wealth.
Lots of other people on the ubuntu forums seem to be complaining about slow printing so I suspect that it is not only the HL-2170W printer driver that is bad. But step 8 in his instruction list will need to be changed, I think for printers other than HL-2170W.
Hope this helps. | I've (mostly) solved this problem, by doing something simple. I went into printer properties and changed the "Device URI". I chose "LPD/LPR Host or Printer" and used my ip address instead of one of the network printers Ubuntu suggests.
This solves my general printing slowness as pages go to the printer immediately. The only exception is PDFs that still take a while to print. |
95,492 | For travel convenience, I prefer to print posters near the conference location. How can I efficiently look for the best poster printing price near a conference location?
(In my experience, conference organizers sometime point to a printing business, but they typically tend to be not price optimized, far from it) | 2017/09/04 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95492",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/452/"
] | First off, avoid the print shop at any conference location, which is quite likely to be both overbooked and expensive.
Second, make sure to send your poster far enough ahead of time to avoid a potential last-minute rush (particularly at large conferences).
Finally, you can use Internet map sites (Google Maps, Apple Maps, etc.) to search for copy shops near the conference location, and call to find out their rates. | Open Google Maps, and navigate to the desired location. Then choose "nearby." You can zoom in and pan around to make more options visible. You can glance at the review vote average, and click to see review contents.
This way of finding stores and service providers works better, for most things, than the regular google search, which has a primary focus on *text.* |
95,492 | For travel convenience, I prefer to print posters near the conference location. How can I efficiently look for the best poster printing price near a conference location?
(In my experience, conference organizers sometime point to a printing business, but they typically tend to be not price optimized, far from it) | 2017/09/04 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95492",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/452/"
] | First off, avoid the print shop at any conference location, which is quite likely to be both overbooked and expensive.
Second, make sure to send your poster far enough ahead of time to avoid a potential last-minute rush (particularly at large conferences).
Finally, you can use Internet map sites (Google Maps, Apple Maps, etc.) to search for copy shops near the conference location, and call to find out their rates. | If you are in the United States, phdposters.com has local pickup in Baltimore, Boston, Brooklyn, Denver, Durham, Richmond and San Francisco, usually in a university library. Their rates are also pretty reasonable. |
21,238 | I am interested in summitting Breithorn this winter (late January) using crampons and an ice axe. I am in excellent physical shape but I do not have much alpine experience. I have seen mixed reviews about whether or not I should hire a guide, but most companies do not offer tours in the winter. I am curious why this is the case and if I should even think about summitting Breithorn in the winter, and if I should even consider doing it by myself. | 2018/12/11 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/21238",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/17046/"
] | >
> I do not have much alpine experience
>
>
>
Climbing the Breithorn in the winter is a much different matter than in the spring or summer. Any 4,000 meter peak in the alps is subject to arctic weather conditions with high winds and temperatures far below freezing. There is also going to be very deep snow, so unless you know how to ski or snowshoe, you are going to have a rough time even getting to the real start of the climb. If you've never tried to travel on foot in 2 meters of soft snow, you have no idea of how slow and exhausting it is. On top of that, a 35 degree slope is going to have significant hazards from avalanche. Until you have enough experience to evaluate the local avalanche forecasts and compare them to the conditions you actually see, you should be very conservative in your winter travel.
That being said, the Breithorn is considered the easiest 4,000 meter peak in the alps, but it still involves glacier travel and somewhat steep (35 degree) snow slopes. That makes it an excellent choice for a beginner (with a guide if you're a real beginner) in season (spring and summer). | As a general rule, I think it unwise to attempt, solo, for the first time, the sort of climb that one has no experience with, especially if it carries the potential for a serious accident.
You have winter against you, ice against you, inexperience against you, and possibly an unknown reaction to 4,164 meters against you. Solo? No, not unless your meaning of *do not have much alpine experience* is an extremely modest understatement.
As for hiring a guide, it is likely that a company will be able to find a guide for you, even if they do not regularly offer tours in the winter. You will be hiring a private guide and it will be more expensive than the summer tour. The reason that the companies do not offer regular tours is probably because there are not enough tourists who are able to climb a mountain in winter conditions.
[Breithorn Ascent](https://www.zermatt.ch/en/Media/Planning-hikes-tours/Breithorn-ascent) says:
>
> This tour is a perfect way to get a sense of high Alpine air for the first time but only for surefooted and experienced mountain hikers accompanied by a mountain guide. The tour includes climbing a glaciated four thousand-metre peak, and this is not to be underestimated
>
>
> •The overall difficulty of the tour is given as “L” (easy)
>
>
> •A mountain guide is recommended
>
>
> •Warning: glacier crevasses
>
>
> Crampons, climbing harnesses and helmets can be rented in different
> sport shops in the village
>
>
>
This description and caveat is for a summer tour. |
21,238 | I am interested in summitting Breithorn this winter (late January) using crampons and an ice axe. I am in excellent physical shape but I do not have much alpine experience. I have seen mixed reviews about whether or not I should hire a guide, but most companies do not offer tours in the winter. I am curious why this is the case and if I should even think about summitting Breithorn in the winter, and if I should even consider doing it by myself. | 2018/12/11 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/21238",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/17046/"
] | >
> I do not have much alpine experience
>
>
>
Climbing the Breithorn in the winter is a much different matter than in the spring or summer. Any 4,000 meter peak in the alps is subject to arctic weather conditions with high winds and temperatures far below freezing. There is also going to be very deep snow, so unless you know how to ski or snowshoe, you are going to have a rough time even getting to the real start of the climb. If you've never tried to travel on foot in 2 meters of soft snow, you have no idea of how slow and exhausting it is. On top of that, a 35 degree slope is going to have significant hazards from avalanche. Until you have enough experience to evaluate the local avalanche forecasts and compare them to the conditions you actually see, you should be very conservative in your winter travel.
That being said, the Breithorn is considered the easiest 4,000 meter peak in the alps, but it still involves glacier travel and somewhat steep (35 degree) snow slopes. That makes it an excellent choice for a beginner (with a guide if you're a real beginner) in season (spring and summer). | Don't try it. The (walking) mountaineering season is over, there is now too much snow in the high mountains and it definitely will not get easier till January. You have to wait until the Summer when the snow starts to get more compact. An early date for a 4000s ascent is June.
For mountaineering now you either need skis that carry you over soft powder or a much steeper wall where the snow will slide down before it gets a significant builtup. But then you are into ice climbing and the standard Breithorn route is far from this ;) |
21,238 | I am interested in summitting Breithorn this winter (late January) using crampons and an ice axe. I am in excellent physical shape but I do not have much alpine experience. I have seen mixed reviews about whether or not I should hire a guide, but most companies do not offer tours in the winter. I am curious why this is the case and if I should even think about summitting Breithorn in the winter, and if I should even consider doing it by myself. | 2018/12/11 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/21238",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/17046/"
] | As a general rule, I think it unwise to attempt, solo, for the first time, the sort of climb that one has no experience with, especially if it carries the potential for a serious accident.
You have winter against you, ice against you, inexperience against you, and possibly an unknown reaction to 4,164 meters against you. Solo? No, not unless your meaning of *do not have much alpine experience* is an extremely modest understatement.
As for hiring a guide, it is likely that a company will be able to find a guide for you, even if they do not regularly offer tours in the winter. You will be hiring a private guide and it will be more expensive than the summer tour. The reason that the companies do not offer regular tours is probably because there are not enough tourists who are able to climb a mountain in winter conditions.
[Breithorn Ascent](https://www.zermatt.ch/en/Media/Planning-hikes-tours/Breithorn-ascent) says:
>
> This tour is a perfect way to get a sense of high Alpine air for the first time but only for surefooted and experienced mountain hikers accompanied by a mountain guide. The tour includes climbing a glaciated four thousand-metre peak, and this is not to be underestimated
>
>
> •The overall difficulty of the tour is given as “L” (easy)
>
>
> •A mountain guide is recommended
>
>
> •Warning: glacier crevasses
>
>
> Crampons, climbing harnesses and helmets can be rented in different
> sport shops in the village
>
>
>
This description and caveat is for a summer tour. | Don't try it. The (walking) mountaineering season is over, there is now too much snow in the high mountains and it definitely will not get easier till January. You have to wait until the Summer when the snow starts to get more compact. An early date for a 4000s ascent is June.
For mountaineering now you either need skis that carry you over soft powder or a much steeper wall where the snow will slide down before it gets a significant builtup. But then you are into ice climbing and the standard Breithorn route is far from this ;) |
496,930 | Why are regenerative logic circuits called regenerative? I know that regenerative means to generate again, but why is this word used to describe circuits like flip flops and latches? | 2020/05/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/496930",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/251176/"
] | Two-way authentication requires two pairs of keys.
Your device has a private key, and any other device that has the corresponding public key can send it encrypted messages.
If you want to only accept messages from one (or more) specific device(s), then your device needs to also have a copy of the public key that corresponds to that device's private key. This allows you to verify that the incoming messages were in fact signed by that other device and no one else. | OK, I actually teach this stuff.
the quick answer is to use SSL-TLS, it has everything you need baked in. I believe your chips supports SSL/TLS already in ROM, see [this IoT app note](http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/tidued5).
With Transport Layer Security (TLS), you use public key cryptography to establish an ephemeral / transient set of keys for symmetric encryption and authentication (MAC). The server sends the client (client = initiating party) its certificate, which carries its (the server's) public key.
So why should the client trust the certificate, i.e., that's it's really from the server, and not an attacker ("man in the middle")? Well, **at first it shouldn't**. The client should check the certificate's /signature/. I won't get into this, but if they client validates the signature, it should trust that the certificate and the public key on it are authentic. The client uses a certificate loaded into its trusted root store (or "root of trust", or "root certificate store", or any other of 100 names that are used) to authenticate the signature on the server's certificate. I think on the TI CC chips it's called the Trusted Root-Certificate Catalog. This is often referred to as a "chain of trust" in the security world.
Once the client "knows" (hopes, with strong confidence) that it has the server's public key, the 2 parties can exchange information to establish session keys and thus a secure channel (encrypted and authenticated). How all this works isn't technically too complicated but there are many steps and checks that I can't document here. But read up on TLS, and it should all make sense.
The latest version of TLS is 1.3 (summer 2018), this is the "latest and greatest" and what you should be using. Of course, the other side (client or server) needs to support 1.3 as well, but unless it's an old legacy device that is not being updated, it should support v1.3 by now.
Hope that helps. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Most people are refused entry if their intent to enter the country is different than what that visa is for. There are many other reasons as well. | A visa is just something that you need to enter the US. The visa does not indicate any decision to let you enter. It just allows you to be present for a decision to be made!
The visa is needed so that someone can make the decision: it's a necessary but insufficient part of the process. The actual decision is made each and every time by at the CBP post where you enter the US. Typical reasons for denying entry include:
* attempt to contravene immigration laws, e.g. applying for a tourist stay and then unauthorized employment, or giving reasons to suspect that such may be attempted in the future,
* prior actions in contravention of immigration laws, e.g. overstaying the entry permit duration without extension or advising someone how to "cheat" on a visa application; In other words: consequences of helping others skirt/break the law are at least as bad as doing it yourself is,
* prior criminal charges and/or judgments, whether in the US territories or outside,
* determination that there are grounds to believe that the entry of the individual is contrary to the interests of the US (or sometimes also its allies),
etc.
Note that the initial authorized duration of stay is tangential to any dates on the visa. It has everything to do with the decision made at the port of entry. The CBP officer will write in your passport and/or on your entry card how long you're authorized to stay. This may be shorter than what you expect in certain cases. E.g. just because the visa allows a stays of a certain duration, that's the upper limit. The actual length of stay authorized is determined on a case-by-case basis each time one enters the country, and an authorization may be denied as well of course. Say, a B1/B2 visa has a maximum length of stay of 6 months. I've seen people get permission to stay for 2-4 weeks if it was determined that that's all they need for their scheduled activity within the country (say a conference/symposium). At the same time, lying about what you want to do is just as bad and is grounds for refusal of entry, so don't try to "pad things". If you don't know how long it may take, or if you have potential extensions to your plans, just say so. You may be asked to provide some documentation that you have the means to afford your stay, or are otherwise financially supported, in any case.
And the flipside: just because someone's visa is expired doesn't mean they are not authorized to stay in the US. An immigration status may be adjusted without any physical visa being added to the passport, but other documents will substantiate such claims, e.g. a decision to extend or to adjust an immigration status. Such decisions are of course not awarded willy-nilly - there are copious regulations around that. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Most people are refused entry if their intent to enter the country is different than what that visa is for. There are many other reasons as well. | A visa is not a right to enter a country. Citizenship is that.
When you enter a country, two things happen.
* An **immigration** officer speaks to you as you enter.
* The **customs** service looks at your stuff.
Those people have access to all your data in the computer, so they know all about your visa application. **If the conversation or your stuff suggests an intent contrary to law or your visa conditions**, that could lead to a refusal. For instance, on a UK border-patrol TV show, someone's luggage was found to be full of business clothing and 20 copies of the person's CV. That was *prima-facie* evidence of "seeking employment", not allowed on their visa or [VWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program), so back they went.
So it is possible to have a valid visa, and then "put your foot in your mouth" at the entry interview, or be seen bringing in something foolish. For instance, it's a lousy time to try to smuggle cigarettes - people still do that, and still get turned away. (Trust me: they have cigarettes in stores here.) What makes it smuggling is "not declaring it" - declaring it greatly improves consequences for honest ordinary mistakes.
Because America is a *federal* country, this can blind-side people since we have a cacophony of differing government laws. Many states are simpatico with marijuana use, but it's a Class 1 narcotic to the feds. So drug paraphernalia or the smell of pot will doom you, even if it's legal in the state you are landing. (This is *especially* a problem at the Canada border.)
Speaking of that, border guards can prohibit things that are legal in both places - Canada won't *let in* marijuana and paraphernalia, even though it's legal in Washington state, and legal federally in Canada. A laptop full of porn is a problem here.
Note that they can also inspect your phone and your social media activity both for contrary-to-visa activities and simply being undesirable... and if you say "well, I won't give them my passcode!" they will simply refuse you entry. So data hygiene is a good plan... also, not being a jackass on social media they know about. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Most people are refused entry if their intent to enter the country is different than what that visa is for. There are many other reasons as well. | [CBP tells us](https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Mar/CBP-Border-Security-Report-FY2018.pdf) that in FY18 (fiscal year 2018):
>
> At ports of entry, CBP officers encountered 279,009 inadmissible individuals. While **the most common reason CBP officers determined individuals to be inadmissible pertained to their inability to satisfy documentary requirements**, CBP officers found some individuals to be inadmissible based on previous immigration violations, criminal grounds, and for national security-related reasons.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
This is of course quite a broad "reason".
[DHS have more to say](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/enforcement_actions_2019.pdf):
>
> In 2019, 55 percent of the inadmissibility determinations occurred at land ports, 18 percent at air ports, and 27 percent at sea ports; these proportions are comparable to 2018; however, not comparable to 2016 and 2017 due to a temporary policy change in how crew members detained aboard were categorized in those 2 years. The leading ports were Laredo (where OFO found 50,000 aliens inadmissible), San Diego (35,000), El Paso (26,000), and Houston (25,000).
>
>
> Most aliens found inadmissible by OFO at POEs fall into one of three main categories:
>
>
> First, most inadmissible aliens from the leading countries of nonimmigrant admissions — including Mexico, Canada, People’s Republic of China (China), and India — are denied for having **missing, invalid, or expired documents**, for having **intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment**), or for **national security reasons**. These denials of admission constitute a small fraction of persons who present themselves for inspection at a POE.
>
>
> Second, certain inadmissible aliens present themselves at a POE despite knowing that they are inadmissible in order to seek some form of humanitarian relief or protection. Historically, a large share of these aliens was paroled into the United States for humanitarian reasons or as a matter of policy.
>
>
> Citizens of Cuba were generally exempted from the provisions of section 235(b)(1) of the INA under the former “Wet Foot – Dry Foot” policy, and many Cubans requested asylum at a POE, including many inadmissible Cubans not in possession of valid travel documents. With the rescission of this rule on January 12, 2017, the number of Cubans found inadmissible fell from 20,000 in 2017 to 9,400 in 2018; however, the trend of Cubans found inadmissible reversed and increased to 22,000 in 2019.
>
>
> An increasing number of nationals from the Northern Triangle also sought asylum at POEs and were found inadmissible in each year from 2013 to 2018, but all three countries had decreases in these determinations in 2019.
>
>
> Inadmissibility determinations of Northern Triangle nationals totaled 19,000 in 2019, a 50 percent decrease from 2018 (Figure 4). Inadmissible nationals from Northern Triangle countries who claim a fear of persecution or torture or who indicate their intention to apply for asylum may be placed in removal proceedings and either detained or released into the United States depending on available resources and other factors.
>
>
> The third main category of inadmissible alien consists of crew members of foreign vessels who may be required to remain aboard their ships. Cargo operations can require visits to multiple ports, or multiple docks within a single port, and can take longer than the 29 days permitted by a D-1 nonimmigrant crew member visa. In such cases, crew members initially granted shore leave may be re-coded as inadmissible once the shore leave expires, regardless of whether the crew members intended or attempted to disembark the vessel. Most inadmissible nationals from the Philippines and China are in this category.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
If you are arriving by air, then a lot of checks will have been performed before you see a CBP officer (actually, before you are even permitted to board):
* you will have applied for a visa or an ESTA
* the airline will have checked you have a valid passport
* the airline will have checked you have a valid visa or ESTA
* the airline will have sent your details to CBP via API, and CBP will have returned a board/do not board response
So in that case, the most prevalent reason is most certainly ***having intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment)***, as well as intending to immigrate and stay in the country rather than leave before the term of you visa.
Note that of course, your **actual** intentions are not really relevant, only the **perception** by CBP of your intentions.
Other possible reasons involve national security, as well as having lied on your visa or ESTA application about inadmissibility reasons such as past convictions, etc. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Any visa is never an automatic permission to enter the USA, and that’s clearly stated in many places during the application.
The core reasons to get rejected are that the officer has the impression that you are either
* going to violate the limits of the visa,
* lied in the application, or
* have a criminal intent.
The details depend on the visa—with a tourist visa, if it seems you are planning to work it is a problem—and it does seem that you are planning to work if you don’t seem to have enough money.
Most visas also have a limit for the duration of your visit, and if you don't have a return ticket, or only a vague idea where you will go, it looks fishy, etc. | A visa is just something that you need to enter the US. The visa does not indicate any decision to let you enter. It just allows you to be present for a decision to be made!
The visa is needed so that someone can make the decision: it's a necessary but insufficient part of the process. The actual decision is made each and every time by at the CBP post where you enter the US. Typical reasons for denying entry include:
* attempt to contravene immigration laws, e.g. applying for a tourist stay and then unauthorized employment, or giving reasons to suspect that such may be attempted in the future,
* prior actions in contravention of immigration laws, e.g. overstaying the entry permit duration without extension or advising someone how to "cheat" on a visa application; In other words: consequences of helping others skirt/break the law are at least as bad as doing it yourself is,
* prior criminal charges and/or judgments, whether in the US territories or outside,
* determination that there are grounds to believe that the entry of the individual is contrary to the interests of the US (or sometimes also its allies),
etc.
Note that the initial authorized duration of stay is tangential to any dates on the visa. It has everything to do with the decision made at the port of entry. The CBP officer will write in your passport and/or on your entry card how long you're authorized to stay. This may be shorter than what you expect in certain cases. E.g. just because the visa allows a stays of a certain duration, that's the upper limit. The actual length of stay authorized is determined on a case-by-case basis each time one enters the country, and an authorization may be denied as well of course. Say, a B1/B2 visa has a maximum length of stay of 6 months. I've seen people get permission to stay for 2-4 weeks if it was determined that that's all they need for their scheduled activity within the country (say a conference/symposium). At the same time, lying about what you want to do is just as bad and is grounds for refusal of entry, so don't try to "pad things". If you don't know how long it may take, or if you have potential extensions to your plans, just say so. You may be asked to provide some documentation that you have the means to afford your stay, or are otherwise financially supported, in any case.
And the flipside: just because someone's visa is expired doesn't mean they are not authorized to stay in the US. An immigration status may be adjusted without any physical visa being added to the passport, but other documents will substantiate such claims, e.g. a decision to extend or to adjust an immigration status. Such decisions are of course not awarded willy-nilly - there are copious regulations around that. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Any visa is never an automatic permission to enter the USA, and that’s clearly stated in many places during the application.
The core reasons to get rejected are that the officer has the impression that you are either
* going to violate the limits of the visa,
* lied in the application, or
* have a criminal intent.
The details depend on the visa—with a tourist visa, if it seems you are planning to work it is a problem—and it does seem that you are planning to work if you don’t seem to have enough money.
Most visas also have a limit for the duration of your visit, and if you don't have a return ticket, or only a vague idea where you will go, it looks fishy, etc. | A visa is not a right to enter a country. Citizenship is that.
When you enter a country, two things happen.
* An **immigration** officer speaks to you as you enter.
* The **customs** service looks at your stuff.
Those people have access to all your data in the computer, so they know all about your visa application. **If the conversation or your stuff suggests an intent contrary to law or your visa conditions**, that could lead to a refusal. For instance, on a UK border-patrol TV show, someone's luggage was found to be full of business clothing and 20 copies of the person's CV. That was *prima-facie* evidence of "seeking employment", not allowed on their visa or [VWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program), so back they went.
So it is possible to have a valid visa, and then "put your foot in your mouth" at the entry interview, or be seen bringing in something foolish. For instance, it's a lousy time to try to smuggle cigarettes - people still do that, and still get turned away. (Trust me: they have cigarettes in stores here.) What makes it smuggling is "not declaring it" - declaring it greatly improves consequences for honest ordinary mistakes.
Because America is a *federal* country, this can blind-side people since we have a cacophony of differing government laws. Many states are simpatico with marijuana use, but it's a Class 1 narcotic to the feds. So drug paraphernalia or the smell of pot will doom you, even if it's legal in the state you are landing. (This is *especially* a problem at the Canada border.)
Speaking of that, border guards can prohibit things that are legal in both places - Canada won't *let in* marijuana and paraphernalia, even though it's legal in Washington state, and legal federally in Canada. A laptop full of porn is a problem here.
Note that they can also inspect your phone and your social media activity both for contrary-to-visa activities and simply being undesirable... and if you say "well, I won't give them my passcode!" they will simply refuse you entry. So data hygiene is a good plan... also, not being a jackass on social media they know about. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | Any visa is never an automatic permission to enter the USA, and that’s clearly stated in many places during the application.
The core reasons to get rejected are that the officer has the impression that you are either
* going to violate the limits of the visa,
* lied in the application, or
* have a criminal intent.
The details depend on the visa—with a tourist visa, if it seems you are planning to work it is a problem—and it does seem that you are planning to work if you don’t seem to have enough money.
Most visas also have a limit for the duration of your visit, and if you don't have a return ticket, or only a vague idea where you will go, it looks fishy, etc. | [CBP tells us](https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Mar/CBP-Border-Security-Report-FY2018.pdf) that in FY18 (fiscal year 2018):
>
> At ports of entry, CBP officers encountered 279,009 inadmissible individuals. While **the most common reason CBP officers determined individuals to be inadmissible pertained to their inability to satisfy documentary requirements**, CBP officers found some individuals to be inadmissible based on previous immigration violations, criminal grounds, and for national security-related reasons.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
This is of course quite a broad "reason".
