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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | Craster claims to be safe from the wights, and Gilly (his wife and daughter) begs Jon to save her son, saying that Craster's other sons will be there soon. As Craster has left all his sons in the woods it seem plausible that Craster is sacrificing them to the Others (and that the sons somehow turn into Others). It is never explicitly stated though. | "spoiler alert for non book readers"
My theory is that the white walkers are the guardians of the old Gods. Think about it.
Until now all we know is that they dont allow the living to venture north of the wall.
In the first episode, the white walker kills the 2 crows and leaves the 3rd one to escape after presenting him the head of his comrade. "keep away" was the message i received.
When the wall marched with full force and camped on the fist of the first men, the white walkers responded immediatelly...with much more force. "you didnt keep away, so you have to die"
Also, the visored black clothed white walker (i believe is Benjen Stark) helps Brann reach his goal. The goal was to become one with the trees, watching everything that every tree watches in the present and in the past. I assume thats pretty close to becoming an old God isnt it?
They way i see it, the old Gods dont actually have to be celestial beings...and as such they are vunlerable. They need guardians. Given the fact that one white walker can possible raise many weights, one baby every month (?) is enough recruiting. It was pretty clear at the ending of episode s4e4 that they transformed the baby to one of them. The baby, growing up not knowing anything else except being a white walker, possibly will become the silent unholy type like the most of them who we have seen. Benjen Stark however, was a full grown man with knowledge and use of language, thus possibly he was chosen as the guide type... the one to welcome the gifted young man who is to become an old God.
I would really appreciate and opinions about my theory. :) |
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | Craster claims to be safe from the wights, and Gilly (his wife and daughter) begs Jon to save her son, saying that Craster's other sons will be there soon. As Craster has left all his sons in the woods it seem plausible that Craster is sacrificing them to the Others (and that the sons somehow turn into Others). It is never explicitly stated though. | First, I don't believe they're evil (white Walkers). The lannisters are evil, Ramsay snow is evil, king Joffrey is evil. White Walkers are population control. They are the balance, for in all things, there must be balance. The truth will be revealed, when Georgie boy is ready to let us see his vision in full. If you want to scrutinize clues of origins, though, I'll crack an egg on you. My wife highlighted all the passages in the first book pertaining to Lyanna Stark, and John Snows lineage. Ready for this one? Lyanna and Raegar were lovers, he is not a rapist, and she gave birth to John. He is their child, not Neds, we know he is too honorable to cheat on his wife! If you guys want, I'll post all the quotes, and what pages they're all on. |
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | Ahem...
Book series A Song of Ice and Fire:
"Others" (South of the Wall) or "White Walkers" (name Wildlings use) are the Frozen beings with intelligence that are capable of raising dead bodies to fight for them as "Wights".
They are depicted as intelligent and very elegant looking. George R.R. Martin has been very clear about what they are NOT without describing what they are. Rather than being "evil" or "undead" he is more clear in saying that they are simply very alien... a different form of life and intelligence whose motives and actions can never be properly interpreted by humans.
Craster's "incest harem" has theorized that the babies become "Others" but that is just a theory based on hearsay from a group that has been kept deliberately isolated all their lives. GRRM has a good grasp of just how much groundless rumours could become "common knowledge" in medieval times. The number of patently false things that became "well-known fact" about the bubonic plague from medieval history is evidence of that.
Worthy of note is that the Night King (possibly a Bolton, but nothing certain) chased after a woman to be his Queen who is not identified as an Other but has a mythological description that matches them perfectly. According to the story he eventually took her for his own. This represents evidence because it is a description that has existed in legend alone without anyone seeing an Other for a thousand years or more. This is especially important because it offers some tantalizing evidence that all Boltons are partially descended from White Walkers (would explain a few things about their appearance in the books). This begs the question though: If there are female Others who can be impregnated why would they need babies from human beings?
The Series Game of Thrones:
Name Others is dispensed with and White Walkers are actually shown taking away Craster's babies. | Craster claims to be safe from the wights, and Gilly (his wife and daughter) begs Jon to save her son, saying that Craster's other sons will be there soon. As Craster has left all his sons in the woods it seem plausible that Craster is sacrificing them to the Others (and that the sons somehow turn into Others). It is never explicitly stated though. |
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | I take it quite a few people forgot about the little girl on the show? So I'm sure there are female white walkers. It doesn't seem that the females go to war though, or at least I've yet to see any. So maybe they babies like Craster's sons to the women and they raise the living as their own or something.
 | First, I don't believe they're evil (white Walkers). The lannisters are evil, Ramsay snow is evil, king Joffrey is evil. White Walkers are population control. They are the balance, for in all things, there must be balance. The truth will be revealed, when Georgie boy is ready to let us see his vision in full. If you want to scrutinize clues of origins, though, I'll crack an egg on you. My wife highlighted all the passages in the first book pertaining to Lyanna Stark, and John Snows lineage. Ready for this one? Lyanna and Raegar were lovers, he is not a rapist, and she gave birth to John. He is their child, not Neds, we know he is too honorable to cheat on his wife! If you guys want, I'll post all the quotes, and what pages they're all on. |
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | In the television series, we have yet to see what exactly the white walkers do with Craster's sons. Craster, for his part, tells Mormont that he "sacrifices" his children to the "real gods", implying that Craster (at least) assumes they are dead. However, we never see what became of the one son that Jon Snow saw being carried off.
In the novels, we don't actually "see" this event, but we do hear about it from Craster's wives. They claim to Jon and Sam that the sacrificed babies *become* Others (the book's term for the show's "white walkers"), and that this is how that species "procreates". However, we have not actually seen any Other that was positively identified as one of Craster's sons, so that is likely supposition on the part of the wives.
My **suspicion** is that the novel's claim is correct, and that we will eventually see this come up again in future seasons.
Edit: on television, in Series 4, in the episode "Oathkeeper" we actually see Craster's last son becoming a White Walker. | Ahem...
Book series A Song of Ice and Fire:
"Others" (South of the Wall) or "White Walkers" (name Wildlings use) are the Frozen beings with intelligence that are capable of raising dead bodies to fight for them as "Wights".
They are depicted as intelligent and very elegant looking. George R.R. Martin has been very clear about what they are NOT without describing what they are. Rather than being "evil" or "undead" he is more clear in saying that they are simply very alien... a different form of life and intelligence whose motives and actions can never be properly interpreted by humans.
Craster's "incest harem" has theorized that the babies become "Others" but that is just a theory based on hearsay from a group that has been kept deliberately isolated all their lives. GRRM has a good grasp of just how much groundless rumours could become "common knowledge" in medieval times. The number of patently false things that became "well-known fact" about the bubonic plague from medieval history is evidence of that.
Worthy of note is that the Night King (possibly a Bolton, but nothing certain) chased after a woman to be his Queen who is not identified as an Other but has a mythological description that matches them perfectly. According to the story he eventually took her for his own. This represents evidence because it is a description that has existed in legend alone without anyone seeing an Other for a thousand years or more. This is especially important because it offers some tantalizing evidence that all Boltons are partially descended from White Walkers (would explain a few things about their appearance in the books). This begs the question though: If there are female Others who can be impregnated why would they need babies from human beings?
The Series Game of Thrones:
Name Others is dispensed with and White Walkers are actually shown taking away Craster's babies. |
35,191 | When Craster gives away the baby boys to the White Walkers, what happens? Do the baby boys become snacks at a White Walker party? Made into something else with magic? | 2013/05/06 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35191",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/14328/"
] | The origin and nature of the White Walkers is perhaps the greatest mysteries in the series. Those things give me the shivers.
Anyway, Gilly and her sisterwives believe their sacrificed baby boys become White Walkers.
>
> Gilly was crying. “Me and the babe. Please. I’ll be your wife, like I was Craster’s. Please, ser crow. He’s a boy, just like Nella said he’d be. If you don’t take him, they will.”
>
>
> “They?” said Sam, and the raven cocked its black head and echoed, “They They They”
>
>
> “The boy’s brothers,” said the old woman on the left. “Craster’s sons. The white cold’s rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don’t lie. They’ll be here soon, the sons.”
>
>
>
However, all the White Walkers seen so far have been tall. So the boys must be taken somewhere far or hidden.
Regardless, this doesn't explain the ancient origin of the White Walkers, how they animate the dead into wights or their recent resurgence.
>
> “Yes,” said Sam, “but is it the cold that brings the wights, or the wights that bring the cold?”
>
>
> | "spoiler alert for non book readers"
My theory is that the white walkers are the guardians of the old Gods. Think about it.
Until now all we know is that they dont allow the living to venture north of the wall.
In the first episode, the white walker kills the 2 crows and leaves the 3rd one to escape after presenting him the head of his comrade. "keep away" was the message i received.
When the wall marched with full force and camped on the fist of the first men, the white walkers responded immediatelly...with much more force. "you didnt keep away, so you have to die"
Also, the visored black clothed white walker (i believe is Benjen Stark) helps Brann reach his goal. The goal was to become one with the trees, watching everything that every tree watches in the present and in the past. I assume thats pretty close to becoming an old God isnt it?
They way i see it, the old Gods dont actually have to be celestial beings...and as such they are vunlerable. They need guardians. Given the fact that one white walker can possible raise many weights, one baby every month (?) is enough recruiting. It was pretty clear at the ending of episode s4e4 that they transformed the baby to one of them. The baby, growing up not knowing anything else except being a white walker, possibly will become the silent unholy type like the most of them who we have seen. Benjen Stark however, was a full grown man with knowledge and use of language, thus possibly he was chosen as the guide type... the one to welcome the gifted young man who is to become an old God.
I would really appreciate and opinions about my theory. :) |
9,771,215 | Just recieved an error message that said "union \_\_anonymous can only be a part of an aggregate". I'm not really puzzled about it because I was trying something that I knew shouldn't work.
But it makes me wonder what the exact definition is of an "aggregate" in D. I'm guessing it is a type that can contain other types, like an array, struct or class. Or is there more to it than that? | 2012/03/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9771215",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/531312/"
] | An aggregate is a struct or class. The idea is that you can't have an anonymous union as a local or global variable, only as a member of an object. | I believe that in this context "aggregate" is used in relation to an instance-level relationship. In UML terms: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_diagram#Aggregation> . So, in the simplest terms - "aggregate" means a member of a user-defined type that is of some other user-defined type (thus establishes a special "link" between two user-defined types). |
43,099 | For the last few months, I've been building up my neutral-grip weighted pullup. Doing too many sets with the heavy rock is exhausting, so I like to mix it up with additional exercises. The idea is to improve my pulling strength and eventually build up towards the one arm pullup. Here's what I do so far:
* Bodyweight Rows on the rings for Lat development.
* Archer pullups (difficult)
* Bicep Curls using an exercise band.
* Drop sets going from the heavy rock, down to bodyweight for more reps.
**What exercise/muscle group should I be focusing most on?** My first guess is to focus on Lat development with rows because that's such a larger muscle and so there should be more potential for improvement. What do you guys recommend? | 2020/11/13 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/43099",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/31231/"
] | getting stronger in general will help improve your pull-ups depending on your current level of strength and how many pull-ups you can do right now. Human physiology works as such that normal human movement does not rely on individual muscles but on the entirety of the system working as a whole. This means the most effective way to get stronger will be to strengthen the body as a whole rather than focussing on individual muscles. Squat, bench press, overhead press, deadlift, and power clean are the 5 most efficient exercises for building overall strength. The chin-up (b/c the chin-up also includes slightly more musculature than the pull-up) is the most important accessory exercise for a basic strength training program and should eventually develop into weighted chins.
Help for the chin-up should best come in the form of doing more chin-ups unless you are unable to do them. In such a case the lat pull-down machine is a great alternative. Remember that if you are gaining weight and your chin-up reps stay the same or increase then you are getting stronger as you are chinning more weight.
Best of success with your training | **I SUGGEST 3 SETS OF 1 REPETITION MAYBE EVEN JUST 1 SET IS ENOUGH**
**Trust me that for one arm pull ups you dont need volume?**
Why?
Let's say that your actual weighted pull up is something like 40% of your total body weight but added to you. Kinda impressive but still beginner.
As a beginner you are expected to progress fast, incredibly fast. In 5 or 6 months you will be able to pull up about 60% of your bodyweight (if you are not obese)
But to do a one arm pull up with bad form you only need 55%...the problem is that at this point the one arm pull up is a freaking **ONE REP MAX**
So tell me, would you do thousanss of deadlift variations to freaking exhaustion to raise your deadlift?
If you do so, you will gain muscle but get cumulative fatigue and never be able to release it, you will get weaker in the deadlift due to fatigue regardless of getting more muscular.
Same goes around for pull ups, you will get a huge back but if you can't pull 100% of your strength it may take you 3 o 5 years to reach the one arm pull up because you will always be fatigued.... If you are always fresh then one day you get it by mistake just by training your pull up like a deadlift. |
7,435 | According to Genesis 4:26,
>
> 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
>
>
>
The seeming sensus plenoir would thus be that until the time of Seth's grandchildren (235 years after Adam's birth), that people were not "calling upon the name of Yahweh."
If that is the case, whom do scholars saying Adam was calling upon? Was this simply a matter of not knowing YHWH's name, or is some other explanation normally given? Likewise, with whom would Cain and Abel thought they were conversing?
And, how is this generally reconciled with Exodus 3:13 - 14
>
> 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
>
>
in which the "name" of the Lord is said to be revealed? | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7435",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/297/"
] | In Gen. 4:26, it is written,
>
> וּלְשֵׁת גַּם־הוּא יֻלַּד־בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then \_\_\_\_\_\_ (הוּחַל) to call on the name of Yahveh.
>
>
>
Many Jewish commentators asserted that the phrase הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה means that men began to call their idols by the name Yahveh. Rashi wrote that the word הוחל was an expression of profanation (לשון חולין) and interpreted it as, "They began to call the names of men and the names of herbs in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in order to make themselves idols and call them 'gods.'"1 Rashi understood הוחל as being related to profanation (חולין) since the root ח-ל-ל, from which the verb הוּחַל is conjugated,2 means "to profane" when conjugated in binyan Pi’el.3
However, the meaning of a verb in a particular binyan does not necessarily transfer to other binyanim. Therefore, while חִלֵּל (chillel) - conjugated in binyan Pi’el - means "to profane," הֵחֵל (hechel) - conjugated in binyan Hif’il - means "to begin."4 Generally speaking, the meaning of a verb in binyan Huf’al - which is the binyan of the verb הוּחַל in Gen. 4:26 - can be determined by simply converting the meaning of the verb in binyan Hif’il to a passive voice.5 Thus, instead of "to begin" in binyan Hif’il, the meaning would be "to be begun" in binyan Huf’al.
However, contrary to Rashi, Avraham ibn Ezra wrote, והטעם שהחלו להתפלל, that is, "And the meaning is that they began to pray." He also notes, ואלו היה מחילול, היה השם סמוך אל המלה, that is, "And if it was from profanation, the noun [שם] would have been next to the particle [את]."6 Indeed, many examples from the Tanakh can be provided to support ibn Ezra's assertion.
In Lev. 18:21, we find the phrase וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, meaning "and you shall not profane the name of your God." Here, we see the verb תְחַלֵּל ("profane"), followed by the particle אֶת which is joined to the noun, שֵׁם ("name"). This is the typical grammatical construction used in contexts which describe the name of God being profaned.7
On the other hand, in Gen. 4:26, we have the following construction:
>
> הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
>
* The verb הוּחַל (huchal) is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, masculine gender, singular number, perfect tense. Most translations (e.g., KJV) translate this with the subject "men," as in "men began to call," however the verb is not conjugated according to a plural, but rather a singular subject.
* The word לִקְרֹא (likro) is the infinitive conjugation of the root ק-ר-א conjugated in binyan Pa’al. It means "to call."
* The phrase בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה (beshem Yahveh) consists of the preposition בְּ (be-), meaning "in" or "on," prefixed to the noun שֵׁם (shem), meaning "name," and the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה. It is translated as "on the name of Yahveh."
Wilhelm Gesenius wrote this concerning the phrase קָרָא in his lexicon:
As Gesenius notes, phrases containing a conjugation of the verb קָרָא followed by בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה occur in numerous verses. For example, it is written that Avraham built an altar to Yahveh in the land between Beit-El and Hai, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."8 He built an altar in the plain of Moreh, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."9 He also planted a tamarisk tree in Be’er Shava and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."10 Yitzchak also built an altar in Be’er Shava, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."11 As these examples are also in the Book of Genesis, there can be no doubt that they share the same meaning as the phrase in Gen. 4:26. Avraham ibn Ezra interprets the phrase in Gen. 12:8 as תפילה או קריאת בני אדם לעבוד השם, that is, "He praised [Yahveh], or [it was] a declaration of men to worship Yahveh."12
Similarly, 1 Chr. 16:8 states, "Give thanks to Yahveh; call upon His name; make His deeds known among the people."13 In Psa. 116:3, the psalmist "called upon the name of Yahveh" and said, "Please Yahveh, save my soul!" Thus, calling upon the name of Yahveh did not only involve giving thanks14 and worshipping Him15, but also making an appeal to and beseeching Him.16 Indeed, the prophet Yo'el prophesied,17
>
> "And it shall come to pass, all who call upon the name of Yahveh shall be delivered, for in Mount Tzion and in Yerushalaim shall be deliverance, and in the remnant whom Yahveh calls," as Yahveh said.
>
>
> וְהָיָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה יִמָּלֵט כִּי בְּהַר־צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם תִּֽהְיֶה פְלֵיטָה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יַהְוֶה וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר יַהְוֶה קֹרֵא
>
>
>
As most know, this prophecy was repeated by both the apostle Petros18 and the apostle Paulos19 to declare that men could be saved from their sins by calling on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a the Messiah. In the New Testament, the Hebrew phrase קָרָא בְּ- ("call upon") is translated into Greek by the verb ἐπικαλέω. We may then further deduce the various meanings of the Hebrew phrase by examining the usage of its Greek equivalent in the New Testament.
Upon his martyrdom, Stephen "calls on" Yeshu’a and says, "Lord, receive my spirit!"20 Before his conversion, the apostle Paulos persecuted Christians, those who "called on" the Lord Yeshu’a.21 Those being baptized would call on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a.22 The verb is also used to describe the apostle Paulos "calling on" ("appealing to") the Roman emperors.23
As for the verb הוּחַל, it should be translated as "had begun." But, what is the subject of the verb? It is certainly not "men," for such is nowhere stated in the Hebrew text, nor does the conjugation of the verb הוּחַל according to a singular subject permit it. Rather, the subject seems to be the infinitive itself, לִקְרֹא, "to call" or "calling."
Therefore, Gen. 4:26 should be translated as,
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then, calling on the name of Yahveh had begun.
>
>
>
---
Footnotes
---------
1 Commentary on Gen. 4:26. This view is also shared by the Targum of Yonatan ben Uzziel on Gen. 4:26.
2 הוחל is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, singular number, masculine gender, perfect tense.
3 cp. Lev. 21:12
4 cp. 1 Sam. 3:12
5 Gesenius notes that "the meaning of Hoph’al (also known as Huf’al) is (a) primarily that of a passive of Hiph’il (also known as Hif’il)... (b) sometimes equivalent to a passive of Qal (also known as Pa’al)..."; p. 146, §53h.
6 Commentary on Gen. 4:26.
7 cp. Lev. 19:12, 20:3, 21:6, 22:2, 22:32; Amos 2:7
8 Gen. 12:8
9 Gen. 13:4 cp. Gen. 12:7
10 Gen. 21:33
11 Gen. 26:25
12 Commentary on Gen. 12:8.
13 cp. Isa. 12:4
14 cp. Psa. 116:17
15 cp. Zep. 3:9
16 cp. Lam. 3:55; Zec. 13:9
17 Joel 2:32
18 Acts 2:21
19 Rom. 10:12-14
20 Acts 7:59
21 Acts 9:14, 9:21; cp. 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22
22 Acts 22:16
23 Acts 25:11-12, 25:25, 26:32, 28:19
---
References
----------
Avraham ibn Ezra (אברהם אבן עזרא). The Commentary of ibn Ezra on the Torah (פירוש אבן עזרא על התורה).
Gesenius, Wilhelm; Robinson, Edward; Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament including the Biblical Chaldee. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857.
Rashi (רש"י). The Commentary of Rashi on the Torah (פירוש רש"י על התורה). | Remember that Moses was the one who wrote all the books up to Joshua. It may be that at that time they did or didn't know the name of god, but when Moses wrote the book of genesis the name of god was known. [**Table of the books of the bible**](http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061171)
Jesus isn't mention until much later in history and the bible so it stand to reason that they where referring to their god YHWH, Yahway, Jehovah or whatever pronunciation you may go by. |
7,435 | According to Genesis 4:26,
>
> 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
>
>
>
The seeming sensus plenoir would thus be that until the time of Seth's grandchildren (235 years after Adam's birth), that people were not "calling upon the name of Yahweh."
If that is the case, whom do scholars saying Adam was calling upon? Was this simply a matter of not knowing YHWH's name, or is some other explanation normally given? Likewise, with whom would Cain and Abel thought they were conversing?
And, how is this generally reconciled with Exodus 3:13 - 14
>
> 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
>
>
in which the "name" of the Lord is said to be revealed? | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7435",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/297/"
] | I'll base my answer on the [New Living Translation](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:26&version=NLT) .
>
> When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time
> people first began to **worship** the Lord by **name**. (Genesis 4:26, NLT)
>
>
>
From the time of Enosh, there were now many people and they began to worship God together, just like we are doing right now every Sunday. I surmise that there was no music. They were possibly praying together, calling to God and God might have appeared to them many times, had conversation with them, just as God did with Abraham and Moses.
The question here is; what name actually was called by Adam and also by Abraham?
>
> From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to
> the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and
> where he had first built an altar. There **Abram called on the name of
> the Lord**. (Genesis 13:3-4, NIV)
>
>
>
Worshiping the Lord requires calling Him by name. If Adam and Abraham called the Lord by His name, that would mean Moses was not the first man to call the Lord by name.
Why, then, did Moses ask the name of the Lord?
My speculation
--------------
Since Moses had to ask the name of the Lord, I believe that there was some problem with the existing name that they had at the time of Moses. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he used 'Elohim' very frequently. Therefore, I believe that the word 'Elohim' or it's simpler form 'El' was commonly used by the Canaanites, as [this Wikipedia article on 'El' says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29). During the 400 years of slavery in Egypt, things had changed a lot. Canaan was now occupied by various inhabitants and the use of 'El' was very common among the Canaanites. During the time of Moses, to differentiate between the God of Israel and other gods, they usually referred to their God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God
> of your fathers—**the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob**—appeared to me and
> said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you
> in Egypt. (Exodus 3:16, NIV)
>
>
>
By the time of Moses, there was already numerous gods and goddesses. Egyptians had many, Moabites had many and Canaanites also had a bunch of them. If Moses said to the Israelites, *"El sent me"* or *"Elohim sent me"*, I believe that they will be confused to which god Moses was referring to. Moreover, simply using 'El' was no longer appropriate as it would create confusion. Israelites needed a new name for their God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That was probably the reason why Moses asked the Lord for a specific name and God identified himself as "I AM", which is "YHWH" in Hebrew.
So, **I believe that Adam and Abraham were simply using the word 'God' in their own language, which could be *'El'*, *'Elohim'* or any other forms of 'El' such as 'El-Shaddai', 'El-Eloin' etc. to call the Lord when they worshiped HIM.** | Remember that Moses was the one who wrote all the books up to Joshua. It may be that at that time they did or didn't know the name of god, but when Moses wrote the book of genesis the name of god was known. [**Table of the books of the bible**](http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061171)
Jesus isn't mention until much later in history and the bible so it stand to reason that they where referring to their god YHWH, Yahway, Jehovah or whatever pronunciation you may go by. |
7,435 | According to Genesis 4:26,
>
> 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
>
>
>
The seeming sensus plenoir would thus be that until the time of Seth's grandchildren (235 years after Adam's birth), that people were not "calling upon the name of Yahweh."
If that is the case, whom do scholars saying Adam was calling upon? Was this simply a matter of not knowing YHWH's name, or is some other explanation normally given? Likewise, with whom would Cain and Abel thought they were conversing?
And, how is this generally reconciled with Exodus 3:13 - 14
>
> 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
>
>
in which the "name" of the Lord is said to be revealed? | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7435",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/297/"
] | In Gen. 4:26, it is written,
>
> וּלְשֵׁת גַּם־הוּא יֻלַּד־בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then \_\_\_\_\_\_ (הוּחַל) to call on the name of Yahveh.
>
>
>
Many Jewish commentators asserted that the phrase הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה means that men began to call their idols by the name Yahveh. Rashi wrote that the word הוחל was an expression of profanation (לשון חולין) and interpreted it as, "They began to call the names of men and the names of herbs in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in order to make themselves idols and call them 'gods.'"1 Rashi understood הוחל as being related to profanation (חולין) since the root ח-ל-ל, from which the verb הוּחַל is conjugated,2 means "to profane" when conjugated in binyan Pi’el.3
However, the meaning of a verb in a particular binyan does not necessarily transfer to other binyanim. Therefore, while חִלֵּל (chillel) - conjugated in binyan Pi’el - means "to profane," הֵחֵל (hechel) - conjugated in binyan Hif’il - means "to begin."4 Generally speaking, the meaning of a verb in binyan Huf’al - which is the binyan of the verb הוּחַל in Gen. 4:26 - can be determined by simply converting the meaning of the verb in binyan Hif’il to a passive voice.5 Thus, instead of "to begin" in binyan Hif’il, the meaning would be "to be begun" in binyan Huf’al.
However, contrary to Rashi, Avraham ibn Ezra wrote, והטעם שהחלו להתפלל, that is, "And the meaning is that they began to pray." He also notes, ואלו היה מחילול, היה השם סמוך אל המלה, that is, "And if it was from profanation, the noun [שם] would have been next to the particle [את]."6 Indeed, many examples from the Tanakh can be provided to support ibn Ezra's assertion.
In Lev. 18:21, we find the phrase וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, meaning "and you shall not profane the name of your God." Here, we see the verb תְחַלֵּל ("profane"), followed by the particle אֶת which is joined to the noun, שֵׁם ("name"). This is the typical grammatical construction used in contexts which describe the name of God being profaned.7
On the other hand, in Gen. 4:26, we have the following construction:
>
> הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
>
* The verb הוּחַל (huchal) is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, masculine gender, singular number, perfect tense. Most translations (e.g., KJV) translate this with the subject "men," as in "men began to call," however the verb is not conjugated according to a plural, but rather a singular subject.
* The word לִקְרֹא (likro) is the infinitive conjugation of the root ק-ר-א conjugated in binyan Pa’al. It means "to call."
* The phrase בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה (beshem Yahveh) consists of the preposition בְּ (be-), meaning "in" or "on," prefixed to the noun שֵׁם (shem), meaning "name," and the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה. It is translated as "on the name of Yahveh."
Wilhelm Gesenius wrote this concerning the phrase קָרָא in his lexicon:
As Gesenius notes, phrases containing a conjugation of the verb קָרָא followed by בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה occur in numerous verses. For example, it is written that Avraham built an altar to Yahveh in the land between Beit-El and Hai, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."8 He built an altar in the plain of Moreh, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."9 He also planted a tamarisk tree in Be’er Shava and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."10 Yitzchak also built an altar in Be’er Shava, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."11 As these examples are also in the Book of Genesis, there can be no doubt that they share the same meaning as the phrase in Gen. 4:26. Avraham ibn Ezra interprets the phrase in Gen. 12:8 as תפילה או קריאת בני אדם לעבוד השם, that is, "He praised [Yahveh], or [it was] a declaration of men to worship Yahveh."12
Similarly, 1 Chr. 16:8 states, "Give thanks to Yahveh; call upon His name; make His deeds known among the people."13 In Psa. 116:3, the psalmist "called upon the name of Yahveh" and said, "Please Yahveh, save my soul!" Thus, calling upon the name of Yahveh did not only involve giving thanks14 and worshipping Him15, but also making an appeal to and beseeching Him.16 Indeed, the prophet Yo'el prophesied,17
>
> "And it shall come to pass, all who call upon the name of Yahveh shall be delivered, for in Mount Tzion and in Yerushalaim shall be deliverance, and in the remnant whom Yahveh calls," as Yahveh said.
