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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17,545 | I am building an internal database application for Joomla using Fabrik.
I'm interested to know if there are any alternatives to Fabrik for me to use. Maybe some of them have more options? In my case, I am making an ERM/CRM (database for company with clients, cases etc etc what my directors required). What would you use in this case? | 2016/08/16 | [
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com/questions/17545",
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com",
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com/users/7952/"
] | I've used Fabrik for a few projects in the past but for my most recent project I ended up using ChronoForms.
I've used ChronoForms in the past but until recently didn't realize that it's capable of so much more than creating a custom "Contact Us" form. You can easily create lists with Multi-Record Loader, I found those to be more flexible than Fabrik lists. You also have much more control (only if you want to) over how the UI elements are rendered in HTML.
I would also consider using Joomla MVC for coding a custom component from scratch, as suggested by others here, but I am not personally very strong with PHP, so I voted that out for now. | I would use CiviCrm: the main logic is implemented and it can be tuned like you want it. Main reason for me is that there is a team that keeps coding new versions and keeps the whole thing up to date, all based on a use history of years.
Main reason not to do this: it is a lot of work to get it running inside Joomla, and you need to get used to the detailed level of customising that is expected. |
17,545 | I am building an internal database application for Joomla using Fabrik.
I'm interested to know if there are any alternatives to Fabrik for me to use. Maybe some of them have more options? In my case, I am making an ERM/CRM (database for company with clients, cases etc etc what my directors required). What would you use in this case? | 2016/08/16 | [
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com/questions/17545",
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com",
"https://joomla.stackexchange.com/users/7952/"
] | You can use any JoomlaCCK powerful application such as:
a)Fabrik
b)[Cobalt](http://www.mintjoomla.com/joomla-components/cobalt.html)
c)[Seblod](http://www.seblod.com/) | I would use CiviCrm: the main logic is implemented and it can be tuned like you want it. Main reason for me is that there is a team that keeps coding new versions and keeps the whole thing up to date, all based on a use history of years.
Main reason not to do this: it is a lot of work to get it running inside Joomla, and you need to get used to the detailed level of customising that is expected. |
51,560 | ...a kingdom of isolation - jk.
A small young chap went on a journey with some friends and was inspired to write this poem about one of his traveling companions. Who's the poem about?
>
> Precedes the procession of lady and lord
>
> Last in secession an enraged orc horde
>
> Carefully navigating to second then fifth
>
> Looking through roads for most targets to hit
>
> Leading the lost but not the confused
>
> Humor unwelcome, granted a wee bit amused?
>
> First and foremost to be titled "skilled"
>
> But just 1 point for an elephant killed
>
>
>
Hint:
>
> This puzzle involves wordplay. The context of the lines of the poem verify the answer, but each line (expect for the last one) is used to get the answer.
>
>
> | 2017/05/05 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/51560",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/35972/"
] | **What I think is the answer:**
>
> Legolas is who this poem is about.
>
>
>
I arrived at it by making sense of some of the lines, which I'll try to articulate.
A small young chap
>
> Frodo Baggins.
>
>
>
Precedes the procession of lady and lord
>
> He is of great help in getting Aragorn crowned King Elessar of Gondor and marrying Arwen.
>
>
>
Looking through roads for most targets to hit
>
> Is able to spot targets to shoot at easily across great distance and in the middle of battle.
>
>
>
Leading the lost but not the confused
>
> After the Fellowship split, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and the other two hobbits are in a sense "lost" to Frodo and Sam, but they still have their own mission and goal which they have some clue how to accomplish.
>
>
>
Humor unwelcome, granted a wee bit amused?
>
> Legolas never seems to laugh at anything, but he does show slight amusement at funny situations.
>
>
>
First and foremost to be titled "skilled"
>
> Fairly self-explanatory. He's is immensely skilled with his bow and the other weapons he carries, along with his grace and dexterity.