[DHS have more to say](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/enforcement_actions_2019.pdf):
>
> In 2019, 55 percent of the inadmissibility determinations occurred at land ports, 18 percent at air ports, and 27 percent at sea ports; these proportions are comparable to 2018; however, not comparable to 2016 and 2017 due to a temporary policy change in how crew members detained aboard were categorized in those 2 years. The leading ports were Laredo (where OFO found 50,000 aliens inadmissible), San Diego (35,000), El Paso (26,000), and Houston (25,000).
>
>
> Most aliens found inadmissible by OFO at POEs fall into one of three main categories:
>
>
> First, most inadmissible aliens from the leading countries of nonimmigrant admissions — including Mexico, Canada, People’s Republic of China (China), and India — are denied for having **missing, invalid, or expired documents**, for having **intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment**), or for **national security reasons**. These denials of admission constitute a small fraction of persons who present themselves for inspection at a POE.
>
>
> Second, certain inadmissible aliens present themselves at a POE despite knowing that they are inadmissible in order to seek some form of humanitarian relief or protection. Historically, a large share of these aliens was paroled into the United States for humanitarian reasons or as a matter of policy.
>
>
> Citizens of Cuba were generally exempted from the provisions of section 235(b)(1) of the INA under the former “Wet Foot – Dry Foot” policy, and many Cubans requested asylum at a POE, including many inadmissible Cubans not in possession of valid travel documents. With the rescission of this rule on January 12, 2017, the number of Cubans found inadmissible fell from 20,000 in 2017 to 9,400 in 2018; however, the trend of Cubans found inadmissible reversed and increased to 22,000 in 2019.
>
>
> An increasing number of nationals from the Northern Triangle also sought asylum at POEs and were found inadmissible in each year from 2013 to 2018, but all three countries had decreases in these determinations in 2019.
>
>
> Inadmissibility determinations of Northern Triangle nationals totaled 19,000 in 2019, a 50 percent decrease from 2018 (Figure 4). Inadmissible nationals from Northern Triangle countries who claim a fear of persecution or torture or who indicate their intention to apply for asylum may be placed in removal proceedings and either detained or released into the United States depending on available resources and other factors.
>
>
> The third main category of inadmissible alien consists of crew members of foreign vessels who may be required to remain aboard their ships. Cargo operations can require visits to multiple ports, or multiple docks within a single port, and can take longer than the 29 days permitted by a D-1 nonimmigrant crew member visa. In such cases, crew members initially granted shore leave may be re-coded as inadmissible once the shore leave expires, regardless of whether the crew members intended or attempted to disembark the vessel. Most inadmissible nationals from the Philippines and China are in this category.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
If you are arriving by air, then a lot of checks will have been performed before you see a CBP officer (actually, before you are even permitted to board):
* you will have applied for a visa or an ESTA
* the airline will have checked you have a valid passport
* the airline will have checked you have a valid visa or ESTA
* the airline will have sent your details to CBP via API, and CBP will have returned a board/do not board response
So in that case, the most prevalent reason is most certainly ***having intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment)***, as well as intending to immigrate and stay in the country rather than leave before the term of you visa.
Note that of course, your **actual** intentions are not really relevant, only the **perception** by CBP of your intentions.
Other possible reasons involve national security, as well as having lied on your visa or ESTA application about inadmissibility reasons such as past convictions, etc. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | A visa is not a right to enter a country. Citizenship is that.
When you enter a country, two things happen.
* An **immigration** officer speaks to you as you enter.
* The **customs** service looks at your stuff.
Those people have access to all your data in the computer, so they know all about your visa application. **If the conversation or your stuff suggests an intent contrary to law or your visa conditions**, that could lead to a refusal. For instance, on a UK border-patrol TV show, someone's luggage was found to be full of business clothing and 20 copies of the person's CV. That was *prima-facie* evidence of "seeking employment", not allowed on their visa or [VWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program), so back they went.
So it is possible to have a valid visa, and then "put your foot in your mouth" at the entry interview, or be seen bringing in something foolish. For instance, it's a lousy time to try to smuggle cigarettes - people still do that, and still get turned away. (Trust me: they have cigarettes in stores here.) What makes it smuggling is "not declaring it" - declaring it greatly improves consequences for honest ordinary mistakes.
Because America is a *federal* country, this can blind-side people since we have a cacophony of differing government laws. Many states are simpatico with marijuana use, but it's a Class 1 narcotic to the feds. So drug paraphernalia or the smell of pot will doom you, even if it's legal in the state you are landing. (This is *especially* a problem at the Canada border.)
Speaking of that, border guards can prohibit things that are legal in both places - Canada won't *let in* marijuana and paraphernalia, even though it's legal in Washington state, and legal federally in Canada. A laptop full of porn is a problem here.
Note that they can also inspect your phone and your social media activity both for contrary-to-visa activities and simply being undesirable... and if you say "well, I won't give them my passcode!" they will simply refuse you entry. So data hygiene is a good plan... also, not being a jackass on social media they know about. | A visa is just something that you need to enter the US. The visa does not indicate any decision to let you enter. It just allows you to be present for a decision to be made!
The visa is needed so that someone can make the decision: it's a necessary but insufficient part of the process. The actual decision is made each and every time by at the CBP post where you enter the US. Typical reasons for denying entry include:
* attempt to contravene immigration laws, e.g. applying for a tourist stay and then unauthorized employment, or giving reasons to suspect that such may be attempted in the future,
* prior actions in contravention of immigration laws, e.g. overstaying the entry permit duration without extension or advising someone how to "cheat" on a visa application; In other words: consequences of helping others skirt/break the law are at least as bad as doing it yourself is,
* prior criminal charges and/or judgments, whether in the US territories or outside,
* determination that there are grounds to believe that the entry of the individual is contrary to the interests of the US (or sometimes also its allies),
etc.
Note that the initial authorized duration of stay is tangential to any dates on the visa. It has everything to do with the decision made at the port of entry. The CBP officer will write in your passport and/or on your entry card how long you're authorized to stay. This may be shorter than what you expect in certain cases. E.g. just because the visa allows a stays of a certain duration, that's the upper limit. The actual length of stay authorized is determined on a case-by-case basis each time one enters the country, and an authorization may be denied as well of course. Say, a B1/B2 visa has a maximum length of stay of 6 months. I've seen people get permission to stay for 2-4 weeks if it was determined that that's all they need for their scheduled activity within the country (say a conference/symposium). At the same time, lying about what you want to do is just as bad and is grounds for refusal of entry, so don't try to "pad things". If you don't know how long it may take, or if you have potential extensions to your plans, just say so. You may be asked to provide some documentation that you have the means to afford your stay, or are otherwise financially supported, in any case.
And the flipside: just because someone's visa is expired doesn't mean they are not authorized to stay in the US. An immigration status may be adjusted without any physical visa being added to the passport, but other documents will substantiate such claims, e.g. a decision to extend or to adjust an immigration status. Such decisions are of course not awarded willy-nilly - there are copious regulations around that. |
172,682 | I recently got my US visa and I am really happy about it. Also, I recently saw a documentary where a US immigration officer was denying entry to some people. I never thought your entry could be denied if your visa was valid.
What are common reasons for US immigration officers to deny entry in the country? | 2022/03/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/172682",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/127303/"
] | A visa is not a right to enter a country. Citizenship is that.
When you enter a country, two things happen.
* An **immigration** officer speaks to you as you enter.
* The **customs** service looks at your stuff.
Those people have access to all your data in the computer, so they know all about your visa application. **If the conversation or your stuff suggests an intent contrary to law or your visa conditions**, that could lead to a refusal. For instance, on a UK border-patrol TV show, someone's luggage was found to be full of business clothing and 20 copies of the person's CV. That was *prima-facie* evidence of "seeking employment", not allowed on their visa or [VWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program), so back they went.
So it is possible to have a valid visa, and then "put your foot in your mouth" at the entry interview, or be seen bringing in something foolish. For instance, it's a lousy time to try to smuggle cigarettes - people still do that, and still get turned away. (Trust me: they have cigarettes in stores here.) What makes it smuggling is "not declaring it" - declaring it greatly improves consequences for honest ordinary mistakes.
Because America is a *federal* country, this can blind-side people since we have a cacophony of differing government laws. Many states are simpatico with marijuana use, but it's a Class 1 narcotic to the feds. So drug paraphernalia or the smell of pot will doom you, even if it's legal in the state you are landing. (This is *especially* a problem at the Canada border.)
Speaking of that, border guards can prohibit things that are legal in both places - Canada won't *let in* marijuana and paraphernalia, even though it's legal in Washington state, and legal federally in Canada. A laptop full of porn is a problem here.
Note that they can also inspect your phone and your social media activity both for contrary-to-visa activities and simply being undesirable... and if you say "well, I won't give them my passcode!" they will simply refuse you entry. So data hygiene is a good plan... also, not being a jackass on social media they know about. | [CBP tells us](https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Mar/CBP-Border-Security-Report-FY2018.pdf) that in FY18 (fiscal year 2018):
>
> At ports of entry, CBP officers encountered 279,009 inadmissible individuals. While **the most common reason CBP officers determined individuals to be inadmissible pertained to their inability to satisfy documentary requirements**, CBP officers found some individuals to be inadmissible based on previous immigration violations, criminal grounds, and for national security-related reasons.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
This is of course quite a broad "reason".
[DHS have more to say](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/enforcement_actions_2019.pdf):
>
> In 2019, 55 percent of the inadmissibility determinations occurred at land ports, 18 percent at air ports, and 27 percent at sea ports; these proportions are comparable to 2018; however, not comparable to 2016 and 2017 due to a temporary policy change in how crew members detained aboard were categorized in those 2 years. The leading ports were Laredo (where OFO found 50,000 aliens inadmissible), San Diego (35,000), El Paso (26,000), and Houston (25,000).
>
>
> Most aliens found inadmissible by OFO at POEs fall into one of three main categories:
>
>
> First, most inadmissible aliens from the leading countries of nonimmigrant admissions — including Mexico, Canada, People’s Republic of China (China), and India — are denied for having **missing, invalid, or expired documents**, for having **intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment**), or for **national security reasons**. These denials of admission constitute a small fraction of persons who present themselves for inspection at a POE.
>
>
> Second, certain inadmissible aliens present themselves at a POE despite knowing that they are inadmissible in order to seek some form of humanitarian relief or protection. Historically, a large share of these aliens was paroled into the United States for humanitarian reasons or as a matter of policy.
>
>
> Citizens of Cuba were generally exempted from the provisions of section 235(b)(1) of the INA under the former “Wet Foot – Dry Foot” policy, and many Cubans requested asylum at a POE, including many inadmissible Cubans not in possession of valid travel documents. With the rescission of this rule on January 12, 2017, the number of Cubans found inadmissible fell from 20,000 in 2017 to 9,400 in 2018; however, the trend of Cubans found inadmissible reversed and increased to 22,000 in 2019.
>
>
> An increasing number of nationals from the Northern Triangle also sought asylum at POEs and were found inadmissible in each year from 2013 to 2018, but all three countries had decreases in these determinations in 2019.
>
>
> Inadmissibility determinations of Northern Triangle nationals totaled 19,000 in 2019, a 50 percent decrease from 2018 (Figure 4). Inadmissible nationals from Northern Triangle countries who claim a fear of persecution or torture or who indicate their intention to apply for asylum may be placed in removal proceedings and either detained or released into the United States depending on available resources and other factors.
>
>
> The third main category of inadmissible alien consists of crew members of foreign vessels who may be required to remain aboard their ships. Cargo operations can require visits to multiple ports, or multiple docks within a single port, and can take longer than the 29 days permitted by a D-1 nonimmigrant crew member visa. In such cases, crew members initially granted shore leave may be re-coded as inadmissible once the shore leave expires, regardless of whether the crew members intended or attempted to disembark the vessel. Most inadmissible nationals from the Philippines and China are in this category.
>
>
>
*(emphasis mine)*
If you are arriving by air, then a lot of checks will have been performed before you see a CBP officer (actually, before you are even permitted to board):
* you will have applied for a visa or an ESTA
* the airline will have checked you have a valid passport
* the airline will have checked you have a valid visa or ESTA
* the airline will have sent your details to CBP via API, and CBP will have returned a board/do not board response
So in that case, the most prevalent reason is most certainly ***having intentions prohibited by the visa (e.g., presenting a tourist visa but intending to seek employment)***, as well as intending to immigrate and stay in the country rather than leave before the term of you visa.
Note that of course, your **actual** intentions are not really relevant, only the **perception** by CBP of your intentions.
Other possible reasons involve national security, as well as having lied on your visa or ESTA application about inadmissibility reasons such as past convictions, etc. |
43,497 | For just this brief time during the recalc, can we agree to close as "off topic" on SO with a comment link to the recalc blog post instead of migrating to meta where we simply have to go through the exercise again? | 2010/03/22 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/43497",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/12950/"
] | I feel bad for a lot of these people. First, some of them put time into researching what happened. Some even write detailed posts explaining what they did to troubleshoot the problem. Then they get barked at for asking the question, and downvoted (reducing their rep even more).
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY SOMEONE PLEASE PUT A BANNER UP ON SO!!!
======================================================================= | Makes sense.
I don't see the point of burning up close votes on two sites for the same questions. |
6,739,054 | Apologies. I am sure I should know where to look to deal with this but I do not:
The error below has appeared in my solution. I am not aware of why.
>
> The item
> "obj\Release\ScruffyDuck.AirportDesignEditor.MainForm.resources" was
> specified more than once in the "Resources" parameter. Duplicate
> items are not supported by the "Resources" parameter. Airport Design
> Editor
>
>
>
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to put me out of my misery and tell me where to look.
Thanks | 2011/07/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6739054",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/420363/"
] | OK I found it. I have no idea how it happened. However it might be useful for the future. MainForm has a number of files containing different parts of the class. The main part has all the designer code and so on. Somehow a .resx file got created on one of the partial class files along with an InitializeComponent() method. Removing the extra .resx file got as far as reporting the duplicate method and removing that allowed the solution to compile again. It seems that though the file names are different (the error was in MainForm.EventHandlers) the two resx files are treated as the same even though they have different names.
I am now getting some exceptions but at least I can get the code running in the debugger again. | I think you'll have to open your .csproj file, and look for that file name. It sounds like ScruffyDuck.AirportDesignEditor.MainForm.resources is appearing more than once. Just remove the duplicate node (.csproj files are just xml). |
6,739,054 | Apologies. I am sure I should know where to look to deal with this but I do not:
The error below has appeared in my solution. I am not aware of why.
>
> The item
> "obj\Release\ScruffyDuck.AirportDesignEditor.MainForm.resources" was
> specified more than once in the "Resources" parameter. Duplicate
> items are not supported by the "Resources" parameter. Airport Design
> Editor
>
>
>
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to put me out of my misery and tell me where to look.
Thanks | 2011/07/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6739054",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/420363/"
] | OK I found it. I have no idea how it happened. However it might be useful for the future. MainForm has a number of files containing different parts of the class. The main part has all the designer code and so on. Somehow a .resx file got created on one of the partial class files along with an InitializeComponent() method. Removing the extra .resx file got as far as reporting the duplicate method and removing that allowed the solution to compile again. It seems that though the file names are different (the error was in MainForm.EventHandlers) the two resx files are treated as the same even though they have different names.
I am now getting some exceptions but at least I can get the code running in the debugger again. | 1. Just remove **obj** directory from HD manually.
2. Clear solution from Visual Studio (Right click on project in SolutionExplorer and select "Clear")
3. Rebuild solution.
Cause could be a fault of generated resource file, due some conflicts happened in your project.
*Should* work.
Regards. |
10,842 | I am a Wordpress fan, and I'm now building a new site and I'm not sure which CMS can achieve what I'm trying to do.
I am building a food blog network for a bunch of cities in the US, and I want to my city pages to be independently running blogs themselves. So basically...
* Home Page - Its own blog with its own users, talking about Food in general
* Dallas Page (child of home page) - Its own blog with its own users
* Chicago Page ..... so on and so forth.
The web layout and design will be all the same, but just trying to achieve 25~50 independent blogs on one domain.
How can I achieve this? I'm hoping that I don't have to install Wordpress into as many subdomains that I create. | 2011/03/17 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/10842",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/6163/"
] | Won't a WordPress Network do it?
<http://codex.wordpress.org/Create_A_Network> | Another option would be the [Lifetype](http://lifetype.net/) blogging platform, which accommodates multiple blogs and users.
I'm not sure if it has many CMS capabilities, but it handles multiple blogs and bloggers by default. |
5,284,523 | VS.NET 2010's Code Metric window provides line count, it doesn't show a sum of all projects in the window. When you export to Excel it lists all sub classes again therefore it's not possible to calculate the total line of code in the solution.
If you have 1-5 projects it's no problem but if you have more than 30 then it's really too much to do.
Has anyone figured out a way to do this? *I don't want to install a separate tool for this as there should be an easy way to get this out of Code Metrics window.* | 2011/03/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5284523",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/40322/"
] | You can use filtering feature in Excel to filter out only row with Scope = 'Namespace'. Then you can just select all rows in the line count column and the sum appears in the progress bar. | Well you may have a look at [How do you count the lines of code in a Visual Studio solution?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1244729/how-do-you-count-the-lines-of-code-in-a-visual-studio-solution) |
36,250 | On my current project, we are debating the usage of replacing input fields (checkboxes, radio buttons, and select dropdowns) with styled choices via javascript. However, it breaks the support of navigating between form input fields via the tab key. I tried searching to see the usage rate of normal users (i.e. not developers) navigating forms via the keyboard, but couldn't find any studies done on it.
I don't like the idea of breaking basic, expected browser functionality, but I would love to see numbers and/or advice on the usage of keyboard navigation with forms. | 2013/03/12 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/36250",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/17737/"
] | The usage of keyboard shortcuts is highly dependent on the type of user, their level of expertise, and how they expect an application or website to work. The broad question of "how do all people do this?" doesn't address your real issue, which is "what is the impact of having mouse-only navigation?"
In general, keyboard-centric usage is most important to users who are highly skilled, either with software in general, or with an application in particular. I've seen plenty of cases where otherwise-novice users were keyboard-centric with a specific application (or even just a specific workflow within an application) because that is how they were taught to do it, and they meticulously follow what they were originally taught. If it's the case of highly skilled users, you have to decide whether the gains that you get in your proposed user experience are worth breaking those users' expectations. This is especially true if these are highly-skilled users who are very important to your product: they might make up a small subset of your users, but they're also the ones who are most likely to be very vocal, and so upsetting them about a basic expected behavior will have a larger impact on your product than just the impact to their user experience in this particular workflow. As you can glean from some of the comments to your question, breaking expectations about keyboard-centric workflows has a major negative impact on how well users trust your application.
Keyboard-centric usage is also important for accessibility concerns. How does your design impact a user with limited mobility? Even though users who use accessibility affordances might be a small part of your user base, making it difficult or impossible to use your application can have significant consequences, and could even block the adoption of your product if there is a competitor that provides an accessible experience.
In my opinion, there are times when it's not raw data that you want. You could go out and find out how many people will be impacted by making this workflow mouse-only (but not just in a standard usability study, since often even highly-skilled users will default to using the mouse the first time through; being keyboard-centric is about *usage*, not *usability*), but that doesn't give you the whole story. You need to do a careful analysis of your users and determine if a mouse-only workflow brings sufficient benefit to them. If it's a major improvement, then even the most keyboard-centric user will usually be happy because they're able to accomplish their goals quickly and easily. If it's only a minor improvement for most users, but either a minor improvement or a detriment to your highly-skilled users, then you have to consider carefully whether a small win is really worth breaking expectations. Consistency and expectations matter a lot, and a small win might not be sufficient to overcome those. | For me, this is a current issue as my team is unconvinced when it comes to standards like WCAG when using form fields in an application we use on a daily basis.
More scientific stuff on the UX and productivity improvements of keyboard usage: [Are there any recent studies of the "Keyboard vs Mouse"-issue?](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30682/are-there-any-recent-studies-of-the-keyboard-vs-mouse-issue) (question from 2012)
I took away from this that using keyboard shortcuts or key combinations to navigate a system/application is significantly faster than a mouse when there is no toolbar. |
168,416 | When I make a table, there is a column we left for the things we forget to write down on it. What would we call this item? Remarks or Note? | 2014/05/06 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/168416",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/72974/"
] | I would use *Remarks* if the material was of interest to the document reader. I would use *Notes* if the material was a reminder to the author that re-work might be required. | I would use
**Remarks** - for short words
**Note** - for long words, bullet points or even a long paragraph |
37,479 | A friend alerted me she saw my children in a photograph hung in a chain restaurant. Although the picture was taken at a public event, I never gave permission for anyone to sell the image of my children or to hang in such a very public place. Even though it is a public place, there is some expected right to privacy. After all, we don't expect a trip to the grocery store to land us on a billboard. What rights do I have to protect the image of my children? (What if we had been in Witness Protection or hiding from an abusive partner?) | 2013/04/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37479",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/19137/"
] | Legal Disclaimer
----------------
*The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Since the questioner indicated they were located in the U.S., this answer assumes that to be the case.*
---
There are a lot of issues involved here, and any one of them may or may not be the hinge upon which a judge would rule in a case such as this. You need to consult an attorney who specializes in this area and who practices in your jurisdiction and would be familiar with the tendencies of the potential judge(s) that might hear your case were it to go to trial.
That said, there are several considerations that should be made in situations like this.
* In general there is no expectation of privacy when in a public place in the U.S. The courts have repeatedly established and confirmed that no such expectation exists under U.S. Law. Artistic or editorial use of images taken in public do not normally require a release from those pictured.
* Is the picture placed in the restaurant for a purely *aesthetic* function or is it being used to *promote* the restaurant? Even a restaurant logo printed in one corner might be enough to establish it as promotion. On the other hand, if it may be considered aesthetic in nature, there is not always the need to obtain permission from those pictured, depending on the circumstances in which the photo was taken. The key question here is, *"Does the presence of this photo promote the business or merely decorate it?"*
* What were the circumstances under which the photo was taken? *If it was at a public event on public property there is no explicit **requirement** to obtain permission for artistic or editorial use.* Many photographers will wisely attempt to obtain a release anyway so that the situation you have described doesn't develop later on after they have sold an image to a client for aesthetic use. Use in advertising does require a release from each recognizable individual in the photo.
* *If the public event you attended with your children involved a paid admission, you most likely agreed to their policies.* There may have been some fine print on the bottom or back of the ticket to the effect that by attending the event you agreed to the promoter's or sponsor's policies regarding the event. Typically the fine print includes language something like: "You may view the complete policy at (name of business/address) during normal business hours or at (web address)" Or there might have been a sign to the same effect posted at admission points.
* If you were attending a public event held on private property the situation is similar but there are some minor differences. If admission was charged, you probably agreed to the host's policies (see above). *Even if admission was not charged, the property owner or promoter may have posted a sign indicating that by entering you are assumed to have agreed to their policies.* Many businesses display such signs at entry points. How prominently they are displayed and how binding they are will probably become a key point of contention in any case of this nature that goes to trial.
* *There have been some precedents set by courts for civil suits in which photos that are considered **truthful but embarrassing** resulted in rulings for the plaintiffs.* In those that involved children the cases were primarily concerned with what we might refer to as "special needs" children.
As to the part of your question that asks,
>
> What if we had been in Witness Protection or hiding from an abusive partner?
>
>
>
Depending on what may be deduced from the photo itself as well as how it is displayed, at the very worst the photo of your children only reveals where they were at a specific time in the past and does not necessarily reveal where they presently are. Does the way in which the photo is displayed or captioned even indicate where or when the photo was taken?