>
>
> וְהָיָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה יִמָּלֵט כִּי בְּהַר־צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם תִּֽהְיֶה פְלֵיטָה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יַהְוֶה וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר יַהְוֶה קֹרֵא
>
>
>
As most know, this prophecy was repeated by both the apostle Petros18 and the apostle Paulos19 to declare that men could be saved from their sins by calling on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a the Messiah. In the New Testament, the Hebrew phrase קָרָא בְּ- ("call upon") is translated into Greek by the verb ἐπικαλέω. We may then further deduce the various meanings of the Hebrew phrase by examining the usage of its Greek equivalent in the New Testament.
Upon his martyrdom, Stephen "calls on" Yeshu’a and says, "Lord, receive my spirit!"20 Before his conversion, the apostle Paulos persecuted Christians, those who "called on" the Lord Yeshu’a.21 Those being baptized would call on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a.22 The verb is also used to describe the apostle Paulos "calling on" ("appealing to") the Roman emperors.23
As for the verb הוּחַל, it should be translated as "had begun." But, what is the subject of the verb? It is certainly not "men," for such is nowhere stated in the Hebrew text, nor does the conjugation of the verb הוּחַל according to a singular subject permit it. Rather, the subject seems to be the infinitive itself, לִקְרֹא, "to call" or "calling."
Therefore, Gen. 4:26 should be translated as,
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then, calling on the name of Yahveh had begun.
>
>
>
---
Footnotes
---------
1 Commentary on Gen. 4:26. This view is also shared by the Targum of Yonatan ben Uzziel on Gen. 4:26.
2 הוחל is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, singular number, masculine gender, perfect tense.
3 cp. Lev. 21:12
4 cp. 1 Sam. 3:12
5 Gesenius notes that "the meaning of Hoph’al (also known as Huf’al) is (a) primarily that of a passive of Hiph’il (also known as Hif’il)... (b) sometimes equivalent to a passive of Qal (also known as Pa’al)..."; p. 146, §53h.
6 Commentary on Gen. 4:26.
7 cp. Lev. 19:12, 20:3, 21:6, 22:2, 22:32; Amos 2:7
8 Gen. 12:8
9 Gen. 13:4 cp. Gen. 12:7
10 Gen. 21:33
11 Gen. 26:25
12 Commentary on Gen. 12:8.
13 cp. Isa. 12:4
14 cp. Psa. 116:17
15 cp. Zep. 3:9
16 cp. Lam. 3:55; Zec. 13:9
17 Joel 2:32
18 Acts 2:21
19 Rom. 10:12-14
20 Acts 7:59
21 Acts 9:14, 9:21; cp. 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22
22 Acts 22:16
23 Acts 25:11-12, 25:25, 26:32, 28:19
---
References
----------
Avraham ibn Ezra (אברהם אבן עזרא). The Commentary of ibn Ezra on the Torah (פירוש אבן עזרא על התורה).
Gesenius, Wilhelm; Robinson, Edward; Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament including the Biblical Chaldee. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857.
Rashi (רש"י). The Commentary of Rashi on the Torah (פירוש רש"י על התורה). | I'll base my answer on the [New Living Translation](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:26&version=NLT) .
>
> When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time
> people first began to **worship** the Lord by **name**. (Genesis 4:26, NLT)
>
>
>
From the time of Enosh, there were now many people and they began to worship God together, just like we are doing right now every Sunday. I surmise that there was no music. They were possibly praying together, calling to God and God might have appeared to them many times, had conversation with them, just as God did with Abraham and Moses.
The question here is; what name actually was called by Adam and also by Abraham?
>
> From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to
> the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and
> where he had first built an altar. There **Abram called on the name of
> the Lord**. (Genesis 13:3-4, NIV)
>
>
>
Worshiping the Lord requires calling Him by name. If Adam and Abraham called the Lord by His name, that would mean Moses was not the first man to call the Lord by name.
Why, then, did Moses ask the name of the Lord?
My speculation
--------------
Since Moses had to ask the name of the Lord, I believe that there was some problem with the existing name that they had at the time of Moses. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he used 'Elohim' very frequently. Therefore, I believe that the word 'Elohim' or it's simpler form 'El' was commonly used by the Canaanites, as [this Wikipedia article on 'El' says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29). During the 400 years of slavery in Egypt, things had changed a lot. Canaan was now occupied by various inhabitants and the use of 'El' was very common among the Canaanites. During the time of Moses, to differentiate between the God of Israel and other gods, they usually referred to their God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God
> of your fathers—**the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob**—appeared to me and
> said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you
> in Egypt. (Exodus 3:16, NIV)
>
>
>
By the time of Moses, there was already numerous gods and goddesses. Egyptians had many, Moabites had many and Canaanites also had a bunch of them. If Moses said to the Israelites, *"El sent me"* or *"Elohim sent me"*, I believe that they will be confused to which god Moses was referring to. Moreover, simply using 'El' was no longer appropriate as it would create confusion. Israelites needed a new name for their God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That was probably the reason why Moses asked the Lord for a specific name and God identified himself as "I AM", which is "YHWH" in Hebrew.
So, **I believe that Adam and Abraham were simply using the word 'God' in their own language, which could be *'El'*, *'Elohim'* or any other forms of 'El' such as 'El-Shaddai', 'El-Eloin' etc. to call the Lord when they worshiped HIM.** |
7,435 | According to Genesis 4:26,
>
> 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
>
>
>
The seeming sensus plenoir would thus be that until the time of Seth's grandchildren (235 years after Adam's birth), that people were not "calling upon the name of Yahweh."
If that is the case, whom do scholars saying Adam was calling upon? Was this simply a matter of not knowing YHWH's name, or is some other explanation normally given? Likewise, with whom would Cain and Abel thought they were conversing?
And, how is this generally reconciled with Exodus 3:13 - 14
>
> 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
>
>
in which the "name" of the Lord is said to be revealed? | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7435",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/297/"
] | In Gen. 4:26, it is written,
>
> וּלְשֵׁת גַּם־הוּא יֻלַּד־בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then \_\_\_\_\_\_ (הוּחַל) to call on the name of Yahveh.
>
>
>
Many Jewish commentators asserted that the phrase הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה means that men began to call their idols by the name Yahveh. Rashi wrote that the word הוחל was an expression of profanation (לשון חולין) and interpreted it as, "They began to call the names of men and the names of herbs in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in order to make themselves idols and call them 'gods.'"1 Rashi understood הוחל as being related to profanation (חולין) since the root ח-ל-ל, from which the verb הוּחַל is conjugated,2 means "to profane" when conjugated in binyan Pi’el.3
However, the meaning of a verb in a particular binyan does not necessarily transfer to other binyanim. Therefore, while חִלֵּל (chillel) - conjugated in binyan Pi’el - means "to profane," הֵחֵל (hechel) - conjugated in binyan Hif’il - means "to begin."4 Generally speaking, the meaning of a verb in binyan Huf’al - which is the binyan of the verb הוּחַל in Gen. 4:26 - can be determined by simply converting the meaning of the verb in binyan Hif’il to a passive voice.5 Thus, instead of "to begin" in binyan Hif’il, the meaning would be "to be begun" in binyan Huf’al.
However, contrary to Rashi, Avraham ibn Ezra wrote, והטעם שהחלו להתפלל, that is, "And the meaning is that they began to pray." He also notes, ואלו היה מחילול, היה השם סמוך אל המלה, that is, "And if it was from profanation, the noun [שם] would have been next to the particle [את]."6 Indeed, many examples from the Tanakh can be provided to support ibn Ezra's assertion.
In Lev. 18:21, we find the phrase וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, meaning "and you shall not profane the name of your God." Here, we see the verb תְחַלֵּל ("profane"), followed by the particle אֶת which is joined to the noun, שֵׁם ("name"). This is the typical grammatical construction used in contexts which describe the name of God being profaned.7
On the other hand, in Gen. 4:26, we have the following construction:
>
> הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה
>
>
>
* The verb הוּחַל (huchal) is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, masculine gender, singular number, perfect tense. Most translations (e.g., KJV) translate this with the subject "men," as in "men began to call," however the verb is not conjugated according to a plural, but rather a singular subject.
* The word לִקְרֹא (likro) is the infinitive conjugation of the root ק-ר-א conjugated in binyan Pa’al. It means "to call."
* The phrase בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה (beshem Yahveh) consists of the preposition בְּ (be-), meaning "in" or "on," prefixed to the noun שֵׁם (shem), meaning "name," and the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה. It is translated as "on the name of Yahveh."
Wilhelm Gesenius wrote this concerning the phrase קָרָא in his lexicon:
As Gesenius notes, phrases containing a conjugation of the verb קָרָא followed by בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה occur in numerous verses. For example, it is written that Avraham built an altar to Yahveh in the land between Beit-El and Hai, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."8 He built an altar in the plain of Moreh, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."9 He also planted a tamarisk tree in Be’er Shava and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."10 Yitzchak also built an altar in Be’er Shava, and then "he called on the name of Yahveh."11 As these examples are also in the Book of Genesis, there can be no doubt that they share the same meaning as the phrase in Gen. 4:26. Avraham ibn Ezra interprets the phrase in Gen. 12:8 as תפילה או קריאת בני אדם לעבוד השם, that is, "He praised [Yahveh], or [it was] a declaration of men to worship Yahveh."12
Similarly, 1 Chr. 16:8 states, "Give thanks to Yahveh; call upon His name; make His deeds known among the people."13 In Psa. 116:3, the psalmist "called upon the name of Yahveh" and said, "Please Yahveh, save my soul!" Thus, calling upon the name of Yahveh did not only involve giving thanks14 and worshipping Him15, but also making an appeal to and beseeching Him.16 Indeed, the prophet Yo'el prophesied,17
>
> "And it shall come to pass, all who call upon the name of Yahveh shall be delivered, for in Mount Tzion and in Yerushalaim shall be deliverance, and in the remnant whom Yahveh calls," as Yahveh said.
>
>
> וְהָיָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יַהְוֶה יִמָּלֵט כִּי בְּהַר־צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם תִּֽהְיֶה פְלֵיטָה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יַהְוֶה וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר יַהְוֶה קֹרֵא
>
>
>
As most know, this prophecy was repeated by both the apostle Petros18 and the apostle Paulos19 to declare that men could be saved from their sins by calling on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a the Messiah. In the New Testament, the Hebrew phrase קָרָא בְּ- ("call upon") is translated into Greek by the verb ἐπικαλέω. We may then further deduce the various meanings of the Hebrew phrase by examining the usage of its Greek equivalent in the New Testament.
Upon his martyrdom, Stephen "calls on" Yeshu’a and says, "Lord, receive my spirit!"20 Before his conversion, the apostle Paulos persecuted Christians, those who "called on" the Lord Yeshu’a.21 Those being baptized would call on the name of the Lord Yeshu’a.22 The verb is also used to describe the apostle Paulos "calling on" ("appealing to") the Roman emperors.23
As for the verb הוּחַל, it should be translated as "had begun." But, what is the subject of the verb? It is certainly not "men," for such is nowhere stated in the Hebrew text, nor does the conjugation of the verb הוּחַל according to a singular subject permit it. Rather, the subject seems to be the infinitive itself, לִקְרֹא, "to call" or "calling."
Therefore, Gen. 4:26 should be translated as,
>
> And a son was also born to Set, and he called his name, Enosh. Then, calling on the name of Yahveh had begun.
>
>
>
---
Footnotes
---------
1 Commentary on Gen. 4:26. This view is also shared by the Targum of Yonatan ben Uzziel on Gen. 4:26.
2 הוחל is conjugated in binyan Huf’al, 3rd person, singular number, masculine gender, perfect tense.
3 cp. Lev. 21:12
4 cp. 1 Sam. 3:12
5 Gesenius notes that "the meaning of Hoph’al (also known as Huf’al) is (a) primarily that of a passive of Hiph’il (also known as Hif’il)... (b) sometimes equivalent to a passive of Qal (also known as Pa’al)..."; p. 146, §53h.
6 Commentary on Gen. 4:26.
7 cp. Lev. 19:12, 20:3, 21:6, 22:2, 22:32; Amos 2:7
8 Gen. 12:8
9 Gen. 13:4 cp. Gen. 12:7
10 Gen. 21:33
11 Gen. 26:25
12 Commentary on Gen. 12:8.
13 cp. Isa. 12:4
14 cp. Psa. 116:17
15 cp. Zep. 3:9
16 cp. Lam. 3:55; Zec. 13:9
17 Joel 2:32
18 Acts 2:21
19 Rom. 10:12-14
20 Acts 7:59
21 Acts 9:14, 9:21; cp. 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22
22 Acts 22:16
23 Acts 25:11-12, 25:25, 26:32, 28:19
---
References
----------
Avraham ibn Ezra (אברהם אבן עזרא). The Commentary of ibn Ezra on the Torah (פירוש אבן עזרא על התורה).
Gesenius, Wilhelm; Robinson, Edward; Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament including the Biblical Chaldee. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857.
Rashi (רש"י). The Commentary of Rashi on the Torah (פירוש רש"י על התורה). | My literal translation of the second sentence in verse 4:26 reads:
"Then calling out in the name of Adonai was begun."
I get my verb translations from www.pealim.com which are by far the most accurate. Using the correct meaning for the Hebrew verb form is very important to finding the correct translations. "was begun" is the translation of הוּחַל. It is in the passive verb form, past tense, 3rd person masculine of "to begin".
I interpret this by what Eve called Adonai (יְהוָֽה) in verse 25, which was "Elohim" (אֱלֹהִים). People started using the name of Adonai instead of only using the name "Elohim". |
7,435 | According to Genesis 4:26,
>
> 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
>
>
>
The seeming sensus plenoir would thus be that until the time of Seth's grandchildren (235 years after Adam's birth), that people were not "calling upon the name of Yahweh."
If that is the case, whom do scholars saying Adam was calling upon? Was this simply a matter of not knowing YHWH's name, or is some other explanation normally given? Likewise, with whom would Cain and Abel thought they were conversing?
And, how is this generally reconciled with Exodus 3:13 - 14
>
> 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
>
>
in which the "name" of the Lord is said to be revealed? | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7435",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/297/"
] | I'll base my answer on the [New Living Translation](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:26&version=NLT) .
>
> When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time
> people first began to **worship** the Lord by **name**. (Genesis 4:26, NLT)
>
>
>
From the time of Enosh, there were now many people and they began to worship God together, just like we are doing right now every Sunday. I surmise that there was no music. They were possibly praying together, calling to God and God might have appeared to them many times, had conversation with them, just as God did with Abraham and Moses.
The question here is; what name actually was called by Adam and also by Abraham?
>
> From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to
> the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and
> where he had first built an altar. There **Abram called on the name of
> the Lord**. (Genesis 13:3-4, NIV)
>
>
>
Worshiping the Lord requires calling Him by name. If Adam and Abraham called the Lord by His name, that would mean Moses was not the first man to call the Lord by name.
Why, then, did Moses ask the name of the Lord?
My speculation
--------------
Since Moses had to ask the name of the Lord, I believe that there was some problem with the existing name that they had at the time of Moses. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he used 'Elohim' very frequently. Therefore, I believe that the word 'Elohim' or it's simpler form 'El' was commonly used by the Canaanites, as [this Wikipedia article on 'El' says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29). During the 400 years of slavery in Egypt, things had changed a lot. Canaan was now occupied by various inhabitants and the use of 'El' was very common among the Canaanites. During the time of Moses, to differentiate between the God of Israel and other gods, they usually referred to their God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God
> of your fathers—**the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob**—appeared to me and
> said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you
> in Egypt. (Exodus 3:16, NIV)
>
>
>
By the time of Moses, there was already numerous gods and goddesses. Egyptians had many, Moabites had many and Canaanites also had a bunch of them. If Moses said to the Israelites, *"El sent me"* or *"Elohim sent me"*, I believe that they will be confused to which god Moses was referring to. Moreover, simply using 'El' was no longer appropriate as it would create confusion. Israelites needed a new name for their God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That was probably the reason why Moses asked the Lord for a specific name and God identified himself as "I AM", which is "YHWH" in Hebrew.
So, **I believe that Adam and Abraham were simply using the word 'God' in their own language, which could be *'El'*, *'Elohim'* or any other forms of 'El' such as 'El-Shaddai', 'El-Eloin' etc. to call the Lord when they worshiped HIM.** | My literal translation of the second sentence in verse 4:26 reads:
"Then calling out in the name of Adonai was begun."
I get my verb translations from www.pealim.com which are by far the most accurate. Using the correct meaning for the Hebrew verb form is very important to finding the correct translations. "was begun" is the translation of הוּחַל. It is in the passive verb form, past tense, 3rd person masculine of "to begin".
I interpret this by what Eve called Adonai (יְהוָֽה) in verse 25, which was "Elohim" (אֱלֹהִים). People started using the name of Adonai instead of only using the name "Elohim". |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | I would make the progress bar appear after some time if the process has not finished by then. That way fast uploads never get screen flickering or progress bars and you still have the progress bar for slow uploads.
The time that still feels "instant" is around 200-400ms. I would not show the progress bar for 200ms. If the process is then less than 50% done I show the progress bar. The user perceives this as the progress bar popping up "instantly". That way uploads either finish "instantly" or "instantly" get a progress bar with somewhat significant screen time. | The only good option that works is “4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion”.
You do not know how long the upload will take and the internet speed is changing all the time. So if you say delay putting the bar up for 2 seconds, what if the upload then completes in the next half second?
Updating the bar must be flicker free and not done too often, say no more than ever half second.
Personally I would move the “62%” into the end of the bar or remove it altogether, then write “Upload Completed” onto the bar once it is done. So that once the upload is done, there is a green background with the words “Upload Completed” overlaid on it.
(Updating the xx% text will flicker as the **same** pixel is being swaped from wight to black then to wight. Fill the bar just changes each pixel from weight to block.)
Making your bar into a "pie charge" as done so nicely by Nick Todd is a way to take up less space while leaving the bar showing after the file has completed. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Progress indicators are generally implemented to reduce the user's perception of system latency. It's this need to **eliminate the perception of system latency** that gives progress indicators value. Conversely, if there isn't any lag at all between a user action (clicking 'Upload' in your example) and the system response (uploading of the file), displaying a progress bar actually works against this need (flickering/vanishing UI elements may indicate an error in the process/system).
What you as the designer must determine is whether or not displaying a progress indicator strengthens the user experience. **If it's important to the user to 'see' the upload happen** (via the progress indicator), adding **a minimum load time** for the indicator to display (only as long as necessary) **makes sense**. Otherwise, displaying an 'upload successful' message is sufficient for rapid processing times. For processes longer than a few milliseconds your current progress indicator/message should be good.
Without knowing your users and the context of the process, I would venture to guess option #3 is likely the best option, based on your description. **If the upload process happens too fast for users to perceive visual indication of its progress, simply letting them know the success or failure of the upload should be sufficient.** As always, know your users.
FYI, [Microsoft recommends](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn742481(v=vs.85).aspx) displaying progress indicator if a process takes longer than one second. | I would make the progress bar appear after some time if the process has not finished by then. That way fast uploads never get screen flickering or progress bars and you still have the progress bar for slow uploads.
The time that still feels "instant" is around 200-400ms. I would not show the progress bar for 200ms. If the process is then less than 50% done I show the progress bar. The user perceives this as the progress bar popping up "instantly". That way uploads either finish "instantly" or "instantly" get a progress bar with somewhat significant screen time. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | One potential option is not to *explicitly* hide the progress bar for small files (how do you know what "small" is for a given network?) but to *delay* showing it for a small period of time. If the upload completes in this period, you can show the "Upload complete" message, but if the upload takes more than the delay, then you show the progress bar.
The Psion 3/5 handhelds used a similar technique for the built-in "Busy" messages of their OPL programming language: you could enable a busy message, but it would only be shown if not disabled within a given time-delay.
The delay was usually relatively small: a half second being typical.
There's still a chance that the upload will take fractionally longer than the delay, resulting in a brief flash of progress bar, but I suspect that in many cases, most files will be "very short" or "a [few] second[s] or more". | I would make the progress bar appear after some time if the process has not finished by then. That way fast uploads never get screen flickering or progress bars and you still have the progress bar for slow uploads.
The time that still feels "instant" is around 200-400ms. I would not show the progress bar for 200ms. If the process is then less than 50% done I show the progress bar. The user perceives this as the progress bar popping up "instantly". That way uploads either finish "instantly" or "instantly" get a progress bar with somewhat significant screen time. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Progress indicators are generally implemented to reduce the user's perception of system latency. It's this need to **eliminate the perception of system latency** that gives progress indicators value. Conversely, if there isn't any lag at all between a user action (clicking 'Upload' in your example) and the system response (uploading of the file), displaying a progress bar actually works against this need (flickering/vanishing UI elements may indicate an error in the process/system).
What you as the designer must determine is whether or not displaying a progress indicator strengthens the user experience. **If it's important to the user to 'see' the upload happen** (via the progress indicator), adding **a minimum load time** for the indicator to display (only as long as necessary) **makes sense**. Otherwise, displaying an 'upload successful' message is sufficient for rapid processing times. For processes longer than a few milliseconds your current progress indicator/message should be good.
Without knowing your users and the context of the process, I would venture to guess option #3 is likely the best option, based on your description. **If the upload process happens too fast for users to perceive visual indication of its progress, simply letting them know the success or failure of the upload should be sufficient.** As always, know your users.
FYI, [Microsoft recommends](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn742481(v=vs.85).aspx) displaying progress indicator if a process takes longer than one second. | The only good option that works is “4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion”.
You do not know how long the upload will take and the internet speed is changing all the time. So if you say delay putting the bar up for 2 seconds, what if the upload then completes in the next half second?
Updating the bar must be flicker free and not done too often, say no more than ever half second.
Personally I would move the “62%” into the end of the bar or remove it altogether, then write “Upload Completed” onto the bar once it is done. So that once the upload is done, there is a green background with the words “Upload Completed” overlaid on it.
(Updating the xx% text will flicker as the **same** pixel is being swaped from wight to black then to wight. Fill the bar just changes each pixel from weight to block.)
Making your bar into a "pie charge" as done so nicely by Nick Todd is a way to take up less space while leaving the bar showing after the file has completed. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | One potential option is not to *explicitly* hide the progress bar for small files (how do you know what "small" is for a given network?) but to *delay* showing it for a small period of time. If the upload completes in this period, you can show the "Upload complete" message, but if the upload takes more than the delay, then you show the progress bar.
The Psion 3/5 handhelds used a similar technique for the built-in "Busy" messages of their OPL programming language: you could enable a busy message, but it would only be shown if not disabled within a given time-delay.
The delay was usually relatively small: a half second being typical.
There's still a chance that the upload will take fractionally longer than the delay, resulting in a brief flash of progress bar, but I suspect that in many cases, most files will be "very short" or "a [few] second[s] or more". | #3 (not showing the progress bar for small files) seems bad to me. First, even a small file can take a long time to upload if there are network problems. Second, your idea of a file that's small enough to upload quickly on your whizzy broadband connection might not be the same as that of somebody in a third-world country using a very slow link. Third, if you were able to reliably predict how fast files would upload, you'd just quote that estimate, instead of using a progress bar. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Here's another alternative: You mentioned you don't find the progress bar the most appealing, and it's taking up precious real estate. Would you consider a more compact preloader and success message that do not impact layout? Just as an example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OFXhM.jpg)
I don't know if that particular example would fit your situation. But if you can achieve a more compact design, you could leave up the success message (the check) after it's done loading without taking up a lot of space.
If something like this were used, there should be no issue with adding a small delay and forcing the animation to run (as per your idea #2). If the preloader does not impact layout, and if the user can continue doing whatever he's doing while the animation runs, it's not really delaying the user and shouldn't hurt user experience. | The only good option that works is “4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion”.
You do not know how long the upload will take and the internet speed is changing all the time. So if you say delay putting the bar up for 2 seconds, what if the upload then completes in the next half second?
Updating the bar must be flicker free and not done too often, say no more than ever half second.
Personally I would move the “62%” into the end of the bar or remove it altogether, then write “Upload Completed” onto the bar once it is done. So that once the upload is done, there is a green background with the words “Upload Completed” overlaid on it.
(Updating the xx% text will flicker as the **same** pixel is being swaped from wight to black then to wight. Fill the bar just changes each pixel from weight to block.)
Making your bar into a "pie charge" as done so nicely by Nick Todd is a way to take up less space while leaving the bar showing after the file has completed. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Progress indicators are generally implemented to reduce the user's perception of system latency. It's this need to **eliminate the perception of system latency** that gives progress indicators value. Conversely, if there isn't any lag at all between a user action (clicking 'Upload' in your example) and the system response (uploading of the file), displaying a progress bar actually works against this need (flickering/vanishing UI elements may indicate an error in the process/system).
What you as the designer must determine is whether or not displaying a progress indicator strengthens the user experience. **If it's important to the user to 'see' the upload happen** (via the progress indicator), adding **a minimum load time** for the indicator to display (only as long as necessary) **makes sense**. Otherwise, displaying an 'upload successful' message is sufficient for rapid processing times. For processes longer than a few milliseconds your current progress indicator/message should be good.
Without knowing your users and the context of the process, I would venture to guess option #3 is likely the best option, based on your description. **If the upload process happens too fast for users to perceive visual indication of its progress, simply letting them know the success or failure of the upload should be sufficient.** As always, know your users.
FYI, [Microsoft recommends](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn742481(v=vs.85).aspx) displaying progress indicator if a process takes longer than one second. | #3 (not showing the progress bar for small files) seems bad to me. First, even a small file can take a long time to upload if there are network problems. Second, your idea of a file that's small enough to upload quickly on your whizzy broadband connection might not be the same as that of somebody in a third-world country using a very slow link. Third, if you were able to reliably predict how fast files would upload, you'd just quote that estimate, instead of using a progress bar. |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Here's another alternative: You mentioned you don't find the progress bar the most appealing, and it's taking up precious real estate. Would you consider a more compact preloader and success message that do not impact layout? Just as an example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OFXhM.jpg)
I don't know if that particular example would fit your situation. But if you can achieve a more compact design, you could leave up the success message (the check) after it's done loading without taking up a lot of space.
If something like this were used, there should be no issue with adding a small delay and forcing the animation to run (as per your idea #2). If the preloader does not impact layout, and if the user can continue doing whatever he's doing while the animation runs, it's not really delaying the user and shouldn't hurt user experience. | One potential option is not to *explicitly* hide the progress bar for small files (how do you know what "small" is for a given network?) but to *delay* showing it for a small period of time. If the upload completes in this period, you can show the "Upload complete" message, but if the upload takes more than the delay, then you show the progress bar.
The Psion 3/5 handhelds used a similar technique for the built-in "Busy" messages of their OPL programming language: you could enable a busy message, but it would only be shown if not disabled within a given time-delay.
The delay was usually relatively small: a half second being typical.
There's still a chance that the upload will take fractionally longer than the delay, resulting in a brief flash of progress bar, but I suspect that in many cases, most files will be "very short" or "a [few] second[s] or more". |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | Progress indicators are generally implemented to reduce the user's perception of system latency. It's this need to **eliminate the perception of system latency** that gives progress indicators value. Conversely, if there isn't any lag at all between a user action (clicking 'Upload' in your example) and the system response (uploading of the file), displaying a progress bar actually works against this need (flickering/vanishing UI elements may indicate an error in the process/system).