>
>
>
But just 1 point for an elephant killed
>
> Takes down an entire war elephant, along with the small structure on its back, and all the Haradrim on it, leading Gimli to declare that the elephant still only counts as one point in their friendly killing rivalry.
>
>
> | Building on the [answer by @Flawedspirit](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/51563/26596)
Going line by line:
Precedes the procession of lady and lord
>
> L - first letter of lady and lord
>
>
>
Last in secession an enraged orc horde
>
> E - last letter of the entire line
>
>
>
Carefully navigating to second then fifth
>
> G - fifth letter of second word
>
>
>
Looking through roads for most targets to hit
>
> O - the most common letter in the line
>
>
>
Leading the lost but not the confused
>
> L - first letter in "lost" but not "confused"
>
>
>
Humor unwelcome, granted a wee bit amused?
>
> A - unsure
>
>
>
First and foremost to be titled "skilled"
>
> S - first letter in "skilled"
>
>
>
All of the above lines, both in wordplay and in contextual meaning, plus the last line, lead you to
>
> LEGOLAS
>
>
> |
90,716 | How can I, using existing spells in D&D 5e, create a Surveillance System?
This Surveillance System should do the following:
* Be able to *see* what happens in different locations at the same time.
* Be able to *show* what's being *seen* in something like a *screen*.
Resources available are:
* Some preparation (like invoking some kind of creatures or placing spells or magical items in some locations).
* Virtually unlimited money/spellcaster time.
Criterion is:
* minimizing cost to surveil a location 24/7.
Any of these costs should be explained (e.g.: *one L3 wizard per location surveilled*.)
I'd like to keep it within existing spells, not needing to create some new spells, though it doesn't need to be strictly RAW.
---
I will explain here the context for which I'll use this Surveillance System, though it should be used for other contexts that require the same criterion.
There should be a huge *resort* where the richest nobleman go to satisfy their most cruel desires. There, dungeons and arenas are set where kidnapped adventurers find their fate, which usualy is a cruel death. But this kind of amenity sometimes requires the *gladiators*/*adventurers*/***players*** to be inside a dungeon, and there's where our Surveillance System is needed. | 2016/11/22 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90716",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/22733/"
] | If you want to have a single, central system, then the spell of choice is *Scrying*. No other spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location has its unlimited range. Unfortunately, it's a 5th level spell, and only has a 10 minute duration. So you're going to need a *lot* of high level wizards**1** to get 24-hour-a-day coverage.
24 hours worth of 10 minute intervals means each location will need 144 *Scrying*s a day. This requires some number of wizards casting in shifts for each location:
* 144 9th-level wizards
* 48 10th-level wizards
* 36 11th-level or 12th-level wizards
* 29 13th-level or 14th-level wizards
* 24 15th-level or 16th-level wizards
* 21 17th-level wizards
* 18 18th-level wizards
* 16 19th-level wizards
* 14 20th-level wizards
Or some combination of differently-leveled wizards, obviously.
The alternative is to get some Crystal Balls. Crystal Balls allow you to cast *Scrying* an unlimited number of times per day, so you'll only need 1 for each location you want to view. Note that anyone can use a Crystal Ball, so your hiring requirements are pretty open**2**.
On the other hand, if you're ok with having a number of substations, *Clairvoyance* is a 3rd-level spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location within 1 mile. As it's 3rd-level, you can recruit lower level wizards, but it has the same 10 minute duration, so you'll still need an awful lot of them - 72 3rd-level wizards, or 7 20th-level wizards casting in shifts to cover each location for 24 hours a day. (Not going to do the maths for every level from 3rd to 20th.)
Either way, you want to project what the watchers are seeing to a screen. Luckily, this is pretty simple - as long as all of your watchers know the cantrip *Minor Illusion*, they can make an illusion of what they're seeing. They'll have to cast it 10 times for each *Scrying* or *Clairvoyance*, but since it's a cantrip and doesn't require concentration, this isn't actually an issue.