I've never been involved with anyone placed in a witness protection program, but I would assume the participants are strongly encouraged to avoid situations, such as attending notable public events, that might reveal their whereabouts. I would also assume the same would be the case for those hiding from an abusive partner. | My answer will be really short, and not based on any law school experience, but only on some conversations about privacy and tort law, etc. and how they apply to photographers, with an uncle who is a lawyer and a cousin in law school, and the fact that I'm a photographer.
As long as the person who took the photo in the public place isn't deriving any profit from the photograph itself by sole virtue of your presence in the photo, or committing libel against you, then your privacy isn't being exploited for others' gain and harm isn't being done to you. So in that case, there would be nothing you could do to them.
Harm can include intangible harm like suffering caused by knowing that an indecent photograph of someone you love is being looked at by others.
"By sole virtue of your presence" means the person alone who is the subject of the photo, rather than the context of the photograph. I.e., I can be paid by the newspaper for my picture of the the winner of the state track meet, and of course that photo consists almost entirely of the person who won. But there is an editorial reason for the picture, i.e., it is a picture "of the winner of the state track meet" rather than "a picture of a person that some other person is hiring me to stalk in public."
Being a celebrity is enough context that people can usually "stalk" celebrities in public legally, but most other people can't be stalked in public without its being construed as harassment.
Sorry, my answer is now getting longer and longer... just look at the second paragraph, and that's all I meant to say. |
37,479 | A friend alerted me she saw my children in a photograph hung in a chain restaurant. Although the picture was taken at a public event, I never gave permission for anyone to sell the image of my children or to hang in such a very public place. Even though it is a public place, there is some expected right to privacy. After all, we don't expect a trip to the grocery store to land us on a billboard. What rights do I have to protect the image of my children? (What if we had been in Witness Protection or hiding from an abusive partner?) | 2013/04/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37479",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/19137/"
] | Legal Disclaimer
----------------
*The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Since the questioner indicated they were located in the U.S., this answer assumes that to be the case.*
---
There are a lot of issues involved here, and any one of them may or may not be the hinge upon which a judge would rule in a case such as this. You need to consult an attorney who specializes in this area and who practices in your jurisdiction and would be familiar with the tendencies of the potential judge(s) that might hear your case were it to go to trial.
That said, there are several considerations that should be made in situations like this.
* In general there is no expectation of privacy when in a public place in the U.S. The courts have repeatedly established and confirmed that no such expectation exists under U.S. Law. Artistic or editorial use of images taken in public do not normally require a release from those pictured.
* Is the picture placed in the restaurant for a purely *aesthetic* function or is it being used to *promote* the restaurant? Even a restaurant logo printed in one corner might be enough to establish it as promotion. On the other hand, if it may be considered aesthetic in nature, there is not always the need to obtain permission from those pictured, depending on the circumstances in which the photo was taken. The key question here is, *"Does the presence of this photo promote the business or merely decorate it?"*
* What were the circumstances under which the photo was taken? *If it was at a public event on public property there is no explicit **requirement** to obtain permission for artistic or editorial use.* Many photographers will wisely attempt to obtain a release anyway so that the situation you have described doesn't develop later on after they have sold an image to a client for aesthetic use. Use in advertising does require a release from each recognizable individual in the photo.
* *If the public event you attended with your children involved a paid admission, you most likely agreed to their policies.* There may have been some fine print on the bottom or back of the ticket to the effect that by attending the event you agreed to the promoter's or sponsor's policies regarding the event. Typically the fine print includes language something like: "You may view the complete policy at (name of business/address) during normal business hours or at (web address)" Or there might have been a sign to the same effect posted at admission points.
* If you were attending a public event held on private property the situation is similar but there are some minor differences. If admission was charged, you probably agreed to the host's policies (see above). *Even if admission was not charged, the property owner or promoter may have posted a sign indicating that by entering you are assumed to have agreed to their policies.* Many businesses display such signs at entry points. How prominently they are displayed and how binding they are will probably become a key point of contention in any case of this nature that goes to trial.
* *There have been some precedents set by courts for civil suits in which photos that are considered **truthful but embarrassing** resulted in rulings for the plaintiffs.* In those that involved children the cases were primarily concerned with what we might refer to as "special needs" children.
As to the part of your question that asks,
>
> What if we had been in Witness Protection or hiding from an abusive partner?
>
>
>
Depending on what may be deduced from the photo itself as well as how it is displayed, at the very worst the photo of your children only reveals where they were at a specific time in the past and does not necessarily reveal where they presently are. Does the way in which the photo is displayed or captioned even indicate where or when the photo was taken?
I've never been involved with anyone placed in a witness protection program, but I would assume the participants are strongly encouraged to avoid situations, such as attending notable public events, that might reveal their whereabouts. I would also assume the same would be the case for those hiding from an abusive partner. | Photographer here. This isn't a question about privacy, but rather commercial use of your image by a private company on private property which is open to the public. You and your kids have the same rights that a child actor from Modern Family would have. The restaurant hung the picture to enhance their commercial interest. You can't do that without written permission and pay. |
37,479 | A friend alerted me she saw my children in a photograph hung in a chain restaurant. Although the picture was taken at a public event, I never gave permission for anyone to sell the image of my children or to hang in such a very public place. Even though it is a public place, there is some expected right to privacy. After all, we don't expect a trip to the grocery store to land us on a billboard. What rights do I have to protect the image of my children? (What if we had been in Witness Protection or hiding from an abusive partner?) | 2013/04/03 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37479",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/19137/"
] | My answer will be really short, and not based on any law school experience, but only on some conversations about privacy and tort law, etc. and how they apply to photographers, with an uncle who is a lawyer and a cousin in law school, and the fact that I'm a photographer.
As long as the person who took the photo in the public place isn't deriving any profit from the photograph itself by sole virtue of your presence in the photo, or committing libel against you, then your privacy isn't being exploited for others' gain and harm isn't being done to you. So in that case, there would be nothing you could do to them.
Harm can include intangible harm like suffering caused by knowing that an indecent photograph of someone you love is being looked at by others.
"By sole virtue of your presence" means the person alone who is the subject of the photo, rather than the context of the photograph. I.e., I can be paid by the newspaper for my picture of the the winner of the state track meet, and of course that photo consists almost entirely of the person who won. But there is an editorial reason for the picture, i.e., it is a picture "of the winner of the state track meet" rather than "a picture of a person that some other person is hiring me to stalk in public."
Being a celebrity is enough context that people can usually "stalk" celebrities in public legally, but most other people can't be stalked in public without its being construed as harassment.
Sorry, my answer is now getting longer and longer... just look at the second paragraph, and that's all I meant to say. | Photographer here. This isn't a question about privacy, but rather commercial use of your image by a private company on private property which is open to the public. You and your kids have the same rights that a child actor from Modern Family would have. The restaurant hung the picture to enhance their commercial interest. You can't do that without written permission and pay. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | That depends on how much this character is important to the whole story and how much chinese feel you want to retain.
If the character is very important and no english word can express it without distorting its essence, you should invent a new word in english for it. It may be the literal pronunciation of the chinese term or something else. You must give your readers enough details, so that they can picturize it uniquely in their minds.
If the character is not so important, but still cannot be represented by normal english words. You take an already existing word and change its definition in your story. You may define that fairies in your story don't have wings and look ugly. It'll work as long as you maintain consistency. | It depends on whether you want to maintain a feel of Chinese culture and mythology in your story (which can be very effective but involves a lot more than just translating the story), or you want to adapt the storyline into something that feels more familiar to Western readers.
**If you want to maintain a Chinese feel** then you may want to introduce the entity as "yāojing—a mischievous fairy-like creature without wings" or "a malevolent elf-like creature with powers of enchantment" or whatever is appropriate for the nature of your creature. There is nothing wrong with showing the reader that there is no sufficient word for the creature—in fact, that makes your story more interesting.
**If you want to adapt the story to something more familiar,** and there is just one such creature, give it a name, refer to it by its name, and readers will learn about it as you describe its appearance, history and behaviour. If there are many such creatures, all alike, you certainly can "shoehorn" them into an existing concept like goblin, demon, devil, imp, spirit, shade, ghost, ghoul, spectre, witch, or [familiar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familiar_spirit). Alternative spellings like daemon, faerie can help emphasise that the creature is a little different to the established concept. Or, you can name your "species" (think of the *Ents* in Lord of the Rings, *dementors* in Harry Potter, or the *Ogier* in Wheel of Time), and describe them as I have suggested above. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | In your example, 白骨精, I'd say the 精 is not so much 'fairy' as it is in 妖精, but rather 'spirit' (like in 精霊), similar to how in English we can use the word 'spirit' to describe a lot of different types of ghouls and ghosts, so spirit might be a good choice as a kind of 'all round' title.
Anyway, I don't have a definite answer, but I would say there's two options.
Option one, rather than translating the other language into an English equivalent you could simply use the foreign word. For example, a 僵尸 would simply be 'jiangshi', rather than 'Chinese hopping vampire'. This would work best if what you're writing is set in a world or country that comes across as foreign to English readers anyway, whether you use English to describe the creatures or not. After all, most people are unfamiliar with foreign mythical creatures, so in some cases the English may give no more of an idea of what the creature is like than the original foreign word.
But then for option two (which is the one I'd use), to be honest I would just say to choose which word (ghoul, fairy, spirit, demon) fits with the image of the creature. Is it small and cute and not very mean? Fairy or spirit should do. Is it ugly and bad, but maybe not so deadly to humans? Maybe ghoul would work. Evil and malevolent and otherwise hurts people? Demon or devil it is.
When it comes to writing the author has a lot of leeway with naming and making up creatures, so I would go with whatever you feel fits the best, whether that be the English or the original word. | To a native American English speaker, *fairy* and *elf* will both connote a positive or helpful mythological creature that may wield magic. *Goblin* will connote a trouble maker, and *demon* will connote a denizen of hell. That may, perhaps, guide your choice.
In wiktionary, 妖精 leans more toward *fairy* than *goblin*. I'd suggest calling them fay-like creatures, or perhaps Japanese fairies. Something like this so the reader knows not to envision typical fairies. White bone demon is an interesting idea and if you decide to do that you will definitely be communicating something non-traditional. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | Does it have to be an actual translation? Translations don't always work, as synonyms get lost in translation. As you mentioned, there is no English word that can mean "fairy", "elf" **and** "goblin".
Translating to any of the options will mean that you lose out some of the ambiguity. Maybe it's important in your story that the creature's alignment is unknown. If you translate it to "fairy", readers will interpret it as good. If you translate it to "goblin", readers are liable to interpret it as conniving or evil. You can't retain the ambiguity.
Instead, you can simply pick a name without any inherent meaning (or suggestion about alignment), and then define the creature through observation rather than naming.
The Wikipedia page you linked has an English variant, where the chosen name seems to be [**Yōsei**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dsei). Why not use that, so you don't bias your readers and are actually able to assume direct control over steering the viewer's observation; as opposed to relying on existing words with Western connotations?
* **Fairy** = small and benevolent. Has a physical shape but they are inherently magic.
* **Spirit** = ghost or ethereal entity, lacks physical shape.
* **Elf** = humanoid creature with magical affinity and often has an expanded lifespan. Often acts as a counterpart to the human race. Alternatively (but less commonly), very similar to a fairy but not *as* magical in nature.
* **Goblin** = Conniving, tinkerer, likely evil (or at least lacks moral principles). Humanoid, but lesser to elves and humans.
* **Demon** = almost definitively evil. Possible religious connotation (demons are to the Devil what angels are to God; henchmen). Known to possess humans.
These are in no way guaranteed traits, but if the reader reads the word, they are liable to make inferences as to what the creature is like.
Because 妖精 can mean all of these things *at the same time*, the reader is therefore unable to make a choice between the listed interpretations. They must assume a generalized shape. But as English lacks a word that encompasses all definitions, you're much more likely to have your English readers pidgeon hole your creature by the common definition of the word you chose to use. | To a native American English speaker, *fairy* and *elf* will both connote a positive or helpful mythological creature that may wield magic. *Goblin* will connote a trouble maker, and *demon* will connote a denizen of hell. That may, perhaps, guide your choice.
In wiktionary, 妖精 leans more toward *fairy* than *goblin*. I'd suggest calling them fay-like creatures, or perhaps Japanese fairies. Something like this so the reader knows not to envision typical fairies. White bone demon is an interesting idea and if you decide to do that you will definitely be communicating something non-traditional. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | In your example, 白骨精, I'd say the 精 is not so much 'fairy' as it is in 妖精, but rather 'spirit' (like in 精霊), similar to how in English we can use the word 'spirit' to describe a lot of different types of ghouls and ghosts, so spirit might be a good choice as a kind of 'all round' title.
Anyway, I don't have a definite answer, but I would say there's two options.
Option one, rather than translating the other language into an English equivalent you could simply use the foreign word. For example, a 僵尸 would simply be 'jiangshi', rather than 'Chinese hopping vampire'. This would work best if what you're writing is set in a world or country that comes across as foreign to English readers anyway, whether you use English to describe the creatures or not. After all, most people are unfamiliar with foreign mythical creatures, so in some cases the English may give no more of an idea of what the creature is like than the original foreign word.
But then for option two (which is the one I'd use), to be honest I would just say to choose which word (ghoul, fairy, spirit, demon) fits with the image of the creature. Is it small and cute and not very mean? Fairy or spirit should do. Is it ugly and bad, but maybe not so deadly to humans? Maybe ghoul would work. Evil and malevolent and otherwise hurts people? Demon or devil it is.
When it comes to writing the author has a lot of leeway with naming and making up creatures, so I would go with whatever you feel fits the best, whether that be the English or the original word. | The differences between 'fairy', 'elf' 'goblin' and 'demon' are *not* negligible. The fact that a dictionary offers you all of them, or that all have been used in different setting in the past, does not imply that all those words mean the same thing, but that in different situations or contexts, they can be used to describe a Yōsei. (That's the transliteration of the Japanese creature you wish to refer to, right?)
Let me reiterate that: in a certain subset of contexts, 'Yōsei' best translates as 'fairy'. In other contexts, it does not. In a certain subset of contexts, 'fairy' best translates as 'Yōsei'. In other contexts, it does not. Their semantic fields do not wholly overlap.
To find the right translation, you need to have a good understanding of the differences between the various possible terms in the target language - in your case, the difference between 'fairy', 'goblin', 'demon', 'elf', 'spirit', etc. Then, you can pick the word that best fits what you're trying to convey in your story.
Alternatively, you can use a transliteration - 'Yōsei'.
What are some considerations for or against using transliteration rather than an (inexact) translation?
* First, is your Yōsei a major story element, or something mentioned in passing? For something mentioned in passing, it makes less sense to go through the effort of transliterating, and demanding of the reader to learn what a Yōsei is. (You would have to provide the information - sending your readers to Wikipedia is a no-no. But learning is still a mental effort, a small distraction from the story.)
* How different is a Yōsei from whatever word you picked as translation? The greater the difference, the more reason to use transliteration.
* Who is your target audience? If you're writing for children, it's better to stick to familiar words.
* How strongly is your story localised? If your story is very explicitly set in Japan, if there are many other cues that set your story in a specific location, 'Yōsei' fits into the setting, while something as European as 'fairy' does so to a lesser extent.
One thing to remember, if you choose to transliterate rather than translate the term: your English-speaking readers are unlikely to be familiar with Yōsei. You'd have to provide them with the necessary information. This is preferably done by means of the story itself, but if that doesn't work, a footnote is an option. Footnotes are often used in translations, in similar situations, but if you're translating your own story, you can alter it a bit, to incorporate the necessary information into the text. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | To a native American English speaker, *fairy* and *elf* will both connote a positive or helpful mythological creature that may wield magic. *Goblin* will connote a trouble maker, and *demon* will connote a denizen of hell. That may, perhaps, guide your choice.
In wiktionary, 妖精 leans more toward *fairy* than *goblin*. I'd suggest calling them fay-like creatures, or perhaps Japanese fairies. Something like this so the reader knows not to envision typical fairies. White bone demon is an interesting idea and if you decide to do that you will definitely be communicating something non-traditional. | It depends on whether you want to maintain a feel of Chinese culture and mythology in your story (which can be very effective but involves a lot more than just translating the story), or you want to adapt the storyline into something that feels more familiar to Western readers.
**If you want to maintain a Chinese feel** then you may want to introduce the entity as "yāojing—a mischievous fairy-like creature without wings" or "a malevolent elf-like creature with powers of enchantment" or whatever is appropriate for the nature of your creature. There is nothing wrong with showing the reader that there is no sufficient word for the creature—in fact, that makes your story more interesting.
**If you want to adapt the story to something more familiar,** and there is just one such creature, give it a name, refer to it by its name, and readers will learn about it as you describe its appearance, history and behaviour. If there are many such creatures, all alike, you certainly can "shoehorn" them into an existing concept like goblin, demon, devil, imp, spirit, shade, ghost, ghoul, spectre, witch, or [familiar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familiar_spirit). Alternative spellings like daemon, faerie can help emphasise that the creature is a little different to the established concept. Or, you can name your "species" (think of the *Ents* in Lord of the Rings, *dementors* in Harry Potter, or the *Ogier* in Wheel of Time), and describe them as I have suggested above. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | Does it have to be an actual translation? Translations don't always work, as synonyms get lost in translation. As you mentioned, there is no English word that can mean "fairy", "elf" **and** "goblin".
Translating to any of the options will mean that you lose out some of the ambiguity. Maybe it's important in your story that the creature's alignment is unknown. If you translate it to "fairy", readers will interpret it as good. If you translate it to "goblin", readers are liable to interpret it as conniving or evil. You can't retain the ambiguity.
Instead, you can simply pick a name without any inherent meaning (or suggestion about alignment), and then define the creature through observation rather than naming.
The Wikipedia page you linked has an English variant, where the chosen name seems to be [**Yōsei**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dsei). Why not use that, so you don't bias your readers and are actually able to assume direct control over steering the viewer's observation; as opposed to relying on existing words with Western connotations?
* **Fairy** = small and benevolent. Has a physical shape but they are inherently magic.
* **Spirit** = ghost or ethereal entity, lacks physical shape.
* **Elf** = humanoid creature with magical affinity and often has an expanded lifespan. Often acts as a counterpart to the human race. Alternatively (but less commonly), very similar to a fairy but not *as* magical in nature.
* **Goblin** = Conniving, tinkerer, likely evil (or at least lacks moral principles). Humanoid, but lesser to elves and humans.
* **Demon** = almost definitively evil. Possible religious connotation (demons are to the Devil what angels are to God; henchmen). Known to possess humans.
These are in no way guaranteed traits, but if the reader reads the word, they are liable to make inferences as to what the creature is like.
Because 妖精 can mean all of these things *at the same time*, the reader is therefore unable to make a choice between the listed interpretations. They must assume a generalized shape. But as English lacks a word that encompasses all definitions, you're much more likely to have your English readers pidgeon hole your creature by the common definition of the word you chose to use. | It depends on whether you want to maintain a feel of Chinese culture and mythology in your story (which can be very effective but involves a lot more than just translating the story), or you want to adapt the storyline into something that feels more familiar to Western readers.
**If you want to maintain a Chinese feel** then you may want to introduce the entity as "yāojing—a mischievous fairy-like creature without wings" or "a malevolent elf-like creature with powers of enchantment" or whatever is appropriate for the nature of your creature. There is nothing wrong with showing the reader that there is no sufficient word for the creature—in fact, that makes your story more interesting.
**If you want to adapt the story to something more familiar,** and there is just one such creature, give it a name, refer to it by its name, and readers will learn about it as you describe its appearance, history and behaviour. If there are many such creatures, all alike, you certainly can "shoehorn" them into an existing concept like goblin, demon, devil, imp, spirit, shade, ghost, ghoul, spectre, witch, or [familiar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familiar_spirit). Alternative spellings like daemon, faerie can help emphasise that the creature is a little different to the established concept. Or, you can name your "species" (think of the *Ents* in Lord of the Rings, *dementors* in Harry Potter, or the *Ogier* in Wheel of Time), and describe them as I have suggested above. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | The differences between 'fairy', 'elf' 'goblin' and 'demon' are *not* negligible. The fact that a dictionary offers you all of them, or that all have been used in different setting in the past, does not imply that all those words mean the same thing, but that in different situations or contexts, they can be used to describe a Yōsei. (That's the transliteration of the Japanese creature you wish to refer to, right?)
Let me reiterate that: in a certain subset of contexts, 'Yōsei' best translates as 'fairy'. In other contexts, it does not. In a certain subset of contexts, 'fairy' best translates as 'Yōsei'. In other contexts, it does not. Their semantic fields do not wholly overlap.
To find the right translation, you need to have a good understanding of the differences between the various possible terms in the target language - in your case, the difference between 'fairy', 'goblin', 'demon', 'elf', 'spirit', etc. Then, you can pick the word that best fits what you're trying to convey in your story.
Alternatively, you can use a transliteration - 'Yōsei'.
What are some considerations for or against using transliteration rather than an (inexact) translation?
* First, is your Yōsei a major story element, or something mentioned in passing? For something mentioned in passing, it makes less sense to go through the effort of transliterating, and demanding of the reader to learn what a Yōsei is. (You would have to provide the information - sending your readers to Wikipedia is a no-no. But learning is still a mental effort, a small distraction from the story.)
* How different is a Yōsei from whatever word you picked as translation? The greater the difference, the more reason to use transliteration.
* Who is your target audience? If you're writing for children, it's better to stick to familiar words.
* How strongly is your story localised? If your story is very explicitly set in Japan, if there are many other cues that set your story in a specific location, 'Yōsei' fits into the setting, while something as European as 'fairy' does so to a lesser extent.
One thing to remember, if you choose to transliterate rather than translate the term: your English-speaking readers are unlikely to be familiar with Yōsei. You'd have to provide them with the necessary information. This is preferably done by means of the story itself, but if that doesn't work, a footnote is an option. Footnotes are often used in translations, in similar situations, but if you're translating your own story, you can alter it a bit, to incorporate the necessary information into the text. | Does it have to be an actual translation? Translations don't always work, as synonyms get lost in translation. As you mentioned, there is no English word that can mean "fairy", "elf" **and** "goblin".
Translating to any of the options will mean that you lose out some of the ambiguity. Maybe it's important in your story that the creature's alignment is unknown. If you translate it to "fairy", readers will interpret it as good. If you translate it to "goblin", readers are liable to interpret it as conniving or evil. You can't retain the ambiguity.
Instead, you can simply pick a name without any inherent meaning (or suggestion about alignment), and then define the creature through observation rather than naming.
The Wikipedia page you linked has an English variant, where the chosen name seems to be [**Yōsei**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dsei). Why not use that, so you don't bias your readers and are actually able to assume direct control over steering the viewer's observation; as opposed to relying on existing words with Western connotations?
* **Fairy** = small and benevolent. Has a physical shape but they are inherently magic.
* **Spirit** = ghost or ethereal entity, lacks physical shape.
* **Elf** = humanoid creature with magical affinity and often has an expanded lifespan. Often acts as a counterpart to the human race. Alternatively (but less commonly), very similar to a fairy but not *as* magical in nature.
* **Goblin** = Conniving, tinkerer, likely evil (or at least lacks moral principles). Humanoid, but lesser to elves and humans.
* **Demon** = almost definitively evil. Possible religious connotation (demons are to the Devil what angels are to God; henchmen). Known to possess humans.