What you as the designer must determine is whether or not displaying a progress indicator strengthens the user experience. **If it's important to the user to 'see' the upload happen** (via the progress indicator), adding **a minimum load time** for the indicator to display (only as long as necessary) **makes sense**. Otherwise, displaying an 'upload successful' message is sufficient for rapid processing times. For processes longer than a few milliseconds your current progress indicator/message should be good.
Without knowing your users and the context of the process, I would venture to guess option #3 is likely the best option, based on your description. **If the upload process happens too fast for users to perceive visual indication of its progress, simply letting them know the success or failure of the upload should be sufficient.** As always, know your users.
FYI, [Microsoft recommends](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn742481(v=vs.85).aspx) displaying progress indicator if a process takes longer than one second. | One potential option is not to *explicitly* hide the progress bar for small files (how do you know what "small" is for a given network?) but to *delay* showing it for a small period of time. If the upload completes in this period, you can show the "Upload complete" message, but if the upload takes more than the delay, then you show the progress bar.
The Psion 3/5 handhelds used a similar technique for the built-in "Busy" messages of their OPL programming language: you could enable a busy message, but it would only be shown if not disabled within a given time-delay.
The delay was usually relatively small: a half second being typical.
There's still a chance that the upload will take fractionally longer than the delay, resulting in a brief flash of progress bar, but I suspect that in many cases, most files will be "very short" or "a [few] second[s] or more". |
82,045 | I have a progress bar that takes place after a user uploads a file while the backend is running some processes. It looks like a standard progress bar that fills as the processing completes, like so:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jzotq.jpg)
When the upload/processing is complete the bar is replaced with a text that says "Upload Complete".
If the file is larger it takes upwards of a few seconds to complete and provides a nice visual progression to let the user know nothing is frozen. The problem is if the user inputs a small file the processing time is quite low, this results in the user clicking "Upload", a progress bar flashing up and shifting some elements down then disappearing to be replaced with the success text all in fractions of a second.
I see a couple ways to combat this but I do not know which would provide the best UX.
**1. Do nothing**
One course of action, and surely the simplest from the development side would be to do nothing. Let the bar flash up and disappear in the whatever time it takes. If this happens too quickly it may be confusing or even disorienting to the user but it follows the natural progression the user would expect.
**2. Add a small delay**
Intuitively one would think purposefully adding any **extra** time to an application is a UX sin. But this article on [adding delays to increase perceived value](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/16/adding-delays-to-increase-perceived-value-does-it-work/) shows how Blogger added a small loading .gif that increased user satisfaction and reduced fear that something went wrong, which would be a real concern with my flashing loading bar.
**3. Hide loading bar for small files**
One course of action would be to determine which files will cause too short of a loading time and simply not display the bar in the first place. Users that upload large files will receive the same loading progression then completion status as before but users that choose small files will hit upload and momentarily see "Upload Complete". The problem I see with this is users who are familiar with seeing the progress bar may be throw off, I've been trained consistency is key but this would involve different UX experiences for different users. Plus, if I were to take this route how would I choose this threshold to display or hide the bar. Some users may take 3 seconds to fully perceive the bar being shown while some may only need 1 second.
**4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion**
Inversely to option #3 I could just leave the bar up reading 100% with the completion status "Upload Complete" under or beside the bar. This would eliminate the progress bar flashing up and disappearing immediately. However, on an already cramped mobile display showing a finished progress bar takes up precious real estate and isn't exactly the most appealing visual element. I could make it disappear after a set interval but that removes some locus of control and could still cause user confusion. It also brings back the threshold issue of #3 where I am unsure of how long to let the bar remain there, too quickly and it defeats the purpose, too long and it may be expected to be persistent and cause confusion when it is removed. I could make the user dismiss it themselves but that adds extra clicks to the process.
**So I ask?** What provides the most friendly UX for handling loading times that vary? | 2015/07/27 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/82045",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/62535/"
] | One potential option is not to *explicitly* hide the progress bar for small files (how do you know what "small" is for a given network?) but to *delay* showing it for a small period of time. If the upload completes in this period, you can show the "Upload complete" message, but if the upload takes more than the delay, then you show the progress bar.
The Psion 3/5 handhelds used a similar technique for the built-in "Busy" messages of their OPL programming language: you could enable a busy message, but it would only be shown if not disabled within a given time-delay.
The delay was usually relatively small: a half second being typical.
There's still a chance that the upload will take fractionally longer than the delay, resulting in a brief flash of progress bar, but I suspect that in many cases, most files will be "very short" or "a [few] second[s] or more". | The only good option that works is “4. Leave the bar up after 100% completion”.
You do not know how long the upload will take and the internet speed is changing all the time. So if you say delay putting the bar up for 2 seconds, what if the upload then completes in the next half second?
Updating the bar must be flicker free and not done too often, say no more than ever half second.
Personally I would move the “62%” into the end of the bar or remove it altogether, then write “Upload Completed” onto the bar once it is done. So that once the upload is done, there is a green background with the words “Upload Completed” overlaid on it.
(Updating the xx% text will flicker as the **same** pixel is being swaped from wight to black then to wight. Fill the bar just changes each pixel from weight to block.)
Making your bar into a "pie charge" as done so nicely by Nick Todd is a way to take up less space while leaving the bar showing after the file has completed. |
89,948 | I have found that [The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liveable) reports two different pronunciations for the word "liveable":
* the one that I expect (/ˈlɪvəbl/, or "lee-vable") for the US
* and one that I have never heard (/laɪvəbl/, or "lai-vable") for the UK.
(To clarify: "lee-vable" and "lai-vable" are just my attempts to transcribe the word without using IPA, and are not accurate. In particular, I don't mean that the /ɪ/ should be pronounced as in "leeway". If you prefer, [Dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liveable) suggests to transcribe it as "liv-uh-buh l")
The Free Dictionary is the only online dictionary that I am aware of to report it: all the others that I have checked, that is:
* [Oxford dictionaries](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liveable)
* [Oxford Learner's Dictionaries](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/liveable?q=liveable)
* [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livable)
(the link to listen to the pronunciation is somewhat hidden under
"Variants of livable")
* [WordReference.com](http://www.wordreference.com/definition/livable)
* [Dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liveable)
* [Cambridge dictionary](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liveable)
* [Forvo](http://forvo.com/word/livable/#en)
report only "lee-vable". Even [an answer on this site](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/67710/30156) reports only this pronunciation. And interestingly, user [nnnnnn](https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/13873/nnnnnn) has noticed that [The Free Dictionary itself](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/livable) has a different entry for "livable" (instead of "liveable") and in this case the pronunciation is the expected one both for British and American English.
Normally I trust The Free Dictionary, therefore I am confused. Does this other pronunciation exist? Is it widespread? Would it sound wrong, or awkward, to a non-British native speaker (or even to a British one, for that matter)? | 2016/05/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/89948",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/30156/"
] | The suffix -able is often attached to verbs, denoting adjectives relating to the action **being able to be done**.
>
> lovable, fixable, changeable, believable, teachable, punishable, allowable, ...
>
>
>
**This suffix preserves the stem's pronunciation when used.** Allow = /əˈlaʊ/, Allowable = /əˈlaʊ ə bəl/. Love = /lʌv/, lovable = /ˈlʌv ə bəl/.
**Hence** live (verb) + -able results in /ˈlɪv ə bəl/ and mostly never /ˈlaɪv ə bl/. | I have across this alternative pronunciation of “liveable/livable” exactly once, and it confused me enough to lead me to this post. In the song “The Future Will Come” by The Juan MacLean, it is used in the chorus line “a livable life is a pretense”.
The Juan MacLean is a stage name for John Maclean, who is American, has a degree from Providence College and has taught English in New Hampshire ([according to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juan_MacLean)). So apparently this pronunciation is not exclusively British.
The song can be heard [here](https://thejuanmaclean.bandcamp.com/album/the-future-will-come), and the lyrics can be found [here](https://genius.com/The-juan-maclean-the-future-will-come-lyrics). |
6,712 | Can we please do anything to vary the people and the backgrounds on this site? Here is a screen capture of the users. As you see, the vast majority of activity comes from only a few OP’s. This leads almost invariably to bias in what is kept, what is flagged, what is voted for. Also, as a woman, I find it unspeakably frustrating when I come to an SE and nearly everyone has an obviously male name. It makes me feel like I’m not being understood, or just being downvoted for coming from a different perspective. I know you have no control over who does or doesn’t take the time to sign up, but maybe consider being a little softer on newcomers or at least explaining downvotes when they are given so they don’t feel like a personal attack, that would go a long way to helping outsiders feel welcomed here. This is supposed to be a Christian community and while I appreciate the SE’s strength of avoiding a lot of pointless chatter, at some point, if the rules are kept too strictly, it begins to feel like an outlet for intellectualism and not a place to serve Christ, which it should be, if it is called Christianity. Also, because an expertise is encouraged, and not all denominations view college education as equally relevant, this frequently dissolves into a Catholic - or other mainstream denomination- forum. This is nobody’s fault, but there are plenty of questions out there that don’t need to fall into any particular subset of Christianity. One cannot ask a question that can be answered with simple reasoning or scripture examples and then complain that the answer is not relevant to the denomination they requested. !picture: This is a huge jump in points and an extremely homogeneous group.if at possible, this should not be such a striking unevenness. (<https://i.stack.imgur.com/Szdp4.jpg>) | 2019/09/11 | [
"https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6712",
"https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/users/46520/"
] | I see my name appears on that list and it's one of those names that is often thought to be masculine. However, there is a feminine spelling of the name (a town in Scotland) so at least people in Scotland know I'm a gal, and not a guy! I don't believe there is an issue with gender on Christianity Stack and it's worth remembering lots of people use an avatar that doesn't give anything away.
I believe a reason should always be given by those people who down-vote a question or an answer. If people vote to have the question closed you can at least see who they are and why they think the question doesn't abide by the rules.
It took me a while to understand why Christianity Stack is different to other sites, but it's worth persevering. I've learned a lot from material posted by others. The main thing to remember is that personal opinions don't count for much, and that's why evidence or sources are sought. But you don't have to have a university degree or letters after you name in order to participate! And sometimes, depending on how a question is asked, it is perfectly permissible to quote Bible verses to back up your answer.
As for specifying a denomination or a particular group, i.e., Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc., the aim is to encourage answers that explain the theological views of that denomination or group. It helps to avoid others from attacking that group or trying to show how/why they are wrong.
Although one might be forgiven for thinking there is a preponderance of questions/answers about one or another mainstream denomination, it has been my observation that there is a lot of religious diversity on Christianity Stack. You just need to keep looking!
One positive to emerge from the control about what can/can't be asked here, is that the site is not toxic, and troublemakers get short shrift.
Bottom line is Christianity Stack seems to be more about quality than quantity. | It is sometimes useful to appeal to a meme to answer a question
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ugynP.jpg)
The series of accusations and assumptions offered in your wall-of-text rant seems to overlook a core issue regarding internet-based discourse: we really don't know who is behind a given name unless that person puts amplifying information into their profile.
I *could* be one of those nine million monkeys who recreate Shakespeare by pounding randomly on a keyboard, and who had an epiphany. (But don't take that bet to Vegas).
PS: I empathize with one of your other meta questions, on how certain askers throw in "catholicism" tags just to have a denomination tag. As a Catholic, I find that almost offensive, and very dishonest, but I also realize that it is "internet gamesmanship." I can, if it really bugs me, edit the tag out of the question.
PPS: I've dropped by your blog. All I can say is "keep doing what you're doing!" Getting the Good Word out comes in a lot of forms. |
28,139 | I have been assigned a hands-on project with an adequate budget. The client has given a minimal but adequate description of what they want.
The problem is, it seems impossible, especially at certain (or all) elevations. Even with a perfect pump (but I must use an actual pump from a manufacturer).
I've linked a rudimentary illustration [here](https://imgur.com/a/paxvW88).
It seems that the necessary Net Positive Suction Head cannot exceed that which is required. Is this the case? (Due to max elevation) If so, I may recommend to the client a re-design - any recommendations?
Please ask if any additional details are needed.
Thank you! | 2019/04/28 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/28139",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/20044/"
] | In old steam machines a centrifugal governor was used: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor>
Later they used other governors with cables and mechanical devices like that. | Setting aside newer turboshaft engines that because of advances in technology do use variable rpm, they control the rotational speed is governed by a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC).
the quote below is from [Gianluigi Alberto Misté and Ernesto Benini](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49a8/64f6083715c9879e1c231e48a45e8a9af765.pdf)
>
> fuel
> control system which, by adjusting the amount of fuel injected,
> ensures that the rotor speed is as constant as possible for each
> type of flight maneuver. The main reason for choosing a
> constant rotational speed is linked to the supposed decrease in
> engine efficiency at part load (typical variations in speed do not
> exceed 15% [1](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49a8/64f6083715c9879e1c231e48a45e8a9af765.pdf)), as well as because variable speed drives trains
> of resonant frequencies into the airframe
>
>
>
This in conjunction with the pilot control on adjusting the rotors angle of attack and speed ensure optimal operation.. |
247,272 | I'm new to ESXi Server.
I need to build on a Laptop ASUS NX90JQ with a QuadCore, 8GB RAM and 2 500GB HDD the following scenario:
I need to implement multiple Windows Server 2008 R2 as Virtual Machines and have console access to them on the same machine (The ESXi Server).
Is there a tool like a Thin Software Client that i can install on the ESXi Server to Access to the Virtual machines without needing another machine.
This cenário would allow a trainer on trip to have a complete network on a single powerful laptop and use it as a workstation too.
If someone knows a possible solution to this i would become very grateful.
Vitor | 2011/03/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/247272",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/74441/"
] | Is there any reason it has to be ESXi? You'd be much better off with [VMware Workstation](http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/) in that scenario.
Regardless, it's important to note you wouldn't be able to run x64 machines under ESXi running as a virtual machine.
My recommendation is to fork out the cash for Workstation, or use another virtualization like virtualbox. | What you want for this to work is VMware Workstation. This would allow you to run multiple server instances just like ESXi, but from within a Windows session, allowing you to access everything from the laptop itself. |
247,272 | I'm new to ESXi Server.
I need to build on a Laptop ASUS NX90JQ with a QuadCore, 8GB RAM and 2 500GB HDD the following scenario:
I need to implement multiple Windows Server 2008 R2 as Virtual Machines and have console access to them on the same machine (The ESXi Server).
Is there a tool like a Thin Software Client that i can install on the ESXi Server to Access to the Virtual machines without needing another machine.
This cenário would allow a trainer on trip to have a complete network on a single powerful laptop and use it as a workstation too.
If someone knows a possible solution to this i would become very grateful.
Vitor | 2011/03/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/247272",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/74441/"
] | You don't want to use ESXi, as you won't have console access to the VMs on that laptop. Instead pick up VMware Workstation (for a cost) or VMware Player (free, but can't do snapshots and stuff, which is probably something you'd want to do if running product demos) and run on top of Windows 7. Or you can use VMware Server (free) and run on top of a Windows 2008 Server, but that'd probably take more native resources than Windows 7. | What you want for this to work is VMware Workstation. This would allow you to run multiple server instances just like ESXi, but from within a Windows session, allowing you to access everything from the laptop itself. |
247,272 | I'm new to ESXi Server.
I need to build on a Laptop ASUS NX90JQ with a QuadCore, 8GB RAM and 2 500GB HDD the following scenario:
I need to implement multiple Windows Server 2008 R2 as Virtual Machines and have console access to them on the same machine (The ESXi Server).
Is there a tool like a Thin Software Client that i can install on the ESXi Server to Access to the Virtual machines without needing another machine.
This cenário would allow a trainer on trip to have a complete network on a single powerful laptop and use it as a workstation too.
If someone knows a possible solution to this i would become very grateful.
Vitor | 2011/03/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/247272",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/74441/"
] | Is there any reason it has to be ESXi? You'd be much better off with [VMware Workstation](http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/) in that scenario.
Regardless, it's important to note you wouldn't be able to run x64 machines under ESXi running as a virtual machine.
My recommendation is to fork out the cash for Workstation, or use another virtualization like virtualbox. | As its been stated above you will probably have to use a type 2 hosted hypervisor for what you are describing, Virtualbox and VMware Workstation as good examples provided.
What you are asking about is running a type 1 bare-metal hypervisor, which does save you resources because you are not installing on top of a pre-existing OS, but you will have to remote into the VMs from another computer. This may work if you want to tote the laptop, as a portable server, and then just log into the VMs from another laptop. |
247,272 | I'm new to ESXi Server.
I need to build on a Laptop ASUS NX90JQ with a QuadCore, 8GB RAM and 2 500GB HDD the following scenario:
I need to implement multiple Windows Server 2008 R2 as Virtual Machines and have console access to them on the same machine (The ESXi Server).
Is there a tool like a Thin Software Client that i can install on the ESXi Server to Access to the Virtual machines without needing another machine.
This cenário would allow a trainer on trip to have a complete network on a single powerful laptop and use it as a workstation too.
If someone knows a possible solution to this i would become very grateful.
Vitor | 2011/03/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/247272",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/74441/"
] | You don't want to use ESXi, as you won't have console access to the VMs on that laptop. Instead pick up VMware Workstation (for a cost) or VMware Player (free, but can't do snapshots and stuff, which is probably something you'd want to do if running product demos) and run on top of Windows 7. Or you can use VMware Server (free) and run on top of a Windows 2008 Server, but that'd probably take more native resources than Windows 7. | As its been stated above you will probably have to use a type 2 hosted hypervisor for what you are describing, Virtualbox and VMware Workstation as good examples provided.
What you are asking about is running a type 1 bare-metal hypervisor, which does save you resources because you are not installing on top of a pre-existing OS, but you will have to remote into the VMs from another computer. This may work if you want to tote the laptop, as a portable server, and then just log into the VMs from another laptop. |
387,313 | While E3 was going on, I saw articles pop-up with titles like 'Starfield will be Xbox exclusive!'. I was disappointed, because I had hoped it would come to PC, as well. Later on, when I was watching a reaction video of a Youtuber who was pretty hyped about Starfield, he mentioned it was coming to PC. I checked the articles with those titles, and they mentioned PC too.
Today, I saw an ad about Scarlet Nexus which features an intro and an outro with the Xbox logo, suggesting it was for Xbox, but I saw the game featured on Steam, as well.
Does Xbox exclusive always silently include PC, and is not that exclusive? It seems really confusing. | 2021/06/25 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/387313",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/108757/"
] | With Microsoft being the parent company behind Windows PC and Xbox. Games labeled as "Xbox Exclusive" will be available on both Xbox and Windows.
With the new release of Windows 11, an Xbox application will be built into it allowing for Xbox's Game Pass model to be accessible on PCs demonstrating the increasing synergy between the two branches of the company.
In addition, Microsoft owning gaming studios such as Bethesda (makers of Starfield) means there will be more games that will be labeled "Xbox Exclusive". However, that is more stating that it won't be available on the competition's systems, Nintendo and Sony.
This general direction taken by Microsoft can be seen by the General Manager of Microsoft Studios Aaron Greenberg who was quoted stating "I'm not sorry" in response to the news that Starfield will not available to PS5 or Switch owners. | ### Console exclusive
"Xbox exclusive" essentially means "not available for Sony PlayStation" and "not available for Nintendo Switch".
Nintendo and Sony are direct competitors to Microsoft's gaming consoles and ecosystem.
There are probably other platforms that are incompatible, specifically macOS PCs (i.e., sold by Apple).
### Microsoft's strategy
* Some "Xbox exclusive" games are for Xbox consoles only.
* Others are for Xbox consoles as well as compatible with Windows PCs. At least 175 games are currently "Xbox Play Anywhere digital titles".
You'll start to see that more and more games will begin to fall under the second category, because Microsoft's tactics in the gaming space involve full integration to unite Windows PC gaming with that of Xbox:
* Cross-platform play enables gamers to interchangeably play the games they've purchased on both their Xbox and their Windows PC
* This encourages gamers who want to play Microsoft-exclusive games to perhaps own a portable Windows PC (as opposed to a Mac), but provides flexibility to people who only own one Microsoft-gaming-compatible device
* It simplifies transactions to one purchase per IP (game) at one digital point of sale. The IP then can be installed, streamed, or played on any compatible device that the player owns (including Android phones in the case of "Cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass") with no additional game purchasing cost.
* Gaming is moving to the cloud under Xbox Cloud Gaming, which enables gamers to enjoy digital content on their tablets and Android phones, as long as there's a strong internet connection, in addition to being able to stream to conventional platforms such as Xbox and Windows PC. There are no additional requirements to receive Xbox Cloud Gaming other than possessing a Game Pass Ultimate subscription.
* The purchase of Bethesda entitles Microsoft to distribute series like Fallout, Dishonored, and The Elder Scrolls onto their entire ecosystem, which provides Microsoft the depth of games necessary to compete with Sony's otherwise wider moat and more expansive repertoire
* Consolidation of everything that Microsoft now owns (including ZeniMax Media titles) into this cloud-based ecosystem of digital content transforms the company into more of a services-oriented business based on monthly/yearly subscriptions rather than purely a device-specific console retailer: those with an advanced Xbox console (such as Xbox Series X/S) can benefit from the crisp high performance of the console, but gamers who own Windows PCs and tablets can also purchase games in the ecosystem and play them on the devices that they own. This increases Microsoft's market penetration and total addressable market by making their digital content accessible to a growing consumer base. |
387,313 | While E3 was going on, I saw articles pop-up with titles like 'Starfield will be Xbox exclusive!'. I was disappointed, because I had hoped it would come to PC, as well. Later on, when I was watching a reaction video of a Youtuber who was pretty hyped about Starfield, he mentioned it was coming to PC. I checked the articles with those titles, and they mentioned PC too.
Today, I saw an ad about Scarlet Nexus which features an intro and an outro with the Xbox logo, suggesting it was for Xbox, but I saw the game featured on Steam, as well.
Does Xbox exclusive always silently include PC, and is not that exclusive? It seems really confusing. | 2021/06/25 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/387313",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/108757/"
] | With Microsoft being the parent company behind Windows PC and Xbox. Games labeled as "Xbox Exclusive" will be available on both Xbox and Windows.
With the new release of Windows 11, an Xbox application will be built into it allowing for Xbox's Game Pass model to be accessible on PCs demonstrating the increasing synergy between the two branches of the company.
In addition, Microsoft owning gaming studios such as Bethesda (makers of Starfield) means there will be more games that will be labeled "Xbox Exclusive". However, that is more stating that it won't be available on the competition's systems, Nintendo and Sony.
This general direction taken by Microsoft can be seen by the General Manager of Microsoft Studios Aaron Greenberg who was quoted stating "I'm not sorry" in response to the news that Starfield will not available to PS5 or Switch owners. | "Xbox exclusive" means it's exclusive to Xbox. I'm not sure what the confusion is. |
387,313 | While E3 was going on, I saw articles pop-up with titles like 'Starfield will be Xbox exclusive!'. I was disappointed, because I had hoped it would come to PC, as well. Later on, when I was watching a reaction video of a Youtuber who was pretty hyped about Starfield, he mentioned it was coming to PC. I checked the articles with those titles, and they mentioned PC too.
Today, I saw an ad about Scarlet Nexus which features an intro and an outro with the Xbox logo, suggesting it was for Xbox, but I saw the game featured on Steam, as well.
Does Xbox exclusive always silently include PC, and is not that exclusive? It seems really confusing. | 2021/06/25 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/387313",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/108757/"
] | ### Console exclusive
"Xbox exclusive" essentially means "not available for Sony PlayStation" and "not available for Nintendo Switch".
Nintendo and Sony are direct competitors to Microsoft's gaming consoles and ecosystem.
There are probably other platforms that are incompatible, specifically macOS PCs (i.e., sold by Apple).
### Microsoft's strategy
* Some "Xbox exclusive" games are for Xbox consoles only.
* Others are for Xbox consoles as well as compatible with Windows PCs. At least 175 games are currently "Xbox Play Anywhere digital titles".
You'll start to see that more and more games will begin to fall under the second category, because Microsoft's tactics in the gaming space involve full integration to unite Windows PC gaming with that of Xbox:
* Cross-platform play enables gamers to interchangeably play the games they've purchased on both their Xbox and their Windows PC
* This encourages gamers who want to play Microsoft-exclusive games to perhaps own a portable Windows PC (as opposed to a Mac), but provides flexibility to people who only own one Microsoft-gaming-compatible device
* It simplifies transactions to one purchase per IP (game) at one digital point of sale. The IP then can be installed, streamed, or played on any compatible device that the player owns (including Android phones in the case of "Cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass") with no additional game purchasing cost.
* Gaming is moving to the cloud under Xbox Cloud Gaming, which enables gamers to enjoy digital content on their tablets and Android phones, as long as there's a strong internet connection, in addition to being able to stream to conventional platforms such as Xbox and Windows PC. There are no additional requirements to receive Xbox Cloud Gaming other than possessing a Game Pass Ultimate subscription.
* The purchase of Bethesda entitles Microsoft to distribute series like Fallout, Dishonored, and The Elder Scrolls onto their entire ecosystem, which provides Microsoft the depth of games necessary to compete with Sony's otherwise wider moat and more expansive repertoire
* Consolidation of everything that Microsoft now owns (including ZeniMax Media titles) into this cloud-based ecosystem of digital content transforms the company into more of a services-oriented business based on monthly/yearly subscriptions rather than purely a device-specific console retailer: those with an advanced Xbox console (such as Xbox Series X/S) can benefit from the crisp high performance of the console, but gamers who own Windows PCs and tablets can also purchase games in the ecosystem and play them on the devices that they own. This increases Microsoft's market penetration and total addressable market by making their digital content accessible to a growing consumer base. | "Xbox exclusive" means it's exclusive to Xbox. I'm not sure what the confusion is. |
303,552 | If Lamp2 is disconnected, What will happen to the brightness of the Lamp3?
I think that the brightness will remain the same because Lamp2 is in parallel with the branch that contains Lamp3.
Let's assume that I3 passes in Lamp3. When Lamp2 is disconnected, The total current will be reduced to be equal to I3. So Lamp3 and Lamp4 will not be affected. That's why loads are connected in parallel at home.
This question is in my younger brother's scholar book. The answer was: "The brightness of Lamp3 will increase because the total current will pass through it."
I think I'm missing something but I don't know what it is.
[simulate this circuit](/plugins/schematics?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fRnZ9j.png) – Schematic created using [CircuitLab](https://www.circuitlab.com/) | 2017/05/05 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/303552",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/50937/"
] | Unloaded, both circuits output 12 volts. Loaded, the first one can only supply 1.2 mA into a short circuit. The second circuit can virtually supply the full load current of the supply.
If you want to calculate "parameters" then it would be highly useful for you to state what parameters you mean. | We are not here to do your homework for you.
However, look up *Thevenin* and *Norton* equivalent circuits.
Hint: In this case, start by converting both circuits to their Thevenin equivalent. |
9,427,453 | Can we create multiple test methods in JUnit against single method? I have explored this in eclipse and I could not find any way. If we can than kindly tell me a way. | 2012/02/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9427453",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/470189/"
] | Yes, JUnit can do this just fine. Write as many test methods as you need. Give each of them a name that describes what requirement it's testing, and which case, and annotate each of them with `@Test`.
Check out my answer to [testEquals(), testHashCode() and testToString()](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8675302/testequals-testhashcode-and-testtostring/8675398#8675398) for an example of what test methods you might have in a simple case. Ignore the other answer :-) | You can use [CodePro](http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=codepro&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http://code.google.com/javadevtools/codepro/&ei=9EZHT-u9FIvprQfw4qCqDw&usg=AFQjCNGUsuLjlQLG3OmBdVQS1e-v92Sezw&sig2=5GyhUgWGbmUK-Y0cK1rDtQ) .