---
**1** Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks can also use *Scrying*, Wizards are just an example here.
**2** If you're using Crystal Balls, and looking to recruit non-wizard watchers, any Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard can learn *Minor Illusion*. Additionally, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Clerics can also learn it. On top of that, any High Elf can learn it, ***all*** Forest Gnomes know it, and anyone can learn it using the Magic Initiate feat. | I think I'd use a combination of Animal Friendship on birds, and Beast Sense, and as someone else suggested, Minor Illusion to show it on a screen or whatever. |
90,716 | How can I, using existing spells in D&D 5e, create a Surveillance System?
This Surveillance System should do the following:
* Be able to *see* what happens in different locations at the same time.
* Be able to *show* what's being *seen* in something like a *screen*.
Resources available are:
* Some preparation (like invoking some kind of creatures or placing spells or magical items in some locations).
* Virtually unlimited money/spellcaster time.
Criterion is:
* minimizing cost to surveil a location 24/7.
Any of these costs should be explained (e.g.: *one L3 wizard per location surveilled*.)
I'd like to keep it within existing spells, not needing to create some new spells, though it doesn't need to be strictly RAW.
---
I will explain here the context for which I'll use this Surveillance System, though it should be used for other contexts that require the same criterion.
There should be a huge *resort* where the richest nobleman go to satisfy their most cruel desires. There, dungeons and arenas are set where kidnapped adventurers find their fate, which usualy is a cruel death. But this kind of amenity sometimes requires the *gladiators*/*adventurers*/***players*** to be inside a dungeon, and there's where our Surveillance System is needed. | 2016/11/22 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90716",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/22733/"
] | If you want to have a single, central system, then the spell of choice is *Scrying*. No other spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location has its unlimited range. Unfortunately, it's a 5th level spell, and only has a 10 minute duration. So you're going to need a *lot* of high level wizards**1** to get 24-hour-a-day coverage.
24 hours worth of 10 minute intervals means each location will need 144 *Scrying*s a day. This requires some number of wizards casting in shifts for each location:
* 144 9th-level wizards
* 48 10th-level wizards
* 36 11th-level or 12th-level wizards
* 29 13th-level or 14th-level wizards
* 24 15th-level or 16th-level wizards
* 21 17th-level wizards
* 18 18th-level wizards
* 16 19th-level wizards
* 14 20th-level wizards
Or some combination of differently-leveled wizards, obviously.
The alternative is to get some Crystal Balls. Crystal Balls allow you to cast *Scrying* an unlimited number of times per day, so you'll only need 1 for each location you want to view. Note that anyone can use a Crystal Ball, so your hiring requirements are pretty open**2**.
On the other hand, if you're ok with having a number of substations, *Clairvoyance* is a 3rd-level spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location within 1 mile. As it's 3rd-level, you can recruit lower level wizards, but it has the same 10 minute duration, so you'll still need an awful lot of them - 72 3rd-level wizards, or 7 20th-level wizards casting in shifts to cover each location for 24 hours a day. (Not going to do the maths for every level from 3rd to 20th.)
Either way, you want to project what the watchers are seeing to a screen. Luckily, this is pretty simple - as long as all of your watchers know the cantrip *Minor Illusion*, they can make an illusion of what they're seeing. They'll have to cast it 10 times for each *Scrying* or *Clairvoyance*, but since it's a cantrip and doesn't require concentration, this isn't actually an issue.
---
**1** Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks can also use *Scrying*, Wizards are just an example here.
**2** If you're using Crystal Balls, and looking to recruit non-wizard watchers, any Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard can learn *Minor Illusion*. Additionally, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Clerics can also learn it. On top of that, any High Elf can learn it, ***all*** Forest Gnomes know it, and anyone can learn it using the Magic Initiate feat. | For lower levels, I would set up a network of *alarm* spells (which can be cast ritually with no resource consumption. Then when the *alarm* pings me, I would cast *clairvoyance* (3rd level spell) on that location to actually see/hear what is happening there. If I wanted to share that information I could put up a *minor illusion* (which would not be able to move) of the most important thing I was seeing. |
90,716 | How can I, using existing spells in D&D 5e, create a Surveillance System?