These are in no way guaranteed traits, but if the reader reads the word, they are liable to make inferences as to what the creature is like.
Because 妖精 can mean all of these things *at the same time*, the reader is therefore unable to make a choice between the listed interpretations. They must assume a generalized shape. But as English lacks a word that encompasses all definitions, you're much more likely to have your English readers pidgeon hole your creature by the common definition of the word you chose to use. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | The differences between 'fairy', 'elf' 'goblin' and 'demon' are *not* negligible. The fact that a dictionary offers you all of them, or that all have been used in different setting in the past, does not imply that all those words mean the same thing, but that in different situations or contexts, they can be used to describe a Yōsei. (That's the transliteration of the Japanese creature you wish to refer to, right?)
Let me reiterate that: in a certain subset of contexts, 'Yōsei' best translates as 'fairy'. In other contexts, it does not. In a certain subset of contexts, 'fairy' best translates as 'Yōsei'. In other contexts, it does not. Their semantic fields do not wholly overlap.
To find the right translation, you need to have a good understanding of the differences between the various possible terms in the target language - in your case, the difference between 'fairy', 'goblin', 'demon', 'elf', 'spirit', etc. Then, you can pick the word that best fits what you're trying to convey in your story.
Alternatively, you can use a transliteration - 'Yōsei'.
What are some considerations for or against using transliteration rather than an (inexact) translation?
* First, is your Yōsei a major story element, or something mentioned in passing? For something mentioned in passing, it makes less sense to go through the effort of transliterating, and demanding of the reader to learn what a Yōsei is. (You would have to provide the information - sending your readers to Wikipedia is a no-no. But learning is still a mental effort, a small distraction from the story.)
* How different is a Yōsei from whatever word you picked as translation? The greater the difference, the more reason to use transliteration.
* Who is your target audience? If you're writing for children, it's better to stick to familiar words.
* How strongly is your story localised? If your story is very explicitly set in Japan, if there are many other cues that set your story in a specific location, 'Yōsei' fits into the setting, while something as European as 'fairy' does so to a lesser extent.
One thing to remember, if you choose to transliterate rather than translate the term: your English-speaking readers are unlikely to be familiar with Yōsei. You'd have to provide them with the necessary information. This is preferably done by means of the story itself, but if that doesn't work, a footnote is an option. Footnotes are often used in translations, in similar situations, but if you're translating your own story, you can alter it a bit, to incorporate the necessary information into the text. | I suspect you may be missing one - the Aos Sí (or Sidhe) from Irish mythology. They are the 'fair folk' or the 'lordly ones'. They can be beautiful and hideous. They predict/cause death. They are relatively benign, unless angered. They fit all of fairy, elf and demon.
One Sidhe would give artists and musicians their inspiration - at the cost of their life. Others would steal children.
Modern (IE Tolkien/D&D) elves derive from this as does fairies, banshees, leprechauns and others. Over time these usages have become biased towards cartoonish niceness.
I'ld go for White Bone Demon or White Bone Elf depending on how potentially evil they are.
(would post this as a comment, rather than an answer) |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | Does it have to be an actual translation? Translations don't always work, as synonyms get lost in translation. As you mentioned, there is no English word that can mean "fairy", "elf" **and** "goblin".
Translating to any of the options will mean that you lose out some of the ambiguity. Maybe it's important in your story that the creature's alignment is unknown. If you translate it to "fairy", readers will interpret it as good. If you translate it to "goblin", readers are liable to interpret it as conniving or evil. You can't retain the ambiguity.
Instead, you can simply pick a name without any inherent meaning (or suggestion about alignment), and then define the creature through observation rather than naming.
The Wikipedia page you linked has an English variant, where the chosen name seems to be [**Yōsei**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dsei). Why not use that, so you don't bias your readers and are actually able to assume direct control over steering the viewer's observation; as opposed to relying on existing words with Western connotations?
* **Fairy** = small and benevolent. Has a physical shape but they are inherently magic.
* **Spirit** = ghost or ethereal entity, lacks physical shape.
* **Elf** = humanoid creature with magical affinity and often has an expanded lifespan. Often acts as a counterpart to the human race. Alternatively (but less commonly), very similar to a fairy but not *as* magical in nature.
* **Goblin** = Conniving, tinkerer, likely evil (or at least lacks moral principles). Humanoid, but lesser to elves and humans.
* **Demon** = almost definitively evil. Possible religious connotation (demons are to the Devil what angels are to God; henchmen). Known to possess humans.
These are in no way guaranteed traits, but if the reader reads the word, they are liable to make inferences as to what the creature is like.
Because 妖精 can mean all of these things *at the same time*, the reader is therefore unable to make a choice between the listed interpretations. They must assume a generalized shape. But as English lacks a word that encompasses all definitions, you're much more likely to have your English readers pidgeon hole your creature by the common definition of the word you chose to use. | That depends on how much this character is important to the whole story and how much chinese feel you want to retain.
If the character is very important and no english word can express it without distorting its essence, you should invent a new word in english for it. It may be the literal pronunciation of the chinese term or something else. You must give your readers enough details, so that they can picturize it uniquely in their minds.
If the character is not so important, but still cannot be represented by normal english words. You take an already existing word and change its definition in your story. You may define that fairies in your story don't have wings and look ugly. It'll work as long as you maintain consistency. |
38,666 | The term is [妖精](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A6%96%E7%B2%BE), which can be translated into English as "fairy", "elf", "goblin". As noted, the Japanese literature uses 妖精 to describe the European fairy. The English translation of 白骨精 in 西游记 (Journey to the West) is "white bone demon". So, this word can be translated into English as fairy, elf, goblin, or demon.
Let's say an author is writing a fantasy story in Chinese first, using terms that are understood in a Chinese society. Then, the same author translates his/her own story into English and faces a problem. Which term should 妖精 be translated into (fairy, elf, goblin, or demon)? Or are the differences between the terms negligible, so the author can just pick a random one and go with it? | 2018/09/04 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/38666",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/5886/"
] | In your example, 白骨精, I'd say the 精 is not so much 'fairy' as it is in 妖精, but rather 'spirit' (like in 精霊), similar to how in English we can use the word 'spirit' to describe a lot of different types of ghouls and ghosts, so spirit might be a good choice as a kind of 'all round' title.
Anyway, I don't have a definite answer, but I would say there's two options.
Option one, rather than translating the other language into an English equivalent you could simply use the foreign word. For example, a 僵尸 would simply be 'jiangshi', rather than 'Chinese hopping vampire'. This would work best if what you're writing is set in a world or country that comes across as foreign to English readers anyway, whether you use English to describe the creatures or not. After all, most people are unfamiliar with foreign mythical creatures, so in some cases the English may give no more of an idea of what the creature is like than the original foreign word.
But then for option two (which is the one I'd use), to be honest I would just say to choose which word (ghoul, fairy, spirit, demon) fits with the image of the creature. Is it small and cute and not very mean? Fairy or spirit should do. Is it ugly and bad, but maybe not so deadly to humans? Maybe ghoul would work. Evil and malevolent and otherwise hurts people? Demon or devil it is.
When it comes to writing the author has a lot of leeway with naming and making up creatures, so I would go with whatever you feel fits the best, whether that be the English or the original word. | I suspect you may be missing one - the Aos Sí (or Sidhe) from Irish mythology. They are the 'fair folk' or the 'lordly ones'. They can be beautiful and hideous. They predict/cause death. They are relatively benign, unless angered. They fit all of fairy, elf and demon.
One Sidhe would give artists and musicians their inspiration - at the cost of their life. Others would steal children.
Modern (IE Tolkien/D&D) elves derive from this as does fairies, banshees, leprechauns and others. Over time these usages have become biased towards cartoonish niceness.
I'ld go for White Bone Demon or White Bone Elf depending on how potentially evil they are.
(would post this as a comment, rather than an answer) |
1,546,346 | I have developed a custom DirectX UI library equipped with everything from buttons to a gridview.
I need a screen-layout editor of some sort. It just takes too long to do it by hand, whether through a config file or hard-coding.
I could spend a month or two developing a DirectX editing utility, but I don't have a month or two to spend on this. I could possibly justify a week.
Some requirements:
* I need to be able to create a new screen
* I need to place controls such as buttons, textboxes, and containers/windows/etc throughout the screen
* I need to adjust properties of these controls (Name, Text, Width, Height, Parent Container, etc)
Some of my ideas include:
* Using VB.NET's form editor... setting up forms and translating the form's control information into game screens.
* Setting up a web-based editor (seems like this would take more than week... wouldn't it have to be flash based?)
* Setup a VB.NET win32 editor that allows placement of .NET buttons, containers, etc that correspond to my library's buttons, containers, etc.
Is there a **best way** to handle this?
Thanks | 2009/10/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1546346",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/127880/"
] | As part of my open-source [CAM::PDF](http://search.cpan.org/dist/CAM-PDF/) Perl library, I include a tiny front-end program called [changepagestring.pl](http://search.cpan.org/dist/CAM-PDF/bin/changepagestring.pl) which does what you ask.
However, it only replaces text that's contiguous in the PDF syntax. If you switch fonts, size, style, etc. mid-phrase then it won't match. If you do any advanced kerning then it won't match.
Those limitations aside, it's really easy to use and it's simple enough that you can easily fork it and hack it to your needs. | In Perl, you can parse the contents of your PDF using the [PDF::API2](http://search.cpan.org/dist/PDF-API2/lib/PDF/API2.pm) module. You should then be able to search and replace your target strings in the usual way (`s///`), and write the new document back to disk. |
6,337,150 | I have what may be a simple question (and perhaps silly)... If you release an iOS app, let's say its running version 4.x, but then you push out an update to the AppStore, that compiles using a newer SDK, and specify in requirements you need that SDK version, what happens to the users who don't update their os?
Am I to assume they don't get the notification to update via app store as their handset OS is not compatible?
Cheers | 2011/06/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6337150",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/163845/"
] | The existing users already have an older version of the app which works, and they won't even see an update for the app. | When you create the application, you state in the properties for the application what the minimum iOS revision is that is supported for that application. You can compile an app using a newer version of the SDK targetting the older OS.
You should guard against performing calls that are only available on the newer release using the recommended mechanism from the documentation (Look up the SDK compatibility guide in the docs).
Marking an application for a newer release of the OS without adding features that are needed by the newer OS is adding unnecessary restrictions to the app that would otherwise allow it to run on older releases (not everyone has the latest iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch)
I've developed applications on Windows 7 that run on Windows 2000. It is doable, you just spend a lot of time working around missing features. |
131,473 | In Lowell's answer in his interview what doorkonb means?
>
> INTERVIEWER
>
>
> Don’t you think a large part of it is getting the right details, symbolic or not, around which to wind the poem tight and tighter?
>
>
> LOWELL
>
>
> Some bit of scenery or something you’ve felt. Almost the whole problem of writing poetry is to bring it back to what you really feel, and that takes an awful lot of maneuvering. You may feel the **doorknob** more strongly than some big personal event, and the **doorknob** will open into something that you can use as your own. A lot of poetry seems to me very good in the tradition but just doesn’t move me very much because it doesn’t have personal vibrance to it. I probably exaggerate the value of it, but it’s precious to me. Some little image, some detail you’ve noticed—you’re writing about a little country shop, just describing it, and your poem ends up with an existentialist account of your experience. But it’s the shop that started it off. You didn’t know why it meant a lot to you. Often images and often the sense of the beginning and end of a poem are all you have—some journey to be gone through between those things; you know that, but you don’t know the details. And that’s marvelous; then you feel the poem will come out. It’s a terrible struggle, because what you really feel hasn’t got the form, it’s not what you can put down in a poem. And the poem you’re equipped to write concerns nothing that you care very much about or have much to say on. Then the great moment comes when there’s enough resolution of your technical equipment, your way of constructing things, and what you can make a poem out of, to hit something you really want to say. You may not know you have it to say.
>
>
>
Here is the link of interview:
<https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4664/robert-lowell-the-art-of-poetry-no-3-robert-lowell> | 2017/06/04 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/131473",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/48966/"
] | The interviewer asks about "getting the right details, *symbolic or not*" [my emphasis]. When Lowell first refers to *the doorknob*, he is referring to a prototypical example of such a detail; he doesn't have a particular doorknob in mind. Such a detail may have symbolic resonance or it may simply be something from the poet's actual experience and perception, something which made an impression upon the poet, perhaps only in a tactile sense; but the impression it left upon the poet may "open" into something useful because of its connection to the poet's felt experience. | I’m pretty sure it’s the knob to a metaphorical door.
In English, a *doorway* is often used metaphorically. You might say that a college degree opens doors in the job market. A couple might say that certain circumstances opened the door to their romantic relationship.
[TFD](http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/open+the+door+to) says that the idiom “open the door to” means to invite or allow something to start.
In this case, I think Lowell is referring to a door that helps him write poetry. He’s saying that this doorway in his mind can sometimes help him compose a poem even more so than a personal event or life experience. |
359,888 | When a user with less than 10k reputation\* tries to directly access the edit page of a post that's been removed, this message appears:
>
> This post is deleted and cannot be edited.
>
>
>
And it looks like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/055qM.png)
*Update: Same page is shown for unregistered users.*
---
Should this be changed to something else? Maybe at least add a link to the home?
It feels like this page is not up to the level of SO and very non-production looking.
---
\* I assume that's only for <10k since 10k+ users can see deleted posts. | 2017/11/27 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4577762/"
] | I have to side with [FirstOne](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888/page-for-editing-a-deleted-post-for-users-with-less-than-10k-reputation#comment535406_359888):
>
> ...I'm not saying hey, let's build the most amazing page in the planet, I'm just saying that this doesn't look like a production-looking page and it could be enhanced. Production code should also handle 'places where people shouldn't be', as long as those places exist, imho.
>
>
>
It's more a matter of good style than one of practicality, so the number of people who actually view this page isn't relevant.
The fix could be as trivial as redirecting to the page that already exists for viewing the deleted question itself: [example for <10k only](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47323246).
I think handling this edge case is good form, and could be taken care of with minimal effort. | I would have to agree with [meagar's comment](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888/page-for-editing-a-deleted-post-for-users-with-less-than-10k-reputation?cb=1#comment535378_359888):
>
> This page is unstyled because nobody should ever see it. If you can't
> edit a post, you also can't see the edit link for a post, so there's
> very little value in making this experience any nicer. The only people
> seeing this are those editing URLs to land on pages they shouldn't.
>
>
>
As a normal unaffiliated user of SO, I think that unstyled page is just fine for an event that is almost impossible to happen anyways. It would take some extraordinary circumstances to see that message: Either the post gets deleted within milliseconds after someone clicks the link, or someone bookmarks the edit page for some reason, which is unlikely.
I think that time is better spent on other areas of SO. |
359,888 | When a user with less than 10k reputation\* tries to directly access the edit page of a post that's been removed, this message appears:
>
> This post is deleted and cannot be edited.
>
>
>
And it looks like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/055qM.png)
*Update: Same page is shown for unregistered users.*
---
Should this be changed to something else? Maybe at least add a link to the home?
It feels like this page is not up to the level of SO and very non-production looking.
---
\* I assume that's only for <10k since 10k+ users can see deleted posts. | 2017/11/27 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4577762/"
] | I donno, I kinda like that page. It's got a lot going for it:
* the message is unambiguous and to the point - there's no confusion as to *why* you're not getting the editor that you expected.
* it loads quickly, saving precious data on my capped mobile connection.
* it respects my browser's zoom settings and doesn't override the default font size that I've specified.
* there are no ads, background images or superfluous chrome to distract me from the precious content of the page.
Honestly, I'd like to see more pages adopt this styling. | I would have to agree with [meagar's comment](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888/page-for-editing-a-deleted-post-for-users-with-less-than-10k-reputation?cb=1#comment535378_359888):
>
> This page is unstyled because nobody should ever see it. If you can't
> edit a post, you also can't see the edit link for a post, so there's
> very little value in making this experience any nicer. The only people
> seeing this are those editing URLs to land on pages they shouldn't.
>
>
>
As a normal unaffiliated user of SO, I think that unstyled page is just fine for an event that is almost impossible to happen anyways. It would take some extraordinary circumstances to see that message: Either the post gets deleted within milliseconds after someone clicks the link, or someone bookmarks the edit page for some reason, which is unlikely.
I think that time is better spent on other areas of SO. |
359,888 | When a user with less than 10k reputation\* tries to directly access the edit page of a post that's been removed, this message appears:
>
> This post is deleted and cannot be edited.
>
>
>
And it looks like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/055qM.png)
*Update: Same page is shown for unregistered users.*
---
Should this be changed to something else? Maybe at least add a link to the home?
It feels like this page is not up to the level of SO and very non-production looking.
---
\* I assume that's only for <10k since 10k+ users can see deleted posts. | 2017/11/27 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4577762/"
] | I have to side with [FirstOne](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/359888/page-for-editing-a-deleted-post-for-users-with-less-than-10k-reputation#comment535406_359888):
>
> ...I'm not saying hey, let's build the most amazing page in the planet, I'm just saying that this doesn't look like a production-looking page and it could be enhanced. Production code should also handle 'places where people shouldn't be', as long as those places exist, imho.
>
>
>
It's more a matter of good style than one of practicality, so the number of people who actually view this page isn't relevant.
The fix could be as trivial as redirecting to the page that already exists for viewing the deleted question itself: [example for <10k only](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47323246).
I think handling this edge case is good form, and could be taken care of with minimal effort. | I donno, I kinda like that page. It's got a lot going for it:
* the message is unambiguous and to the point - there's no confusion as to *why* you're not getting the editor that you expected.
* it loads quickly, saving precious data on my capped mobile connection.
* it respects my browser's zoom settings and doesn't override the default font size that I've specified.
* there are no ads, background images or superfluous chrome to distract me from the precious content of the page.
Honestly, I'd like to see more pages adopt this styling. |
1,147,067 | HyperV instance running Windows 10 & built-in VPN, I would like to prevent all internet traffic in the instance that the VPN fails. This answer provides good information:
[In Windows 10 how do you ensure all traffic goes through VPN?](https://superuser.com/questions/1021371/in-windows-10-how-do-you-ensure-all-traffic-goes-through-vpn/1021384#1021384)
But I get the error:
The route deletion failed: Element not found
Can something like this process be performed on a HyperV instance? | 2016/11/17 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1147067",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/576713/"
] | just change the extension of the file to .RAR and expand it. It should uncompress the file without any problem.
This error usually happens when a compression operation of a large folder is interrupted. | I got this problem, when I was sent .zip from another macos computer. For some reason Macos includes hidden \_MACOSX folder with duplicated hidden meta files. When I cleared this folder from archive with help of Winrar, it unarchived normally. |
2,207,084 | anyone knows a jQuery plug-in for text zoom a-la MAC OS X "Large Type" function in Address Book? I'd use it for the same situation - to show full-screen phone number after clicking on it.
Cheers | 2010/02/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2207084",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/122351/"
] | I recently extracted a jQuery plugin out of an application I'm building that does exactly this. <http://zoomabletype.tatey.com/> | You can use jQuery [BlockUI plugin](http://malsup.com/jquery/block/) to create this kind of "Large Type" effect. Check samples and use custom css to show ph. numbers. |
124,605 | I have Nikon P500 but not able to find original Battery in Market. Is there any other way (external power/other battery) to P500? | 2021/04/25 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/124605",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/98791/"
] | You can define a preset manual white balance in the camera - [Nikon D3500 manual](https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/471/D3500.html), page 116
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a1g3w.png)
Assuming that fixes the white balance issue, you're still going to have to run these through Photoshop anyway.
You need to straighten, crop, remove the dust & scratches from the watch glass [unless you're selling them warts & all] & probably sharpen up a bit. I'd probably go for a narrower aperture too, to help the focus towards the back of the strap.
You're also a bit hot on the bezel, so you've lost information there.
I'm not sure you can get this task down as far as "click…sell" really. It is always going to need a little TLC in Photoshop first. This is my quick attempt at a bit of a cleanup, white balance, straighten (which still looks odd because of the strap), background set to white & a little sharpening & clean-up. You could do a lot better on the original full size photo…
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZ10a.jpg)
BTW, watch hands are traditionally set at a few seconds before 10 to 2 or 10 past 10. 13 minutes past 9 looks a bit odd.
You also need to make sure your watch face is absolutely square-on to the camera; you've got a slightly elliptical look to it as it's tilted back. Strap top & bottom edges need to be parallel too.
You fill the dark areas by filling that space with more white material in line to the reflection. With anything that's virtually 'colourless shiny silver' you have to make some artistic choices as to where to throw light & dark into the reflections so you don't lose the essence of the shape. Your lighting setup seems to do reasonably well on most of the body & strap (I'd perhaps raise the centre of the lighting a little to make it appear more lit from the top), but the bezel is problematic.
This, for instance was a nightmare to light against a black background. It ended up inside a large square box made of white backdrop, bed sheets & soft-boxes, with judicious dark gaps left so it didn't lose the heavy shaping of the front & sides.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dGFhg.jpg) | I think you need to stop using the cheap strobes as it seems you're struggling with them. There is no consistency in strobe lighting and will vary from one shot to another.
As shooting watches is very demanding, I'd advise changing strobes or getting strong LED lights if you don't have too much money.
If you have very little money to spend, I'd advise buying a Color checker. It's a little bored with squares that will indicate true white, true black, and known variances of grey. That will help you get the correct white balance in post-processing, and that will give you the correct product's color.
You can watch many tutorials on YT or other platforms, but I'd recommend checking Botvidsson's YT channel, he has many watch tutorials: <https://youtu.be/5FBy7o35PRA> one amongst many for example. |
209,358 | I made a story about a galactic tower of Babylon. The tower of Zarteqz is a huge tower in which different races are gathered and speak their own language. Confusion is common and once in a while creatures take off to space to give a fiery air to their litigations after which they return in better understanding.
Now I can just write that the tower simply exists and stands tall (like the gigantic buildings seen sometimes in sci-fi movies) but that's a bit too easy. If we assume the tower to be built on an Earth-like planet, how high a tower can be built? The materials at hand vary from diamond to megraphine, a material stronger than graphene not in all directions. It can be pulled, bend, and pressed with a very big force before it breaks or tears. It's too flexible though to really build a tower with. I was thinking to use a combination of the rigidity of the both. Diamond is hard but breaks "easily" while megraphine is rather soft and flexible but difficult to break.
How could I combine the two to make a tower as high as possible? Say that the tower has a base of a square kilometer and gets smaller to the top. Say the base has a circle form (as well as the rest of the tower.
I don't know how to rationally justify this but assume the wonder future material has three times the strength of graphene. It is in contrast to graphene a three dimensional material and can be cut with a laser beam.
For the properties of graphene look here (it has a huge variety of properties): <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene> | 2021/08/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/209358",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20392/"
] | Unlimited height
----------------
1. Your tower is a space elevator. It uses graphene to reach up to geosynchronous orbit .. and geosynchronous orbit can be very slow and hence very high.
2. Your tower is made of graphene elements that can be *charged* to varying degree. It has a tremendous amount of positive charge in the network of the middle layers, which repels the positive charges above and below it. Despite the natural instability of charges piled up in a line, with clever engineering, this is designed in such a way (relying on redistribution and conduction of charges based on strains in the materials) as to resist fluctuations and remain as a stable tower. Ideally any computer stabilization should be optional, since we can guess what will happen otherwise!