This will generate multiple test cases for a single method.
This can be installed in eclipse.
You can add this [link](http://dl.google.com/eclipse/inst/codepro/latest/3.6) to install CodePro in Eclipse.
Go to help and then into S/W updates.
Then paste this link on add site. |
5,765,990 | Ok, so I have this program with many (~300) threads, each of which communicates with a central database. I create a global connection to the DB, and then each thread goes about its business creating statements and executing them.
Somewhere along the way, I have a massive memory leak. After analyzing the heap dump, I see that the com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object is 70 MB, because it has 800,000 items in "openStatements" (a hash map). Somewhere it's not properly closing the statements that I create, but I cannot for the life of me figure out where (every single time I open one, I close it as well). Any ideas why this might be occurring? | 2011/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5765990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612580/"
] | You know unless MySQL says so, JDBC Connections are NOT thread safe. You CANNOT share them across threads, unless you use a connection pool. In addition as pointed out you should be try/finally guaranteeing all statements, result sets, and connections are closed. | Once upon a time, whenever my code saw "server went away," it opened a new DB connection. If the error happened in the right (wrong!) place, I was left with some non-free()d orphan memory hanging around. Could something like this account for what you are seeing? How are you handling errors? |
5,765,990 | Ok, so I have this program with many (~300) threads, each of which communicates with a central database. I create a global connection to the DB, and then each thread goes about its business creating statements and executing them.
Somewhere along the way, I have a massive memory leak. After analyzing the heap dump, I see that the com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object is 70 MB, because it has 800,000 items in "openStatements" (a hash map). Somewhere it's not properly closing the statements that I create, but I cannot for the life of me figure out where (every single time I open one, I close it as well). Any ideas why this might be occurring? | 2011/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5765990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612580/"
] | I had exactly the same problem. I needed to keep 1 connection active for 3 threads and at the same time every thread had to execute a lot of statements (the order of 100k). I was very careful and I closed every statement and every resultset using a try....finally... algorithm. This way, even if the code failed in some way, the statement and the resultset were always closed. After running the code for 8 hours I was suprised to find that the necessary memory went from the initial 35MB to 500MB. I generated a dump of the memory and I analyzed it with Mat Analyzer from Eclipse. It turned out that one com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object was taking 445MB of memory keeping alive some openStatements objects wich in turn kept alive aroun 135k hashmap entries, probably from all the resultsets. So it seems that even if you close all you statements and resultsets, if you do not close the connection, it keeps references to them and the GarbageCollector can't free the resources.
**My solution**: after a long search I found this statement from the guys at MySQL:
"A quick test is to add "**dontTrackOpenResources=true**" to your JDBC URL. If the memory leak
goes away, some code path in your application isn't closing statements and result sets."
Here is the link: <http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=5022>. So I tried that and guess what? After 8 hours I was around 40MB of memory required, for the same database operations.
Maybe a connection pool would be advisible, but if that's not an option, this is the next best thing I came around. | Once upon a time, whenever my code saw "server went away," it opened a new DB connection. If the error happened in the right (wrong!) place, I was left with some non-free()d orphan memory hanging around. Could something like this account for what you are seeing? How are you handling errors? |
5,765,990 | Ok, so I have this program with many (~300) threads, each of which communicates with a central database. I create a global connection to the DB, and then each thread goes about its business creating statements and executing them.
Somewhere along the way, I have a massive memory leak. After analyzing the heap dump, I see that the com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object is 70 MB, because it has 800,000 items in "openStatements" (a hash map). Somewhere it's not properly closing the statements that I create, but I cannot for the life of me figure out where (every single time I open one, I close it as well). Any ideas why this might be occurring? | 2011/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5765990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612580/"
] | You know unless MySQL says so, JDBC Connections are NOT thread safe. You CANNOT share them across threads, unless you use a connection pool. In addition as pointed out you should be try/finally guaranteeing all statements, result sets, and connections are closed. | Without seeing your code (which I'm sure is massive), you should really consider some sort of more formal thread pooling mechanism, such as Apache Commons pool framework, Spring's JDBC framework, and others. IMHO, this is a much simpler approach, since someone else has already figured out how to effectively manage these types of situations. |
5,765,990 | Ok, so I have this program with many (~300) threads, each of which communicates with a central database. I create a global connection to the DB, and then each thread goes about its business creating statements and executing them.
Somewhere along the way, I have a massive memory leak. After analyzing the heap dump, I see that the com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object is 70 MB, because it has 800,000 items in "openStatements" (a hash map). Somewhere it's not properly closing the statements that I create, but I cannot for the life of me figure out where (every single time I open one, I close it as well). Any ideas why this might be occurring? | 2011/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5765990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612580/"
] | I had exactly the same problem. I needed to keep 1 connection active for 3 threads and at the same time every thread had to execute a lot of statements (the order of 100k). I was very careful and I closed every statement and every resultset using a try....finally... algorithm. This way, even if the code failed in some way, the statement and the resultset were always closed. After running the code for 8 hours I was suprised to find that the necessary memory went from the initial 35MB to 500MB. I generated a dump of the memory and I analyzed it with Mat Analyzer from Eclipse. It turned out that one com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object was taking 445MB of memory keeping alive some openStatements objects wich in turn kept alive aroun 135k hashmap entries, probably from all the resultsets. So it seems that even if you close all you statements and resultsets, if you do not close the connection, it keeps references to them and the GarbageCollector can't free the resources.
**My solution**: after a long search I found this statement from the guys at MySQL:
"A quick test is to add "**dontTrackOpenResources=true**" to your JDBC URL. If the memory leak
goes away, some code path in your application isn't closing statements and result sets."
Here is the link: <http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=5022>. So I tried that and guess what? After 8 hours I was around 40MB of memory required, for the same database operations.
Maybe a connection pool would be advisible, but if that's not an option, this is the next best thing I came around. | You know unless MySQL says so, JDBC Connections are NOT thread safe. You CANNOT share them across threads, unless you use a connection pool. In addition as pointed out you should be try/finally guaranteeing all statements, result sets, and connections are closed. |
5,765,990 | Ok, so I have this program with many (~300) threads, each of which communicates with a central database. I create a global connection to the DB, and then each thread goes about its business creating statements and executing them.
Somewhere along the way, I have a massive memory leak. After analyzing the heap dump, I see that the com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object is 70 MB, because it has 800,000 items in "openStatements" (a hash map). Somewhere it's not properly closing the statements that I create, but I cannot for the life of me figure out where (every single time I open one, I close it as well). Any ideas why this might be occurring? | 2011/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5765990",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/612580/"
] | I had exactly the same problem. I needed to keep 1 connection active for 3 threads and at the same time every thread had to execute a lot of statements (the order of 100k). I was very careful and I closed every statement and every resultset using a try....finally... algorithm. This way, even if the code failed in some way, the statement and the resultset were always closed. After running the code for 8 hours I was suprised to find that the necessary memory went from the initial 35MB to 500MB. I generated a dump of the memory and I analyzed it with Mat Analyzer from Eclipse. It turned out that one com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4Connection object was taking 445MB of memory keeping alive some openStatements objects wich in turn kept alive aroun 135k hashmap entries, probably from all the resultsets. So it seems that even if you close all you statements and resultsets, if you do not close the connection, it keeps references to them and the GarbageCollector can't free the resources.
**My solution**: after a long search I found this statement from the guys at MySQL:
"A quick test is to add "**dontTrackOpenResources=true**" to your JDBC URL. If the memory leak
goes away, some code path in your application isn't closing statements and result sets."
Here is the link: <http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=5022>. So I tried that and guess what? After 8 hours I was around 40MB of memory required, for the same database operations.
Maybe a connection pool would be advisible, but if that's not an option, this is the next best thing I came around. | Without seeing your code (which I'm sure is massive), you should really consider some sort of more formal thread pooling mechanism, such as Apache Commons pool framework, Spring's JDBC framework, and others. IMHO, this is a much simpler approach, since someone else has already figured out how to effectively manage these types of situations. |
6,314,197 | Default, Windows controls don't have DoubleBuffer. When I use it, I can reduce flicker. Why does it not use by default in Windows Controls.
And anyone can tell Advantages and Disadvantages when using DoubleBuffer on control.
Thanks. | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6314197",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/253940/"
] | Double buffering technique is used when the drawing we wish to create has many details,and it is time consuming to draw even with a fast computer.In this technique instead of drawing in the screen,first drawn into an image and then the image drawn into the window.
WinForms is purposed for creating forms with UI elements (ComboBox, TextBox and etc.) first, so that's why it is not using Double Buffering by default.
Double buffering is purposed for graphic development.
So... Double buffering uses more memory but works faster, and there is no need to use it, when there is no many drawings
Hope this helps! | >
> Double buffering is a technique used
> to make drawing intensive applications
> faster and appear smoother by reducing
> flicker. The basic idea is to take the
> drawing operations used to paint your
> application and apply them to an
> off-screen canvas. Once all of the
> drawing operations have finished, this
> off-screen canvas is then 'pushed
> forward' to the surface - or drawn as
> a single image onto the control. This
> gives the user the appearance of a
> much faster application.
>
>
>
DoubleBuffer is very memory intensive, if your system have less memory in that case you might face problems of memory crunch.
>
> A final consideration about the double
> buffering idea described here is that
> this is neither fully optimized or
> without its disadvantages. While
> double buffering is a great way to
> reduce the flickering of your Windows
> Forms painting, it is memory
> intensive. Essentially, using twice
> the effective memory: the
> application's screen image as well as
> the off screen image. Also,
> dynamically creating a Bitmap object
> for every paint event is extremely
> expensive as is using the
> Graphics.DrawImage to push the
> off-screen image to the surface of the
> Form. The DoubleBuffer control style
> performs all of these optimizations as
> is generally the most efficient way to
> do double buffering.
>
>
>
You can read more on this [here](http://windowsclient.net/articles/windowsformspainting.aspx) |
557,320 | I have a Windows Server 2008 as part of a win2008 domain.
I can connect to it as the local admin with no problems.
But when I try to connect to it as the Enterprise Admin, it says that i have the wrong credentials. I can connect locally with the same credentials and experience no problems.
I Included said enterprise admin to the remote desktop user group but no luck.
I am trying to use only one concurrent user so my guess is that it's not a limit problem.
Thanks
UPDATE:
The following is an error from a MACOSX RDP Client, but the same exact error shows on MSTSC.exe both in win7 and win8.1
[http://i.imgur.com/HHel3rK.png](https://i.imgur.com/HHel3rK.png)
I also tried as suggested:
[http://i.imgur.com/hMWOAaI.png](https://i.imgur.com/hMWOAaI.png)
And the same results appear.
What is getting me confused is that if I login "Physically" with the same credentials, I can login and do my job.
What am I missing? | 2013/11/25 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/557320",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/155721/"
] | You can't connect locally with the same credentials because the local and domain users are different users. If you don't specify the domain when logging on with the Administrator user account then Windows will "assume" the local Administrator user account.
Log on with ADdomain\Administrator to log on with the domain Administrator account
Log on with Administrator or .\Administrator to log on with the local Administrator account | Enterprise admins are not automatically added to the local admin group when it joins the domain, unlike the domain admins. I suggest you add them to the remote desktop user group, that should fix the problem. |
204,395 | I asked about the best way to setup a PC with Windows 7, Windows 8 and Ubuntu 12.10 [here](https://superuser.com/questions/488636/setting-up-a-triple-boot-from-scratch-win7-win8-and-ubuntu) and followed the recommended order. But when I try to install Ubuntu 12.10 it doesn't allow me to select LVM without blowing away the Windows 8 installation. If I select the advanced option I can't create another partition (there's room on the drive). Is WUBI the only option? Or do I need to setup the partition before running the Ubuntu installer?
(Not sure how to get screenshots from the installer) | 2012/10/22 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/204395",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/59832/"
] | I would start out by doing all the partitioning from the Ubuntu live CD. Then install Windows 7 (using the existing partition scheme), add Windows 8, and finally add Ubuntu.
For Ubuntu I would create two partitions: /boot and LVM. Then follow the advice in [How to install ubuntu 12.10 with / partition on LVM?](https://askubuntu.com/questions/204546/how-to-install-ubuntu-12-10-with-partition-on-lvm) when you come to install Ubuntu.
The physical partitions will be Windows' two “system reserved” partitions plus /boot; the remaining partitions can (I hope) be logical partitions. | Seems like you don't want to use the "Something Else" option in the installer, but I recommend you do.
I recommend using gparted to build your partitioning scheme the way you want it, and after that use the ubuntu installer option "something else" and appoint those partitions you created for specific mount points (/, /home, /boot, etc.; also: swap)
see [this question](https://askubuntu.com/questions/204546/how-to-install-ubuntu-12-10-with-partition-on-lvm)
The only difficulty here is that you'll need to make your own plan for the partitioning.
If you're using MBR/legacy mode, and both win7 and win8 need a "system-reserved" partition for booting, and if both windows's C: partitions must be primary, you have a problem. I don't know if grub's bootloader will be able to find a /boot partition on a lvm.
If win7 and win8 *can* both have their C: partition be logical, install them like that first:
* system-reserved partitions for win7 and win8: primary
* C: partitions for win7 and win8: logical
then ubuntu:
* /boot: primary
* /, /home, swap, etc.: logical
otherwise it won't work with MBR/legacy mode due to the limit of 4 (primary) partitions |
2,845 | We have recently seen a significant number of questions that contain significant quotes from external sources and often very little other content. Some of these [were mentioned a while ago](https://money.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2803/user-with-a-flood-of-questions) and it wasn't clear that any action was warranted. However the overall volume is now at a level that we as moderators feel is not good for the site’s signal/noise ratio. After all, the goal of Stack Exchange is to build a [high-quality question and answer library](https://stackexchange.com/tour).
We already have [guidelines for referencing in answers](https://money.stackexchange.com/help/referencing), but none for questions. As a community, what do we think would make these questions asking for explanations of external sources appropriate for the site? | 2020/03/07 | [
"https://money.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2845",
"https://money.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.meta.stackexchange.com/users/366/"
] | In my view, questions should be subject to the same [referencing guidelines as for answers](https://money.stackexchange.com/help/referencing), most importantly:
>
> Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their
> words and ideas to support your own. And always give proper credit to
> the author and site where you found the text, including a direct link
> to it.
>
>
>
Formulate your own independent question based on the material. Don’t simply say “explain this” or similar.
For example if you don’t understand something, state what you don’t understand and what are the possible interpretations you’ve thought of. | GS's answer is too restrictive and doesn't appear good faith. GS has closed unilaterally too many questions and deleted too many answers based on external source, even if that source answers the question.
>
> Formulate your own independent question based on the material. Don’t simply say “explain this” or similar.
>
>
> For example if you don’t understand something, state what you don’t understand and what are the possible interpretations you’ve thought of.
>
>
>
Pls see my questions below. I quoted material, and stated "what you don’t understand". I don't understand the material, so how the heck can I state "what are the possible interpretations you’ve thought of"??? How can I f"ormulate your own independent question based on the material"?
[Why does crystallizing your lifetime capital gains exemption increase share ACB?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/117259)
<https://money.stackexchange.com/q/121230>
In both Grade 'Eh' Bacon munificently agrees they are "answerable question, and relevant to a small business owner in Canada".
Also, if a reliable quote can answer it, writing your answer from scratch
1. wastes time and is useless.
2. is less reliable. |
211,551 | During the events of *Avengers: Endgame*,
>
> Spider-Man comes back from being snapped, exactly the same as he was five years prior.
>
>
>
At the end of the movie, we see that
>
> he is back in high school, greeted by his best friend Ned Leeds, who expresses relief at seeing Peter Parker, implying that he either knew Peter was "snapped," (and therefore probably wasn't snapped himself) or that he thought he may have been killed in the fight against Thanos.
>
>
>
Additionally,
>
> in the trailer for *Spider-Man: Far From Home*, Peter and Ned are on a school trip with their peers from the first movie, including Flash and MJ, as well as at least one of their other classmates.
>
>
>
I was wondering if there was a canon explanation for why all of these characters still seem to be in high school? The obvious answer would be that
>
> they were all snapped and so came back the same age, which is plausible, but it could also be that in the societal breakdown in the meantime, schools ceased to function, so everyone resumed where they had been.
>
>
>
While I find either of these to be reasonable explanations, is there a specific canon reason for this? And have any of them officially aged? | 2019/05/03 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/211551",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/11441/"
] | The Russo brothers actually answered this in an interview from [this Chinese source](https://ent.qq.com/a/20190429/007983.htm). As the original article is in Chinese I am getting the quotes from [this reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/bj0it4/joe_russos_qa_about_the_plot_of_avengers_endgame/), although I think all that's happened is that the user ran it through Google Translate.
From the answer below we can see that all his friends were also dusted and that they have no memory of what happened having it feel like they have "woken up".
>
> Q: What about those people who got dusted? What did those five years mean to them? Why didn't they grow older when undusted?
>
>
> A: Yes, those people whom was lucky to survive the snap are 5 years older than the people who just got back. **The reason Spider Man saw his friend again in high school at the end was simply because his friends was unfortunately also dusted like Spider Man was. Of course, there are people in his grade whom didn't die and they are probably already in colleges by now. To those dusted people, they had no conscious in these past 5 years. They didn't know what happened. It's as if they had just woke up from a long sleep.** The only one who was aware about how many years has passed was Doctor Strange, because he has already seen that when he was time mediating on Titan. Parker's reunion with Ned was a touching moment. There are also people whom indeed moved on but suddenly was reunited with their lost ones. Yeah it's kind a complicated world now.
>
>
> | According to an unnamed Marvel Studio's source to [IGN](https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/30/what-year-mcu-endgame-peter-parker-school-age-ned) (warning: spoilers in link):
>
> “Thanos’ snap wiped out 50% of all life -- and 100% of Peter’s friends.”
>
>
>
So officially all of Peter Parker's friends were snapped, and so none of them have aged and they are still in high school as a result. |
211,551 | During the events of *Avengers: Endgame*,
>
> Spider-Man comes back from being snapped, exactly the same as he was five years prior.
>
>
>
At the end of the movie, we see that
>
> he is back in high school, greeted by his best friend Ned Leeds, who expresses relief at seeing Peter Parker, implying that he either knew Peter was "snapped," (and therefore probably wasn't snapped himself) or that he thought he may have been killed in the fight against Thanos.
>
>
>
Additionally,
>
> in the trailer for *Spider-Man: Far From Home*, Peter and Ned are on a school trip with their peers from the first movie, including Flash and MJ, as well as at least one of their other classmates.
>
>
>
I was wondering if there was a canon explanation for why all of these characters still seem to be in high school? The obvious answer would be that
>
> they were all snapped and so came back the same age, which is plausible, but it could also be that in the societal breakdown in the meantime, schools ceased to function, so everyone resumed where they had been.
>
>
>
While I find either of these to be reasonable explanations, is there a specific canon reason for this? And have any of them officially aged? | 2019/05/03 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/211551",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/11441/"
] | According to an unnamed Marvel Studio's source to [IGN](https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/30/what-year-mcu-endgame-peter-parker-school-age-ned) (warning: spoilers in link):
>
> “Thanos’ snap wiped out 50% of all life -- and 100% of Peter’s friends.”
>
>
>
So officially all of Peter Parker's friends were snapped, and so none of them have aged and they are still in high school as a result. | There is one additional consideration, aside from the interview TheLethalCarrot posted.
The reason Leeds is relieved to see Parker, even though they were both dead, is that some time has passed between the un-snap and their reunion. It's not clear exactly how much time, but even an hour would be enough considering the circumstances. In all likeliness, it was at least a few hours, upwards of a few days, based on the fact that their reunion happens at what appears to be a school day.
We don't know what Leeds knows (since they don't speak in the scene), but none of it would be comforting. At best, he is relieved to see Parker again after having heard that everyone died for 5 years and that Parker did not come back with them. At worst, he heard about the big battle with aliens that Spider-Man was in. Either way, he is relieved to see that Parker is okay after all that.
---
If you are willing to make some greater assumptions, you could even go further and guess that a significant amount of time has passed. The scene where Parker reunites with Leeds shows a fairly normal looking High School scene, with people rushing to class, etc. However, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the only thing more chaotic than 50% of the population mysteriously dying would be for those same 50% of people reappearing 5 years later.
Oops, suddenly we need to make sure all these people have food and housing and etc etc that would likely have been neglected or re-purposed in the intervening period. We saw the neighbourhood earlier in the movie that was growing over, it would take time to fix everything back up.
Considering that, schools would almost certainly be disrupted for some time, meaning the reunion happened afterwards. |
211,551 | During the events of *Avengers: Endgame*,
>
> Spider-Man comes back from being snapped, exactly the same as he was five years prior.
>
>
>
At the end of the movie, we see that
>
> he is back in high school, greeted by his best friend Ned Leeds, who expresses relief at seeing Peter Parker, implying that he either knew Peter was "snapped," (and therefore probably wasn't snapped himself) or that he thought he may have been killed in the fight against Thanos.
>
>
>
Additionally,
>
> in the trailer for *Spider-Man: Far From Home*, Peter and Ned are on a school trip with their peers from the first movie, including Flash and MJ, as well as at least one of their other classmates.
>
>
>
I was wondering if there was a canon explanation for why all of these characters still seem to be in high school? The obvious answer would be that
>
> they were all snapped and so came back the same age, which is plausible, but it could also be that in the societal breakdown in the meantime, schools ceased to function, so everyone resumed where they had been.
>
>
>
While I find either of these to be reasonable explanations, is there a specific canon reason for this? And have any of them officially aged? | 2019/05/03 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/211551",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/11441/"
] | The Russo brothers actually answered this in an interview from [this Chinese source](https://ent.qq.com/a/20190429/007983.htm). As the original article is in Chinese I am getting the quotes from [this reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/bj0it4/joe_russos_qa_about_the_plot_of_avengers_endgame/), although I think all that's happened is that the user ran it through Google Translate.
From the answer below we can see that all his friends were also dusted and that they have no memory of what happened having it feel like they have "woken up".
>
> Q: What about those people who got dusted? What did those five years mean to them? Why didn't they grow older when undusted?
>
>
> A: Yes, those people whom was lucky to survive the snap are 5 years older than the people who just got back. **The reason Spider Man saw his friend again in high school at the end was simply because his friends was unfortunately also dusted like Spider Man was. Of course, there are people in his grade whom didn't die and they are probably already in colleges by now. To those dusted people, they had no conscious in these past 5 years. They didn't know what happened. It's as if they had just woke up from a long sleep.** The only one who was aware about how many years has passed was Doctor Strange, because he has already seen that when he was time mediating on Titan. Parker's reunion with Ned was a touching moment. There are also people whom indeed moved on but suddenly was reunited with their lost ones. Yeah it's kind a complicated world now.
>
>
> | There is one additional consideration, aside from the interview TheLethalCarrot posted.
The reason Leeds is relieved to see Parker, even though they were both dead, is that some time has passed between the un-snap and their reunion. It's not clear exactly how much time, but even an hour would be enough considering the circumstances. In all likeliness, it was at least a few hours, upwards of a few days, based on the fact that their reunion happens at what appears to be a school day.
We don't know what Leeds knows (since they don't speak in the scene), but none of it would be comforting. At best, he is relieved to see Parker again after having heard that everyone died for 5 years and that Parker did not come back with them. At worst, he heard about the big battle with aliens that Spider-Man was in. Either way, he is relieved to see that Parker is okay after all that.
---
If you are willing to make some greater assumptions, you could even go further and guess that a significant amount of time has passed. The scene where Parker reunites with Leeds shows a fairly normal looking High School scene, with people rushing to class, etc. However, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the only thing more chaotic than 50% of the population mysteriously dying would be for those same 50% of people reappearing 5 years later.
Oops, suddenly we need to make sure all these people have food and housing and etc etc that would likely have been neglected or re-purposed in the intervening period. We saw the neighbourhood earlier in the movie that was growing over, it would take time to fix everything back up.
Considering that, schools would almost certainly be disrupted for some time, meaning the reunion happened afterwards. |
26,627 | On December 13, 1937 Japan [captured Nanjing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nanking); from there they could have continued up the [Yangtze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze) to attack Wuhan, then the second most populous Chinese city and de facto wartime capital. But ground action only began on June 11, 1938, almost 6 months later. Why did it take this long for Japan to begin the attack on this key strategic city?
If we look at a [timeline of the battle](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=176) and preceding actions, we see this:
* 28 Feb 1938 Japanese aircraft bombed Wuhan, Hubei, China, causing little damage.
* 29 Apr 1938 Japanese aircraft attacked Wuhan, Hubei, China; Chinese fighters shot down 21 Japanese aircraft at cost of only 12 aircraft lost.
* 11 Jun 1938 Japanese troops began to march for Wuhan, Hubei, China.
So it's not as if they were completely uninterested in the city, conducting two air raids before finally marching on June 11. But in the intervening months, most action seemed to take place [around Xuzhou](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xuzhou), apparently to link up the [Northern China Area Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Northern_China_Area_Army) with the [Central China Expeditionary Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_China_Expeditionary_Army). Was this more important than attacking Wuhan as soon as possible, and why did this take so long? | 2015/12/02 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/26627",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2957/"
] | Because they were delayed in Xuzhou, and before that in [Shanghai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai).
[At first, in July 1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_Bridge_Incident), fighting was localised in North China, but for various reasons, hostilities erupted in Shanghai one month later, in August, escalating the situation to a full-scale war. That battle dragged on for 3 months, with Japan landing an entire [field army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Central_China_Area_Army) in the city. Without the battle in Shanghai, these reinforcements could have went to North China, and the subsequent attack on Wuhan may have happened from the north.
But as it turned out, after Shanghai and Nanjing (which was a cakewalk in comparison), the strategic situation was this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1P4J5.jpg)
Map marking major Japanese campaigns in China in 1937, Public Domain
So the Japanese had their forces split between two fronts: North China, and around Nanjing (Nanking). Given its importance, Wuhan (*Hankow* on the map) was the next sensible strategic goal. The thinking was that if a spectacular victory was achieved here, by crushing the bulk of Chinese fighting power, Japan can effectively end the war in China. There are two main approaches to Wuhan: from the east up the Yangtze, or from the north along the [Peking–Hankow Railway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing%E2%80%93Hankou_Railway). The former was chosen, with a link-up in Xuzhou (Suchow) first, for a few reasons:
* Now that Nanjing was taken, the Yangtze approach was faster; in order to attack from the north, [Zhengzhou (Chengchow)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhengzhou) would have to be taken first, which didn't happen until [Ichi-Go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go) in 1944.
* For such an important target, it would make sense to link up their armies to support each other rather than for the army in Nanjing to attack alone. Xuzhou was the best place to do so, given that it can be attacked from the north and south, along the [Tientsin-Pukou (JinPu) railway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin%E2%80%93Pukou_Railway), which is what happened since Chinese resistance proved stronger than anticipated.
According to *Wuhan, 1938: War, Refugees, and the Making of Modern China* by Stephen R. MacKinnon, linking up at Xuzhou and attacking Wuhan together was the plan:
>
> In January 1938 the Japanese plan was to connect large units from the North China Area Army (under Generals Itagaki Seishiro, Nishio Toshizo, and Isogai Rensuke) with the Eleventh Army (the Central China Expeditionary Force) under General Hata Shunroku, which was headquartered in Nanjing. Units of the North China Area Army began moving south along the JinPu railway from Jinan, and units under General Hata began moving north up the JinPu railway from Nanjing. Once united at Xuzhou, according to the plan, the two armies would launch a coordinated attack in a pincer movement from the north and east on central Yangzi valley strongholds, taking Jiujiang first and then Wuhan. Success by the end of March seemed assured—a success that seemed certain to break the back of United Front resistance under Chiang Kaishek.