This Surveillance System should do the following:
* Be able to *see* what happens in different locations at the same time.
* Be able to *show* what's being *seen* in something like a *screen*.
Resources available are:
* Some preparation (like invoking some kind of creatures or placing spells or magical items in some locations).
* Virtually unlimited money/spellcaster time.
Criterion is:
* minimizing cost to surveil a location 24/7.
Any of these costs should be explained (e.g.: *one L3 wizard per location surveilled*.)
I'd like to keep it within existing spells, not needing to create some new spells, though it doesn't need to be strictly RAW.
---
I will explain here the context for which I'll use this Surveillance System, though it should be used for other contexts that require the same criterion.
There should be a huge *resort* where the richest nobleman go to satisfy their most cruel desires. There, dungeons and arenas are set where kidnapped adventurers find their fate, which usualy is a cruel death. But this kind of amenity sometimes requires the *gladiators*/*adventurers*/***players*** to be inside a dungeon, and there's where our Surveillance System is needed. | 2016/11/22 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90716",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/22733/"
] | If you want to have a single, central system, then the spell of choice is *Scrying*. No other spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location has its unlimited range. Unfortunately, it's a 5th level spell, and only has a 10 minute duration. So you're going to need a *lot* of high level wizards**1** to get 24-hour-a-day coverage.
24 hours worth of 10 minute intervals means each location will need 144 *Scrying*s a day. This requires some number of wizards casting in shifts for each location:
* 144 9th-level wizards
* 48 10th-level wizards
* 36 11th-level or 12th-level wizards
* 29 13th-level or 14th-level wizards
* 24 15th-level or 16th-level wizards
* 21 17th-level wizards
* 18 18th-level wizards
* 16 19th-level wizards
* 14 20th-level wizards
Or some combination of differently-leveled wizards, obviously.
The alternative is to get some Crystal Balls. Crystal Balls allow you to cast *Scrying* an unlimited number of times per day, so you'll only need 1 for each location you want to view. Note that anyone can use a Crystal Ball, so your hiring requirements are pretty open**2**.
On the other hand, if you're ok with having a number of substations, *Clairvoyance* is a 3rd-level spell that allows you to watch an arbitrary location within 1 mile. As it's 3rd-level, you can recruit lower level wizards, but it has the same 10 minute duration, so you'll still need an awful lot of them - 72 3rd-level wizards, or 7 20th-level wizards casting in shifts to cover each location for 24 hours a day. (Not going to do the maths for every level from 3rd to 20th.)
Either way, you want to project what the watchers are seeing to a screen. Luckily, this is pretty simple - as long as all of your watchers know the cantrip *Minor Illusion*, they can make an illusion of what they're seeing. They'll have to cast it 10 times for each *Scrying* or *Clairvoyance*, but since it's a cantrip and doesn't require concentration, this isn't actually an issue.
---
**1** Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks can also use *Scrying*, Wizards are just an example here.
**2** If you're using Crystal Balls, and looking to recruit non-wizard watchers, any Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard can learn *Minor Illusion*. Additionally, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Clerics can also learn it. On top of that, any High Elf can learn it, ***all*** Forest Gnomes know it, and anyone can learn it using the Magic Initiate feat. | Depending on how you want your surveillance system to function, the use of Find Familiar, and Homunculi (MM 188) to share senses could give you good aerial surveillance. A level 3 Pact of the Chain Warlock or a Wizard with a homunculus can control the location of their partner and see through their senses anywhere on the same plane. And both have flying speeds.