3. Your tower may contain superconducting rings (especially at high/cold altitudes) that magnetically repel one another or the planet's magnetic field. | Nearly unlimited height, different approach:
I do not believe you can support such a tower with electric charge. However, there are two other approaches to use here:
1. Space elevator. You don't give a strength for your megraphine so whether this can be done or not can't be answered. Assuming the material is strong enough to support an elevator on Earth (your restrictions on it are fine, it's going to be used purely in tension) you **must** go out to beyond 35,786km (geosynchronous orbit) and beyond that either requires a counterweight or to be extended to IIRC around 170,000km.
If you can clean up space this is viable with materials with strengths similar to carbon nanotubes. You can't go much below that without the cable getting very fat in the middle, though--the taper of the cable is extremely sensitive to the strength/weight ratio.
2. If you don't have the materials for this there's also the space fountain. It **must** be less than 35,786km. You throw magnetic material upwards at extreme velocity. The top of the tower sends it past a magnet to direct it back down--and the base likewise sends it back up. Every floor or group of floors extracts energy from the bits heading up and uses that energy to push on the bits heading down.
All the magnets involved must be superconducting and the bits must be traveling in a very hard vacuum--they are going to be moving **extremely** fast. There are no material strength requirements for this, but your engineering had better be **extremely** reliable. |
70,296 | Given some applications that can be installed natively as well as through MacPorts (such as MacVim, iTerm2, Gimp, etc.), what are pros and cons for choosing one installation method over the other? | 2012/11/01 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/70296",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/33458/"
] | ### Installing Natively
If the developer releases pre-built binaries for your OS, then this will likely be the quickest, easiest and most up-to-date (in terms of the application itself) method of getting an application. This relies on the developer (or some trusted third party) to be keeping the builds up to date with changes in both the application and in Mac OS X (e.g. rebuilding against the latest Mac OS X SDKs as they are released).
One downside is you are trusting whoever built it not to have maliciously modified the source before doing so, and/or whoever is hosting/mirroring the download not to have done the same. Generally a non-issue, but that's why there are often MD5 checksums for downloads.
A possible downside is that you don't have control over which version of any dependencies the developer builds against (e.g. for things like Python, or the C++ STL, or OpenSSL). For example, if they build against native Mac OS X SDKs, these are generally a little behind the current versions of most libraries. They do get updates, but not necessarily very quickly (except in some critical security situations), as Apple need to do their own QA/testing before they can include updates to libraries they bundle with the system.
Some developers may include the latest libraries in their application bundle, especially if they rely on new features of said library which haven't yet made it into the base Mac OS X set. Basically, you can't control this, so it may/may not be a downside.
### Building from Source Manually
This might come under 'installing natively', since its not macports as such, but basically means getting the latest source, and building it yourself against 'native' Mac OS X SDKs and/or your choice of versions of dependencies.
Advantages are that you're going to be building on your system, for your system, so all dependencies match your runtime environment and are the version of your choosing (e.g. recently updated to latest source to include bug fixes and security patches). Of course the obvious downside is you need to make sure you have all those dependencies (YMMV depending on the project).
You're also not needing to trust someone else's binary build (though you still want to make sure you've got the 'official' source code, without any chances of malicious modifications!).
Compared to installing from binaries:
* **Pro:** You get more control of dependencies, you can choose to use the Mac OS X bundled libraries or your own builds of them (e.g. for things like Python, OpenSSL, libstdc, etc) ...
* **Con:** ... but you *have to* manage the dependencies (obtain/configure/build/install), especially if there's no in-built version at all.
* **Pro:** Runtime dependencies are definitely compatible, because you built against them...
* **Con:** ... unless you change them later for another project!
* **Pro:** You aren't blindly trusting someone else's binary build...
* **Con:** ... but it may take much longer to build from source than simply downloading binaries
### Installing from MacPorts
This is typically much like building from source, but much of it is scripted and tested by thousands of others, so you *tend to* have fewer issues getting projects to build. Further, MacPorts keeps track of all the projects you build, and their versions, and makes it really easy to check what's out of date, upgrade to new versions, switch between versions, etc.
Of course you're relying on the application/dependencies to be *in* MacPorts, which requires someone (possibly even you!!), to have made a MacPorts project for it. Also you're relying on the MacPorts project to be kept up-to-date with the original application, and likewise for the dependencies. If the MacPorts scripts aren't updated when new versions of the source are released, you won't get access to them.
Compared to Installing Natively from Binaries
* **Pro:** You're *possibly* not relying on someone else's binary build (or if you are, it's at least checksum tested) ...
* **Con:** ... but you may have to wait while MacPorts builds your project.
* **Pro:** You will often have more current versions of dependencies than are shipped with Mac OS X ...
* **Con:** ... but MacPorts will need to update/build them as you go, which can take a while.
* **Pro:** MacPorts will often have newer versions of system libraries than Mac OS X...
* **Con:** ... but this means it must build & install a second version of many base libraries, whether they're strictly needed or not.
Compared to building from source yourself
* **Pro:** It's often *much* easier, just typing a single command, than obtaining/configuring/building/installing various dependencies ...
* **Pro:** And MacPorts keeps track of all your versions, so its easier to make sure all your applications that rely on some common dependency are updated when you update it ...
* **Con:** ... But in all cases, you're at the mercy of the port maintainers to keep ports updated, so it might be a little (or a lot!) behind some official releases of applications/libraries.
* **Con:** ... And you can't choose between the Mac OS X bundled system libraries vs MacPorts re-building those libraries; it always builds its own if they're open source. | Installing natively is often easier, but sometimes you have to wait a bit longer to get the latest version. |
120,107 | With a Day ticket for Germany (Quer-durch-Land-Ticket) one can travel with all local trains in Germany.
Is this ticket also valid on the train to/from Venlo in The Netherlands or is a separate ticket from Kaldenkirchen required for crossing the border? | 2018/08/07 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/120107",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/26264/"
] | No, the Quer-durchs-Land-Ticket [is valid at a few short sections close to the border in Austria and Switzerland](https://www.bahn.de/p/view/mdb/bahnintern/angebotsberatung/regio/laender-tickets/pdfs/2017/mdb_242073_ab_dez_2016_geltungsbereich_quer-durchs-land.pdf), but not in the Netherlands. If you are travelling on a Saturday or Sunday, you may be able to use the Schönes-Wochenende-Ticket, [which *is* valid between the border and Venlo](https://www.bahn.de/p/view/mdb/bahnintern/angebotsberatung/regio/laender-tickets/pdfs/2017/mdb_242748_0117_geltungsbereich_schoenes-wochenende-ticket.pdf).
With the Quer-durchs-Land-Ticket, you must probably in addition buy a VRR ticket from Kaldenkirchen to Venlo for €2.70. In theory, it should be possible to issue an international full-fare ticket from Venlo(Gr) (this is the border tariff point) to Venlo for currently €2.40. If you go to a staffed DB ticket counter, they may be able to sell such a ticket. | Unfortunately you need a separate ticket for the trip to/from Venlo. There is a [pdf-document](https://www.bahn.de/p/view/mdb/bahnintern/angebotsberatung/regio/regionale_tickets/2018/mdb_269392_qdl_april_2018_geltber.pdf) (only in German) that lists all trains that you can use with the Day ticket for Germany (Quer-durch-Land-Ticket) - there are some train lines in Austria, Switzerland and Poland, but none in the Netherlands.
Another option could be to use the Weekend ticket for Germany (Schönes-Wochenende-Ticket) which includes the train line Kaldenkirchen – Venlo adn also the bus line 929 Niederdorf – Venlo. Here is the [source](https://www.bahn.de/p/view/mdb/bahnintern/angebotsberatung/regio/regionale_tickets/2018/mdb_269394_swt_april_2018_geltber.pdf) (also only in German) |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | If Jesus was God (The Famous John1:1). Why was He exalted to higher position?
Paul answered this in (NIV)
Philippians 2:
>
> 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ **Jesus**:
>
> 6Who, being in very nature **God**,
> did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
> 7rather, he made himself nothing
> by taking the very **nature** of a servant,
> being made in **human** likeness.
>
>
>
Jesus took on human nature.
>
> 8And being found in appearance as a man,
> he humbled himself
> by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
> 9Therefore God **exalted** him to the highest place
> and gave him the name that is above every name
>
>
>
Jesus demonstrated the eternal principle in
Matthew 23:
>
> 12
> For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who **humble** themselves will be **exalted**.
>
>
> | Jesus was God (John 1:1, "the Word was God") in the sense of agency (authorized representative), similar to how Moses was made God (Exodus 7:1, ""See, I have made you God to Pharaoh," but note that the 'as' or 'like' often found in the translations is a gloss added by translators) but more so (note the comparison at John 1:17 between Jesus and Moses, Jesus > Moses).
Jesus himself says at John 17:3 that the Father is the only *true* God.
Jesus also says at John 8:4 that He is a man who has heard things *from* God, which summarizes his role as the image (Colossians 1:15, "The Son is the image of the invisible God") or 'Word' (John 1:1, Revelation 19:13, "His name is The Word of God") of God.
But, Jesus - a man who is God in the sense of agency - is then exalted to the right hand of God (= the Father) after 'passing the test' of a faultless, fully human life that was ontologically open the possibility of sin, where He now reigns with all authority granted to him *by* God.
Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | The humbling of the Son of God, and then his exaltation in humanity, is explained in Hebrews 2:9. The literal translation demonstrates the sequence of events :
>
> ... but who little some than angels made lower we see Jesus on account of the suffering of the death with glory and with honour crowned
>
>
>
This is the Englishman's Greek New Testament literal interlinear but can also be seen, very much the same, in the [Biblehub literal interlinear](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/2-9.htm).
Being made lower than the angels, that is to say, coming from heaven and having already humbled himself ('voiding' himself as we read in Philippians 2:7) Jesus, in humanity, went further and submitted to suffering and death - in humanity.
For this cause, as the writer to the Hebrews makes clear, that is to say on account of the suffering and death he endured in his humanity, he is, upon resurrection, highly exalted.
The exaltation is in honour of what he, himself, in humanity, endured in his humanity, and is not automatically applied due to his previous glory and honour prior to incarnation. | Philippians 2:9 indicates that Jesus was rewarded for the great sacrifice of humbling himself even to death on a cross. If he were merely exalted back to the place that he held before, what is the reward in that?
He was also given the reward of a name that is above all names. It is not the name of Jesus, Yeshua, Yehoshua or any similar earthly name. He already had that name before his death. It is a new name referred to in Rev. 19:12.
>
> His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He
> has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
>
>
>
As is the case in so much about the nature of God, we are not given much detail about all that Christ’s exaltation entailed. Daniel 7 sheds a little additional light.
>
> 13“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of
> heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient
> of Days And was presented before Him. 14“And to Him was given
> dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men
> of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
> dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will
> not be destroyed. NASB
>
>
> |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | John chapter 1, opening verses, speaks of the one who was with God in the beginning, and who was God, and who made everything that was made. It then shows that this "Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, that of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (vs. 14).
As God the Father has no beginning, one who was with him and who was God could not have had any beginning either. Verse 3 confirms that without this one, nothing that was made was made. Logically, then, this one could not have been made himself. That is why he is called "God" by John, both here and at the end of his account - "My Lord and my God" - (20:28).
Philippians 2:9 (which you allude to but don't cite) is understood by those who have the Word as a creature (hence lower than God right from the start; not God) as becoming the man, Jesus, who could be exalted back to a certain level of glory after his resurrection. No problem, they think, except that such an interpretation utterly depends on the Word having a starting point in time, being created by God. They have John 1:1 say the Word was 'a god'.
But those who take John 1:1-14 as showing the uncreated status of the Word, see a far greater degree of abasement in that lowering. Then, at his resurrection, the Father exalted him from that abased position. This means that both groups agree on the sequence of events: initially exalted, abased, then exalted. The disagreement is regarding degree of initial exaltation, degree of abasement and degree of exaltation.
Those who believe the Word was God see God, in Christ, so identifying with humanity that they understand what doubting Thomas said (and felt) in John 20:28, whereas those who think it wasn't God in Christ just don't get it. Philippians 2:9 is couched in words of exhortation for Christians to have that same humility of mind. Further, it says that although he was in the form of God, he did not grasp on to that; He agreed to be made in the likeness of men and to suffer humiliating death, knowing the Father would exalt him.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit determined this plan of redemption before anything was created, which is why the Bible speaks of Christ as "the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). It was decreed and as good as done, for the Word of God is inviolable. That plan included exaltation of the one who abased himself, which is why it happened. | Jesus was exalted precisely because he had been humbled during His incarnation, a process that the passage in Phil 2:5-11 calls the "kenosis", "became nothing", or "emptied Himself". Here is the passage in question:
>
> **5** Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
>
>
> **6** Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
>
>
> **7** **but emptied [ἐκένωσεν] Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.**
>
>
> **8** And being found in appearance as a man, He **humbled Himself** and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.
>
>
> **9** Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, **10** that at the name of Jesus every knee
> should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, **11** and
> every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
> the Father.
>
>
>
This passage sets out several facts:
1. Jesus was equal with God before the incarnation/kenosis
2. Jesus voluntarily became human (was "incarnated") and was humbled
3. Jesus voluntarily died as a human
4. Jesus, following the resurrection, was exalted, that is, his previous status in heaven was restored
This answered Jesus' prayer in John 17:5 -
>
> And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with
> You before the world existed.
>
>
>
It is very significant that Jesus' exaltation described in Phil 2:9-11 is almost a direct quote (of the LXX text) of a prophecy in Isa 45:23 about what would happen to Jehovah/YHWH which effectively means that Paul, in Phil 2:9-11, is describing Jesus as Jehovah. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | The humbling of the Son of God, and then his exaltation in humanity, is explained in Hebrews 2:9. The literal translation demonstrates the sequence of events :
>
> ... but who little some than angels made lower we see Jesus on account of the suffering of the death with glory and with honour crowned
>
>
>
This is the Englishman's Greek New Testament literal interlinear but can also be seen, very much the same, in the [Biblehub literal interlinear](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/2-9.htm).
Being made lower than the angels, that is to say, coming from heaven and having already humbled himself ('voiding' himself as we read in Philippians 2:7) Jesus, in humanity, went further and submitted to suffering and death - in humanity.
For this cause, as the writer to the Hebrews makes clear, that is to say on account of the suffering and death he endured in his humanity, he is, upon resurrection, highly exalted.
The exaltation is in honour of what he, himself, in humanity, endured in his humanity, and is not automatically applied due to his previous glory and honour prior to incarnation. | Jesus was exalted precisely because he had been humbled during His incarnation, a process that the passage in Phil 2:5-11 calls the "kenosis", "became nothing", or "emptied Himself". Here is the passage in question:
>
> **5** Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
>
>
> **6** Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
>
>
> **7** **but emptied [ἐκένωσεν] Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.**
>
>
> **8** And being found in appearance as a man, He **humbled Himself** and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.
>
>
> **9** Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, **10** that at the name of Jesus every knee
> should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, **11** and
> every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
> the Father.
>
>
>
This passage sets out several facts:
1. Jesus was equal with God before the incarnation/kenosis
2. Jesus voluntarily became human (was "incarnated") and was humbled
3. Jesus voluntarily died as a human
4. Jesus, following the resurrection, was exalted, that is, his previous status in heaven was restored
This answered Jesus' prayer in John 17:5 -
>
> And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with
> You before the world existed.
>
>
>
It is very significant that Jesus' exaltation described in Phil 2:9-11 is almost a direct quote (of the LXX text) of a prophecy in Isa 45:23 about what would happen to Jehovah/YHWH which effectively means that Paul, in Phil 2:9-11, is describing Jesus as Jehovah. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | According to the context of Philippians 2:6 (specifically) the Son always was God. At Philippians vs 8 He was found in appearance as a man etc.
"Therefore" or as a result of the above God highly exalted Him etc. So, as a result of this obedience to the plan of the Father, the Son possessed something He did not have before His incarnation.
What did Jesus have after His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension that He did not have before all this transpired? What did He take back to heaven that He did not have previously? His humanity! He always was the Son of God, but was not human until His incarnation.
So in conclusion Jesus Christ went from one form of being God, and took on another form of that of a bond-servant/man. He emptied Himself of the expression of deity, not the possession of deity. When He became flesh His deity was veiled or concealed. Hebrews 10:19-20. | John chapter 1, opening verses, speaks of the one who was with God in the beginning, and who was God, and who made everything that was made. It then shows that this "Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, that of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (vs. 14).
As God the Father has no beginning, one who was with him and who was God could not have had any beginning either. Verse 3 confirms that without this one, nothing that was made was made. Logically, then, this one could not have been made himself. That is why he is called "God" by John, both here and at the end of his account - "My Lord and my God" - (20:28).
Philippians 2:9 (which you allude to but don't cite) is understood by those who have the Word as a creature (hence lower than God right from the start; not God) as becoming the man, Jesus, who could be exalted back to a certain level of glory after his resurrection. No problem, they think, except that such an interpretation utterly depends on the Word having a starting point in time, being created by God. They have John 1:1 say the Word was 'a god'.
But those who take John 1:1-14 as showing the uncreated status of the Word, see a far greater degree of abasement in that lowering. Then, at his resurrection, the Father exalted him from that abased position. This means that both groups agree on the sequence of events: initially exalted, abased, then exalted. The disagreement is regarding degree of initial exaltation, degree of abasement and degree of exaltation.
Those who believe the Word was God see God, in Christ, so identifying with humanity that they understand what doubting Thomas said (and felt) in John 20:28, whereas those who think it wasn't God in Christ just don't get it. Philippians 2:9 is couched in words of exhortation for Christians to have that same humility of mind. Further, it says that although he was in the form of God, he did not grasp on to that; He agreed to be made in the likeness of men and to suffer humiliating death, knowing the Father would exalt him.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit determined this plan of redemption before anything was created, which is why the Bible speaks of Christ as "the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). It was decreed and as good as done, for the Word of God is inviolable. That plan included exaltation of the one who abased himself, which is why it happened. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | If Jesus was God (The Famous John1:1). Why was He exalted to higher position?
Paul answered this in (NIV)
Philippians 2:
>
> 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ **Jesus**:
>
> 6Who, being in very nature **God**,
> did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
> 7rather, he made himself nothing
> by taking the very **nature** of a servant,
> being made in **human** likeness.
>
>
>
Jesus took on human nature.
>
> 8And being found in appearance as a man,
> he humbled himself
> by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
> 9Therefore God **exalted** him to the highest place
> and gave him the name that is above every name
>
>
>
Jesus demonstrated the eternal principle in
Matthew 23:
>
> 12
> For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who **humble** themselves will be **exalted**.
>
>
> | >
> Jesus was exalted [...] (as if he wasn't in that position)
>
>
>
He wasn't; he descended down to earth (previous two verses), hence the need for an [ascension](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus), which is what [exaltation](http://www.greekdoc.com/bible/lexicon/uper.html#uperuyow) means; see also John 17:24.
>
> I was a Trinitarian
>
>
>
Apparently a Protestant or Evangelical Trinitarian; when doing the sign of the cross, moving the right hand from the forehead to the chest or abdomen signifies Christ's descent from heaven to earth, and its move to the right shoulder, His ascent to the Father's right hand side (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:56, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22).
>
> If He was/is God, why after [the] resurrection He was [...] also exalted?
>
>
>
This is a dead giveaway, insofar both seem to befit His humanity; otherwise, in light of divine immortality, one could also ask:
>
> If Jesus was God (the famous John1:1), why was He ~~exalted to higher position~~ *resurrected*, as if he wasn't ~~in that position~~ *already alive to begin with*?
>
>
> |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | >
> Jesus was exalted [...] (as if he wasn't in that position)
>
>
>
He wasn't; he descended down to earth (previous two verses), hence the need for an [ascension](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus), which is what [exaltation](http://www.greekdoc.com/bible/lexicon/uper.html#uperuyow) means; see also John 17:24.
>
> I was a Trinitarian
>
>
>
Apparently a Protestant or Evangelical Trinitarian; when doing the sign of the cross, moving the right hand from the forehead to the chest or abdomen signifies Christ's descent from heaven to earth, and its move to the right shoulder, His ascent to the Father's right hand side (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:56, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22).
>
> If He was/is God, why after [the] resurrection He was [...] also exalted?
>
>
>
This is a dead giveaway, insofar both seem to befit His humanity; otherwise, in light of divine immortality, one could also ask:
>
> If Jesus was God (the famous John1:1), why was He ~~exalted to higher position~~ *resurrected*, as if he wasn't ~~in that position~~ *already alive to begin with*?
>
>
> | Jesus was God (John 1:1, "the Word was God") in the sense of agency (authorized representative), similar to how Moses was made God (Exodus 7:1, ""See, I have made you God to Pharaoh," but note that the 'as' or 'like' often found in the translations is a gloss added by translators) but more so (note the comparison at John 1:17 between Jesus and Moses, Jesus > Moses).
Jesus himself says at John 17:3 that the Father is the only *true* God.
Jesus also says at John 8:4 that He is a man who has heard things *from* God, which summarizes his role as the image (Colossians 1:15, "The Son is the image of the invisible God") or 'Word' (John 1:1, Revelation 19:13, "His name is The Word of God") of God.
But, Jesus - a man who is God in the sense of agency - is then exalted to the right hand of God (= the Father) after 'passing the test' of a faultless, fully human life that was ontologically open the possibility of sin, where He now reigns with all authority granted to him *by* God.
Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | The humbling of the Son of God, and then his exaltation in humanity, is explained in Hebrews 2:9. The literal translation demonstrates the sequence of events :
>
> ... but who little some than angels made lower we see Jesus on account of the suffering of the death with glory and with honour crowned
>
>
>
This is the Englishman's Greek New Testament literal interlinear but can also be seen, very much the same, in the [Biblehub literal interlinear](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/2-9.htm).
Being made lower than the angels, that is to say, coming from heaven and having already humbled himself ('voiding' himself as we read in Philippians 2:7) Jesus, in humanity, went further and submitted to suffering and death - in humanity.
For this cause, as the writer to the Hebrews makes clear, that is to say on account of the suffering and death he endured in his humanity, he is, upon resurrection, highly exalted.
The exaltation is in honour of what he, himself, in humanity, endured in his humanity, and is not automatically applied due to his previous glory and honour prior to incarnation. | John chapter 1, opening verses, speaks of the one who was with God in the beginning, and who was God, and who made everything that was made. It then shows that this "Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, that of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (vs. 14).
As God the Father has no beginning, one who was with him and who was God could not have had any beginning either. Verse 3 confirms that without this one, nothing that was made was made. Logically, then, this one could not have been made himself. That is why he is called "God" by John, both here and at the end of his account - "My Lord and my God" - (20:28).
Philippians 2:9 (which you allude to but don't cite) is understood by those who have the Word as a creature (hence lower than God right from the start; not God) as becoming the man, Jesus, who could be exalted back to a certain level of glory after his resurrection. No problem, they think, except that such an interpretation utterly depends on the Word having a starting point in time, being created by God. They have John 1:1 say the Word was 'a god'.
But those who take John 1:1-14 as showing the uncreated status of the Word, see a far greater degree of abasement in that lowering. Then, at his resurrection, the Father exalted him from that abased position. This means that both groups agree on the sequence of events: initially exalted, abased, then exalted. The disagreement is regarding degree of initial exaltation, degree of abasement and degree of exaltation.