>
>
>
On the Chinese side, the link-up was foreseen and a decision was made to reinforce Xuzhou and delay the Japanese:
>
> At this point, the war council that Chiang convened at the end of January in Wuchang made an important decision: to go all out in committing troops to the defense of Xuzhou, the key strategic city at the junction of the Longhai and JinPu railroads. In retrospect, this decision was perhaps the most important one of the war, because the effectiveness of the Chinese resistance around Xuzhou tied down and embarrassed the Japanese, forcing them to rush reinforcements from Manchuria (under General Doihara Kenji) and Nanjing. Both these deployments seriously delayed previously planned campaigns to the west and north from Taiyuan and up the Yangzi from Nanjing. ...
>
>
> Recognizing the strategic importance of holding on to Xuzhou, the Chinese military leadership began in January to prepare for its defense. From a core of eighty thousand troops, which Li Zongren commanded at headquarters at Xuzhou, the number swelled to about three hundred thousand, with the import of troops from scattered units positioned along the JinPu or Longhai railway lines. ... This tactic was effective. The battle for Xuzhou raged for five months, with both sides taking heavy casualties and claiming victories.
>
>
>
It's worth noting that, compared to modern Western armies, the Chinese and—to a lesser extent—Japanese had low mobility, with the Chinese armies almost completely reliant on forced marches. This magnified the importance of rail and the few junctions like Xuzhou. | Middle China between the Yangtze River and the Yellow River has a very wet, muddy physiography. At the time the roads between Nanking and Hankou (now called "Wuhan") were poor and water logged. Moving heavy equipment and motorized vehicles over such terrain is difficult. For this reason it made more sense to attack from the north, not the west. From the north there was better ground and a railway line to use for reinforcement. |
57,866 | Who was Jasher? Are there any historical references Jasher other than Author of a book referred in the bible? | 2017/07/16 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57866",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/37224/"
] | ***Nobody knows who the original author of the Book of Jasher was,*** although it is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 and in 2 Samuel 1:18-27. Neither has the original manuscript survived.
What we do know is that ***it was also known as the “Book of the Upright One” in the Greek Septuagint and the “Book of the Just Ones” in the Latin Vulgate***. The Book of Jasher was probably a collection or compilation of ancient Hebrew songs and poems praising the heroes of Israel and their exploits in battle. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 when the Lord stopped the sun in the middle of the day during the battle of Beth Horon. It is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18-27 as containing the Song or Lament of the Bow, that mournful funeral song which David composed at the time of the death of Saul and Jonathan.
There is a book called “The Book of Jasher” today, although it is not the same book as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is an eighteenth-century forgery that alleges to be a translation of the “lost” Book of Jasher by Alcuin, an eighth-century English scholar. There is also a more recent book titled “The Book of Jashar” by science fiction and fantasy writer Benjamin Rosenbaum. This book is a complete work of fiction.
Another book by this same name, called by many “Pseudo-Jasher,” while written in Hebrew, is also not the “Book of Jasher” mentioned in Scripture. It is a book of Jewish legends from the creation to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, but scholars hold that it did not exist before A.D. 1625. In addition, there are several other theological works by Jewish rabbis and scholars called “Sefer ha Yashar,” but ***none of these claim to be the original Book of Jasher.***
**Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article on the Sefer haYashar, or the Book of the Upright:**
>
> Sefer haYashar (ספר הישר) is a medieval Hebrew midrash, also known as the Toledot Adam and Divrei haYamim heArukh. The Hebrew title "Sefer haYashar" might be translated as the "Book of the Correct Record" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. Its author is unknown.
>
>
>
>
> The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel. Although it is presented as the original "Book of Jasher" in translations such as that of Moses Samuel (1840), it is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism, nor does the original Hebrew text make such a claim. It should not be confused with the very different Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) printed by Jacob Ilive in 1751, which was purported to have been translated by the English monk Alcuin. It should also not be confused with an ethical text by the same name, which, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 14, p. 1099, was "probably written in the 13th century."
>
>
>
>
> The Bible twice quotes from a Sefer haYashar, and this midrashic work includes text that fits both Biblical references - the reference about the Sun and Moon found in Joshua, and also the reference in 2 Samuel (in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint) to teaching the Sons of Judah to fight with the bow. This appears in Jasher 56:9 among the last words of Jacob to his son Judah: Only teach thy sons the bow and all weapons of war, in order that they may fight the battles of their brother who will rule over his enemies. (MCR)
>
>
>
>
> But the book as a whole was written much later - as shown by chapter 10, covering the descendants of Noah, but containing medieval names for territories and countries, most obviously Franza for France and Lumbardi in Italia for Lombardy. The text of this chapter closely follows the beginning of Josippon, a tenth-century rabbinic text that lists the various peoples living in Europe in ca. 950. Source: [Sefer haYashar (midrash)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_(midrash))
>
>
>
Based on the Hebrew used and other indicators, it seems that this work was written in Naples in the early 16th century, probably by a Jew who lived in Spain or southern Italy. Nothing is known of the man who wrote the original book of Jasher, possibly some 4,000 years ago. | ### Who was Jasher?
The scripture in question is:
>
> "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in *the book of Jasher*? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."-Joshua 10:13 (NWT) [italics mine]
>
>
>
According to the Benson Commentary:
>
> It was probably a collection of records, or of poems, concerning the principal events of these wars, and no doubt gave a further account of this miracle. But this and some other books of these ages have long been lost, not being canonical, and therefore not preserved by the Jews with the same care wherewith they guarded their inspired writings.
>
>
>
Within the Scriptures, there are other references to books or scrolls that are not part of the Bible canon.
A ["Questions From Readers"](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009207) published in the Watchtower March 15, 2009 gives some additional information. |
24,931 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/R5h4t.jpg)
We can't remember what type of basil this is. We've been growing it in an aquaponic setup. The leaves have started to grow really large and they are quite a deep green colour. It's got quite a fragrant smell. It's not purple at all (only slightly so on the larger, thicker stems) and we've never let it flower (we always harvest it).
It's not hairy on the stem or leaves. It grows with a grow light and directly in water (from cuttings) and we're not sure if that changes the flatness of the leaves. | 2016/05/21 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/24931",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/14759/"
] | I believe it is Blue African Basil, Ocimum kilimandscharicum x basilicum.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_blue_basil> | To me this looks like [Ocimum gratissimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocimum_gratissimum). Also known as 'Rama Tulsi' in India.
See images here - [Rama Tulsi](https://www.google.co.in/search?q=rama%20tulsi&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIN808IN808&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbl87fj-3eAhVVT30KHR8TAYEQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=LOBOQfGPL5i9tM:)
Its a kind of basil. |
12,379 | I notice a lot of 'money for good behaviour'-type development question for kids here, and the main argument is some permutation of 'giving money for good behaviour does not help develop intrinsic motivation'. I also noticed a lot of 'moderate( ie. limit duration ) video gaming'-type questions too. The two led me to creating this question.
I grew up on video games, RPG's mostly, and I can honestly say that my intrinsic motivations come largely from video games.
"I'll never give up!" - is a hallmark of any video game protagonist.
"I can do even better!" - is also characteristic of protagonist and comes naturally from levelling up and what not.
It all depends on the games they play; I learned a lot of math from my games and even managing funds and about saving money from RollerCoaster Tycoon.
There's value in video games, so should it be moderated( ie. limited in duration )? I'm leaning more towards "supervised". | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/12379",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/7583/"
] | I'm a fellow gamer, have been since I was 6 years old. I've played shooters when I was 8 (NES), violent bloody 3D shooters like Duke or Quake when I was 10, mature-language, violent and also bloody fallout when I was 12, and hundreds of various pegi-18 games after those. I'm not a murderer, I'm not particularily violent, I've never tortured an animal, etc etc. In general - I think I turned out fine.
In spite of all that, I'm going to pay attention to what my children play and how they do it. In case there's a hint of excess aggression or any other game-inspired negative behavior.
**So definitely supervise**. Try to play with your kid and try to "point" him in the right direction, which is working on improving your skill in a particular game and not reacting negatively.
**Whenever you feel it is necessary, react**. And moderate. It's your right to do so and it's better to be safe than sorry.
If by moderated you mean limited in duration, then I think that it should be done. Mainly because small children will spend all of their time playing, completely neglecting any chores, homework, playing outside with friends - virtually neglecting everything else. Some people let children play only on weekends.
*personal thoughts, no real scientifical justification:*
I'm a strong supporter of a strong distinction between computer game world and a real world. Ten or twenty years back the distinction was pretty strong with "bad" graphics and all, but now the border between real and game world is getting blurrier and blurrier. Make sure your child plays games which are clearly "not true". The world has to be totally different, sci-fi, fantasy, cartoon-like - so that there's no confusion between reality and virtual reality. I will not permit my kids to play games like GTA, Call of Duty or Battlefield simply because they look much too realistic. Where there's a strong unrealistic setting (Quake, Skyrim, Jedi series) there's no confusion and I think these games are safer to play. | **Yes, you should limit video game time.**
I would assume your goal as a parent is to make your child self sufficient, and that you don't have plans to support your child forever. (**Note**: If you are independently wealthy and your children are going to inherit a substantial trust fund, this advice doesn't apply.) Video games as well as other forms of amusement would dominant the majority of most people's time if all of our needs were being provided for by somebody else, which is likely the case in a parent-child relationship.
If your child likes to play video games, you can encourage good behavior around the house by requiring all chores, homework, etc. are finished before they are allowed to play. Additionally, you might introduce them to [Scratch](http://scratch.mit.edu/), Basic or Excel programming, [Raspberry Pi](http://www.raspberrypi.org/) or other programming tools that can develop a child's love of games into a useful skill. |
8,648,024 | I am looking to build a ios application that will use an auto-renewable subscription on a monthly biases. We will be using some VOIP features that we will be charged monthly for. My question is, how can we be notified when a user cancels a subscription in IOS, so that we can cancel the users VOIP telephone number with our provider. | 2011/12/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8648024",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1116507/"
] | You will need to verify the receipt the same way you do for regular In App Purchases, but obviously you will do this every time the subscription period expires. Check out the documentation on this, [Verifying an Auto-renewable Subscription Receipt](http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/RenewableSubscriptions/RenewableSubscriptions.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267-CH4-SW5)
So based on this, it appears you will need to setup your server to check for a valid subscription every month (cron job?). This will allow you to cancel the VOIP number in your system if the subscription is no longer valid. Your app would be responsible for verifying a subscription is still valid when it is opened or the user attempts to access features that require a subscription.
**Updated For Comment**
The sandbox is supposed to return expiration dates in the following scheme.
This is from page 164 of the [iTunes Connect Developer Guide](https://itunesconnect.apple.com/docs/iTunesConnect_DeveloperGuide.pdf)
If it is not working this way you may want to file a bug report. | Also, please not the following from Apples IAP doc:
Additionally, a sandbox subscription will only autorenew a maximum of 6 times. After the subscription has auto-renewed 6 times, it will no longer renew in the sandbox. |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | Much of the idea of "a universe emerging from nothing" relies on a naive sense of how time should behave. In [a recent work by Yasunori Nomura](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5550v2.pdf), he describes how the multiverse can be viewed as intrinsically static. The waveform of the multiverse is completely stationary with no evolution.
He describes that the concept of "time" (and related notions of causality) are tied up with the concept of ordered vs. disordered states (look at the chair example on page 8). The entire multiverse as a whole doesn't need to evolve, only the probabilities within a single universe. | As of right now, there is no physical theory able to demonstrate the creation of universe out of nothing; even worse, there is no theory able to pass before the big bang (if there is anything or nothing there). The general relativity gives a very mathematical solution to the question, in terms of existence of solutions to the Einstein's equation; but that hardly provides any physical insight. However, there is hope, that String theory can surpass the difficulties raised by the singularities (in the General Relativistic sense of the word) at the big bang and go before that. But even if that happens and String theory provides some descriptions for the universe before the big bang, the issue of going back in time, until some beginning or something, will remain as puzzling unless String theory has more interesting things to say.
As a very amateur and very patient physicist, I believe we have to wait for the new ideas about spacetime (including the "emergent spacetime" notions, that are supported by the String theoretic investigations) to become more mature and hopefully then we will have our knives sharpened enough to analyse the difficult problems concerning the creation/existence of the universe. |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | The answer crucially depends on what is meant by *nothing*. From the philosopher's *nothing*, nothing comes.
But the physicist's *nothing* is *something*, i.e., there is at least physical law and whatever obeys it.
For example, matter and anti-matter can materialize from the "vacuum" and, in some sense, this is something (matter) from nothing (no matter). But this presupposes the existence of quantum fields and the laws that govern them.
So, your question is actually far more subtle (and ancient) than you might grasp at this moment. | As of right now, there is no physical theory able to demonstrate the creation of universe out of nothing; even worse, there is no theory able to pass before the big bang (if there is anything or nothing there). The general relativity gives a very mathematical solution to the question, in terms of existence of solutions to the Einstein's equation; but that hardly provides any physical insight. However, there is hope, that String theory can surpass the difficulties raised by the singularities (in the General Relativistic sense of the word) at the big bang and go before that. But even if that happens and String theory provides some descriptions for the universe before the big bang, the issue of going back in time, until some beginning or something, will remain as puzzling unless String theory has more interesting things to say.
As a very amateur and very patient physicist, I believe we have to wait for the new ideas about spacetime (including the "emergent spacetime" notions, that are supported by the String theoretic investigations) to become more mature and hopefully then we will have our knives sharpened enough to analyse the difficult problems concerning the creation/existence of the universe. |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | The answer crucially depends on what is meant by *nothing*. From the philosopher's *nothing*, nothing comes.
But the physicist's *nothing* is *something*, i.e., there is at least physical law and whatever obeys it.
For example, matter and anti-matter can materialize from the "vacuum" and, in some sense, this is something (matter) from nothing (no matter). But this presupposes the existence of quantum fields and the laws that govern them.
So, your question is actually far more subtle (and ancient) than you might grasp at this moment. | You say that
>
> If so, then what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
>
>
>
then you say that
>
> Yes, I've watched the lecture by Lawrence Krauss
>
>
>
My point is that if you watch even one of his full lectures on this
topic like [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc) one, you would have your answer.
>
> then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing?
>
>
>
The answer to above is YES as already summarised by @juanrga
As Prof.Krauss says not only matter even space-time itself *can* pop up into existence
if we mix gravity with quantum mechanics |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | The answer crucially depends on what is meant by *nothing*. From the philosopher's *nothing*, nothing comes.
But the physicist's *nothing* is *something*, i.e., there is at least physical law and whatever obeys it.
For example, matter and anti-matter can materialize from the "vacuum" and, in some sense, this is something (matter) from nothing (no matter). But this presupposes the existence of quantum fields and the laws that govern them.
So, your question is actually far more subtle (and ancient) than you might grasp at this moment. | It is possible albeit speculative. This is the free-lunch cosmology model. In such model it is supposed that the positive energy of the matter is compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational 'field' to give total zero energy. |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | The answer crucially depends on what is meant by *nothing*. From the philosopher's *nothing*, nothing comes.
But the physicist's *nothing* is *something*, i.e., there is at least physical law and whatever obeys it.
For example, matter and anti-matter can materialize from the "vacuum" and, in some sense, this is something (matter) from nothing (no matter). But this presupposes the existence of quantum fields and the laws that govern them.
So, your question is actually far more subtle (and ancient) than you might grasp at this moment. | No. The Friedmann equation says that the fractional expansion rate grows with energy density. If the energy density were really zero and there were no curvature, then the universe (or the lack thereof) would simply sit still.
Quantum fluctuations (antimatter + matter annihilations) of the vacuum are not zero energy. In fact, they act like a cosmological constant or dark energy. One of the mysteries of modern physics is why the vacuum energy is so much smaller than what we expect. If we set the planck length as the UV cutoff scale, the vacuum energy would be roughly 120 orders of magnitude denser than the observed amount of dark energy. So there must be something (a symmetry, holography, etc) that reduces this to within observation constraints. |
39,595 | If the [Universe is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe) and the total energy of the universe can be **zero** (we don't know if it is, but many theorists support the idea, i.e. at BB initial conditions:
**t = 0, V = 0, E = 0**) then is it possible that all matter in the universe could have emerged from nothing? If so, that what is the total energy of the matter compensated by?
Edit: Yes, I've watched the lecture by **Lawrence Krauss**, and I know about his book. Haven't read it though (I guess it's too difficult for me).
--- | 2012/10/11 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39595",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/12981/"
] | The answer crucially depends on what is meant by *nothing*. From the philosopher's *nothing*, nothing comes.
But the physicist's *nothing* is *something*, i.e., there is at least physical law and whatever obeys it.
For example, matter and anti-matter can materialize from the "vacuum" and, in some sense, this is something (matter) from nothing (no matter). But this presupposes the existence of quantum fields and the laws that govern them.
So, your question is actually far more subtle (and ancient) than you might grasp at this moment. | >
> Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
> create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there
> is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we
> exist,
>
>
>
Hawking writes.
<http://www.phenomenica.com/2010/09/hawking-god-did-not-create-universe.html>
but another question is why our universe has laws of physics? |
29,929 | I recall that some years ago the pilot of the A340'S first flight described its handling as "like riding a bicycle" (to me this would mean that as he went past his favourite bar he saw his friends inside so he propped it up against the wall to have a drink with them).
I can believe that despite its size and weight a large airliner would respond precisely to commands, but does the concept "flying by the seat of the pants" apply to such an aircraft?
Obviously experience and training will build up a great deal of intuition (visual, vestibular, etc) - what sort of bodily connection does an airline pilot experience with the aircraft? Is it markedly different from that of the pilot of a small plane? | 2016/07/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29929",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14197/"
] | As long as they are operating in VMC it's certainly possible. The difference in handling from a small aircraft are due to the difference in inertia, wing shape and consequent stall characteristics do certainly not preclude flying "by the seat of the pants".
So: possible yes. Desirable and common: probably not.
Although there are frequent calls for airline pilots to hand fly the aircraft more regularly to counteract the decrease in flying skills that is the inevitable result of increased automation, "seat of the pants" is not just hand flying: it's hand flying by reference to the visual and sensory inputs of the pilot without consideration of the flight instruments (e.g. judging the airspeed using a visual estimation of the angle of attack and how the airplane responds to small changes in input pressures, etc, instead of looking at the airspeed indicator).
I don't think it would be considered safe or even legal operating procedure for an airline pilot to completely ignore the flight instruments. It's certainly not part of any airlines SOP. | Ask Captain Al Haynes and Captain Chesley Sullenberger.
Do not ask the Asiana crew who landed short at SFO.
So the answer is: It depends on the individual crew members and their level and quality of experience. |
29,929 | I recall that some years ago the pilot of the A340'S first flight described its handling as "like riding a bicycle" (to me this would mean that as he went past his favourite bar he saw his friends inside so he propped it up against the wall to have a drink with them).
I can believe that despite its size and weight a large airliner would respond precisely to commands, but does the concept "flying by the seat of the pants" apply to such an aircraft?
Obviously experience and training will build up a great deal of intuition (visual, vestibular, etc) - what sort of bodily connection does an airline pilot experience with the aircraft? Is it markedly different from that of the pilot of a small plane? | 2016/07/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29929",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14197/"
] | >
> I can believe that despite its size and weight a large airliner would respond precisely to commands, but does the concept "flying by the seat of the pants" apply to such an aircraft?
>
>
>
The phrase "flying by the seat of the pants" is an imprecise term, and I don't have an answer for that. However, if you allow it to mean operating an aircraft in the absence of instrumentation or other capability that is normally used, or using techniques not normally used, whether you're forced to because of failure(s) or because you prefer not to use them, then here is an observation.
In the early 1990s I was flying 747-100/200 freighters. The carrier had a contract with Japan Air Lines to haul freight between Tokyo Narita and KJFK, with a crew change and refueling at Anchorage. We used a JAL call sign. JAL had their own 747-200 freighters on the route as well, more of them than our small number of aircraft. Many of their flights would have an American flight engineer who would handle the radio going into U.S. airports. Thus, the Anchorage controllers could not tell from the radio communication whether the flight had American or Japanese pilots.
One summer Anchorage took the ILS down for extended maintenance. One severe clear day during this period we were on our descent but still well out when Anchorage approach cleared us for a VOR approach. We immediately called the airport in sight and requested a visual approach, which was granted.
Curious, when we were down I called approach control on a land line and asked why we were first assigned a VOR approach. They explained that, believing our flight probably had Japanese pilots, and having had those pilots always refuse the offer of a visual approach and request a VOR approach (in spite of the additional 10 minutes of flying), approach control had simply assigned the VOR approach.
As part of our contract, we occasionally had a Japanese check captain observe us, and the next time this happened, I brought up the subject with him. He explained that their pilots were never taught to simply look at a runway and land without reference to navigational instruments, and, lacking a robust general aviation segment, their pilots simply never had experience with doing that. He added that from their standpoint, we were a bunch of cowboys. Not the exact "flying by the seat of the pants" wording, but the same sentiment.
>
> Obviously experience and training will build up a great deal of intuition (visual, vestibular, etc) - what sort of bodily connection does an airline pilot experience with the aircraft? Is it markedly different from that of the pilot of a small plane?
>
>
>
When you're flying the same airplane type day in and day out, you internalize what that aircraft can do and how it will respond. You get used to its noises and even to its vibrations if you will. And regardless of how small or how large it is, it becomes the right size, neither little nor big, especially once you're in the air. When you change airplanes, and especially if it involves a significant change in size, there is a difference.
For example, I spent the last 10 years of my career on 747-100/200 aircraft. Fifteen years after retiring, and not having been in a cockpit during that time, I went out to a local airport to check out in a Cessna 172. I knew I would have trouble with flaring too high, and I warned the instructor. My first landing was a real lesson, actually to both of us. When I said to him, "I think I should flare," he said, "you're way to high." When I said, "I've got to flare,: he said, "still too high." When I said, "I'm flaring," with the sense that if I didn't I would prang the airplane, he said, "you're still a little high, but go ahead." It took me 5 hours to check out in the airplane, most of that time for landings. | Ask Captain Al Haynes and Captain Chesley Sullenberger.
Do not ask the Asiana crew who landed short at SFO.
So the answer is: It depends on the individual crew members and their level and quality of experience. |
29,929 | I recall that some years ago the pilot of the A340'S first flight described its handling as "like riding a bicycle" (to me this would mean that as he went past his favourite bar he saw his friends inside so he propped it up against the wall to have a drink with them).
I can believe that despite its size and weight a large airliner would respond precisely to commands, but does the concept "flying by the seat of the pants" apply to such an aircraft?
Obviously experience and training will build up a great deal of intuition (visual, vestibular, etc) - what sort of bodily connection does an airline pilot experience with the aircraft? Is it markedly different from that of the pilot of a small plane? | 2016/07/09 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29929",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14197/"
] | >
> I can believe that despite its size and weight a large airliner would respond precisely to commands, but does the concept "flying by the seat of the pants" apply to such an aircraft?
>
>
>
The phrase "flying by the seat of the pants" is an imprecise term, and I don't have an answer for that. However, if you allow it to mean operating an aircraft in the absence of instrumentation or other capability that is normally used, or using techniques not normally used, whether you're forced to because of failure(s) or because you prefer not to use them, then here is an observation.
In the early 1990s I was flying 747-100/200 freighters. The carrier had a contract with Japan Air Lines to haul freight between Tokyo Narita and KJFK, with a crew change and refueling at Anchorage. We used a JAL call sign. JAL had their own 747-200 freighters on the route as well, more of them than our small number of aircraft. Many of their flights would have an American flight engineer who would handle the radio going into U.S. airports. Thus, the Anchorage controllers could not tell from the radio communication whether the flight had American or Japanese pilots.
One summer Anchorage took the ILS down for extended maintenance. One severe clear day during this period we were on our descent but still well out when Anchorage approach cleared us for a VOR approach. We immediately called the airport in sight and requested a visual approach, which was granted.
Curious, when we were down I called approach control on a land line and asked why we were first assigned a VOR approach. They explained that, believing our flight probably had Japanese pilots, and having had those pilots always refuse the offer of a visual approach and request a VOR approach (in spite of the additional 10 minutes of flying), approach control had simply assigned the VOR approach.
As part of our contract, we occasionally had a Japanese check captain observe us, and the next time this happened, I brought up the subject with him. He explained that their pilots were never taught to simply look at a runway and land without reference to navigational instruments, and, lacking a robust general aviation segment, their pilots simply never had experience with doing that. He added that from their standpoint, we were a bunch of cowboys. Not the exact "flying by the seat of the pants" wording, but the same sentiment.
>
> Obviously experience and training will build up a great deal of intuition (visual, vestibular, etc) - what sort of bodily connection does an airline pilot experience with the aircraft? Is it markedly different from that of the pilot of a small plane?
>
>
>
When you're flying the same airplane type day in and day out, you internalize what that aircraft can do and how it will respond. You get used to its noises and even to its vibrations if you will. And regardless of how small or how large it is, it becomes the right size, neither little nor big, especially once you're in the air. When you change airplanes, and especially if it involves a significant change in size, there is a difference.
For example, I spent the last 10 years of my career on 747-100/200 aircraft. Fifteen years after retiring, and not having been in a cockpit during that time, I went out to a local airport to check out in a Cessna 172. I knew I would have trouble with flaring too high, and I warned the instructor. My first landing was a real lesson, actually to both of us. When I said to him, "I think I should flare," he said, "you're way to high." When I said, "I've got to flare,: he said, "still too high." When I said, "I'm flaring," with the sense that if I didn't I would prang the airplane, he said, "you're still a little high, but go ahead." It took me 5 hours to check out in the airplane, most of that time for landings. | As long as they are operating in VMC it's certainly possible. The difference in handling from a small aircraft are due to the difference in inertia, wing shape and consequent stall characteristics do certainly not preclude flying "by the seat of the pants".
So: possible yes. Desirable and common: probably not.
Although there are frequent calls for airline pilots to hand fly the aircraft more regularly to counteract the decrease in flying skills that is the inevitable result of increased automation, "seat of the pants" is not just hand flying: it's hand flying by reference to the visual and sensory inputs of the pilot without consideration of the flight instruments (e.g. judging the airspeed using a visual estimation of the angle of attack and how the airplane responds to small changes in input pressures, etc, instead of looking at the airspeed indicator).
I don't think it would be considered safe or even legal operating procedure for an airline pilot to completely ignore the flight instruments. It's certainly not part of any airlines SOP. |
11,768,895 | I am looking into doing development for BlackBerry, but I am confused about a few things. Maybe someone here can clear them up:
* Is it possible to build a "Universal" app that runs on both Playbook and BB10?
* Using the Java IDE, will I be able to use all the native SDK's? Or, do I need to use the Native C IDE for this?
* Is using Eclipse the best chose for BlackBerry Java development? | 2012/08/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11768895",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/144695/"
] | 1. Certainly, especially once the PlayBook is updated to BB10 which will happen after BB10 officially launches in 2013, since then they'll be running the same OS. For now, you could use AIR (as Alexander points out) and also WebWorks, and for that matter the Native SDK works fine too. You could also use the regular Qt libraries, which run fine on both the Dev Alpha device (only existing hardware that runs BB10) and the PlayBook.
2. As Shashank's comment says, there is no Java support except for what the Android runtime provides you. RIM is clearly trying to make all the supported SDKs allow as complete access to the entire OS as possible, but note that in the end *only* the Native SDK (C/C++) will provide *full* access to everything. The gaps that the others have may be relatively narrow, however, with rarely used APIs being the only things not supported.