As suggested in other situations, the use of minor illusion can show the scene on a screen. |
17,536,147 | I am confused how MVC will work with GUI swing application. I have worked with PHP MVC but that is totally different. I understand what MVC stands for. But what making me confused is different variation of doing it in GUI swing programming. It is hard to conclude particular thing from different articles in web. Who should know whom? I mean what will be the relation between model view and controller? Should controller know both model and the view? I would like to an simple example if possible to illustrate this (like and simple button which will update a label)
If i am not asking more i would like to get sugetions of MVC book which is writtern Swing in mind. | 2013/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17536147",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1538127/"
] | If you ask 10 different people *"What does MVC mean?"* you'll probably get 10 different answers. I'm personally partial to this definition of MVC (at least for non-web apps):
[Model-View-Controller Design Pattern](http://cnx.org/content/m26104/latest/)
Basically, the only functions the controller serves is to instantiate model and the view as the application starts up and connect them to one another. Everything else is just proper decoupling of your program's data and logic (model) from how you choose to display it to the user and allow user interaction (view). | There are many different interpretations of MVC for Java. I will try to provide a basic explanation, but as I said, others may disagree on this.
A theoretically 'pure' interpretation of MVC involves the following:
* Model does not know about view
* View does not know about model
* Controller connects model and view in such a way that it provides data from the model to the view, handles 'events' in the view or the model, and updates the model accordingly based on what is happening in the view. It can also just handle an event in the view and provide a result back to the view, for example, a calculator.
Here is a possible/simple example:
The goal of this hypothetical application is to take a String in the model, get it to the GUI (view), allow the user to change the string, and update the aforementioned String value in the model. This example is more or less as decoupled as possible.
Model:
* Contains a String variable
View:
* Displays String variable.
* Takes user input that allows change to the String.
Controller (the 'glue'):
* Listens to Model via a customized listener for the String.
* Provides this String to the view for the user to see
* Listens to the view via a customized listener for the user to change the String.
* Takes this new String and provides it to the Model, updating the original String.
One of the key things behind MVC is the Observer Pattern Theory.
Although one takes certain risks using wikipedia, it generally does a good job conveying the basics behind MVC. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller>
Here is the link for a discussion on the 'pure' implementation and the source of the interpretation.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACOHAR7PIp4>
Here is a link with a very good explanation of a similar MVC interpretation and the theory behind it:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVxt79kK3Mk> |
92,450 | Is the Taper sweep angle the same as the sweep angle?
So I know that the sweep angle is the angle from the vertical line from the leading edge to leading edge wing line. | 2022/03/28 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/92450",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/62850/"
] | "Taper angle," "taper sweep angle," etc., have no widely accepted definition.
Sweep angle could be defined as the angle of the leading edge or of the trailing edge, but it's traditionally that of the [25% chord line](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/88048/why-is-sweep-angle-measured-at-the-25-chord?rq=1), because that's close to the aerodynamic center. In other words, that definition reduces how any taper present might affect what the sweep results in.
When taper is defined as just a tip-to-root *ratio*, not anything about angles, then the effects of sweep and taper can be discussed more independently. | Taper angle is more of a machining term, which might be the easiest described as the tip angle of a cone formed by a tapered section of a pipe (or tube). Well, maybe not that clear but anyway. For a wing we could logically use the same kind of definition:
Taper angle would be the angle two imaginary lines, drawn along leading edge and trailing edge and extended beyond the wing tip, make when they intersect.
But as stated in comments, this is not a common aviation term, if one at all... |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | Depending how handy you are, there's a few answers. Although other answers/comments touch on some of these, I'd like to recap to add my own comments to those, too.
I would also like to see pics of (1) **the hood itself**, perhaps slightly angled from above or below to get a sense of the 3D form, and (2) **the entire cupboard space**, like maybe a wide view, 600mm either side of the hood, to get a sense of context, and how rigid or truly fixed the cupboards are likely to be. It would help to add those to the question.
Shaving the edge of the hood
============================
As @isherwood says, stressing tempered glass (which this will be) is a dead end. It can't take it. But equally no need to take it to a glazier either (although definitely safest).