Those who believe the Word was God see God, in Christ, so identifying with humanity that they understand what doubting Thomas said (and felt) in John 20:28, whereas those who think it wasn't God in Christ just don't get it. Philippians 2:9 is couched in words of exhortation for Christians to have that same humility of mind. Further, it says that although he was in the form of God, he did not grasp on to that; He agreed to be made in the likeness of men and to suffer humiliating death, knowing the Father would exalt him.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit determined this plan of redemption before anything was created, which is why the Bible speaks of Christ as "the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). It was decreed and as good as done, for the Word of God is inviolable. That plan included exaltation of the one who abased himself, which is why it happened. |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | The humbling of the Son of God, and then his exaltation in humanity, is explained in Hebrews 2:9. The literal translation demonstrates the sequence of events :
>
> ... but who little some than angels made lower we see Jesus on account of the suffering of the death with glory and with honour crowned
>
>
>
This is the Englishman's Greek New Testament literal interlinear but can also be seen, very much the same, in the [Biblehub literal interlinear](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/2-9.htm).
Being made lower than the angels, that is to say, coming from heaven and having already humbled himself ('voiding' himself as we read in Philippians 2:7) Jesus, in humanity, went further and submitted to suffering and death - in humanity.
For this cause, as the writer to the Hebrews makes clear, that is to say on account of the suffering and death he endured in his humanity, he is, upon resurrection, highly exalted.
The exaltation is in honour of what he, himself, in humanity, endured in his humanity, and is not automatically applied due to his previous glory and honour prior to incarnation. | >
> Jesus was exalted [...] (as if he wasn't in that position)
>
>
>
He wasn't; he descended down to earth (previous two verses), hence the need for an [ascension](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus), which is what [exaltation](http://www.greekdoc.com/bible/lexicon/uper.html#uperuyow) means; see also John 17:24.
>
> I was a Trinitarian
>
>
>
Apparently a Protestant or Evangelical Trinitarian; when doing the sign of the cross, moving the right hand from the forehead to the chest or abdomen signifies Christ's descent from heaven to earth, and its move to the right shoulder, His ascent to the Father's right hand side (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:56, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22).
>
> If He was/is God, why after [the] resurrection He was [...] also exalted?
>
>
>
This is a dead giveaway, insofar both seem to befit His humanity; otherwise, in light of divine immortality, one could also ask:
>
> If Jesus was God (the famous John1:1), why was He ~~exalted to higher position~~ *resurrected*, as if he wasn't ~~in that position~~ *already alive to begin with*?
>
>
> |
86,834 | I was a trinitian, until I discussed with JW. I still believe in Trinity cause there're many verses back this up(including Mat 28:19) But I wondered
According to Phil 2:9 and some other verses. Jesus was exalted. If He was/is God, why after resurrection He was not only resurrected but also exalted to higher position (as if he wasn't in that position)?
Edit :
I meant, God the Father exalted Jesus to be on the right hand after His obedience, as if He was an angel (Michael Arcangel) before then now be the first born aka the heir of the authorities and kingdom of His Father.
Edit 2 : oh may, this Jw doctrine almost make me able only understand verses like Jw thinks. That, as if I was blind to the whole context of the chapter and story and bible. | 2021/11/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86834",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50240/"
] | >
> Jesus was exalted [...] (as if he wasn't in that position)
>
>
>
He wasn't; he descended down to earth (previous two verses), hence the need for an [ascension](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus), which is what [exaltation](http://www.greekdoc.com/bible/lexicon/uper.html#uperuyow) means; see also John 17:24.
>
> I was a Trinitarian
>
>
>
Apparently a Protestant or Evangelical Trinitarian; when doing the sign of the cross, moving the right hand from the forehead to the chest or abdomen signifies Christ's descent from heaven to earth, and its move to the right shoulder, His ascent to the Father's right hand side (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:56, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22).
>
> If He was/is God, why after [the] resurrection He was [...] also exalted?
>
>
>
This is a dead giveaway, insofar both seem to befit His humanity; otherwise, in light of divine immortality, one could also ask:
>
> If Jesus was God (the famous John1:1), why was He ~~exalted to higher position~~ *resurrected*, as if he wasn't ~~in that position~~ *already alive to begin with*?
>
>
> | Philippians 2:9 indicates that Jesus was rewarded for the great sacrifice of humbling himself even to death on a cross. If he were merely exalted back to the place that he held before, what is the reward in that?
He was also given the reward of a name that is above all names. It is not the name of Jesus, Yeshua, Yehoshua or any similar earthly name. He already had that name before his death. It is a new name referred to in Rev. 19:12.
>
> His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He
> has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
>
>
>
As is the case in so much about the nature of God, we are not given much detail about all that Christ’s exaltation entailed. Daniel 7 sheds a little additional light.
>
> 13“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of
> heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient
> of Days And was presented before Him. 14“And to Him was given
> dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men
> of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
> dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will
> not be destroyed. NASB
>
>
> |
6,641,828 | I am in the process of writing an offline-capable smartclient that will have syncing capability back to the main backend when a connection can be made. As a side note, I considered the Microsoft Sync Framework but since I'm really only going one-way I didn't feel it would buy me enough to justify it.
The question I have is related to SQLite vs. SQLCE and ClickOnce deployments. I've dealt with SQLite before (impressive little tool) and I've dealt with ClickOnce, but never together. If I setup an installer for my app via ClickOnce, how do I ensure during upgrades the local database doesn't get wiped out? Is it possible to upgrade the database (table structure, etc. if necessary) as part of the installer? Or is it better to use SQLCE for something like this? I definitely don't want to go the route of installing SQL Express or anything as the overhead would be far too high for what I am doing. | 2011/07/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6641828",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/84839/"
] | I can't speak about SQLLite, having never deployed it, but I do have some info about SQLCE.
First, you don't have to deploy it as a prerequisite. You can just include the dll's in your project. You can check [this article](http://robindotnet.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/how-to-deploy-the-sqlserver-compact-edition-software-locally/) which explains how. This gives you finite control over what version is being used, and you don't have to deal with installing it per se.
Second, I don't recommend that you deploy the database as a data file and let ClickOnce manage it. When you change that file, ClickOnce will publish it again and put it in the data directory. Then it will take the previous one and put it in the \pre subfolder, and if you have no code to handle that, your user will lose his data. So if you open the database file to look at the table structure, you might be unpleasantly surprised to get a phone call from your user about the data being gone.
If you need to retain the data between updates, I recommend you move the database to the [LocalApplicationData] folder the first time the application runs, and reference it there. Then if you need to do any updates to the structure, you can do them programmatically and control when they happen. [This article](http://robindotnet.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-do-i-put-my-data-to-keep-it-safe-from-clickonce-updates/) explains how to do this and why.
The other advantage to putting the data in LocalApplicationData is that if the user has a problem and has to uninstall and reinstall the application, his data is retained. | Regardless of the embedded database you choose your database file (.sqlite or .sdf) will be a part of your project so you will be able to use "Build Action" and "Copy to Output Directory" properties of that file to control what happens with the file during the install/update.
If you choose "Do not copy" it will not copy the database file and if you choose "Copy if newer" it will only copy if you have a new version of your database file.
You will need to experiment a little but by using these two properties you can have full control of how and when your database file is deployed/updated... |
108,240 | For a single burger I am using a Cusinart 7 ¼ model II 9022-18 18/10 stainless pan. For my first attempt at searing a 3 lb. pot roast I will be using a 4 quart Dutch Oven. My oil is GV Light Tasting, which is supposed to have a high smoke point.
Up to last night I have avoided seasoning my burger to avoid salt. Last night I seasoned one with salt and pepper: that seemed to help with the sticking, but the burger still wanted to become one with the pan. Unseasoned if I used too much oil when cooking the burgers (90/10) they got oily: if I used too little they stuck to the pan.
So how do I determine how much oil to use in each application so that the meat does not stick to the pan at all and sears properly? I am thinking that there should be an optimal depth of the oil in millimeters for specific types of meats?
Secondarily I am uncertain if I should expect seasoned meat to stick to a pan as part of the searing process, and if I should flip the meat for minimizing any sticking of a forming crust.
Thanks for any thoughts. | 2020/05/09 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84236/"
] | Meat sticking to metal happens in the very first few moments of contact. Salt will help a little because it draws moisture out of the meat, and that moisture is what is reducing the stick. You can reproduce the effect by oiling the bottom of the meat rather than the pan, this reduces the amount of oil required. If you want to avoid oil you can use water instead, I know this sounds wrong somehow, but all you are trying to achieve is a barrier between the meat and the pan for a few moments until the meat releases its own juices.
Leave the meat to form a crust - crusts are good, they give you flavor and texture, once they are formed they also won't stick to the pan. If you flip and it sticks a bit that's okay, let if form a crust and use a thin metal spatula to get it loose. | To agree with and add to what GdD said, meat sticks to the pan initially but if you just leave it place and let it sear, it will mostly detach on its own. It's only when you try to move it very soon after you put it in the pan that it really sticks.
If you salt immediately before you put it in the pan, it will help a little but you'll lose some of the salt into the pan. If you wait a few minutes, the salt will start to draw moisture out of the meat, which will dry out the meat, though it may help a little with sticking. But if you wait about 15-20 minutes after salting, the meat will re-absorb the salt solution which will both make the meat juicier and more flavorful and allow you to dry the surface of the meat with a paper towel without losing any salt which will lead to a good sear.
Another good tip for the pan is to make sure it is evenly heated, depending on the pan and your burner this might take a few extra minutes. You can also put the pan in a hot oven for a few minutes before using it to make sure it is evenly heated. |
39,546 | Wondering who actually built the Starlink propulsion systems?
Did SpaceX develop this technology in-house, outsource or acquire a company that had the IP and bring this back in-house?
Very curious as to who developed their tech. | 2019/10/24 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/39546",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/33632/"
] | SpaceX developed a Krypton Hall thruster completely in house. Their experts had experience from other places. I know quite a few of the experts came from the University of Michigan PEPL laboratory.
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rafael-martinez-89b0329b/> | The krypton engine used in starlink satellites could have been developed in Poland. at the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Mixing. It is important that the working factor is krypton, which is many times cheaper than xenon.
<http://www.elektroonline.pl/news/4555,Polacy-zbudowali-elektryczny-silnik-plazmowy-napedzany-kryptonem> |
16,787 | I (male) recently started a very corporate job. I'm a recent grad so I'm younger than most of my coworkers, most of which are married/have kids. I get along pretty well with all of them.
There is another recent hire, also a recent grad, who is the exception to this. He hasn't said anything hostile or derisive to me, but his behavior specifically toward me is kind of *cold*.
He gets perceptibly annoyed when I try to join group conversations in which he is involved. He never asks for any elaboration when I tell stories (but he does when others regale him). He seems to avoid asking me for help when he goes around asking some coworkers when he's stuck, even on things he knows me to be good at.
I haven't the slightest idea what I've done to make him act this way toward me. I want to ask him to find out, but I don't want to exacerbate the tension. I think it would be a little melodramatic to approach my boss about this.
**How can I bring this up with my coworker?** | 2018/07/20 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/16787",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/2076/"
] | You must be aware that you cannot change this behaviour towards you. It is for this other colleague to change because you are already doing everything that you can to make things better. Plainly it appears that this colleague is not behaving appropriately towards you, and also it is evident that it is worrying for you and matters a lot to you.
The only thing that you can do is stay in each offensive moment with yourself and in this way overcome your perceptions about them. It may be that you will discover that some of this is self afflicted, but in either case if it stops mattering to you - the other person will give up being unpleasant eventually, because they will see that there is no reaction from you. Steer yourself towards the co-workers that share their time with you equally and normally. It is your feelings, the feelings of apprehension, of doubt and of confidence that have to change in order for this to stop mattering to you or worrying you. Free yourself of these feelings even if they run deep within you - and do not try to repair things by over reacting. | Just don't make a big deal of it, try to "get over it" emotionally so that his behaviour does not hurt you any more. Try to perceive it not as your problem but his problem: you are OK, but *he* seems to feel bad about interracting with you. Then you can simply approach him and ask him (at some suitable time, or perhaps you can invite him to have a glass of beer with you, or whatever): hey, you seem not to be very comfortable with me, what's the problem? What can I do to help you? Am I doing something that annoys you? Be generous and candid. If he just shows irrational hostility, scorn or the like, just pity him, withdraw and stop bothering about it - he clearly is not the kind of person whose opinion on you should matter to you. If he points to some particular reason why he dislikes you that can be fixed, you may promise to try to work on it. If it can't be (reasonably) fixed, at least try to make him aware that you understand his feelings. If he says he simply does not like you and refuses to give any particular reason, you may say something like "Oh, that's life, I am glad it is not my fault, please let me know if you can think of something I can do so that you feel better; meanwhile let's take it as a fact and try to get along with each other as well as we can, shall we?" Avoid being judgemental, avoid focusing on your own emotions (best leave them out of the issue entirely), don't demand an instant solution, be prepared to acknowledge your own fault if there is one , but don't be defensive, and above all, don't scrounge for respect (or anything at all).
Additionally, you can ask your other coworkers why they think the guy has problem with you. |
16,787 | I (male) recently started a very corporate job. I'm a recent grad so I'm younger than most of my coworkers, most of which are married/have kids. I get along pretty well with all of them.
There is another recent hire, also a recent grad, who is the exception to this. He hasn't said anything hostile or derisive to me, but his behavior specifically toward me is kind of *cold*.
He gets perceptibly annoyed when I try to join group conversations in which he is involved. He never asks for any elaboration when I tell stories (but he does when others regale him). He seems to avoid asking me for help when he goes around asking some coworkers when he's stuck, even on things he knows me to be good at.
I haven't the slightest idea what I've done to make him act this way toward me. I want to ask him to find out, but I don't want to exacerbate the tension. I think it would be a little melodramatic to approach my boss about this.
**How can I bring this up with my coworker?** | 2018/07/20 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/16787",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/2076/"
] | You must be aware that you cannot change this behaviour towards you. It is for this other colleague to change because you are already doing everything that you can to make things better. Plainly it appears that this colleague is not behaving appropriately towards you, and also it is evident that it is worrying for you and matters a lot to you.
The only thing that you can do is stay in each offensive moment with yourself and in this way overcome your perceptions about them. It may be that you will discover that some of this is self afflicted, but in either case if it stops mattering to you - the other person will give up being unpleasant eventually, because they will see that there is no reaction from you. Steer yourself towards the co-workers that share their time with you equally and normally. It is your feelings, the feelings of apprehension, of doubt and of confidence that have to change in order for this to stop mattering to you or worrying you. Free yourself of these feelings even if they run deep within you - and do not try to repair things by over reacting. | Your coworker's behavior sounds hurtful. Unfortunately, you will encounter many coworkers over the course of your career that will be standoffish or cold in their interactions with you. This is not necessarily because of anything that you did to them. It could be for a variety of reasons: they are not interested in making friends at work, they are narcissistic, they feel threatened by your presence, or yes, possibly because there is something about you that they don't like, among other reasons. While this is challenging, there is nothing that you can do to prevent it.
In your time at work, you will need to establish boundaries with your coworkers that may be different from the boundaries that you establish in social settings. However, just like in a social setting, spend time with coworkers that make you feel positive and confident, even if they are older than you. When you have to interact with him, keep the conversational professional. If you find that your office requires a lot of social interaction (for example, your team eats lunch together every day), and you are required to interact with him in this setting, then consider asking him questions about himself in order to get to know him better. However, it is generally advisable to avoid talking about very personal or contentious topics with your coworkers unless you have been working with them for a long time, and they have become your "real" friends.
At work, your first priority is to do the best that you can in executing your tasks. If you minimize your social interactions with him, maintain a professional demeanor, and complete your tasks well, then you can build a positive "coworker" relationship with him, even if the two of you are not compatible as "real" friends.
And yes, if this coworker is exhibiting hostile behavior towards you, rather than just a cold demeanor, document it to the best of your ability. This is very useful if you feel that you do need to escalate. |
16,787 | I (male) recently started a very corporate job. I'm a recent grad so I'm younger than most of my coworkers, most of which are married/have kids. I get along pretty well with all of them.
There is another recent hire, also a recent grad, who is the exception to this. He hasn't said anything hostile or derisive to me, but his behavior specifically toward me is kind of *cold*.
He gets perceptibly annoyed when I try to join group conversations in which he is involved. He never asks for any elaboration when I tell stories (but he does when others regale him). He seems to avoid asking me for help when he goes around asking some coworkers when he's stuck, even on things he knows me to be good at.
I haven't the slightest idea what I've done to make him act this way toward me. I want to ask him to find out, but I don't want to exacerbate the tension. I think it would be a little melodramatic to approach my boss about this.
**How can I bring this up with my coworker?** | 2018/07/20 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/16787",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/2076/"
] | Your coworker's behavior sounds hurtful. Unfortunately, you will encounter many coworkers over the course of your career that will be standoffish or cold in their interactions with you. This is not necessarily because of anything that you did to them. It could be for a variety of reasons: they are not interested in making friends at work, they are narcissistic, they feel threatened by your presence, or yes, possibly because there is something about you that they don't like, among other reasons. While this is challenging, there is nothing that you can do to prevent it.
In your time at work, you will need to establish boundaries with your coworkers that may be different from the boundaries that you establish in social settings. However, just like in a social setting, spend time with coworkers that make you feel positive and confident, even if they are older than you. When you have to interact with him, keep the conversational professional. If you find that your office requires a lot of social interaction (for example, your team eats lunch together every day), and you are required to interact with him in this setting, then consider asking him questions about himself in order to get to know him better. However, it is generally advisable to avoid talking about very personal or contentious topics with your coworkers unless you have been working with them for a long time, and they have become your "real" friends.
At work, your first priority is to do the best that you can in executing your tasks. If you minimize your social interactions with him, maintain a professional demeanor, and complete your tasks well, then you can build a positive "coworker" relationship with him, even if the two of you are not compatible as "real" friends.
And yes, if this coworker is exhibiting hostile behavior towards you, rather than just a cold demeanor, document it to the best of your ability. This is very useful if you feel that you do need to escalate. | Just don't make a big deal of it, try to "get over it" emotionally so that his behaviour does not hurt you any more. Try to perceive it not as your problem but his problem: you are OK, but *he* seems to feel bad about interracting with you. Then you can simply approach him and ask him (at some suitable time, or perhaps you can invite him to have a glass of beer with you, or whatever): hey, you seem not to be very comfortable with me, what's the problem? What can I do to help you? Am I doing something that annoys you? Be generous and candid. If he just shows irrational hostility, scorn or the like, just pity him, withdraw and stop bothering about it - he clearly is not the kind of person whose opinion on you should matter to you. If he points to some particular reason why he dislikes you that can be fixed, you may promise to try to work on it. If it can't be (reasonably) fixed, at least try to make him aware that you understand his feelings. If he says he simply does not like you and refuses to give any particular reason, you may say something like "Oh, that's life, I am glad it is not my fault, please let me know if you can think of something I can do so that you feel better; meanwhile let's take it as a fact and try to get along with each other as well as we can, shall we?" Avoid being judgemental, avoid focusing on your own emotions (best leave them out of the issue entirely), don't demand an instant solution, be prepared to acknowledge your own fault if there is one , but don't be defensive, and above all, don't scrounge for respect (or anything at all).
Additionally, you can ask your other coworkers why they think the guy has problem with you. |
32,885,855 | I know this was asked many times, I've read them.
I've checked the [Enable SQL Server debugging] in all my projects in the solution.
My projects:
* ASP.NET web app
* DAL class library. (The DAL uses a legacy .dbml to generate SP calling wrapper code.) No OR mapper neither direct ADO.NET used in the project.
* SQL Server 11.0.3153
I would like to debug my called SPs when debugging the C# code in VS. Ideally it should step in to the SP, but if this is not supported, then break in the SP on a set breakpoint.
Unfortunatelly it does neither. If I set a breakpoint in the SP, it is not a filled red circle, instead an unfilled, which is not a good sign. (I am setting this breakpoint in Server Explorer, by opening a data connection, and opening the SP in the VS editor.
What am I missing? | 2015/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32885855",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1157814/"
] | General instructions, based on my experience and research.
1. Run Visual Studio (community version, in my case) as Administrator (for me, debugging a stored proc from VS only works when VS is run as an admin)
2. Go to the Solution Explorer, right click on your project and go to properties.
3. Click on the Web tab and make sure that SQL Server is checked. Save and close.
4. Click on the View menu, then on SQL Server Object Explorer.
5. In the SQL Server Object Explorer, expand SQL Server and if you don't see your SQL Server, right click on SQL Server and add it.
6. Right click on the SQL Server that you just added and make sure that both Application Debugging and Allow SQL/CLR Debugging are checked.
7. Expand your SQL Server instance that you added and find the stored procedure of interest.
8. Right click that SP and click View Code.
9. Put a break point where you wish.
10. Run and enjoy.
You may have to do some of these things next time you wish to debug a stored proc from VS after you close VS and open it up later. | I had the same problem...
In the "Solution Configurations" dropdown, the selected configuration was "Debug (Active)". I changed that to "Debug."
After the change was made, the debugger worked normally and the "Debug (Active)" option disappeared from the list.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xLV9p.jpg) |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.
>
>
>
Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the *medial rectus muscle* and the *inferior/obliquee rectus muscle*. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5DD0L.jpg)
This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.
>
> ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...
>
>
>
This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:
* Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
* [Do these stretching exercises for the eyes](https://www.stretchnow.com.au/eye-exercise). Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist. | If this is indeed a problem with forcing your eyes into a strenuous position to maintain focus somewhere, I've found a way that allows me to have my eyes rest, while still having them act as a center of focus.
* Reach your hand out in front of your eyes, with you eyes open.
* Focus on the position of your hand in front of your face, and learn to "feel" that position.
* Once that's comfortable, close your eyes (with your hand still outstretched where it was), and again, focus on the position of your hand without seeing it.
* Once you can easily focus on your hand without seeing it, lower your hand, and again focus on that same area; now occupied by empty space.
I've found the empty space in front of my face to be a very relaxing place to focus. I often use this to help me fall asleep. I haven't tried transferring this over into meditation (I really should practice meditating more), but I can see this technique being applicable. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | The Buddha did not teach to observe breathing at the nose tip. The Buddha taught to simply let go and give up craving. Just sit quietly and naturally. The mind should be "open" rather than "focused". | If this is indeed a problem with forcing your eyes into a strenuous position to maintain focus somewhere, I've found a way that allows me to have my eyes rest, while still having them act as a center of focus.
* Reach your hand out in front of your eyes, with you eyes open.
* Focus on the position of your hand in front of your face, and learn to "feel" that position.
* Once that's comfortable, close your eyes (with your hand still outstretched where it was), and again, focus on the position of your hand without seeing it.
* Once you can easily focus on your hand without seeing it, lower your hand, and again focus on that same area; now occupied by empty space.
I've found the empty space in front of my face to be a very relaxing place to focus. I often use this to help me fall asleep. I haven't tried transferring this over into meditation (I really should practice meditating more), but I can see this technique being applicable. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> i really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence i had when i meditated daily
>
>
>
There are other forms of meditation. We sit a lot in our offices. Perhaps sitting meditation is too much on top of that. Since I started walking meditation listening to suttas, much has improved for me. If you walk outdoors in western cultures, please do wear a yellow road work vest. I have had the police called on me when I wasn't wearing such a vest. Kind neighbors had thought I was in need of assistance wandering aimlessly. Yellow road vests offer instant and proper seclusion accorded to those who work. Earbuds also help regardless of whether you are listening to anything--"here is someone busy listening".