3. Given that Java is used only for the legacy BBOS development (aside from the Android runtime) I suspect the question is moot. Note however that Eclipse is the basis for the Momentics IDE which is the included IDE for the Native and Cascades SDKs. | A "universal app" for Playbook and BB10 would be possible [in AIR](https://developer.blackberry.com/air/). |
419,672 | This question is specifically about Schrödinger quantum mechanics, but if an answer in some other mode would illuminate it could be acceptable, as demonstrating a physical or mathematical reason for added axioms.
In short - since the p-orbital has rotational symmetry about only one axis, but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context. However, the dimension of the solution space for the given energy, that is, the eigenspace for the given eigenvalue is presumably exactly three. One can use three axial p-orbitals to span the whole eigenspace.
Thus the exclusion principle for fermions seems to be that there are at most the dimension of the eigenspace number of particles in an eigenspace rather than 1 particle in an orbital, if an orbital is taken as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
Can anyone confirm or deny this line of reasoning? And provide a reference to explicit statement in the literature? | 2018/07/27 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/419672",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/200377/"
] | >
> … if an answer in some other mode would illuminate it could be acceptable, as demonstrating a physical or mathematical reason for added axioms.
>
>
>
There is a reason from chemistry which I want to discuss. Perhaps you know, that the observation of [Methane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) and other chemical compounds led [Linus Pauling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling) to the concept of [$sp^x$-hybridisations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation). The Carbon in Methane has 2 electrons in the s-subshell (to talk about orbitals is common but I think not precise because nothing is rotating nor moving) and 2 electrons in the p-subshells. But in the compound with the electrons from 4 Hydrogen atoms it was observed a tetrahedral structure:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EBGfwm.jpg)
So these observations show that in compounds the electrons from s- and p-subshells behave in the same manner, they are indistinguishable.
The more interesting point is the fact that the subshells are calculated from [spherical harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics) and for Euclidean coordinates. What was calculated is something like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/74Sggm.jpg)
But would it be possible to calculate some spherical harmonics with a tetrahedral structure? The answer is clearly yes:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aAnU.jpg)
(From the [visualization of spherical harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics#Visualization_of_the_spherical_harmonics))
There are 8 equally distributed directions with positive and negative signs. Please pay attention to the fact that around every positive area are exactly 3 negative areas and on the corners are exactly 3 positive areas. The same in analogy holds of course for the all negative areas. If interprete the signs as the direction of magnetic dipoles one get 8 electrons in perfect equilibration and this is an amazing model of the Neon atom.
>
> In short - since the p-orbital has rotational symmetry about only one axis, but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context.
>
>
>
Science is a mix of learned knowledge and thinking of unthinkable. Your statement gives the thinking a new impulse but will be meet with resistance.
All images from Wikipedia. | >
> but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context.
>
>
>
When the Hamiltonian has a symmetry, the solution does not need to be invariant under the same symmetry. But it has to obey certain transformational properties under the group action. Mathematically speaking, a symmetry is a group action, and the solutions of a symmetric Hamiltonian are representations of the group. Any representation of a group can be written as a sum of irreducible representation of the group. |
419,672 | This question is specifically about Schrödinger quantum mechanics, but if an answer in some other mode would illuminate it could be acceptable, as demonstrating a physical or mathematical reason for added axioms.
In short - since the p-orbital has rotational symmetry about only one axis, but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context. However, the dimension of the solution space for the given energy, that is, the eigenspace for the given eigenvalue is presumably exactly three. One can use three axial p-orbitals to span the whole eigenspace.
Thus the exclusion principle for fermions seems to be that there are at most the dimension of the eigenspace number of particles in an eigenspace rather than 1 particle in an orbital, if an orbital is taken as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
Can anyone confirm or deny this line of reasoning? And provide a reference to explicit statement in the literature? | 2018/07/27 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/419672",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/200377/"
] | >
> Thus the exclusion principle for fermions seems to be that there are at most the dimension of the eigenspace number of particles in an eigenspace rather than 1 particle in an orbital, if an orbital is taken as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
>
>
>
Your reasoning is correct. We don't normally frame things in this way because it is clunker than y the strictly-equivalent language of one particle per orbital in a linearly-independent set, but your description is somewhat more accurate.
The true underpinnings of this structure is the fact that multi-electron states must be antisymmetric with particle exchange; if you want to produce such a state given a set of orbitals, then you apply a procedure called antisymmetrization, and you end up with a state called a Slater determinant. If you start with more electrons than the dimension of the space spanned by your orbitals, then the Slater determinant will vanish.
Furthermore, as you correctly note, what really matters in a multi-electron state is strictly the subspace spanned by the constituent orbitals, and *not* the specific choice of orbitals as a basis for that subspace. For more on that, see [Are orbitals observable physical quantities in a many-electron setting?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224836/are-orbitals-observable-physical-quantities-in-a-many-electron-setting).
More generally, the passage from the naive Pauli exclusion principle to the fully-grown version in terms of antisymmetrized Slater determinants is treated at length in any atomic physics textbook; if you want something specific I'll recommend Haken and Wolf's *The physics of atoms and quanta*, but any textbook should do. | >
> but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context.
>
>
>
When the Hamiltonian has a symmetry, the solution does not need to be invariant under the same symmetry. But it has to obey certain transformational properties under the group action. Mathematically speaking, a symmetry is a group action, and the solutions of a symmetric Hamiltonian are representations of the group. Any representation of a group can be written as a sum of irreducible representation of the group. |
419,672 | This question is specifically about Schrödinger quantum mechanics, but if an answer in some other mode would illuminate it could be acceptable, as demonstrating a physical or mathematical reason for added axioms.
In short - since the p-orbital has rotational symmetry about only one axis, but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context. However, the dimension of the solution space for the given energy, that is, the eigenspace for the given eigenvalue is presumably exactly three. One can use three axial p-orbitals to span the whole eigenspace.
Thus the exclusion principle for fermions seems to be that there are at most the dimension of the eigenspace number of particles in an eigenspace rather than 1 particle in an orbital, if an orbital is taken as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
Can anyone confirm or deny this line of reasoning? And provide a reference to explicit statement in the literature? | 2018/07/27 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/419672",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/200377/"
] | >
> Thus the exclusion principle for fermions seems to be that there are at most the dimension of the eigenspace number of particles in an eigenspace rather than 1 particle in an orbital, if an orbital is taken as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
>
>
>
Your reasoning is correct. We don't normally frame things in this way because it is clunker than y the strictly-equivalent language of one particle per orbital in a linearly-independent set, but your description is somewhat more accurate.
The true underpinnings of this structure is the fact that multi-electron states must be antisymmetric with particle exchange; if you want to produce such a state given a set of orbitals, then you apply a procedure called antisymmetrization, and you end up with a state called a Slater determinant. If you start with more electrons than the dimension of the space spanned by your orbitals, then the Slater determinant will vanish.
Furthermore, as you correctly note, what really matters in a multi-electron state is strictly the subspace spanned by the constituent orbitals, and *not* the specific choice of orbitals as a basis for that subspace. For more on that, see [Are orbitals observable physical quantities in a many-electron setting?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224836/are-orbitals-observable-physical-quantities-in-a-many-electron-setting).
More generally, the passage from the naive Pauli exclusion principle to the fully-grown version in terms of antisymmetrized Slater determinants is treated at length in any atomic physics textbook; if you want something specific I'll recommend Haken and Wolf's *The physics of atoms and quanta*, but any textbook should do. | >
> … if an answer in some other mode would illuminate it could be acceptable, as demonstrating a physical or mathematical reason for added axioms.
>
>
>
There is a reason from chemistry which I want to discuss. Perhaps you know, that the observation of [Methane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) and other chemical compounds led [Linus Pauling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling) to the concept of [$sp^x$-hybridisations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation). The Carbon in Methane has 2 electrons in the s-subshell (to talk about orbitals is common but I think not precise because nothing is rotating nor moving) and 2 electrons in the p-subshells. But in the compound with the electrons from 4 Hydrogen atoms it was observed a tetrahedral structure:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EBGfwm.jpg)
So these observations show that in compounds the electrons from s- and p-subshells behave in the same manner, they are indistinguishable.
The more interesting point is the fact that the subshells are calculated from [spherical harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics) and for Euclidean coordinates. What was calculated is something like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/74Sggm.jpg)
But would it be possible to calculate some spherical harmonics with a tetrahedral structure? The answer is clearly yes:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aAnU.jpg)
(From the [visualization of spherical harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics#Visualization_of_the_spherical_harmonics))
There are 8 equally distributed directions with positive and negative signs. Please pay attention to the fact that around every positive area are exactly 3 negative areas and on the corners are exactly 3 positive areas. The same in analogy holds of course for the all negative areas. If interprete the signs as the direction of magnetic dipoles one get 8 electrons in perfect equilibration and this is an amazing model of the Neon atom.
>
> In short - since the p-orbital has rotational symmetry about only one axis, but the potential of a point charge has spherical symmetry, a specific solution corresponding to a p-orbital should also be a solution when arbitrarily rotated. That means there is an infinite number of p-orbital solutions in this context.
>
>
>
Science is a mix of learned knowledge and thinking of unthinkable. Your statement gives the thinking a new impulse but will be meet with resistance.
All images from Wikipedia. |
98 | I haven't been able to find any reliable recipes or even rules-of-thumb when deciding the amount of sugar to juice ration in cider and perry.
I'd like to know some approximations for sweet and dry versions. | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/83/"
] | The amount of sugar isn't going to change the output sweet/dry result much. Most yeasts used for cider will completely ferment out ALL of the sugar they're given access to. That means that the addition of more sugar than what's in the apple juice originally is for additional alcohol and any flavor the non-fermentable bits of the sugars leave behind.
For instance, honey and brown sugar will completely ferment out, but leave some interesting flavors behind. However, most of the yeasts will eat it all, resulting in dry cider.
Sweet ciders are usually achieved by either using a yeast that specifically is a bit lazy or by backsweetening. An example of a lazy yeast is "Sweet Mead" yeast, which will leave a bit of sugar behind when they're completely done.
For backsweetening, it's a bit trickier because you have to stop the yeast activity and add some sugar. Chemical or heat pasteurization is a sure bet, and cold-crashing can work, but the yeast are still slightly active and they'll return in full force if the liquid warms up.
To that more "inert" liquid, you add sugar or apple juice concentrate and you'll get some sweetness. That's what the sweet commercial ciders, like Woodchuck do.
That can be a problem if you want to bottle condition/carbonate because you want live yeast to eat sugar to carbonate, but you want them to leave your backsweetening sugar alone, which doesn't exactly work. | I find that nearly whatever I ferment, wine, apples, peaches, pears, cherries... That starting with one lb:gallon is always a fair bet. I have had good success with up to 8lbs:gallon for sweeter concoctions. I am a fan of champagne yeast, but I also like to ferment high octane drinks. I might start with a lower tolerance yeast, but a little high tolerance yeast to finish the fermentation and very it out a bit works for me.
If it is too dry, wine and cider are very forgiving. Just add more sugar and let it sit again. What is the rush? :) |
98 | I haven't been able to find any reliable recipes or even rules-of-thumb when deciding the amount of sugar to juice ration in cider and perry.
I'd like to know some approximations for sweet and dry versions. | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/83/"
] | The amount of sugar isn't going to change the output sweet/dry result much. Most yeasts used for cider will completely ferment out ALL of the sugar they're given access to. That means that the addition of more sugar than what's in the apple juice originally is for additional alcohol and any flavor the non-fermentable bits of the sugars leave behind.
For instance, honey and brown sugar will completely ferment out, but leave some interesting flavors behind. However, most of the yeasts will eat it all, resulting in dry cider.
Sweet ciders are usually achieved by either using a yeast that specifically is a bit lazy or by backsweetening. An example of a lazy yeast is "Sweet Mead" yeast, which will leave a bit of sugar behind when they're completely done.
For backsweetening, it's a bit trickier because you have to stop the yeast activity and add some sugar. Chemical or heat pasteurization is a sure bet, and cold-crashing can work, but the yeast are still slightly active and they'll return in full force if the liquid warms up.
To that more "inert" liquid, you add sugar or apple juice concentrate and you'll get some sweetness. That's what the sweet commercial ciders, like Woodchuck do.
That can be a problem if you want to bottle condition/carbonate because you want live yeast to eat sugar to carbonate, but you want them to leave your backsweetening sugar alone, which doesn't exactly work. | 2 pounds of white sugar per 3 gallons of apple juice will give you a hard cider that's approximately 8% to 9% ABV. That's what you'd get from a "pop" wine like Boone's Farm but it makes a great, very dry cider with about twice the "oomph" you'd get from commercial stuff.
Before bottling, I pour in a can of defrosted apple juice concentrate per 3 gallons, give it a gentle stir, let it mingle for about 5 minutes, and then bottle.
Within 2-3 weeks, you've got a perfectly carbonated hard cider.
Haven't had a bad batch in the 5 years I've been doing it. |
98 | I haven't been able to find any reliable recipes or even rules-of-thumb when deciding the amount of sugar to juice ration in cider and perry.
I'd like to know some approximations for sweet and dry versions. | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/83/"
] | The technique I use is to pick a yeast that has a low tolerance for alcohol and the ferment will extinguish itself as the alcohol content rises above the yeast's tolerance. Whatever sugars are left over after the yeast dies off determines your sweetness.
For a "spiked" semisweet cider I add 5 pounds of brown sugar per 5 gallons of juice and ferment with White Labs English Cider yeast. The yeast tops out around 10% alcohol (!), but leaves a noticable amount of sweetness behind. The same yeast in straight juice ferments to dryness since apple juice doesn't normally have enough sugars to push the alcohol content beyond the yeast's tolerance.
Since the yeast has not been killed off by sulfites or heat, it's still available to help carbonate the cider in the bottle. Bottling agitates the mixture and aerates it somewhat which wakes up the yeast just enough to carbonate. Make sure the primary fermentation has run its full course and is fully dormant before bottling or you run the risk of exploding bottles! | I find that nearly whatever I ferment, wine, apples, peaches, pears, cherries... That starting with one lb:gallon is always a fair bet. I have had good success with up to 8lbs:gallon for sweeter concoctions. I am a fan of champagne yeast, but I also like to ferment high octane drinks. I might start with a lower tolerance yeast, but a little high tolerance yeast to finish the fermentation and very it out a bit works for me.
If it is too dry, wine and cider are very forgiving. Just add more sugar and let it sit again. What is the rush? :) |
98 | I haven't been able to find any reliable recipes or even rules-of-thumb when deciding the amount of sugar to juice ration in cider and perry.
I'd like to know some approximations for sweet and dry versions. | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/83/"
] | The technique I use is to pick a yeast that has a low tolerance for alcohol and the ferment will extinguish itself as the alcohol content rises above the yeast's tolerance. Whatever sugars are left over after the yeast dies off determines your sweetness.
For a "spiked" semisweet cider I add 5 pounds of brown sugar per 5 gallons of juice and ferment with White Labs English Cider yeast. The yeast tops out around 10% alcohol (!), but leaves a noticable amount of sweetness behind. The same yeast in straight juice ferments to dryness since apple juice doesn't normally have enough sugars to push the alcohol content beyond the yeast's tolerance.
Since the yeast has not been killed off by sulfites or heat, it's still available to help carbonate the cider in the bottle. Bottling agitates the mixture and aerates it somewhat which wakes up the yeast just enough to carbonate. Make sure the primary fermentation has run its full course and is fully dormant before bottling or you run the risk of exploding bottles! | 2 pounds of white sugar per 3 gallons of apple juice will give you a hard cider that's approximately 8% to 9% ABV. That's what you'd get from a "pop" wine like Boone's Farm but it makes a great, very dry cider with about twice the "oomph" you'd get from commercial stuff.
Before bottling, I pour in a can of defrosted apple juice concentrate per 3 gallons, give it a gentle stir, let it mingle for about 5 minutes, and then bottle.
Within 2-3 weeks, you've got a perfectly carbonated hard cider.
Haven't had a bad batch in the 5 years I've been doing it. |
98 | I haven't been able to find any reliable recipes or even rules-of-thumb when deciding the amount of sugar to juice ration in cider and perry.
I'd like to know some approximations for sweet and dry versions. | 2010/11/09 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/83/"
] | I find that nearly whatever I ferment, wine, apples, peaches, pears, cherries... That starting with one lb:gallon is always a fair bet. I have had good success with up to 8lbs:gallon for sweeter concoctions. I am a fan of champagne yeast, but I also like to ferment high octane drinks. I might start with a lower tolerance yeast, but a little high tolerance yeast to finish the fermentation and very it out a bit works for me.
If it is too dry, wine and cider are very forgiving. Just add more sugar and let it sit again. What is the rush? :) | 2 pounds of white sugar per 3 gallons of apple juice will give you a hard cider that's approximately 8% to 9% ABV. That's what you'd get from a "pop" wine like Boone's Farm but it makes a great, very dry cider with about twice the "oomph" you'd get from commercial stuff.
Before bottling, I pour in a can of defrosted apple juice concentrate per 3 gallons, give it a gentle stir, let it mingle for about 5 minutes, and then bottle.
Within 2-3 weeks, you've got a perfectly carbonated hard cider.
Haven't had a bad batch in the 5 years I've been doing it. |
150,478 | My sink trap is leaking and I need to buy a new sink trap and/or washers.
But I’m not sure which one to buy, I’ve looked around and found the SA10 and SC10 but don’t know how to tell which one I have currently to replace it.
There is nothing on the pipe to indicate which one it is.
Can anyone help me with which one I need to buy to fix the leak?
Edit: there is a photo below with where the leak is coming from highlighted in red.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5jFIb.jpg) | 2018/11/12 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/150478",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/87297/"
] | What you asked is not common practice. If the boilers are not tied together in any way, common practice and that which is acceptable is to have one common back flow preventer and a separate PRV for each boiler. There is nothing to gain by attempting to use 1 PRV to supply water to both units. | If those are combi, there's no need for expansion thank unless the heating system is quite large (usually embedded thanks can accomodate a system of up to 100L of primary water). Expansion thank on secondary circuit (DHW) are not needed because, heating water only when required, there will be no pressure build-up in no usage time.
One backflow preventor is possible (put it just after the meter), but seen the price (10€ at most) using 2 pieces will not be a big issue |
2,421 | Being a competitive soul. I'm interested in there being a winner for the Fortnightly challenge.
Ha! you exclaim, chasly would say that wouldn't he? He has a very successful question running at the moment!
It may seem that I want it for that reason. That's true but it isn't my primary motivation.
I entered into the challenge because I assumed it *was* a competition. I like competitions even if I don't win them.
**Request**
Can we be shown a score for the top three questions. It could be in terms of views, or answers, or total up-votes on question and answers (my personal favourite), or it could be some other measure.
**Note**
I realise it is a lot of work to extract the statistics and I don't want to be unreasonable. I'm not asking for the whole thing to be exhaustively analysed and typed out, just the top three. | 2015/08/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2421",
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10759/"
] | I don't see the need, but if we did do this I'd suggest just ranking by total upvotes-downvotes on all questions (maybe on answers too). This encourages quality over quantity. | I've wondered about the stats of the fortnightly challenges myself. I'd be very curious to see them, whatever they may be.
There wouldn't be any rewards obviously, other than reputation gained from questions/answers. No badges either because that requires code changes. |
2,421 | Being a competitive soul. I'm interested in there being a winner for the Fortnightly challenge.
Ha! you exclaim, chasly would say that wouldn't he? He has a very successful question running at the moment!
It may seem that I want it for that reason. That's true but it isn't my primary motivation.
I entered into the challenge because I assumed it *was* a competition. I like competitions even if I don't win them.
**Request**
Can we be shown a score for the top three questions. It could be in terms of views, or answers, or total up-votes on question and answers (my personal favourite), or it could be some other measure.
**Note**
I realise it is a lot of work to extract the statistics and I don't want to be unreasonable. I'm not asking for the whole thing to be exhaustively analysed and typed out, just the top three. | 2015/08/08 | [
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2421",
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10759/"
] | In addition to declaring a winner based on *asking* questions, I propose that we also have a winner for *answering* questions. Because a lot of the time, the answer is much more useful than the question. This could be judged based on votes, as with the questions. Pretty much just whoever gets the most upvotes for answers to questions with the challenge tag wins.
Plus, this would give people more options for participating in the challenge. If you can't think of a good question, maybe you can think of a good answer, and that's just as useful, and something for which you deserve credit. | I've wondered about the stats of the fortnightly challenges myself. I'd be very curious to see them, whatever they may be.
There wouldn't be any rewards obviously, other than reputation gained from questions/answers. No badges either because that requires code changes. |
120,677 | So the framer built the oval spa tub frame about an 1 1/2" to perhaps 2" (don't recall exact right now) too high. I told the plumber just to raise the floor where the legs will sit with solid lumber (2x4, 2x6, perhaps from a rafter beam that's about 1 1/2" thick nailed with additional plywood to make up the remaining height if needed). The plumber insisted just spraying high density insulation foam on the floor and resting the legs on the foam once it hardens. I'm afraid that the insulation spray foam will crumble to particles over time and the spa will be left being supported from the lip/ledger. Any pointers?
Thanks in advance. | 2017/08/03 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/120677",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/73861/"
] | I would definitely NOT try to support the full weight of a tub with any kind of insulation.
I would not even use lumber since it can swell or warp.
I think I would find patio blocks or bricks the right thickness or pour concrete or mortar leg supports.
Good luck! | Depending on how the tub is constructed, I always placed tarpaper, wire lath fastened with roofing nails and masonry cement under the tub. Place enough masonry cement under where the tub will set and "float it down just so the edge touches the support framing. The edge of the tub is NOT supposed to support the weight of the tub. |
5,917,111 | Trying to figure out the basic structure of a page and came across a blog that had the `data-url` attribute. What exactly does this mean? | 2011/05/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5917111",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/382906/"
] | That attribute serves to identify pages that are auto-generated by jQM. From the **[jQM docs](http://jquerymobile.com/test/docs/pages/docs-navmodel.html)**:
>
> ...Pages that are auto-generated by
> plugins use the following special
> data-url structure: <div
> data-url="page.html&subpageidentifier">
>
>
> So, for example, a page generated by
> the listview plugin may have an
> data-url attribute like this:
> data-url="artists.html&ui-page=listview-1"
>
>
> When a page is requested, jQuery
> Mobile knows to split the URL at
> "&ui-page" and make an HTTP request to
> the portion of the URL before that
> key. In the case of the listview
> example mentioned above, the URL would
> look like this:
> <http://example.com/artists.html&ui-page=listview-1>
> ...and jQuery Mobile would request
> artists.html, which would then
> generate its sub-pages, creating the
> div with
> data-url="artists.html&ui-page=listview-1",
> which it will then display as the
> active page.
>
>
> Note that the data-url attribute of
> the element contains the full URL
> path, not just the portion after
> &ui-page=. This allows jQuery Mobile
> to use a single consistent mechanism
> that matches URLs to page data-url
> attributes.
>
>
> | The data-url attribute also serves to update the hash when using redirects or linking to directories. Check out the [Redirects and linking to directories](http://jquerymobile.com/demos/1.1.0/docs/pages/page-links.html) section. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | I haven't seen proof but this isn't plausible to me.
The way to make mayo last longer is to make it more acidic- per [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2746/making-longer-life-homemade-mayonnaise). Notice that many recipes call for mayo to rest at room temp for an hour or two to let the high acid kill salmonella before it is refrigerated.
Vinegar or lemon juice are usually used in Mayo and they have pH levels of around 2-3. Whey acidity varies depending on how long the yogurt fermented but can be as high as 4-5.
Federal guidelines recommend mayo be [at or below](http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Mayonnaise.html) a pH of 4.1 to be safe for longer periods.
Whey just won't be acidic enough to make your mayo last longer.
There aren't any secret, bacteria inhibiting, ingredients in whey. On the contrary it is very nutritious with a lot of sugar, vitamin B, and potentially protein and fat. | This is wrong. There is no food safety rule saying that mixing yogurt into mayonnaise will make it magically shelf stable. Even though there might be some factual reduction in bacterial growth, it is not enough to assume any change to the usual holding time.
I can imagine two sources for the confusion. First, if you add acid to mayonnaise, you can prevent Salmonella growth. But first, you cannot achieve that with yogurt, because the target pH is 3 point something and pure yogurt has over 4. Second, once you have added enough acid to reach that pH, your mayonnaise will have a completely different taste, predominantly sour. Third, it is salmonela-specific. There are certainly other bacteria which will be affected, but it won't be all of them. You will have simply made the risk comparable to that of other cooked foods without raw eggs, not to that of preserved food.
The second possibility is that she thinks it will behave like cultured dairy. If an opened container of yogurt doesn't get mold, it is likely to be OK to consume after several weeks (although, if it is homemade yogurt with live culture, it will reek by that time, especially if you used thermophilic cultures). But mayonnaise is not milk, and won't turn into yogurt when seeded with culture. Its risks are not reduced at all.
Once we are over that explanation, I can encourage you to mix yogurt with mayonnaise if you have never done it before. It results in very tasty sauces and dips, and you can experiment with the ratios as much as you like. Other soft dairy products such as quark, creme fraiche, and so on, are also excellent for a mix. It is the only good way to answer the "how it will change the taste" part. But please, when it comes to safety/shelf life, treat all these mixtures as standard mayonnaise. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | This is generally referred to as "lacto-fermented" mayonnaise. The whey is assumed to have active bacteria, and most recipes insist on a room temperature rest for at least several hours. During this time, I suppose the assumption is that the bacteria from the whey will ferment and produce sufficient acidity to act as a preservative (as in sauerkraut or something).
The idea is not completely without merit. As discussed in my answer to [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33212/15018), there is a well-documented and validated food science procedure for killing off harmful bacteria in homemade mayonnaise, which involves sufficient acid content and a rest at room temperature before refrigeration. Mayonnaise that follows this advice should be roughly as shelf-stable as commercial mayonnaise, and its acidity will make it a poor growth medium for most harmful bacteria. It will generally deteriorate in quality not due to spoilage bacteria, but due to oils going rancid and other such processes that will degrade texture and flavor over a period of weeks.
On the other hand, **I have serious doubts that a few hours at room temperature with a tablespoon of whey is going to produce a consistent level of acidity to ensure safety and longer preservation**. You simply don't know the bacteria count and activity in the whey, how well it may grow (if at all) in the mayonnaise, and how much it will lower the pH. (In a quick search, I couldn't find comparable food science research on using lactofermentation to achieve safe homemade mayo, but it may be out there. It sounds implausible to me, not least because of the lack of sufficient food in mayo for the lactic fermentation to produce a lot of acidity.)
If you want to make safe homemade mayo, you need sufficient acidity. Usually that comes from lemon juice or vinegar. It's that simple. And with adequate acidity, it will likely have a reasonable shelf life of more than just a few days. There is further advice and thoughts on that issue [in another question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2746/15018). But I would not recommend this whey-based technique to ensure food safety.
**EDIT:** Despite the huge number of recipes online for lacto-fermented mayonnaise, I've been unable to find any reputable food scientist vouching for even the possibility of significant fermentation occurring in mayonnaise. Nobody reputable even discusses it (probably since, as I said above, it doesn't make a lot of sense). Anyhow, I did manage to find this, in a [list of fermentation "myths"](https://www.facebook.com/notes/wild-fermentation/mythbusters-wild-fermentation-edition-/10152528275575369) maintained by a prominent fermentation Facebook group:
>
> MYTH: Mayonnaise can be fermented by adding a bit of whey or
> sauerkraut juice and letting it sit on the counter for [x] hours.
>
>
> FACT: Oil cannot be fermented, and mayonnaise is primarily oil with a
> small amount of egg yolk emulsified into it. All bacteria have an
> absolute moisture threshold necessary for their survival and function,
> which mayonnaise doesn't provide. . . . The amount of moisture that is available for use is called
> the Water Activity level, or aW. Pure water has an aW of 1.0. Lactic
> acid bacteria require a minimum aW of 0.94, but not much activity will
> occur below 0.95 and a level closer to 1.0 is needed for vigorous
> growth. Mayonnaise has an aW of 0.93 or lower. . . .