If you truly are missing just 1 - 2 mm of width, I'd buy a diamond faced wheel, and grind one or both edges myself. Low pressure from the tool, and use plenty of slightly diluted washing up liquid (USA: dish soap I think) or other cheap lubricant, in this case, rather than the more usual running water or light oil. (Squirt and smooth onto the surface before grinding). You can get cheap disposable dremel-style diamond faced 60-75mm wheels [like this](https://www.joom.com/en/products/5c0afc6b8b45130101c1ef80), online, larger will work better as a rule, easier to position and check its smooth.
You only need to shave a little off, and only up to about 30-35cm from the wall where it runs along the cupboard. So from the front it will look untouched and retain its polish. Drag the wheel at a slight angle, so you're grinding not cutting, and so you don't dig in.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VAXd4.jpg)
After you have the width right, run/grind the wheel again, this time at 30-45 degrees from both above and below, to ensure the newly shaped edges don't have sharp spurs at the top and bottom, as these might not fit (if the grind wasn't level), or could cut into the wood, or worst case may jam it.
A lightweight wheel like this has virtually no chance at all of cracking or stressing it, and can be used in any household drill.
Flexing the wall of the cupboards
=================================
I'd be wary of flexing with a temporary wedge, as one suggestion said. Same reason as above - when you remove the wedge, there will be extra pressure on the glass - and the glass is angled which reduces its ability to handle pressure side to side (in effect its already got a "fold" in it, as well as low tolerance of stress).
If you are going to flex the sides, perhaps use some kind of material with nice rounded ends that can be left in place, if possible, against the wall.
But even then I have my doubts. The board that makes up the back of the cupboards internally/behind may be a problem, though hopefully not. Depends on the material (thin hardboard or actual wood sheet, and whether if it slots in a groove or is nailed/glued (which makes the 4 sides a bit more rigid). They can be either.
That said, the cupboard sides may flex anyway but then I have a more serious concern - you dont want wood permamounted above a cooker, but at the same time any other material is hard to get to the exact width needed, and will prevent the hood lying flush to the wall. And also, more serious again, if you brace the back edges apart, the front edges (30 or so cm from the wall won't be braced apart and may retain their original spacing.
Overall don't like this idea.
Move the cupboards
==================
A millimeter isn't much, and they aren't plastered in place (from the photo).
Don't use a rubber mallet. Instead, if they have room to move at all, remove all internal shelves and put a 4x2 inch (100x50mm) piece of wood up against the side of the cupboard to spread the shock and prevent damage, and use a club hammer more towards the top where mounting is expected to be.
The pic gives the general idea, using a light piece of wood and lightweight hammer though. You want heavy hammer/mallet, so it can be hit relatively slowly and still transmit momentum/impulse/shock to the cupboard mount.
Also - important! - **the wood should be the full length, overlapping top and bottom corners, not just in the middle as I've shown,** so it moves the cupboard as a whole not just bends the side a bit.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f9Gxd.jpg)
Of course don't do this if the finish might be cracked by it. You'll have to judge that. It \* shouldn't \* ...... if its in decent condition.....
Replace the hood
================
Easy solution if grinding and nudging across aren't options. As you say, metal distorts a bit easier and certainly with less risk. | I'd loosen the screws on the back wall of the cabinets and tap them away from the center point of your opening to see if they move. If you can remove the left cabinet, look at the left side of that cabinet, there is usually only contact with the next cabinet at the face frame. You could shave the face frame by 1/8" or so (3mm) as needed to give you a bit of movement. Use a plane for best results. The longer the better. Enlarge the holes in the back wall of the cabinet and remount them to the wall using the existing holes in the wall. Some cabinets are also fastened to the face-frame of the adjacent cabinet. Tighten them up. Life is good. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | Any glass intended for a kitchen is almost certainly tempered. You cannot modify tempered glass. It will explode or disintegrate. Even if it's not, you're unlikely to be successful without specialized tools and training.
You also wouldn't go grinding away at the finished end of your cabinet. That would make a real mess with no easy remedy. Unless you perfectly match a depression to the shape of your new hood, you'll have to deal with surface prep (flat and smooth), stain color, finish sheen, etc. It's a real bag of worms if you expect a professional result like I would.