If you wish to download audio material for walking meditation, please see [SuttaCentral Voice Assistant](http://50.18.90.151/scv). SuttaCentral Voice Assistant lets you search for any sutta by English and/or Pali phrase (romanized or accented). You can play the suttas on your desktop bilingually with each text segment in Pali/English. You can also download an MP3 for any supported sutta (over 3000 and growing). SCV does also have links to other audio resources such as Pali Audio for certain suttas, but its own voice coverage of the suttas is, I believe, the largest currently. For example, I listen to DN33 daily. It is two hours long. We are continually expanding SCV's sutta coverage in English and, hopefully, eventually to other languages. | Try a meditation practice like ‘*Loving kindness meditation.*’ Here, you first direct loving-kindness to yourself and gradually extend to people you know and even to enemies (if you have any) at the end (you should be able to find more info regarding this meditation on the web).
Another thing to try is to simply observe your thoughts – how they come and go. Then, “I miss the peaceful states” becomes merely another arising and ceasing thought. This meditation would also lead you to peace. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | The Buddha did not teach to observe breathing at the nose tip. The Buddha taught to simply let go and give up craving. Just sit quietly and naturally. The mind should be "open" rather than "focused". | Try a meditation practice like ‘*Loving kindness meditation.*’ Here, you first direct loving-kindness to yourself and gradually extend to people you know and even to enemies (if you have any) at the end (you should be able to find more info regarding this meditation on the web).
Another thing to try is to simply observe your thoughts – how they come and go. Then, “I miss the peaceful states” becomes merely another arising and ceasing thought. This meditation would also lead you to peace. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.
>
>
>
Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the *medial rectus muscle* and the *inferior/obliquee rectus muscle*. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5DD0L.jpg)
This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.
>
> ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...
>
>
>
This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:
* Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
* [Do these stretching exercises for the eyes](https://www.stretchnow.com.au/eye-exercise). Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist. | Try a meditation practice like ‘*Loving kindness meditation.*’ Here, you first direct loving-kindness to yourself and gradually extend to people you know and even to enemies (if you have any) at the end (you should be able to find more info regarding this meditation on the web).
Another thing to try is to simply observe your thoughts – how they come and go. Then, “I miss the peaceful states” becomes merely another arising and ceasing thought. This meditation would also lead you to peace. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.
>
>
>
Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the *medial rectus muscle* and the *inferior/obliquee rectus muscle*. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5DD0L.jpg)
This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.
>
> ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...
>
>
>
This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:
* Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
* [Do these stretching exercises for the eyes](https://www.stretchnow.com.au/eye-exercise). Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist. | >
> i really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence i had when i meditated daily
>
>
>
There are other forms of meditation. We sit a lot in our offices. Perhaps sitting meditation is too much on top of that. Since I started walking meditation listening to suttas, much has improved for me. If you walk outdoors in western cultures, please do wear a yellow road work vest. I have had the police called on me when I wasn't wearing such a vest. Kind neighbors had thought I was in need of assistance wandering aimlessly. Yellow road vests offer instant and proper seclusion accorded to those who work. Earbuds also help regardless of whether you are listening to anything--"here is someone busy listening".
If you wish to download audio material for walking meditation, please see [SuttaCentral Voice Assistant](http://50.18.90.151/scv). SuttaCentral Voice Assistant lets you search for any sutta by English and/or Pali phrase (romanized or accented). You can play the suttas on your desktop bilingually with each text segment in Pali/English. You can also download an MP3 for any supported sutta (over 3000 and growing). SCV does also have links to other audio resources such as Pali Audio for certain suttas, but its own voice coverage of the suttas is, I believe, the largest currently. For example, I listen to DN33 daily. It is two hours long. We are continually expanding SCV's sutta coverage in English and, hopefully, eventually to other languages. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.
>
>
>
Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the *medial rectus muscle* and the *inferior/obliquee rectus muscle*. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5DD0L.jpg)
This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.
>
> ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...
>
>
>
This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:
* Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
* [Do these stretching exercises for the eyes](https://www.stretchnow.com.au/eye-exercise). Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist. | The Buddha did not teach to observe breathing at the nose tip. The Buddha taught to simply let go and give up craving. Just sit quietly and naturally. The mind should be "open" rather than "focused". |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | >
> In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.
>
>
>
Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the *medial rectus muscle* and the *inferior/obliquee rectus muscle*. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5DD0L.jpg)
This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.
>
> ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...
>
>
>
This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:
* Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
* [Do these stretching exercises for the eyes](https://www.stretchnow.com.au/eye-exercise). Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist. | Could you tell me what is your object of focus?
Have you been concentrating on, for example, the space between your nose and your mouth?
If that's the case, I would recommend that you choose a different region of the body. Lower abdominal area, about three fingers below your naval, would be an option. Some Chinese masters believe that women should concentrate instead on the big toes or the bottom of the feet.
In any case, I think pushing the focus on the lower parts of the body will help. If this doesn't help, you should go talk to an experienced meditator. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | Could you tell me what is your object of focus?
Have you been concentrating on, for example, the space between your nose and your mouth?
If that's the case, I would recommend that you choose a different region of the body. Lower abdominal area, about three fingers below your naval, would be an option. Some Chinese masters believe that women should concentrate instead on the big toes or the bottom of the feet.
In any case, I think pushing the focus on the lower parts of the body will help. If this doesn't help, you should go talk to an experienced meditator. | Try a meditation practice like ‘*Loving kindness meditation.*’ Here, you first direct loving-kindness to yourself and gradually extend to people you know and even to enemies (if you have any) at the end (you should be able to find more info regarding this meditation on the web).
Another thing to try is to simply observe your thoughts – how they come and go. Then, “I miss the peaceful states” becomes merely another arising and ceasing thought. This meditation would also lead you to peace. |
30,088 | In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this. | 2018/11/26 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30088",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/14459/"
] | The Buddha did not teach to observe breathing at the nose tip. The Buddha taught to simply let go and give up craving. Just sit quietly and naturally. The mind should be "open" rather than "focused". | Could you tell me what is your object of focus?
Have you been concentrating on, for example, the space between your nose and your mouth?
If that's the case, I would recommend that you choose a different region of the body. Lower abdominal area, about three fingers below your naval, would be an option. Some Chinese masters believe that women should concentrate instead on the big toes or the bottom of the feet.
In any case, I think pushing the focus on the lower parts of the body will help. If this doesn't help, you should go talk to an experienced meditator. |
17,595 | I KNOW what moments are and how to calculate them and how to use the moment generating function for getting higher order moments. Yes, I know the math.
Now that I need to get my statistics knowledge lubricated for work, I thought I might as well ask this question – it's been nagging me for about a few years and back in college no professor knew the answer or would just dismiss the question (honestly).
So what does the word "moment" mean in this case? Why this choice of word? It doesn't sound intuitive to me (or I never heard it that way back in college :) Come to think of it I am equally curious with its usage in "moment of inertia" ;) but let's not focus on that for now.
So what does a "moment" of a distribution mean and what does it seek to do and why THAT word! :) Why does any one care about moments? At this moment I am feeling otherwise about that moment ;)
PS: Yes, I've probably asked a similar question on variance but I do value intuitive understanding over 'look in the book to find out' :) | 2011/10/26 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/17595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/4426/"
] | Everybody has its moment on moments. I had mine in [Cumulant and moment names beyond variance, skewness and kurtosis](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/188281/cumulant-and-moment-names-beyond-variance-skewness-and-kurtosis), and spent some time reading this gorgious thread.
Oddly, I did not find the "moment mention" in " H. A. David's paper. So I went to
[Karl Pearson: The Scientific Life in a Statistical Age](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7786.html), a book by T. M. Porter. and [Karl Pearson and the Origins of Modern Statistics: An Elastician becomes a Statistician](http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article010107.html). He for instance edited [A History of the Theory of Elasticity and of the Strength of Materials from Galilei to the Present Time](https://ia902604.us.archive.org/24/items/ahistorytheorye03todhgoog/ahistorytheorye03todhgoog.pdf).
His background was very wide, and he was notably a professor of engineering and elastician, who was involved in determining the bending moments of a bridge span and calculating stresses on masonry dams.
In elasticity, one only observe what is is going on (rupture) in a limited manner. He seemingly was interested in (from Porter's book):
>
> graphical calculation or, in its most dignified and mathematical form,
> graphical statics.
>
>
>
Later :
>
> From the beginning of his statistical career, and even before that, he
> fit curves using the "method of moments." In mechanics, this meant
> matching a complicated body to a simple or abstract one that had the
> same center of mass and "swing radius," respectively the first and
> second moments. These quantities corresponded in statistics to the
> mean and the spread or dispersion of measurements around the mean.
>
>
>
And since:
>
> Pearson dealt in discrete measurement intervals, this was a sum rather
> than an integral
>
>
>
Inertial moments can stand for a summary of a moving body: computations can be carried out as if the body was reduced to a single point.
>
> Pearson set up these five equalities as a system of equations, which
> combined into one of the ninth degree. A numerical solution was only
> possible by successive approximations. There could have been as many
> as nine real solutions, though in the present instance there were only
> two. He graphed both results alongside the original, and was generally
> pleased with the appearance of the result. He did not, however, rely
> on visual inspection to decide between them, but calculated the sixth
> moment to decide the best match
>
>
>
Let us go back to physics. A moment is a physical quantity that takes into account the local arrangement of a physical property, generally with respect to a certain ordinal point or axis (classically in space or time). It summarizes physical quantities as measured at some distance from a reference. If the quantity is not concentrated at a single point, the moment is "averaged" over the whole space, by means of integrals or sums.
Apparently, the concept of moments can be traced back to the discovery of the operating principle of the lever "discovered" by Archimedes. One of the first known occurrence is the Latin word "momentorum" with the present accepted sense (moment about a center of rotation). In 1565, Federico Commandino translated Archimedes' work (Liber de Centro Gravitatis Solidorum) as:
>
> The center of gravity of each solid figure is that point within it,
> about which on all sides parts of equal moment stand.
>
>
>
or
>
> Centrum gravitatis uniuscuiusque solidae figurae est punctum illud
> intra positum, circa quod undique partes aequalium momentorum
>
>
>
So apparently, the analogy with physics is quite strong: from a complicated discrete physical shape, find quantities that approximate it sufficiently, a form of compression or parsimony. | Being overly simplistic, statistical moments are additional descriptors of a curve/distribution. We are familiar with the first two moments and these are generally useful for continuous normal distributions or similar curves. However these first two moments lose their informational value for other distributions. Thus other moments provide additional information on the shape/form of the distribution. |
168 | There doesn't seem to be any difference between how [bioinformatics](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bioinformatics "show questions tagged 'bioinformatics'") and [computational-biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-biology "show questions tagged 'computational-biology'") are used, I would propose to merge those tags.
* Is there any argument against this?
* Which one should be the main tag? | 2012/02/27 | [
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | I would argue that bioinformatics and computational-biology are actually different topics but in the context in which they are used here, it is more likely to be bioinformatics.
Bioinformatics would consists of most data analysis and data-mining. I would draw the line at biological simulations like folding@home and systems biology and define that as computational biology. However, none of the questions tagged so far fall under those categories. | I'm in favor of merging them. There is no single definition for either, nor a clear delineation between them. Compared to other areas of biology their overlap is so large that the tags should be merged.
I'm less sure about the main tag, but I guess bioinformatics is more popular (and succinct). |
168 | There doesn't seem to be any difference between how [bioinformatics](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bioinformatics "show questions tagged 'bioinformatics'") and [computational-biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-biology "show questions tagged 'computational-biology'") are used, I would propose to merge those tags.
* Is there any argument against this?
* Which one should be the main tag? | 2012/02/27 | [
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | I would argue that bioinformatics and computational-biology are actually different topics but in the context in which they are used here, it is more likely to be bioinformatics.
Bioinformatics would consists of most data analysis and data-mining. I would draw the line at biological simulations like folding@home and systems biology and define that as computational biology. However, none of the questions tagged so far fall under those categories. | I guess there isn't much point to comment on status-complete, but for posterity I disagree with this decision.
Bioinformatics and computational-biology have distinct communities, there is a lot of overlap but there are many researchers whould identify with only one of those groups. The arguments given in the other answers of "there hasn't been a distinguishing question, yet" is not a valid one. From the little I've read of bio.SE there are almost no mathematical or computational questions in general. You should not judge on the criteria of existing questions as much as on the criteria of possible future questions.
For instance, I recently asked a question:
[Computational/mathematical models for predicting phenotype from genotype](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/2982/500)
Which I think fits under computational-biology, but in my opinion definitely does not fit under bioinformatics. Since the tags have been synonymized and I didn't want bioinfo as a tag, I could not tag this question as computational. But I did find other tags (like mathematical-models; although I maybe should have created a computational-models tag) that worked. |
168 | There doesn't seem to be any difference between how [bioinformatics](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bioinformatics "show questions tagged 'bioinformatics'") and [computational-biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-biology "show questions tagged 'computational-biology'") are used, I would propose to merge those tags.
* Is there any argument against this?
* Which one should be the main tag? | 2012/02/27 | [
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | I would argue that bioinformatics and computational-biology are actually different topics but in the context in which they are used here, it is more likely to be bioinformatics.
Bioinformatics would consists of most data analysis and data-mining. I would draw the line at biological simulations like folding@home and systems biology and define that as computational biology. However, none of the questions tagged so far fall under those categories. | Both "bioinformatics" and "computational-biology" are different as aptly answered here:
[Is "computational biology" different from "bioinformatics"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/3192/how-computational-biology-differs-from-bioinformatics-or-does-it#comment4783_3192) |
168 | There doesn't seem to be any difference between how [bioinformatics](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bioinformatics "show questions tagged 'bioinformatics'") and [computational-biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-biology "show questions tagged 'computational-biology'") are used, I would propose to merge those tags.
* Is there any argument against this?
* Which one should be the main tag? | 2012/02/27 | [
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | I'm in favor of merging them. There is no single definition for either, nor a clear delineation between them. Compared to other areas of biology their overlap is so large that the tags should be merged.
I'm less sure about the main tag, but I guess bioinformatics is more popular (and succinct). | Both "bioinformatics" and "computational-biology" are different as aptly answered here:
[Is "computational biology" different from "bioinformatics"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/3192/how-computational-biology-differs-from-bioinformatics-or-does-it#comment4783_3192) |
168 | There doesn't seem to be any difference between how [bioinformatics](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bioinformatics "show questions tagged 'bioinformatics'") and [computational-biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/computational-biology "show questions tagged 'computational-biology'") are used, I would propose to merge those tags.
* Is there any argument against this?
* Which one should be the main tag? | 2012/02/27 | [
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6/"
] | I guess there isn't much point to comment on status-complete, but for posterity I disagree with this decision.
Bioinformatics and computational-biology have distinct communities, there is a lot of overlap but there are many researchers whould identify with only one of those groups. The arguments given in the other answers of "there hasn't been a distinguishing question, yet" is not a valid one. From the little I've read of bio.SE there are almost no mathematical or computational questions in general. You should not judge on the criteria of existing questions as much as on the criteria of possible future questions.
For instance, I recently asked a question:
[Computational/mathematical models for predicting phenotype from genotype](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/2982/500)
Which I think fits under computational-biology, but in my opinion definitely does not fit under bioinformatics. Since the tags have been synonymized and I didn't want bioinfo as a tag, I could not tag this question as computational. But I did find other tags (like mathematical-models; although I maybe should have created a computational-models tag) that worked. | Both "bioinformatics" and "computational-biology" are different as aptly answered here:
[Is "computational biology" different from "bioinformatics"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/3192/how-computational-biology-differs-from-bioinformatics-or-does-it#comment4783_3192) |
5,314 | I recently purchased some collapsible trekking poles ([Komperdell Ridgehiker](http://www.mec.ca/product/5031-555/komperdell-ridgehiker-cork-powerlock-compact/?q=komperdell), made in Austria) and found them quite useful in terms of being able to extend or retract them slightly for going up and down hill when my knees are most strained with my 30-40 pound pack.
A major issue with the design was that it snapped at the plastic rings that make up the joints while going downhill with only a 15 pound pack and fast pace, with conscious effort to plunge them in a way where I would not bend them too much while moving forward.
If I am to be abusing the poles like this (absolutely am looking for them to be strong enough for the rare slip somewhere at a minimum) should I look for much pricier ones with stronger joints, or go with fixed? And if I choose fixed, should I size them at a 90° bend or should I size them for say uphill climbing or slightly longer for downhill and possibly adjust the hand loop much longer for when I use them for uphill? Or is the benefit of collapsing mainly for packed size and not much is gained by adjusting them for the incline? | 2014/02/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/5314",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2962/"
] | I don't know of what quality are the poles which you are using, but it's a fact that the better the quality, the better the joints. It's one of the most important components of the price.
For me, a good pair of poles from BlackDiamond behave pretty well under my 90 kg weight with a 30 kg backpack, which totals in 260 pound. This is a good side: yes, expensive poles should help you.
The bad side is that trekking poles are expendable. If you happen to walk on scree, or your are heavy, or you are just unlucky, you poles may live for only a week or two on intensive trekking. Then a tiny accident happens and you find that now you have 3 poles instead of 2. And collapsible poles are weaker than regular ones. Or heavier, or both. And definitely more expensive.
Now, some shopping advice for non-collapsible poles. You can get the most of the poles in 2 scenarios:
1. Going downhill - they protect your knees from shock
2. Walking on horizontal or slightly inclined ground - they let you move longer by evenly distributing the stress and move faster by keeping better balance.
My experience is that when going up, they don't help that much - your legs are much stronger than your arms anyway. And if you are on a really steep slope, you can hold them together with two hands - the same technique as with an [alpenstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenstock).
So if I was going to buy non-collapsible poles, I would go for the size which you are comfortable with walking on the level ground - this will cover most of the scenarios.
Ps. Please note, that I don't have much experience of walking with non-collapsible poles in summer - the conclusions are drawn from observations of collapsible poles usage. | My personal experience is that I do not hike/backpack with out trekking poles. I find them very useful on inclines, declines, and even flat terrain. I long ago lost count in the number of times they have save me from a fall, especially while backpacking.
I use the collapsible poles. The ease of storage is important to me. They also allow adjustment for different terrain. I've only had one pole go bad on me (bent), so to me it's not really a concern. |
5,314 | I recently purchased some collapsible trekking poles ([Komperdell Ridgehiker](http://www.mec.ca/product/5031-555/komperdell-ridgehiker-cork-powerlock-compact/?q=komperdell), made in Austria) and found them quite useful in terms of being able to extend or retract them slightly for going up and down hill when my knees are most strained with my 30-40 pound pack.
A major issue with the design was that it snapped at the plastic rings that make up the joints while going downhill with only a 15 pound pack and fast pace, with conscious effort to plunge them in a way where I would not bend them too much while moving forward.
If I am to be abusing the poles like this (absolutely am looking for them to be strong enough for the rare slip somewhere at a minimum) should I look for much pricier ones with stronger joints, or go with fixed? And if I choose fixed, should I size them at a 90° bend or should I size them for say uphill climbing or slightly longer for downhill and possibly adjust the hand loop much longer for when I use them for uphill? Or is the benefit of collapsing mainly for packed size and not much is gained by adjusting them for the incline? | 2014/02/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/5314",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2962/"
] | I don't know of what quality are the poles which you are using, but it's a fact that the better the quality, the better the joints. It's one of the most important components of the price.
For me, a good pair of poles from BlackDiamond behave pretty well under my 90 kg weight with a 30 kg backpack, which totals in 260 pound. This is a good side: yes, expensive poles should help you.
The bad side is that trekking poles are expendable. If you happen to walk on scree, or your are heavy, or you are just unlucky, you poles may live for only a week or two on intensive trekking. Then a tiny accident happens and you find that now you have 3 poles instead of 2. And collapsible poles are weaker than regular ones. Or heavier, or both. And definitely more expensive.
Now, some shopping advice for non-collapsible poles. You can get the most of the poles in 2 scenarios:
1. Going downhill - they protect your knees from shock
2. Walking on horizontal or slightly inclined ground - they let you move longer by evenly distributing the stress and move faster by keeping better balance.
My experience is that when going up, they don't help that much - your legs are much stronger than your arms anyway. And if you are on a really steep slope, you can hold them together with two hands - the same technique as with an [alpenstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenstock).
So if I was going to buy non-collapsible poles, I would go for the size which you are comfortable with walking on the level ground - this will cover most of the scenarios.
Ps. Please note, that I don't have much experience of walking with non-collapsible poles in summer - the conclusions are drawn from observations of collapsible poles usage. | Fixed length non-adjustable trekking poles have the advantages of being lighter, comprise of less failure points and sturdier (especially for cheap poles). On the other side of the medal, transporting them by airplane is more costly and they can be inconvenient when hitch hiking to/from a trailhead.
I have used slightly longer fixed trekking poles in order to be able to use them with my shelter system. I personally did not mind adjusting my hand on the long handle depending on the inclination of the trail. In fact, if they would have been non-fixed I would seldom adjust them as it takes time.
I prefered fixed length poles because of their weight and not having to adjust them every time I setup my shelter. I do not use loop handles so this wasn't a problem for me.
If you prefer quick adjustment and fixed-length; an interesting compromise are the [Black Diamond](http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/trekking-poles/ultra-mountain-carbon-trekking-pole-BD112132_cfg.html?dwvar_BD112132__cfg_color=Carbon-Lava#start=1) [Z-Pole Series trekking poles](http://www.backpacker.com/gear-guide-2011-editors-choice-2011-black-diamond-ultra-distance-z-poles/gear/15339). They are fixed and collapsible for the most part. The top-most section allows you to adjust it to your liking. |
5,314 | I recently purchased some collapsible trekking poles ([Komperdell Ridgehiker](http://www.mec.ca/product/5031-555/komperdell-ridgehiker-cork-powerlock-compact/?q=komperdell), made in Austria) and found them quite useful in terms of being able to extend or retract them slightly for going up and down hill when my knees are most strained with my 30-40 pound pack.
A major issue with the design was that it snapped at the plastic rings that make up the joints while going downhill with only a 15 pound pack and fast pace, with conscious effort to plunge them in a way where I would not bend them too much while moving forward.
If I am to be abusing the poles like this (absolutely am looking for them to be strong enough for the rare slip somewhere at a minimum) should I look for much pricier ones with stronger joints, or go with fixed? And if I choose fixed, should I size them at a 90° bend or should I size them for say uphill climbing or slightly longer for downhill and possibly adjust the hand loop much longer for when I use them for uphill? Or is the benefit of collapsing mainly for packed size and not much is gained by adjusting them for the incline? | 2014/02/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/5314",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2962/"
] | I don't know of what quality are the poles which you are using, but it's a fact that the better the quality, the better the joints. It's one of the most important components of the price.
For me, a good pair of poles from BlackDiamond behave pretty well under my 90 kg weight with a 30 kg backpack, which totals in 260 pound. This is a good side: yes, expensive poles should help you.
The bad side is that trekking poles are expendable. If you happen to walk on scree, or your are heavy, or you are just unlucky, you poles may live for only a week or two on intensive trekking. Then a tiny accident happens and you find that now you have 3 poles instead of 2. And collapsible poles are weaker than regular ones. Or heavier, or both. And definitely more expensive.
Now, some shopping advice for non-collapsible poles. You can get the most of the poles in 2 scenarios:
1. Going downhill - they protect your knees from shock
2. Walking on horizontal or slightly inclined ground - they let you move longer by evenly distributing the stress and move faster by keeping better balance.
My experience is that when going up, they don't help that much - your legs are much stronger than your arms anyway. And if you are on a really steep slope, you can hold them together with two hands - the same technique as with an [alpenstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenstock).
So if I was going to buy non-collapsible poles, I would go for the size which you are comfortable with walking on the level ground - this will cover most of the scenarios.