>
>
>
I wouldn't say this qualifies as a reputable source for food science (and I haven't checked the facts), but the reasoning is plausible, as bacteria simply don't grow well in mayonnaise. If anyone can find any better food science on topic, I'd be interested. | This is wrong. There is no food safety rule saying that mixing yogurt into mayonnaise will make it magically shelf stable. Even though there might be some factual reduction in bacterial growth, it is not enough to assume any change to the usual holding time.
I can imagine two sources for the confusion. First, if you add acid to mayonnaise, you can prevent Salmonella growth. But first, you cannot achieve that with yogurt, because the target pH is 3 point something and pure yogurt has over 4. Second, once you have added enough acid to reach that pH, your mayonnaise will have a completely different taste, predominantly sour. Third, it is salmonela-specific. There are certainly other bacteria which will be affected, but it won't be all of them. You will have simply made the risk comparable to that of other cooked foods without raw eggs, not to that of preserved food.
The second possibility is that she thinks it will behave like cultured dairy. If an opened container of yogurt doesn't get mold, it is likely to be OK to consume after several weeks (although, if it is homemade yogurt with live culture, it will reek by that time, especially if you used thermophilic cultures). But mayonnaise is not milk, and won't turn into yogurt when seeded with culture. Its risks are not reduced at all.
Once we are over that explanation, I can encourage you to mix yogurt with mayonnaise if you have never done it before. It results in very tasty sauces and dips, and you can experiment with the ratios as much as you like. Other soft dairy products such as quark, creme fraiche, and so on, are also excellent for a mix. It is the only good way to answer the "how it will change the taste" part. But please, when it comes to safety/shelf life, treat all these mixtures as standard mayonnaise. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | This is wrong. There is no food safety rule saying that mixing yogurt into mayonnaise will make it magically shelf stable. Even though there might be some factual reduction in bacterial growth, it is not enough to assume any change to the usual holding time.
I can imagine two sources for the confusion. First, if you add acid to mayonnaise, you can prevent Salmonella growth. But first, you cannot achieve that with yogurt, because the target pH is 3 point something and pure yogurt has over 4. Second, once you have added enough acid to reach that pH, your mayonnaise will have a completely different taste, predominantly sour. Third, it is salmonela-specific. There are certainly other bacteria which will be affected, but it won't be all of them. You will have simply made the risk comparable to that of other cooked foods without raw eggs, not to that of preserved food.
The second possibility is that she thinks it will behave like cultured dairy. If an opened container of yogurt doesn't get mold, it is likely to be OK to consume after several weeks (although, if it is homemade yogurt with live culture, it will reek by that time, especially if you used thermophilic cultures). But mayonnaise is not milk, and won't turn into yogurt when seeded with culture. Its risks are not reduced at all.
Once we are over that explanation, I can encourage you to mix yogurt with mayonnaise if you have never done it before. It results in very tasty sauces and dips, and you can experiment with the ratios as much as you like. Other soft dairy products such as quark, creme fraiche, and so on, are also excellent for a mix. It is the only good way to answer the "how it will change the taste" part. But please, when it comes to safety/shelf life, treat all these mixtures as standard mayonnaise. | Surprising that sources here did not quickly find a couple of online articles from 2010, on lacto-fermented mayonnaise, one being the Washington Post.
Unsure who the Facebook group is, but they are all off the mark on this one. Sometimes, a piece of information becomes dogma just because.
Foods have been fermented for centuries, are enzyme-rich in probiotics, and was an essential method for maintaining shelf life long before refrigerators were invented, and is still used in places where home cooks have no refrigeration.
Fermenting mayonnaise, although an oil-based food, is lacto-fermented with either yoghurt whey, kefir whey, or fermented juice from any properly-fermented jar of veggies (pickles, kraut, etc). Use 1 C mayo per 1 TBSP liquid whey. Once fermented, homemade mayo lasts for months in a properly-cold fridge.
Whey may be added before mayo is whipped, as opposed to after. Doing so does not produce a thin or runny mayonnaise, as some state.
Unless someone is a supertaster, no discerning tart or sour flavor is detected, as well.
Some additional information that may be of interest:
Please keep in mind that lacto-fermented mayo is not for lactose-intolerant individuals, just as using raw eggs may not be suitable for those with compromised immune systems (the Portuguese make a thick, rich milk-based mayo that has no eggs, and recipe may be found online at Leite's Culinaria).
Cooked or uncooked yolks may be lacto-fermented.
Harold McGee, noted food science author of The Curious Cook website, and book, On Food and Cooking, has a method for gently cooking egg yolks to avoid samonella, as well as American Egg Board, The Incredible Egg website. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | This is generally referred to as "lacto-fermented" mayonnaise. The whey is assumed to have active bacteria, and most recipes insist on a room temperature rest for at least several hours. During this time, I suppose the assumption is that the bacteria from the whey will ferment and produce sufficient acidity to act as a preservative (as in sauerkraut or something).
The idea is not completely without merit. As discussed in my answer to [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33212/15018), there is a well-documented and validated food science procedure for killing off harmful bacteria in homemade mayonnaise, which involves sufficient acid content and a rest at room temperature before refrigeration. Mayonnaise that follows this advice should be roughly as shelf-stable as commercial mayonnaise, and its acidity will make it a poor growth medium for most harmful bacteria. It will generally deteriorate in quality not due to spoilage bacteria, but due to oils going rancid and other such processes that will degrade texture and flavor over a period of weeks.
On the other hand, **I have serious doubts that a few hours at room temperature with a tablespoon of whey is going to produce a consistent level of acidity to ensure safety and longer preservation**. You simply don't know the bacteria count and activity in the whey, how well it may grow (if at all) in the mayonnaise, and how much it will lower the pH. (In a quick search, I couldn't find comparable food science research on using lactofermentation to achieve safe homemade mayo, but it may be out there. It sounds implausible to me, not least because of the lack of sufficient food in mayo for the lactic fermentation to produce a lot of acidity.)
If you want to make safe homemade mayo, you need sufficient acidity. Usually that comes from lemon juice or vinegar. It's that simple. And with adequate acidity, it will likely have a reasonable shelf life of more than just a few days. There is further advice and thoughts on that issue [in another question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2746/15018). But I would not recommend this whey-based technique to ensure food safety.
**EDIT:** Despite the huge number of recipes online for lacto-fermented mayonnaise, I've been unable to find any reputable food scientist vouching for even the possibility of significant fermentation occurring in mayonnaise. Nobody reputable even discusses it (probably since, as I said above, it doesn't make a lot of sense). Anyhow, I did manage to find this, in a [list of fermentation "myths"](https://www.facebook.com/notes/wild-fermentation/mythbusters-wild-fermentation-edition-/10152528275575369) maintained by a prominent fermentation Facebook group:
>
> MYTH: Mayonnaise can be fermented by adding a bit of whey or
> sauerkraut juice and letting it sit on the counter for [x] hours.
>
>
> FACT: Oil cannot be fermented, and mayonnaise is primarily oil with a
> small amount of egg yolk emulsified into it. All bacteria have an
> absolute moisture threshold necessary for their survival and function,
> which mayonnaise doesn't provide. . . . The amount of moisture that is available for use is called
> the Water Activity level, or aW. Pure water has an aW of 1.0. Lactic
> acid bacteria require a minimum aW of 0.94, but not much activity will
> occur below 0.95 and a level closer to 1.0 is needed for vigorous
> growth. Mayonnaise has an aW of 0.93 or lower. . . .
>
>
>
I wouldn't say this qualifies as a reputable source for food science (and I haven't checked the facts), but the reasoning is plausible, as bacteria simply don't grow well in mayonnaise. If anyone can find any better food science on topic, I'd be interested. | I haven't seen proof but this isn't plausible to me.
The way to make mayo last longer is to make it more acidic- per [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2746/making-longer-life-homemade-mayonnaise). Notice that many recipes call for mayo to rest at room temp for an hour or two to let the high acid kill salmonella before it is refrigerated.
Vinegar or lemon juice are usually used in Mayo and they have pH levels of around 2-3. Whey acidity varies depending on how long the yogurt fermented but can be as high as 4-5.
Federal guidelines recommend mayo be [at or below](http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Mayonnaise.html) a pH of 4.1 to be safe for longer periods.
Whey just won't be acidic enough to make your mayo last longer.
There aren't any secret, bacteria inhibiting, ingredients in whey. On the contrary it is very nutritious with a lot of sugar, vitamin B, and potentially protein and fat. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | I haven't seen proof but this isn't plausible to me.
The way to make mayo last longer is to make it more acidic- per [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2746/making-longer-life-homemade-mayonnaise). Notice that many recipes call for mayo to rest at room temp for an hour or two to let the high acid kill salmonella before it is refrigerated.
Vinegar or lemon juice are usually used in Mayo and they have pH levels of around 2-3. Whey acidity varies depending on how long the yogurt fermented but can be as high as 4-5.
Federal guidelines recommend mayo be [at or below](http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Mayonnaise.html) a pH of 4.1 to be safe for longer periods.
Whey just won't be acidic enough to make your mayo last longer.
There aren't any secret, bacteria inhibiting, ingredients in whey. On the contrary it is very nutritious with a lot of sugar, vitamin B, and potentially protein and fat. | Surprising that sources here did not quickly find a couple of online articles from 2010, on lacto-fermented mayonnaise, one being the Washington Post.
Unsure who the Facebook group is, but they are all off the mark on this one. Sometimes, a piece of information becomes dogma just because.
Foods have been fermented for centuries, are enzyme-rich in probiotics, and was an essential method for maintaining shelf life long before refrigerators were invented, and is still used in places where home cooks have no refrigeration.
Fermenting mayonnaise, although an oil-based food, is lacto-fermented with either yoghurt whey, kefir whey, or fermented juice from any properly-fermented jar of veggies (pickles, kraut, etc). Use 1 C mayo per 1 TBSP liquid whey. Once fermented, homemade mayo lasts for months in a properly-cold fridge.
Whey may be added before mayo is whipped, as opposed to after. Doing so does not produce a thin or runny mayonnaise, as some state.
Unless someone is a supertaster, no discerning tart or sour flavor is detected, as well.
Some additional information that may be of interest:
Please keep in mind that lacto-fermented mayo is not for lactose-intolerant individuals, just as using raw eggs may not be suitable for those with compromised immune systems (the Portuguese make a thick, rich milk-based mayo that has no eggs, and recipe may be found online at Leite's Culinaria).
Cooked or uncooked yolks may be lacto-fermented.
Harold McGee, noted food science author of The Curious Cook website, and book, On Food and Cooking, has a method for gently cooking egg yolks to avoid samonella, as well as American Egg Board, The Incredible Egg website. |
57,129 | I'm about to concoct a batch of Falernum (spiced ginger & lime syrup for adding to coctails), and one of the possible ingredients is almond extract which I've just found out is in rapeseed oil.
I bought a Madagascan vanilla extract at the same time, which is in ethanol so can be just thrown into the mix. I assumed the almond extract was the same, but have discovered post-purchase that it isn't.
So in order to use the almond extract, I need to emulsify it, ideally with everyday ingredients that won't negatively impact on the flavour of the Falernum.
Googling seems to indicate that eggs (both yolk and white) will do the job; but I'm slightly reluctant to use eggs as I don't know how much is required and if it will affect the flavour.
There is about 36g of oil to emulsify altogether.
Can anyone advise on (A) a different emulsufier or (B) how much egg yolk/white/both would be required? | 2015/05/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35275/"
] | This is generally referred to as "lacto-fermented" mayonnaise. The whey is assumed to have active bacteria, and most recipes insist on a room temperature rest for at least several hours. During this time, I suppose the assumption is that the bacteria from the whey will ferment and produce sufficient acidity to act as a preservative (as in sauerkraut or something).
The idea is not completely without merit. As discussed in my answer to [this question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33212/15018), there is a well-documented and validated food science procedure for killing off harmful bacteria in homemade mayonnaise, which involves sufficient acid content and a rest at room temperature before refrigeration. Mayonnaise that follows this advice should be roughly as shelf-stable as commercial mayonnaise, and its acidity will make it a poor growth medium for most harmful bacteria. It will generally deteriorate in quality not due to spoilage bacteria, but due to oils going rancid and other such processes that will degrade texture and flavor over a period of weeks.
On the other hand, **I have serious doubts that a few hours at room temperature with a tablespoon of whey is going to produce a consistent level of acidity to ensure safety and longer preservation**. You simply don't know the bacteria count and activity in the whey, how well it may grow (if at all) in the mayonnaise, and how much it will lower the pH. (In a quick search, I couldn't find comparable food science research on using lactofermentation to achieve safe homemade mayo, but it may be out there. It sounds implausible to me, not least because of the lack of sufficient food in mayo for the lactic fermentation to produce a lot of acidity.)
If you want to make safe homemade mayo, you need sufficient acidity. Usually that comes from lemon juice or vinegar. It's that simple. And with adequate acidity, it will likely have a reasonable shelf life of more than just a few days. There is further advice and thoughts on that issue [in another question](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2746/15018). But I would not recommend this whey-based technique to ensure food safety.
**EDIT:** Despite the huge number of recipes online for lacto-fermented mayonnaise, I've been unable to find any reputable food scientist vouching for even the possibility of significant fermentation occurring in mayonnaise. Nobody reputable even discusses it (probably since, as I said above, it doesn't make a lot of sense). Anyhow, I did manage to find this, in a [list of fermentation "myths"](https://www.facebook.com/notes/wild-fermentation/mythbusters-wild-fermentation-edition-/10152528275575369) maintained by a prominent fermentation Facebook group:
>
> MYTH: Mayonnaise can be fermented by adding a bit of whey or
> sauerkraut juice and letting it sit on the counter for [x] hours.
>
>
> FACT: Oil cannot be fermented, and mayonnaise is primarily oil with a
> small amount of egg yolk emulsified into it. All bacteria have an
> absolute moisture threshold necessary for their survival and function,
> which mayonnaise doesn't provide. . . . The amount of moisture that is available for use is called
> the Water Activity level, or aW. Pure water has an aW of 1.0. Lactic
> acid bacteria require a minimum aW of 0.94, but not much activity will
> occur below 0.95 and a level closer to 1.0 is needed for vigorous
> growth. Mayonnaise has an aW of 0.93 or lower. . . .
>
>
>
I wouldn't say this qualifies as a reputable source for food science (and I haven't checked the facts), but the reasoning is plausible, as bacteria simply don't grow well in mayonnaise. If anyone can find any better food science on topic, I'd be interested. | Surprising that sources here did not quickly find a couple of online articles from 2010, on lacto-fermented mayonnaise, one being the Washington Post.
Unsure who the Facebook group is, but they are all off the mark on this one. Sometimes, a piece of information becomes dogma just because.
Foods have been fermented for centuries, are enzyme-rich in probiotics, and was an essential method for maintaining shelf life long before refrigerators were invented, and is still used in places where home cooks have no refrigeration.
Fermenting mayonnaise, although an oil-based food, is lacto-fermented with either yoghurt whey, kefir whey, or fermented juice from any properly-fermented jar of veggies (pickles, kraut, etc). Use 1 C mayo per 1 TBSP liquid whey. Once fermented, homemade mayo lasts for months in a properly-cold fridge.
Whey may be added before mayo is whipped, as opposed to after. Doing so does not produce a thin or runny mayonnaise, as some state.
Unless someone is a supertaster, no discerning tart or sour flavor is detected, as well.
Some additional information that may be of interest:
Please keep in mind that lacto-fermented mayo is not for lactose-intolerant individuals, just as using raw eggs may not be suitable for those with compromised immune systems (the Portuguese make a thick, rich milk-based mayo that has no eggs, and recipe may be found online at Leite's Culinaria).
Cooked or uncooked yolks may be lacto-fermented.
Harold McGee, noted food science author of The Curious Cook website, and book, On Food and Cooking, has a method for gently cooking egg yolks to avoid samonella, as well as American Egg Board, The Incredible Egg website. |
12,980 | What are some practical techniques/methods which can be used to train/improve your working memory and what studies have been done on this subject? | 2016/01/06 | [
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/12980",
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com",
"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/10300/"
] | There are a few commercial packages that provide training for verbal and visuo-spaital working memory. The most well-known is CogMed (<http://www.cogmed.com>). Another popular one is Jungle Memory (<http://junglememory.com>). Both of these packages have been used in research studies (comment about these results below) There is also a myriad of online working memory games that promise to improve working memory, e.g. some games in Luminosity (<http://www.lumosity.com>). The content of these games is very similar, but there are fewer independent scientific studies of them as far as I'm aware.
As a caveat, the scientific evidence about the benefit of WM training is mixed at best. Training on WM tasks improves performance on them. This improvement also transfers to similar tasks (near transfer). However, there is currently little evidence for transfer to other tasks or improvements in everyday function (far transfer). For example, have a look at this report from a randomised control trial of working memory training in children: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12068/full> | In recent news, Lumosity has paid a $2 million fine to the FTC for unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of its training. I've heard CogMed recommended by practicing neuro rehab professionals. Apparently, there is science to back its claims. It gets a bit pricey, however. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | Several ideas what would be different:
**Better murder cases**: You can ask a person who did murder them. And possibly you could use it as evidence in court
**Different inheritance rules** You can summon recently deceased person and ask them who should get what. And obviously, you could make sure the deceased person can decide about conditions (like: You get my house, but finish college first!)
**Espionage level 2.0**: Right now, if you send spy to get some info, and such spy is killed in action, you do not get any info about mission whatsoever. But, if your spy is killed, you can get at least some info. It also means that if you catch a spy, you keep them alive as long as possible to protect your data
**Elvis, where are you?** You know the cases of "that person is really not dead!" Now you know for sure if given person is dead or alive. Could be used not only for Elvis, but generally for everyone who gets missing. If their summoning from dead fails, you know they are alive and you should try as hard as possible to find them. Once you succeed, you (sadly) know that person is dead and ask them where their body lies
**I will sacrifice self so you can live**: See above. If group of people gets missing, good survival strategy would be to sacrifice one to let everyone else survive. (better with one dead than everyone dead). And in your "law enforcement" setup, you have to decide, if basically "killing" someone to save everyone is ok or not.
**I see dead people. Not** Do not forget about black market and impostors. Assume nowadays setup when if you approach medium able to talk with dead, you do not know it is for real, or if its just a play. Even in your setup such people would exist (claim to be trained, but not be trained at all). How would common person decide if they speak with really trained person, or fake? And would it be a crime to pretend that I can speak to dead?
*EDIT of this paragraph:* Even after editing it to make sure that everyone can hear the person, once they are summoned, there is still room for fakery (hidden radio and voice actor is one from top of my head)
But, in law enforcement there is one biggest flaw:
**I am dead. And I lie. So what?** Imagine I am dead now. Someone summons me because of inheritance. And I tell such person, that I won the lottery (huge bulk of money) and the pile of money is stored in specific destination. But, twist, none of it is true. How do you know I am liar or not?
And take instance of murder. I have been murdered by John Doe. But I hate Thomas Unknown. What happens if I say that I have been murdered by Thomas Unknown? How do you punish me for a lie? I am dead. So what *worse* can happen to me?
**EDIT** One more idea:
**Public domain? NEVER!** Imagine I am popular author. And I die because of age. Someone can summon me and I can help that person to finish my "last" novel. Who is actually author of such novel? And, how do you decide what work is public domain and what is not? And what prevents me to write *yet another novel*? | For law enforcement, I don't think it would make much difference. It'd probably be a good source of witnesses for murders, but people would just start shooting each other in the back, and nothing would change fundamentally.
The courts would be a different story, because it affects some of the founding assumptions of law and ethics. There'd be loads of loopholes from the way laws are currently worded, but even apart from that you could imagine any number of debates about whether ghost testimony is hearsay, whether it's fair to allow witnesses who don't fear perjuring themselves, how it affects the rights of the living etc.
I'd expect cases involving the dead to be automatically longer and more expensive, and quite plausibly their testimony would be simply inadmissible. That might be interesting for a police story, because murder cops would often know who did it, but need to find independent evidence. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | Several ideas what would be different:
**Better murder cases**: You can ask a person who did murder them. And possibly you could use it as evidence in court
**Different inheritance rules** You can summon recently deceased person and ask them who should get what. And obviously, you could make sure the deceased person can decide about conditions (like: You get my house, but finish college first!)
**Espionage level 2.0**: Right now, if you send spy to get some info, and such spy is killed in action, you do not get any info about mission whatsoever. But, if your spy is killed, you can get at least some info. It also means that if you catch a spy, you keep them alive as long as possible to protect your data
**Elvis, where are you?** You know the cases of "that person is really not dead!" Now you know for sure if given person is dead or alive. Could be used not only for Elvis, but generally for everyone who gets missing. If their summoning from dead fails, you know they are alive and you should try as hard as possible to find them. Once you succeed, you (sadly) know that person is dead and ask them where their body lies
**I will sacrifice self so you can live**: See above. If group of people gets missing, good survival strategy would be to sacrifice one to let everyone else survive. (better with one dead than everyone dead). And in your "law enforcement" setup, you have to decide, if basically "killing" someone to save everyone is ok or not.
**I see dead people. Not** Do not forget about black market and impostors. Assume nowadays setup when if you approach medium able to talk with dead, you do not know it is for real, or if its just a play. Even in your setup such people would exist (claim to be trained, but not be trained at all). How would common person decide if they speak with really trained person, or fake? And would it be a crime to pretend that I can speak to dead?
*EDIT of this paragraph:* Even after editing it to make sure that everyone can hear the person, once they are summoned, there is still room for fakery (hidden radio and voice actor is one from top of my head)
But, in law enforcement there is one biggest flaw:
**I am dead. And I lie. So what?** Imagine I am dead now. Someone summons me because of inheritance. And I tell such person, that I won the lottery (huge bulk of money) and the pile of money is stored in specific destination. But, twist, none of it is true. How do you know I am liar or not?
And take instance of murder. I have been murdered by John Doe. But I hate Thomas Unknown. What happens if I say that I have been murdered by Thomas Unknown? How do you punish me for a lie? I am dead. So what *worse* can happen to me?
**EDIT** One more idea:
**Public domain? NEVER!** Imagine I am popular author. And I die because of age. Someone can summon me and I can help that person to finish my "last" novel. Who is actually author of such novel? And, how do you decide what work is public domain and what is not? And what prevents me to write *yet another novel*? | Since they retain any human motivation they had when they were living, and can lie, I would think their use in law enforcement would be extremely limited. The police might use them to aid in an investigation, like questioning a witness. But they'd be less useful than a witness because a witness can be called into court and threatened with perjury, or complicency in a crime if they don't cooperate or tell the truth. A dead person is not susceptible to such threats, so has much less motivation to "snitch" on a fellow cohort, and more motivation to frame an unliked ex-spouse. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | Since they retain any human motivation they had when they were living, and can lie, I would think their use in law enforcement would be extremely limited. The police might use them to aid in an investigation, like questioning a witness. But they'd be less useful than a witness because a witness can be called into court and threatened with perjury, or complicency in a crime if they don't cooperate or tell the truth. A dead person is not susceptible to such threats, so has much less motivation to "snitch" on a fellow cohort, and more motivation to frame an unliked ex-spouse. | I read a book once, [*Blue Limbo* by Terence Green](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/160450434X) that played around with a similar dynamic.
In the book, blue limbo is strictly a way of keeping people alive that would be considered clinically dead with modern technology. Essentially, if doctors can get to the deceased's body within a few minutes after death, a machine can keep the brain alive independent of its body and allow communication through a text-only blue-colored terminal. This blue limbo isn't full consciousness, so many of the deceased's potential motives the other posters have mentioned wouldn't necessarily apply.
This style of temporary resurrection automatically ensures many of the qualities you wanted (requires a skilled professional, limited communication, dead can still form memories), but is also limited in time to the very recently deceased.
It's been several years since I read the book, but I remember blue limbo being used as an important plot device in a murder investigation and a substantially different legal system.
The deceased's memories leading up to the murder returned slowly, giving investigators conflicting details and leading to a bit of a witch hunt. That's about all I remember. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | One thing that is worth mentioning is that kidnapping would be a lot more common than murder all of a sudden. It's no longer possible to shut someone up by killing them, so organised crime would move more towards a kidnapping and slavery approach and holding people hostages than the more traditional "sleeping with the fishes".
So you might find that in this world, human trafficing would be a lot more common. People would attempt suicide just to notify someone that its going on, so I imagine that there would be a greater emphasis on keeping people alive within this trade.
Also, speaking to dead people frequently would most likely end up taking a massive toll on the mental health of the law enforcers, so time off due to stress would be more common.
If you DID need to kill someone, it would probably be common to try and damage the persons brain in a way that makes them unable to recall who did it. The invention of memory wiping devices may have become a common black market item if you decided to go down that route - if not, would a brain damaged person come back as a brain damaged ghost, or would they return fully coherent? What if you cut out their tongue before hand?
It's also worth noting that the dead may have there own reasons to not divulge information on how they died. Still living family members might have been threatened before they died, giving them a reason not to testify.
Terminally ill people may well end up commiting a large portions of serious crime as they basically have nothing to lose, and can guarantee that any proceeds from their crimes actually end up going to their family. | I read a book once, [*Blue Limbo* by Terence Green](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/160450434X) that played around with a similar dynamic.
In the book, blue limbo is strictly a way of keeping people alive that would be considered clinically dead with modern technology. Essentially, if doctors can get to the deceased's body within a few minutes after death, a machine can keep the brain alive independent of its body and allow communication through a text-only blue-colored terminal. This blue limbo isn't full consciousness, so many of the deceased's potential motives the other posters have mentioned wouldn't necessarily apply.
This style of temporary resurrection automatically ensures many of the qualities you wanted (requires a skilled professional, limited communication, dead can still form memories), but is also limited in time to the very recently deceased.
It's been several years since I read the book, but I remember blue limbo being used as an important plot device in a murder investigation and a substantially different legal system.
The deceased's memories leading up to the murder returned slowly, giving investigators conflicting details and leading to a bit of a witch hunt. That's about all I remember. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | In the courts, all that mechanically changes is that dead people become witnesses.
However...
I feel that they might not make for reliable witnesses.
(SPOILERS: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney)
In Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, the [DL-6](http://www.court-records.net/DL-6.htm) case is a case in which a spirit medium is used to communicate with the dead, as to find out who the murderer is. Relevant excerpts:
>
> On December 28th, 2001, Miles Edgeworth went with his father, Gregory Edgeworth, to the courthouse. Gregory Edgeworth had a trial against Manfred von Karma, a veteran prosecutor who hadn't lost a case in his long career. During the course of the trial Gregory managed to prove that Karma had tampered with evidence, giving him his first penalty in court.
>
>
> After the proceedings, Gregory, Miles, and a court bailiff named Yanni Yogi left court and entered an elevator. Almost immediately afterwards there was an earthquake and the building lost power. The three remained trapped in the elevator for several hours with little oxygen. Yanni began to panic, and an argument broke out between him and Gregory. During the struggle that ensued Yanni's pistol came loose from his belt. Desperate to stop their fighting, young Miles took the gun and threw it at the pair. It fired once, and all three in the elevator finally lost consciousness.
>
>
> The power then came on, and the elevator doors finally opened. Inside, Gregory, Miles, and Yanni were all unconscious, and lying next to them was Yanni's pistol. **Already furious with Gregory for his failed reputation and under the shock of having just been shot, Karma snatched up the gun and shot Gregory in the heart, killing him instantly.** He then left the scene.