I think of a hood as an appliance, and of cabinets as part of the home. Almost any time I've visually modified cabinets, or doors, or trim to accommodate something less permanent (or someone had before me) I've regretted it. Instead, **look at shortening a cabinet from a hidden point**. There's often a filler strip at the corners of the room that could be reduced, or you could pull off a side that's sandwiched against another cabinet and mill that down.
Show us more context for better answers. It may be as simple as re-mounting the cabinets a little more snugly to the side. | First of all: Have you tried it?
Since you have already bought the hood you can just lift it in and try if it fits. Maybe your measurement is not entirely correct or the hood is a little bit smaller than promised.
If it is too tight a fit and its only about a few millimeters (and there is not a wall directly next to the cupboards) you can try to move them a tiny little bit.
Normally there is always a little wiggle room in the mounting of the cupboards. Empty the cupboards, loosen the screws a bit, push the cupboard to the side and fasten the screws again. Maybe even mount the hood while the cupboard is loose.
Before you start sanding the glass you should find a slightly smaller hood in exchange for the bigger one. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | Glass does not take well to sanding, cutting, etc. It *can* be done, but not so easily. It is even harder on an assembled large object, as opposed to large flat sheets.
On the other hand, wood and similar materials (e.g., products made from various combinations of wood fibers, glue, etc.) can handle sanding very well, with minimal loss of strength and virtually no chance of sudden failure. A crack in glass will almost inevitably lead to structural failure. A crack in wood, even if it goes quite deep, is not that big deal unless it is in a structural component - and even then often well within the margin of safety.
Sanding *will* ruin the finish. But due to location, that portion of the cabinet sides will almost certainly always be covered up by a hood. If someday you install a hood that does not cover the entire area that had previously been covered, there are a number of ways of hiding the damage. | There's mentions in other posts of all sorts of changes to the glass, squeezing it in, *temporarily* moving the cabinets, etc.
**Do not compress or attempt to modify the glass in any way**
The glass contains invisible, but carefully and balanced stresses within it; watch the 10s segment from the marked time here <https://youtu.be/j16GD0xzkhk?t=126> to see a very high-level of how careful cooling during manufacturing causes these stresses, which give the glass its desirable properties, *but must remain balanced!*
You want to ensure you have not just enough, but *extra* space with the hood in-place to prevent expansions of the nearby wood (which happens a little naturally with changes temperature and moisture) and the glass hood itself (it will expand a little when heated by the oven) from adding any pressure to the glass
Consider
* cutting away part of the cabinet such that there is space for the hood (you may be able to route a line or deeply sand away material which will be covered by the hood with a little to spare); you could use something like a Dremel "Multi-Max" for this
* widening the space permanently by forcing the cabinets apart with some spreader [as partially mentioned in a comment](https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834/how-can-i-fit-a-glass-cooktop-hood-into-a-space-thats-too-tight#comment462602_238878) .. however, you almost-certainly want a frame that you leave in place after installing the glass to keep the extra space with seasonal expansion
* returning the hood and obtaining a metal one instead, which may fit more nicely into your space (this may actually save you some time and money covering the unsightly back wall, or could be a topper which acts as the permanent spreading frame from suggestion 2 for your glass hood) |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | I'd loosen the screws on the back wall of the cabinets and tap them away from the center point of your opening to see if they move. If you can remove the left cabinet, look at the left side of that cabinet, there is usually only contact with the next cabinet at the face frame. You could shave the face frame by 1/8" or so (3mm) as needed to give you a bit of movement. Use a plane for best results. The longer the better. Enlarge the holes in the back wall of the cabinet and remount them to the wall using the existing holes in the wall. Some cabinets are also fastened to the face-frame of the adjacent cabinet. Tighten them up. Life is good. | Depending on environmental conditions, consider running a dehumidifier and lowering the temperature in the room and the temperature of the glass. (This would work here in Florida...maybe...). That only solves the initial problem of fit. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | First of all: Have you tried it?