Ps. Please note, that I don't have much experience of walking with non-collapsible poles in summer - the conclusions are drawn from observations of collapsible poles usage. | **Collapsible poles, compared to fixed poles**
* Easier to fit in luggage.
* Easier to fit in the side pockets of backpacks when doing something that requires two hands, for example river crossing.
* Can be loaned to other people who are of different height to you. |
5,314 | I recently purchased some collapsible trekking poles ([Komperdell Ridgehiker](http://www.mec.ca/product/5031-555/komperdell-ridgehiker-cork-powerlock-compact/?q=komperdell), made in Austria) and found them quite useful in terms of being able to extend or retract them slightly for going up and down hill when my knees are most strained with my 30-40 pound pack.
A major issue with the design was that it snapped at the plastic rings that make up the joints while going downhill with only a 15 pound pack and fast pace, with conscious effort to plunge them in a way where I would not bend them too much while moving forward.
If I am to be abusing the poles like this (absolutely am looking for them to be strong enough for the rare slip somewhere at a minimum) should I look for much pricier ones with stronger joints, or go with fixed? And if I choose fixed, should I size them at a 90° bend or should I size them for say uphill climbing or slightly longer for downhill and possibly adjust the hand loop much longer for when I use them for uphill? Or is the benefit of collapsing mainly for packed size and not much is gained by adjusting them for the incline? | 2014/02/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/5314",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2962/"
] | Fixed length non-adjustable trekking poles have the advantages of being lighter, comprise of less failure points and sturdier (especially for cheap poles). On the other side of the medal, transporting them by airplane is more costly and they can be inconvenient when hitch hiking to/from a trailhead.
I have used slightly longer fixed trekking poles in order to be able to use them with my shelter system. I personally did not mind adjusting my hand on the long handle depending on the inclination of the trail. In fact, if they would have been non-fixed I would seldom adjust them as it takes time.
I prefered fixed length poles because of their weight and not having to adjust them every time I setup my shelter. I do not use loop handles so this wasn't a problem for me.
If you prefer quick adjustment and fixed-length; an interesting compromise are the [Black Diamond](http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/trekking-poles/ultra-mountain-carbon-trekking-pole-BD112132_cfg.html?dwvar_BD112132__cfg_color=Carbon-Lava#start=1) [Z-Pole Series trekking poles](http://www.backpacker.com/gear-guide-2011-editors-choice-2011-black-diamond-ultra-distance-z-poles/gear/15339). They are fixed and collapsible for the most part. The top-most section allows you to adjust it to your liking. | My personal experience is that I do not hike/backpack with out trekking poles. I find them very useful on inclines, declines, and even flat terrain. I long ago lost count in the number of times they have save me from a fall, especially while backpacking.
I use the collapsible poles. The ease of storage is important to me. They also allow adjustment for different terrain. I've only had one pole go bad on me (bent), so to me it's not really a concern. |
5,314 | I recently purchased some collapsible trekking poles ([Komperdell Ridgehiker](http://www.mec.ca/product/5031-555/komperdell-ridgehiker-cork-powerlock-compact/?q=komperdell), made in Austria) and found them quite useful in terms of being able to extend or retract them slightly for going up and down hill when my knees are most strained with my 30-40 pound pack.
A major issue with the design was that it snapped at the plastic rings that make up the joints while going downhill with only a 15 pound pack and fast pace, with conscious effort to plunge them in a way where I would not bend them too much while moving forward.
If I am to be abusing the poles like this (absolutely am looking for them to be strong enough for the rare slip somewhere at a minimum) should I look for much pricier ones with stronger joints, or go with fixed? And if I choose fixed, should I size them at a 90° bend or should I size them for say uphill climbing or slightly longer for downhill and possibly adjust the hand loop much longer for when I use them for uphill? Or is the benefit of collapsing mainly for packed size and not much is gained by adjusting them for the incline? | 2014/02/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/5314",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/2962/"
] | **Collapsible poles, compared to fixed poles**
* Easier to fit in luggage.
* Easier to fit in the side pockets of backpacks when doing something that requires two hands, for example river crossing.
* Can be loaned to other people who are of different height to you. | My personal experience is that I do not hike/backpack with out trekking poles. I find them very useful on inclines, declines, and even flat terrain. I long ago lost count in the number of times they have save me from a fall, especially while backpacking.
I use the collapsible poles. The ease of storage is important to me. They also allow adjustment for different terrain. I've only had one pole go bad on me (bent), so to me it's not really a concern. |
89,167 | There is no meaningful difference between [tcp](/questions/tagged/tcp "show questions tagged 'tcp'") or [tcpip](/questions/tagged/tcpip "show questions tagged 'tcpip'") for people on StackOverflow.
Keeping different tags for them makes a distinction without a clear difference; it is too easy to assume that TCPIP means the protocol TCP *riding* on IP (the only way it is used now). In ages past, there was a proposal to encapsulate [TCP over CLNP](http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/tuba.html), but has been dead for years.
EDIT
----
As YOU pointed out, it is *possible* to consider TCP/IP as a competing model to the OSI model (this was the way it was used in the early 90s); however, all other competing protocols (CLNP, Decnet, Netware, Appletalk) have died off, so essentially there is *no other competing protocol in use*. Furthermore, even TCP/IP professionals routinely use OSI Model and TCP/IP interchangably when referring to a layered protocol stack.
For clarity's sake, it is more pedantically appropriate to retain [tcp](/questions/tagged/tcp "show questions tagged 'tcp'") and rename [osi](/questions/tagged/osi "show questions tagged 'osi'") to [osi-model](/questions/tagged/osi-model "show questions tagged 'osi-model'") if you want a tag for a protocol stack. We could do the same with [tcpip](/questions/tagged/tcpip "show questions tagged 'tcpip'"), rename it [osi-model](/questions/tagged/osi-model "show questions tagged 'osi-model'"), but that would mean retagging many questions which currently use both tags (when referring to questions about TCP). If we do this, we now have a [tcpip](/questions/tagged/tcpip "show questions tagged 'tcpip'") that is of little use on StackOverflow (like [osi](/questions/tagged/osi "show questions tagged 'osi'") is today).
My original proposal to delete [tcpip](/questions/tagged/tcpip "show questions tagged 'tcpip'") went for 8 hours with two upvotes and three downvotes. I am content to leave the status quo, if that is the community decision.
It occurs to me after so many edits, that the protracted back and forth on this question is perhaps related to the bigger problem... to date, people are unwilling to put a clear policy in writing about guidelines for networking questions on StackOverflow (ref [my +100 bounty that went untouched](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88047/how-can-we-improve-moderation-of-ip-networking-questions-on-so-and-associated-sit)). | 2011/04/29 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89167",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/160519/"
] | Programmers typically operate on the OSI stack at a much higher level than where the difference between TCP and TCP/IP becomes interesting.
I suggest someone review a selection of the questions marked distinctly, and determine if there's an *real* value to having the distinction remain.
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/tcp>
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/tcpip>
My brief survey suggests that there is no practical difference, but a more thorough review might show differently for those that are arguing against this change.
Let's not be pedantic for the sake of pedantry - we want all these questions to be tagged so that they are easy to find via search engines and so the internal site linking and tagging is strong and useful. If we must maintain a distinction, then someone needs to spend time re-tagging those questions that are incorrectly tagged. | If the overwhelming majority of questions tagged with one could be tagged with the other (a quick sample indicates that to be the case, but I'm not prepared to dig into the details) then it's right to consider a merger. Given that the shortest tag is also the one with most questions, I'd suggest merging to that.
FWIW, while I have encountered TCP built on top of other low-level protocols (e.g., TCP/ATM) there's really no reason why anyone would build it that way any more because interoperability with the internet (i.e., IP) is such a hugely desirable feature. |
39,286,519 | My thinking is that people use Docker to be sure that local environment is the same as production and that I they can stop thinking about where are their apps running physically and balancing mechanisms should just allocate apps in best places for that moment.
I'm 100% web based and I'm going to move to cloud together with our databases, and what cannot be moved will be seamlessly bridged so the corporate stuff and the cloud will become one subnetwork.
And so I'm wondering, maybe Service Fabric already does the same thing that Docker does plus it gives as address translation service (fabric:// that acts a bit like DNS for the processes in fabric space) plus (important for some) encourages on demand worker allocation - huge scalability perk.
1. Can Service Fabric successfully replace Docker?
2. Is it gaining audience and acceptance? Because otherwise even the greatest invention can fail. | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39286519",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2053494/"
] | It's confusing since Docker (the company) is trying to stake claims in everything cloud.
* **Docker Engine (what most people call "Docker")** is a containerization technology. It can give you
+ Process isolation
+ Network isolation
+ Consistent application environment
* **Docker Hub** is an image registry. It stores Docker images so you can download them as part of your deployment.
* **Docker Cloud** is an orchestration system for Docker. It can give you
+ Scale your applications up and down
+ Connect your applications to each other
+ CI testing, integrated with Docker Hub (this isn't part of orchestration, just another thing it does)
Service Fabric is an orchestration system. It can orchestrate Docker containers, but it can also integrate more tightly with your services if you build specifically for Fabric. (Docker is completely agnostic about what runs inside a container.)
So Service Fabric is *mostly* comparable to Docker Cloud, though it's not an exact match. There are some other Docker-based orchestration solutions (Kubernetes is probably the biggest) and there are other cloud-based micro-service solutions (Heroku is probably the best-known).
The primary disadvantage of Service Fabric is that it's a Microsoft technology and so you're going to be tied to Azure to a greater degree than if you were running Docker. The other is that Docker has a broader range of choices for building your stack: all three Docker-things I listed above have at least one open-source alternative (this is also a big *disadvantage* of Docker, since nobody's laying out a single Best Practices For You document).
If you love Microsoft and if cobbling systems together is not something that's important to you, then Service Fabric should be a fine alternative to the Docker ecosystem. (And you can still run Docker containers under it.) | The key similarities between the Service Fabric and Docker containerization:
1. Both Dockers and SF, are capable of creating an immutable image out of your micro-service implementation, on both the platforms - Linux and Windows.
2. Both Dockers and SF, are capable of orchestrating your containerized application within a cluster of VMs. These VMs can be anywhere - public cloud, private cloud or your own data center. Please note that both of them are cloud platform agnostic, that means, they don't have strong affinity on any of the cloud service. So as long as you are not using any cloud specific feature within your micro-service, this should be fine.
3. Both Dockers and SF, are capable exhibiting essential capabilities of an orchestrating platform: Service Discovery, Service level load balancing, Network level isolation among services, fail-over handling and replication control etc.
The key differences between the Service Fabric and Docker containerization:
1. Docker container is essentially a deployment / packaging construct. That said, docker doesn't dictate on what you are packaging within a container as part of your service implementation. Neither it provides any programming construct to implement your *kind of service*. Whereas, Service Fabric provides programming constructs in the form of base types / interfaces from which your service implementation can start with a certain *kind of service* declared - stateful service, stateless service, virtual actor.
2. In the Docker world, everything is a container, i.e. your minimum deployment / orchestration unit is a container. Hence, it doesn't recognize or support an individual process. Whereas, in SF, we have a provision wherein, your micro-service derived from stateless / stateful service can be orchestrated and governed as a process. However, SF also supports container orchestration the way Docker does. Also, the latest version of SF allows packaging your stateful / stateless service within a container.
With above facts in mind, please note that SF doesn't have any strong affinity on any cloud provider. It can run equally on any public cloud - Azure, AWS or GCP, as long as you are able to create the VMs with desired platform. |
39,286,519 | My thinking is that people use Docker to be sure that local environment is the same as production and that I they can stop thinking about where are their apps running physically and balancing mechanisms should just allocate apps in best places for that moment.
I'm 100% web based and I'm going to move to cloud together with our databases, and what cannot be moved will be seamlessly bridged so the corporate stuff and the cloud will become one subnetwork.
And so I'm wondering, maybe Service Fabric already does the same thing that Docker does plus it gives as address translation service (fabric:// that acts a bit like DNS for the processes in fabric space) plus (important for some) encourages on demand worker allocation - huge scalability perk.
1. Can Service Fabric successfully replace Docker?
2. Is it gaining audience and acceptance? Because otherwise even the greatest invention can fail. | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39286519",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2053494/"
] | It's confusing since Docker (the company) is trying to stake claims in everything cloud.
* **Docker Engine (what most people call "Docker")** is a containerization technology. It can give you
+ Process isolation
+ Network isolation
+ Consistent application environment
* **Docker Hub** is an image registry. It stores Docker images so you can download them as part of your deployment.
* **Docker Cloud** is an orchestration system for Docker. It can give you
+ Scale your applications up and down
+ Connect your applications to each other
+ CI testing, integrated with Docker Hub (this isn't part of orchestration, just another thing it does)
Service Fabric is an orchestration system. It can orchestrate Docker containers, but it can also integrate more tightly with your services if you build specifically for Fabric. (Docker is completely agnostic about what runs inside a container.)
So Service Fabric is *mostly* comparable to Docker Cloud, though it's not an exact match. There are some other Docker-based orchestration solutions (Kubernetes is probably the biggest) and there are other cloud-based micro-service solutions (Heroku is probably the best-known).
The primary disadvantage of Service Fabric is that it's a Microsoft technology and so you're going to be tied to Azure to a greater degree than if you were running Docker. The other is that Docker has a broader range of choices for building your stack: all three Docker-things I listed above have at least one open-source alternative (this is also a big *disadvantage* of Docker, since nobody's laying out a single Best Practices For You document).
If you love Microsoft and if cobbling systems together is not something that's important to you, then Service Fabric should be a fine alternative to the Docker ecosystem. (And you can still run Docker containers under it.) | It is not comparable at all. With service fabric, you get health monitoring, code integration with the fabric, logging, monitoring, load-balancing, and other intelligent features. Your application can even execute shutdown code. Service Fabric is not just for Microsoft technologies and even docker can reside inside SF so is rkt or Unix OS. Security and networking features(in-line with web apps) is another plus. Reliable collections is simply brilliant. And a roadmap to better application building and performance is guaranteed for the companies adopting it (history says so).
This question is highly favoring 'greatest invention' Docker. This comparison can do good for Docker marketing but no one will replace SF for Docker. Docker is just a tiny OS copy (nothing to do with services, applications or intelligence). Docker even has nothing to do with application development, it wasn't the intention. Just that people have started to find the need for isolation and sharing. And that is what Docker is all about. |
39,286,519 | My thinking is that people use Docker to be sure that local environment is the same as production and that I they can stop thinking about where are their apps running physically and balancing mechanisms should just allocate apps in best places for that moment.
I'm 100% web based and I'm going to move to cloud together with our databases, and what cannot be moved will be seamlessly bridged so the corporate stuff and the cloud will become one subnetwork.
And so I'm wondering, maybe Service Fabric already does the same thing that Docker does plus it gives as address translation service (fabric:// that acts a bit like DNS for the processes in fabric space) plus (important for some) encourages on demand worker allocation - huge scalability perk.
1. Can Service Fabric successfully replace Docker?
2. Is it gaining audience and acceptance? Because otherwise even the greatest invention can fail. | 2016/09/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39286519",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2053494/"
] | The key similarities between the Service Fabric and Docker containerization:
1. Both Dockers and SF, are capable of creating an immutable image out of your micro-service implementation, on both the platforms - Linux and Windows.
2. Both Dockers and SF, are capable of orchestrating your containerized application within a cluster of VMs. These VMs can be anywhere - public cloud, private cloud or your own data center. Please note that both of them are cloud platform agnostic, that means, they don't have strong affinity on any of the cloud service. So as long as you are not using any cloud specific feature within your micro-service, this should be fine.
3. Both Dockers and SF, are capable exhibiting essential capabilities of an orchestrating platform: Service Discovery, Service level load balancing, Network level isolation among services, fail-over handling and replication control etc.
The key differences between the Service Fabric and Docker containerization:
1. Docker container is essentially a deployment / packaging construct. That said, docker doesn't dictate on what you are packaging within a container as part of your service implementation. Neither it provides any programming construct to implement your *kind of service*. Whereas, Service Fabric provides programming constructs in the form of base types / interfaces from which your service implementation can start with a certain *kind of service* declared - stateful service, stateless service, virtual actor.
2. In the Docker world, everything is a container, i.e. your minimum deployment / orchestration unit is a container. Hence, it doesn't recognize or support an individual process. Whereas, in SF, we have a provision wherein, your micro-service derived from stateless / stateful service can be orchestrated and governed as a process. However, SF also supports container orchestration the way Docker does. Also, the latest version of SF allows packaging your stateful / stateless service within a container.
With above facts in mind, please note that SF doesn't have any strong affinity on any cloud provider. It can run equally on any public cloud - Azure, AWS or GCP, as long as you are able to create the VMs with desired platform. | It is not comparable at all. With service fabric, you get health monitoring, code integration with the fabric, logging, monitoring, load-balancing, and other intelligent features. Your application can even execute shutdown code. Service Fabric is not just for Microsoft technologies and even docker can reside inside SF so is rkt or Unix OS. Security and networking features(in-line with web apps) is another plus. Reliable collections is simply brilliant. And a roadmap to better application building and performance is guaranteed for the companies adopting it (history says so).
This question is highly favoring 'greatest invention' Docker. This comparison can do good for Docker marketing but no one will replace SF for Docker. Docker is just a tiny OS copy (nothing to do with services, applications or intelligence). Docker even has nothing to do with application development, it wasn't the intention. Just that people have started to find the need for isolation and sharing. And that is what Docker is all about. |
24,963 | I am currently learning OLAP & MDX after many years of relational database development.
Any tips on getting started in MDX? What are the best books and resources to learn MDX? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24963",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1073/"
] | A classic, albeit a bit dated, book is [Fast Track to MDX](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1846281741). It's a great overview and a quick read, though it doesn't cover the new MDX features of SQL Server 2005.
The Spofford book [MDX Solutions](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0471748080) is more up date and a little deeper, but a bit harder to get through.
I also highly recommend the blogs of [Mosha Pasumansky](https://web.archive.org/web/20180325203953/http://sqlblog.com:80/blogs/mosha/default.aspx), [Chris Webb](https://blog.crossjoin.co.uk/), and [Darren Gosbell](https://web.archive.org/web/20210211164051/http://www.geekswithblogs.net/darrengosbell/Default.aspx). | I found the Spoffard book not very helpful. MDX is such an oddity compared to other languages you'll learn, it's so hard to grasp from a dry book. I really would recommend a training course, otherwise you will flounder for ages. A course will really jump-start you, and it provides access to an expert when you have questions which don't seem to have online answers.
The worst trap to fall into, is to continually compare it with SQL! It uses some of the same keywords, but they mean something totally different, which makes the mental jump annoyingly harder.
I think the most efficient way to learn either OLAP or MDX would be to find someone who knows it, and get them to show you around, begin with some small changes, or some very simple queries. |
24,963 | I am currently learning OLAP & MDX after many years of relational database development.
Any tips on getting started in MDX? What are the best books and resources to learn MDX? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24963",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1073/"
] | I prefer dragging and dropping fields around in MS Excel, and then using SQL Server profiler to capture trace against SSAS. This way, you get an awesome frontend for building queries, and then you can get the queries that Excel is using through the profiler. | Besides the books and resources mentioned by others, the easiest way to kick-start your MDX learning is to get a copy of ProClarity. Unfortunately getting your hands on ProClarity is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. Microsoft bought the company in 2006, and it is now licensed through PerformancePoint, I believe. Oh yeah, and they quit development on the product.
Having said all that, if you are able to get a copy, you can build queries by dragging and dropping dimensions and measures onto your rows and columns. The results of the query are then displayed in either a grid, a chart, or both.
How does this help you learn MDX? ProClarity lets you see the MDX for each query. It isn't always the most elegant MDX, but it will help you quickly learn how to write lots of different queries. |
24,963 | I am currently learning OLAP & MDX after many years of relational database development.
Any tips on getting started in MDX? What are the best books and resources to learn MDX? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24963",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1073/"
] | Book: MDX Step by Step
Video tutorials, e.g. [MDX tutorial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WMPhSm5rU "MDX tutorial") and [Analysis Services introduction](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctUiHZHr-5M&feature=related "Analysis Services tutorial")
There are more. | Besides the books and resources mentioned by others, the easiest way to kick-start your MDX learning is to get a copy of ProClarity. Unfortunately getting your hands on ProClarity is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. Microsoft bought the company in 2006, and it is now licensed through PerformancePoint, I believe. Oh yeah, and they quit development on the product.
Having said all that, if you are able to get a copy, you can build queries by dragging and dropping dimensions and measures onto your rows and columns. The results of the query are then displayed in either a grid, a chart, or both.
How does this help you learn MDX? ProClarity lets you see the MDX for each query. It isn't always the most elegant MDX, but it will help you quickly learn how to write lots of different queries. |
24,963 | I am currently learning OLAP & MDX after many years of relational database development.
Any tips on getting started in MDX? What are the best books and resources to learn MDX? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24963",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1073/"
] | A classic, albeit a bit dated, book is [Fast Track to MDX](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1846281741). It's a great overview and a quick read, though it doesn't cover the new MDX features of SQL Server 2005.
The Spofford book [MDX Solutions](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0471748080) is more up date and a little deeper, but a bit harder to get through.
I also highly recommend the blogs of [Mosha Pasumansky](https://web.archive.org/web/20180325203953/http://sqlblog.com:80/blogs/mosha/default.aspx), [Chris Webb](https://blog.crossjoin.co.uk/), and [Darren Gosbell](https://web.archive.org/web/20210211164051/http://www.geekswithblogs.net/darrengosbell/Default.aspx). | Besides the books and resources mentioned by others, the easiest way to kick-start your MDX learning is to get a copy of ProClarity. Unfortunately getting your hands on ProClarity is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. Microsoft bought the company in 2006, and it is now licensed through PerformancePoint, I believe. Oh yeah, and they quit development on the product.
Having said all that, if you are able to get a copy, you can build queries by dragging and dropping dimensions and measures onto your rows and columns. The results of the query are then displayed in either a grid, a chart, or both.
How does this help you learn MDX? ProClarity lets you see the MDX for each query. It isn't always the most elegant MDX, but it will help you quickly learn how to write lots of different queries. |
24,963 | I am currently learning OLAP & MDX after many years of relational database development.
Any tips on getting started in MDX? What are the best books and resources to learn MDX? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/24963",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1073/"
] | I found the Spoffard book not very helpful. MDX is such an oddity compared to other languages you'll learn, it's so hard to grasp from a dry book. I really would recommend a training course, otherwise you will flounder for ages. A course will really jump-start you, and it provides access to an expert when you have questions which don't seem to have online answers.
The worst trap to fall into, is to continually compare it with SQL! It uses some of the same keywords, but they mean something totally different, which makes the mental jump annoyingly harder.
I think the most efficient way to learn either OLAP or MDX would be to find someone who knows it, and get them to show you around, begin with some small changes, or some very simple queries. | Besides the books and resources mentioned by others, the easiest way to kick-start your MDX learning is to get a copy of ProClarity. Unfortunately getting your hands on ProClarity is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. Microsoft bought the company in 2006, and it is now licensed through PerformancePoint, I believe. Oh yeah, and they quit development on the product.
Having said all that, if you are able to get a copy, you can build queries by dragging and dropping dimensions and measures onto your rows and columns. The results of the query are then displayed in either a grid, a chart, or both.
How does this help you learn MDX? ProClarity lets you see the MDX for each query. It isn't always the most elegant MDX, but it will help you quickly learn how to write lots of different queries. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.