>
>
> The police investigated the murder, without finding any trace of the first bullet fired from Yanni's gun. But the second was a perfect match to Yanni's weapon, and he was charged with the murder. Even that, however, wasn't enough to convict him, and so the police turned to spiritualist Misty Fey (mother to Mia and Maya Fey). **She summoned the ghost of Gregory Edgeworth to testify as to the events.**
>
>
> **Whether or not Gregory really understood how he had died that afternoon, he was quick to place the blame on Yanni.** Through Misty, he claimed that Yanni shot him during their struggle. Miles testified to the same. But Yanni's lawyer, Robert Hammond (employed by the Grossberg & Co. Law Offices at the time) coerced his client into pleading temporary insanity. By placing the blame on panic and oxygen deprivation Yanni was able to earn an acquittal and was set free.
>
>
> Misty Fey's reputation as a spiritualist was ruined. Because the testimony she had "summoned" from Gregory Edgeworth failed to hold up in court, she was considered a fraud and a fake.
>
>
>
The reason Gregory here gives false testimony is because when he passed out, he was in a sealed elevator. No one else could get in. There were two other people in the room. His son, Miles, and some bailiff, Yanni. He had had an argument with Yanni. He passed out afterwards.
Surely he didn't kill himself. He had heard only one shot, and that was when his son threw the gun. He believes his son killed him, by accident. But he doesn't wish to indict his son. And Yanni was hostile to him anyway. So why not blame Yanni?
---
This is what I believe to be a relevant example for your world. People may mistake events that happen. I believe that people will have trouble recalling the moment of their death because it is a strange state to be in (dying, as the brain will start to conjure up things that aren't there due to lack of resources), and that their testimony simply isn't solid evidence. It's practically the same as a witness who was in a state of delirium.
The impact of this varies on how your medium/spirit summoning enters the world. If spirit mediums are recently new, expect courts to have suspicions of using the method. Expect people to express distrust.
If they're public knowledge and have been around for a long time, however, expect killings to be done differently. Murdering someone is something you have to do without exposing yourself to your victim. Murderers result from things like domestic violence or disputes gone bad are likely to be solved via testimony of the deceased, but assassinations or sudden deaths (hit-and-run?) are not.
It's not going to solve all cases. It's also not definitive evidence.
I also wonder how you're going to deal with perjury - what if someone who is dead lies? | One thing that is worth mentioning is that kidnapping would be a lot more common than murder all of a sudden. It's no longer possible to shut someone up by killing them, so organised crime would move more towards a kidnapping and slavery approach and holding people hostages than the more traditional "sleeping with the fishes".
So you might find that in this world, human trafficing would be a lot more common. People would attempt suicide just to notify someone that its going on, so I imagine that there would be a greater emphasis on keeping people alive within this trade.
Also, speaking to dead people frequently would most likely end up taking a massive toll on the mental health of the law enforcers, so time off due to stress would be more common.
If you DID need to kill someone, it would probably be common to try and damage the persons brain in a way that makes them unable to recall who did it. The invention of memory wiping devices may have become a common black market item if you decided to go down that route - if not, would a brain damaged person come back as a brain damaged ghost, or would they return fully coherent? What if you cut out their tongue before hand?
It's also worth noting that the dead may have there own reasons to not divulge information on how they died. Still living family members might have been threatened before they died, giving them a reason not to testify.
Terminally ill people may well end up commiting a large portions of serious crime as they basically have nothing to lose, and can guarantee that any proceeds from their crimes actually end up going to their family. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | In the courts, all that mechanically changes is that dead people become witnesses.
However...
I feel that they might not make for reliable witnesses.
(SPOILERS: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney)
In Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, the [DL-6](http://www.court-records.net/DL-6.htm) case is a case in which a spirit medium is used to communicate with the dead, as to find out who the murderer is. Relevant excerpts:
>
> On December 28th, 2001, Miles Edgeworth went with his father, Gregory Edgeworth, to the courthouse. Gregory Edgeworth had a trial against Manfred von Karma, a veteran prosecutor who hadn't lost a case in his long career. During the course of the trial Gregory managed to prove that Karma had tampered with evidence, giving him his first penalty in court.
>
>
> After the proceedings, Gregory, Miles, and a court bailiff named Yanni Yogi left court and entered an elevator. Almost immediately afterwards there was an earthquake and the building lost power. The three remained trapped in the elevator for several hours with little oxygen. Yanni began to panic, and an argument broke out between him and Gregory. During the struggle that ensued Yanni's pistol came loose from his belt. Desperate to stop their fighting, young Miles took the gun and threw it at the pair. It fired once, and all three in the elevator finally lost consciousness.
>
>
> The power then came on, and the elevator doors finally opened. Inside, Gregory, Miles, and Yanni were all unconscious, and lying next to them was Yanni's pistol. **Already furious with Gregory for his failed reputation and under the shock of having just been shot, Karma snatched up the gun and shot Gregory in the heart, killing him instantly.** He then left the scene.
>
>
> The police investigated the murder, without finding any trace of the first bullet fired from Yanni's gun. But the second was a perfect match to Yanni's weapon, and he was charged with the murder. Even that, however, wasn't enough to convict him, and so the police turned to spiritualist Misty Fey (mother to Mia and Maya Fey). **She summoned the ghost of Gregory Edgeworth to testify as to the events.**
>
>
> **Whether or not Gregory really understood how he had died that afternoon, he was quick to place the blame on Yanni.** Through Misty, he claimed that Yanni shot him during their struggle. Miles testified to the same. But Yanni's lawyer, Robert Hammond (employed by the Grossberg & Co. Law Offices at the time) coerced his client into pleading temporary insanity. By placing the blame on panic and oxygen deprivation Yanni was able to earn an acquittal and was set free.
>
>
> Misty Fey's reputation as a spiritualist was ruined. Because the testimony she had "summoned" from Gregory Edgeworth failed to hold up in court, she was considered a fraud and a fake.
>
>
>
The reason Gregory here gives false testimony is because when he passed out, he was in a sealed elevator. No one else could get in. There were two other people in the room. His son, Miles, and some bailiff, Yanni. He had had an argument with Yanni. He passed out afterwards.
Surely he didn't kill himself. He had heard only one shot, and that was when his son threw the gun. He believes his son killed him, by accident. But he doesn't wish to indict his son. And Yanni was hostile to him anyway. So why not blame Yanni?
---
This is what I believe to be a relevant example for your world. People may mistake events that happen. I believe that people will have trouble recalling the moment of their death because it is a strange state to be in (dying, as the brain will start to conjure up things that aren't there due to lack of resources), and that their testimony simply isn't solid evidence. It's practically the same as a witness who was in a state of delirium.
The impact of this varies on how your medium/spirit summoning enters the world. If spirit mediums are recently new, expect courts to have suspicions of using the method. Expect people to express distrust.
If they're public knowledge and have been around for a long time, however, expect killings to be done differently. Murdering someone is something you have to do without exposing yourself to your victim. Murderers result from things like domestic violence or disputes gone bad are likely to be solved via testimony of the deceased, but assassinations or sudden deaths (hit-and-run?) are not.
It's not going to solve all cases. It's also not definitive evidence.
I also wonder how you're going to deal with perjury - what if someone who is dead lies? | I read a book once, [*Blue Limbo* by Terence Green](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/160450434X) that played around with a similar dynamic.
In the book, blue limbo is strictly a way of keeping people alive that would be considered clinically dead with modern technology. Essentially, if doctors can get to the deceased's body within a few minutes after death, a machine can keep the brain alive independent of its body and allow communication through a text-only blue-colored terminal. This blue limbo isn't full consciousness, so many of the deceased's potential motives the other posters have mentioned wouldn't necessarily apply.
This style of temporary resurrection automatically ensures many of the qualities you wanted (requires a skilled professional, limited communication, dead can still form memories), but is also limited in time to the very recently deceased.
It's been several years since I read the book, but I remember blue limbo being used as an important plot device in a murder investigation and a substantially different legal system.
The deceased's memories leading up to the murder returned slowly, giving investigators conflicting details and leading to a bit of a witch hunt. That's about all I remember. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | Since they retain any human motivation they had when they were living, and can lie, I would think their use in law enforcement would be extremely limited. The police might use them to aid in an investigation, like questioning a witness. But they'd be less useful than a witness because a witness can be called into court and threatened with perjury, or complicency in a crime if they don't cooperate or tell the truth. A dead person is not susceptible to such threats, so has much less motivation to "snitch" on a fellow cohort, and more motivation to frame an unliked ex-spouse. | For law enforcement, I don't think it would make much difference. It'd probably be a good source of witnesses for murders, but people would just start shooting each other in the back, and nothing would change fundamentally.
The courts would be a different story, because it affects some of the founding assumptions of law and ethics. There'd be loads of loopholes from the way laws are currently worded, but even apart from that you could imagine any number of debates about whether ghost testimony is hearsay, whether it's fair to allow witnesses who don't fear perjuring themselves, how it affects the rights of the living etc.
I'd expect cases involving the dead to be automatically longer and more expensive, and quite plausibly their testimony would be simply inadmissible. That might be interesting for a police story, because murder cops would often know who did it, but need to find independent evidence. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | One thing that is worth mentioning is that kidnapping would be a lot more common than murder all of a sudden. It's no longer possible to shut someone up by killing them, so organised crime would move more towards a kidnapping and slavery approach and holding people hostages than the more traditional "sleeping with the fishes".
So you might find that in this world, human trafficing would be a lot more common. People would attempt suicide just to notify someone that its going on, so I imagine that there would be a greater emphasis on keeping people alive within this trade.
Also, speaking to dead people frequently would most likely end up taking a massive toll on the mental health of the law enforcers, so time off due to stress would be more common.
If you DID need to kill someone, it would probably be common to try and damage the persons brain in a way that makes them unable to recall who did it. The invention of memory wiping devices may have become a common black market item if you decided to go down that route - if not, would a brain damaged person come back as a brain damaged ghost, or would they return fully coherent? What if you cut out their tongue before hand?
It's also worth noting that the dead may have there own reasons to not divulge information on how they died. Still living family members might have been threatened before they died, giving them a reason not to testify.
Terminally ill people may well end up commiting a large portions of serious crime as they basically have nothing to lose, and can guarantee that any proceeds from their crimes actually end up going to their family. | Your world may have ethical issues regarding necromancy. Does your society believe people have an inalienable right to rest in peace? Can police use it whenever they want, or do they warrant to obtain necromantic testimony?
Also, depending upon your society, it could be a traumatic experience for the living to face the dead. This could allow for some nasty threats by a prosecuting attorney to coerce defendants into accepting a plea bargain. Or conversely, defense attorneys could use it as a threat to get people to drop charges. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | Several ideas what would be different:
**Better murder cases**: You can ask a person who did murder them. And possibly you could use it as evidence in court
**Different inheritance rules** You can summon recently deceased person and ask them who should get what. And obviously, you could make sure the deceased person can decide about conditions (like: You get my house, but finish college first!)
**Espionage level 2.0**: Right now, if you send spy to get some info, and such spy is killed in action, you do not get any info about mission whatsoever. But, if your spy is killed, you can get at least some info. It also means that if you catch a spy, you keep them alive as long as possible to protect your data
**Elvis, where are you?** You know the cases of "that person is really not dead!" Now you know for sure if given person is dead or alive. Could be used not only for Elvis, but generally for everyone who gets missing. If their summoning from dead fails, you know they are alive and you should try as hard as possible to find them. Once you succeed, you (sadly) know that person is dead and ask them where their body lies
**I will sacrifice self so you can live**: See above. If group of people gets missing, good survival strategy would be to sacrifice one to let everyone else survive. (better with one dead than everyone dead). And in your "law enforcement" setup, you have to decide, if basically "killing" someone to save everyone is ok or not.
**I see dead people. Not** Do not forget about black market and impostors. Assume nowadays setup when if you approach medium able to talk with dead, you do not know it is for real, or if its just a play. Even in your setup such people would exist (claim to be trained, but not be trained at all). How would common person decide if they speak with really trained person, or fake? And would it be a crime to pretend that I can speak to dead?
*EDIT of this paragraph:* Even after editing it to make sure that everyone can hear the person, once they are summoned, there is still room for fakery (hidden radio and voice actor is one from top of my head)
But, in law enforcement there is one biggest flaw:
**I am dead. And I lie. So what?** Imagine I am dead now. Someone summons me because of inheritance. And I tell such person, that I won the lottery (huge bulk of money) and the pile of money is stored in specific destination. But, twist, none of it is true. How do you know I am liar or not?
And take instance of murder. I have been murdered by John Doe. But I hate Thomas Unknown. What happens if I say that I have been murdered by Thomas Unknown? How do you punish me for a lie? I am dead. So what *worse* can happen to me?
**EDIT** One more idea:
**Public domain? NEVER!** Imagine I am popular author. And I die because of age. Someone can summon me and I can help that person to finish my "last" novel. Who is actually author of such novel? And, how do you decide what work is public domain and what is not? And what prevents me to write *yet another novel*? | One thing that is worth mentioning is that kidnapping would be a lot more common than murder all of a sudden. It's no longer possible to shut someone up by killing them, so organised crime would move more towards a kidnapping and slavery approach and holding people hostages than the more traditional "sleeping with the fishes".
So you might find that in this world, human trafficing would be a lot more common. People would attempt suicide just to notify someone that its going on, so I imagine that there would be a greater emphasis on keeping people alive within this trade.
Also, speaking to dead people frequently would most likely end up taking a massive toll on the mental health of the law enforcers, so time off due to stress would be more common.
If you DID need to kill someone, it would probably be common to try and damage the persons brain in a way that makes them unable to recall who did it. The invention of memory wiping devices may have become a common black market item if you decided to go down that route - if not, would a brain damaged person come back as a brain damaged ghost, or would they return fully coherent? What if you cut out their tongue before hand?
It's also worth noting that the dead may have there own reasons to not divulge information on how they died. Still living family members might have been threatened before they died, giving them a reason not to testify.
Terminally ill people may well end up commiting a large portions of serious crime as they basically have nothing to lose, and can guarantee that any proceeds from their crimes actually end up going to their family. |
3,601 | There are many application of being able to communicate with the dead but in the interests of scoping I'm interested in law enforcement and sentencing. The method would be scientifically proven communication and no trick or belief required however they would be human... the dead would be just as error prone and fallible as we are!
Assume:
* The service requires a skilled professional (who most often work for the courts) however once summoned the dead person addresses the room, everyone hears/can talk to them.
* The dead know everything they knew at the point of their passing plus what they've been told since
* The dead do not know (or are unwilling to share) information about what happens between visits. In effect they only remember what happens in the living world
* The dead cannot observe or interact the living world, they can communicate only through these conversations
* You can only communicate through sound, you can't see each other
* You can communicate with anyone, however a dead person can only speak to one person at once
* The dead person can only be summoned if they wish to be, they can also leave at any time (no holding the dead hostage!)
Obviously this would be valuable for people dealing with grief but I'm interested in it's application in law enforcement. What policies of policing and courts would be different if the dead could be contacted? | 2014/11/04 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3601",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18/"
] | One thing that is worth mentioning is that kidnapping would be a lot more common than murder all of a sudden. It's no longer possible to shut someone up by killing them, so organised crime would move more towards a kidnapping and slavery approach and holding people hostages than the more traditional "sleeping with the fishes".
So you might find that in this world, human trafficing would be a lot more common. People would attempt suicide just to notify someone that its going on, so I imagine that there would be a greater emphasis on keeping people alive within this trade.
Also, speaking to dead people frequently would most likely end up taking a massive toll on the mental health of the law enforcers, so time off due to stress would be more common.
If you DID need to kill someone, it would probably be common to try and damage the persons brain in a way that makes them unable to recall who did it. The invention of memory wiping devices may have become a common black market item if you decided to go down that route - if not, would a brain damaged person come back as a brain damaged ghost, or would they return fully coherent? What if you cut out their tongue before hand?
It's also worth noting that the dead may have there own reasons to not divulge information on how they died. Still living family members might have been threatened before they died, giving them a reason not to testify.
Terminally ill people may well end up commiting a large portions of serious crime as they basically have nothing to lose, and can guarantee that any proceeds from their crimes actually end up going to their family. | For law enforcement, I don't think it would make much difference. It'd probably be a good source of witnesses for murders, but people would just start shooting each other in the back, and nothing would change fundamentally.
The courts would be a different story, because it affects some of the founding assumptions of law and ethics. There'd be loads of loopholes from the way laws are currently worded, but even apart from that you could imagine any number of debates about whether ghost testimony is hearsay, whether it's fair to allow witnesses who don't fear perjuring themselves, how it affects the rights of the living etc.
I'd expect cases involving the dead to be automatically longer and more expensive, and quite plausibly their testimony would be simply inadmissible. That might be interesting for a police story, because murder cops would often know who did it, but need to find independent evidence. |
59,942,146 | **Goal:** Lambda function needs to retrieve RDS password from Secret Manager via VPC Endpoint (using AWS-SDK in Lambda).
**Problem:** The Lambda function and RDS are in a VPC, hence why I created the endpoint to use AWS Services but my Lambda is still timing out. DNS Hostname is enabled on my endpoint and the role attached to my Lambda function has the LambdaVPCExecutionRole attached to it.
Is there anything I have missed? A lot of documentation mentions I need a NAT gateway but don't want to spend $33 a month if I don't have to! | 2020/01/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59942146",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8492334/"
] | I have encountered this exact error using the same setup. I was able to fix it by changing the security group of the VPC Endpoint to not be the default security group.
For some reason, the default security group was not passing through the traffic even though there was no rules restricting traffic.
I created a new security group with virtually the same configuration, associated that with the VPC Endpoint, and it worked. | I was able to fix this by associating the VPC endpoint with a security group that allow inbound access for all the traffic from the VPC CIDR. |
9,983 | I've been experimenting with APRS for the last year or so. There are a lot of areas that I go that don't have digipeaters or iGates. (Luckily, I live about three blocks from one, so around home I'm good!)
I'm debating building a portable iGate/digipeater... something I can deploy wherever I stay for a few days that can get packets online and repeated, if there isn't good APRS infrastructure nearby. I'd prefer that this would run under Linux, as that is my preferred operating system.
What suggestions can you make for hardware and software? Something Raspberry Pi-based might be pretty inexpensive to build, and portable, but I'm open-minded. | 2018/03/02 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/9983",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/9844/"
] | A Raspberry Pi running Direwolf is definitely a reasonable option.
For a receive-only iGate, a number of people have had success with a Pi and an RTL-SDR dongle, running rtl\_fm and direwolf. Nice and easy, no fuss, but of course it won't digipeat.
I recently built myself a setup using a Pi and the DRA-818V chip (specifically, SV1AFN's DRA-818V board), with a USB soundcard to go between them, and that's worked pretty well too. I use it as a mobile node, not a digipeater, and with only 1W of transmit power, it arguably wouldn't make a very good digipeater.
You could of course try adding an amplifier to that setup, but it's probably a better idea to hook up to a proper radio (perhaps an HT, or a little mobile rig). As long as the radio has some external way to operate the PTT, the same setup of Pi + direwolf + USB sound card will work fine. Direwolf will drive a rasPi GPIO for PTT, so you can generally rig something up using no more than a transistor or two. Or you could use something like a SignaLink in place of the USB soundcard, at the cost of a bit more bulk. | The RX iGate with a RTL-SDR dongle is pretty easy to setup. The hard part of a TX digipeater is keying the radio,like hobbs mentioned.
I bought a Argent data systems t3-micro in hopes of making a fill-in digipeater or using a spare mobile radio for TX while driving; depending on that I needed. I should get back to that project... |
27,556 | Let's say that a gas giant (around the same size and distance from the sun as Jupiter) has a moon that supports life. The moon is around the size of Mercury (if this is too large please let me know). Would the star be bright (or even large) enough to be considered the difference between day and night, or would the gas giant's reflection of the star be considered the 'sun'? | 2015/10/13 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/27556",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/11049/"
] | First of all, the moon will always get weekly blackouts once every few years in an eclipse. Making the likelihood of a liveable moon much less likely (or at least one not using artificial light and mass weather controlling, but once you use this the practical side of this question sort of goes down the drain).
Second, the gas giants in our solar system (including Jupiter) all absorb the light particles that hit them. The little reflection is dark blue or ultraviolet in some cases, which won't help brightening the planet.
Third, the light reflecting off the gas giant will have to travel a further distance to get to the moon. Plus the gas giant will absorb huge amounts of the light and the reflection will be less powerful.
Forth, since Jupiter and it's moons are so far away from the sun, the moon will get little light from either. To make it habitable you will need artificial light e.t.c. A way to avoid this would be to make this universe of yours have a much bigger sun. The problem with that would be Jupiter's light would then become nuisance not a helper. But because of the things I said earlier I think the light from the gas giant will be insignificant to day to day life. What will change from the gas giant will be things like the tides. | As a rule, the reflection of light from any source is never as intense as the light coming directly from the source (unless we are talking about concave mirrors here, which we are not). Furthermore, it is not known what is the composition of the gas giant's atmosphere. Some gases retain heat better than others. Although all of the gas giants discovered so far has an atmosphere composed mainly of hydrogen and helium, but if the gas giant in question has its atmosphere made of greenhouse gases ... (don't take that seriously, the chances of this happening are nil).
Gas giants, the size of Jupiter [generate more heat in their cores than they get from sun](http://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html), so if the planet has a calm atmosphere (it's like a joke, expecting a gas giant to be calm) then there are good chances it could provide the planet with some balmy warmth. More so if the atmosphere of the moon has a good ratio of greenhouse gases. |
481,250 | Is this sentence, "The cat paws in the water to get the fish" grammatically correct? | 2019/01/15 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/481250",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/332074/"
] | >
> The cat paws in the water to get the fish.
>
>
>
The sentence is grammatical but unusual.
---
The verb [*paw*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paw#h2) has an intransitive form:
>
> [Merriam-Webster]
>
>
> *intransitive verb*
>
>
> **4** : to flail or grab wildly
>
>
>
The dictionary also provides an example sentence that uses *paws* intransitively:
>
> // She pawed through her purse to find her cell phone.
>
>
>
The verb tense aside, *she pawed through her purse* is the same construction as *the cat paws in the water*. It describes somebody (or something) who simply *paws*—and then follows it with a prepositional phrase.
---
I would not say that the sentence is common—normally the transitive form of the verb would be used—but it's not wrong.
Note that the meaning of the sentence (in its intransitive form) is something like the following:
>
> The cat flailed in the water in an attempt to get the fish.
>
>
>
--- | The sentence could be understood as "The cat's paw is in the water." The sentence in quotes adds a missing possessive and a verb to denote the presence of the cat's paw in the water. |
34,643 | I've been offered a job the day of an interview but been asked to decide by the following morning.
Is this standard practice for London software engineering jobs? | 2014/10/07 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/34643",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/9942/"
] | tl;dr answer - No.
There's two possible reasons I can see - the charitable one is that they want you to make a quick decision so that they can move on to the next candidate promptly if you say no, and have done it in rather a cack-handed and inappropriate manner. The other, and more likely, is that they are trying to bounce you into a quick decision without proper consideration of alternatives. It certainly smells that they've made an offer so quickly - I've certainly received quick offers but when that happened it was clear that they wanted me enough to be accommodating over my time required to decide.
If there were no other red flags at this company and you're considering saying yes, it might be worth asking for a bit more time in order to consult with family/friends - maybe a couple of days. If they refuse or turn hostile, think very carefully before accepting. | Echoing Julia, it's not usual to impose a tight deadline like that.
If, however, you like the job - verbally accept it on provision of a satisfactory contract. Once you have the contract you can take your time reading it, negotiate pay and benefit, and research the company more thoroughly.
If they're desperate to hire you, it should put you in an advantageous position. |
34,643 | I've been offered a job the day of an interview but been asked to decide by the following morning.
Is this standard practice for London software engineering jobs? | 2014/10/07 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/34643",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/9942/"
] | tl;dr answer - No.
There's two possible reasons I can see - the charitable one is that they want you to make a quick decision so that they can move on to the next candidate promptly if you say no, and have done it in rather a cack-handed and inappropriate manner. The other, and more likely, is that they are trying to bounce you into a quick decision without proper consideration of alternatives. It certainly smells that they've made an offer so quickly - I've certainly received quick offers but when that happened it was clear that they wanted me enough to be accommodating over my time required to decide.
If there were no other red flags at this company and you're considering saying yes, it might be worth asking for a bit more time in order to consult with family/friends - maybe a couple of days. If they refuse or turn hostile, think very carefully before accepting. | Your salary expectation might be far below the average, so they want to close the deal before you get the chance to realize it. The contract could contain parts that are not favorable to you, so they want to avoid you reading it in detail. Lots of other reasons.
If they didn't mention a tight deadline during the interview and that they need you to start immediately, I would tell them you need to read the contract and think about and you will tell them your decission in 2-3 days. |
34,643 | I've been offered a job the day of an interview but been asked to decide by the following morning.
Is this standard practice for London software engineering jobs? | 2014/10/07 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/34643",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/9942/"
] | Echoing Julia, it's not usual to impose a tight deadline like that.
If, however, you like the job - verbally accept it on provision of a satisfactory contract. Once you have the contract you can take your time reading it, negotiate pay and benefit, and research the company more thoroughly.
If they're desperate to hire you, it should put you in an advantageous position. | Your salary expectation might be far below the average, so they want to close the deal before you get the chance to realize it. The contract could contain parts that are not favorable to you, so they want to avoid you reading it in detail. Lots of other reasons.
If they didn't mention a tight deadline during the interview and that they need you to start immediately, I would tell them you need to read the contract and think about and you will tell them your decission in 2-3 days. |
9,904,863 | I want to start to make a chat client that runs in web browsers, upon a colleges requests. Its my first time doing something like this, so i made some research about this mostly about HTML5. I did research on the platform itself, how fast and how used it is, but my most important factor was: mobile support
I plan to develop this chat for a long while for experience because, as a coder/programmer I am still inexperienced.So i was thinking in the future as well. i have a forum community with pretty limited chat access. I want to change that as well, and as an extra include mobile support.
i researched Flash, java and HTML5, the two most obvious choice in web applications, and pretty much the new comer HTML5.
Flash is more widely used as web app(at least what i saw and found.), and its more designer oriented than programmer, but many chats are written in this, and are used. but there is no mobile support for it, to my knowledge. thats hinders my future plans.
Java, is a robust programming language, and saw a few webchats in this, but my main issue with this is performance: its much slower than flash. But at least there is mobile support, at least the android mobiles.
as for HTML5....its pretty much still a child, not all web browsers support it fully but the major ones support web socket already, except IE9. and IE9 is the most used web browser, sadly. And i cant find any support for it on mobiles yet.
And i don't know any other platforms out there in the Internet that could do the same as the above three, but i'm open.
So my question is: Which is the best platform for writing a webchat, that lest me do mobile support at a latter stage? | 2012/03/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9904863",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1297666/"
] | You cannot write a chat in HTML 5 alone (because it operates on the client and there needs to be server code), you would need PHP or JSP for that.
I wouldn't use flash except if you are already very proficient in it because:
* it needs an extra plugin
* it frequently blocks or crashes some browsers
* I think it is difficult to develop and I am not sure if the development software is free
So my choice would be Java Applet by default. It needs an extra plugin but it is much more stable than flash and you need it for many applications anyways but it has so much functionality that is very easy to make a chat with it.
P.S.: Java's speed is absolutely no problem for a chat. Java is maybe 10% behind C++ depending on the application but we are talking about languages like Flash or PHP so Java is not slower but it doesn't matter anyways because a chat has next to no resource requirements. | You should have a look at nodejs:
<http://nodejs.org/>
Also the socket.io module for nodejs which allows you to use websockets as a transport mechanism for capable browsers and provides fallback methods for older browsers:
<http://socket.io/>
There's a [node and socket.io chat tutorial](http://psitsmike.com/2011/09/node-js-and-socket-io-chat-tutorial/) which might be helpful and a working [chat demo based on node](http://chat.nodejs.org/) (though I couldn't see any reference to socket.io when I reviewed the code). |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.