Since you have already bought the hood you can just lift it in and try if it fits. Maybe your measurement is not entirely correct or the hood is a little bit smaller than promised.
If it is too tight a fit and its only about a few millimeters (and there is not a wall directly next to the cupboards) you can try to move them a tiny little bit.
Normally there is always a little wiggle room in the mounting of the cupboards. Empty the cupboards, loosen the screws a bit, push the cupboard to the side and fasten the screws again. Maybe even mount the hood while the cupboard is loose.
Before you start sanding the glass you should find a slightly smaller hood in exchange for the bigger one. | Depending on environmental conditions, consider running a dehumidifier and lowering the temperature in the room and the temperature of the glass. (This would work here in Florida...maybe...). That only solves the initial problem of fit. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | There's mentions in other posts of all sorts of changes to the glass, squeezing it in, *temporarily* moving the cabinets, etc.
**Do not compress or attempt to modify the glass in any way**
The glass contains invisible, but carefully and balanced stresses within it; watch the 10s segment from the marked time here <https://youtu.be/j16GD0xzkhk?t=126> to see a very high-level of how careful cooling during manufacturing causes these stresses, which give the glass its desirable properties, *but must remain balanced!*
You want to ensure you have not just enough, but *extra* space with the hood in-place to prevent expansions of the nearby wood (which happens a little naturally with changes temperature and moisture) and the glass hood itself (it will expand a little when heated by the oven) from adding any pressure to the glass
Consider
* cutting away part of the cabinet such that there is space for the hood (you may be able to route a line or deeply sand away material which will be covered by the hood with a little to spare); you could use something like a Dremel "Multi-Max" for this
* widening the space permanently by forcing the cabinets apart with some spreader [as partially mentioned in a comment](https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834/how-can-i-fit-a-glass-cooktop-hood-into-a-space-thats-too-tight#comment462602_238878) .. however, you almost-certainly want a frame that you leave in place after installing the glass to keep the extra space with seasonal expansion
* returning the hood and obtaining a metal one instead, which may fit more nicely into your space (this may actually save you some time and money covering the unsightly back wall, or could be a topper which acts as the permanent spreading frame from suggestion 2 for your glass hood) | First of all: Have you tried it?
Since you have already bought the hood you can just lift it in and try if it fits. Maybe your measurement is not entirely correct or the hood is a little bit smaller than promised.
If it is too tight a fit and its only about a few millimeters (and there is not a wall directly next to the cupboards) you can try to move them a tiny little bit.
Normally there is always a little wiggle room in the mounting of the cupboards. Empty the cupboards, loosen the screws a bit, push the cupboard to the side and fasten the screws again. Maybe even mount the hood while the cupboard is loose.
Before you start sanding the glass you should find a slightly smaller hood in exchange for the bigger one. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | If the hood is this kind of arrangement, basically a pair of glass wings extending from a central machine .... my suggestion is **return it and buy something different**.
No matter what you do it's going to look awful.
There needs to be a wide gap, as shown here, between the hood and the cabinets so you can clean them both. Otherwise you'll get black gunk forming in there that will be visible through the glass and difficult or impossible to clean.
Also ... these glass hoods develop a film of dust-caked-in-congealed-oil that is HIGHLY visible and needs to be cleaned, top, bottom, sides, and rear, constantly --- otherwise they look AWFUL. All hoods have this but on most of them, you can't see the top and the bottom is hidden by the front wall.
If you do ANYTHING to modify the side walls of the cabinet ... sand them, use a router to grind a channel in them, replace them with thinner panels, smash them with hammers ... ANYTHING .... it will look awful.
Just don't.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YAb5I.png) | Depending how handy you are, there's a few answers. Although other answers/comments touch on some of these, I'd like to recap to add my own comments to those, too.
I would also like to see pics of (1) **the hood itself**, perhaps slightly angled from above or below to get a sense of the 3D form, and (2) **the entire cupboard space**, like maybe a wide view, 600mm either side of the hood, to get a sense of context, and how rigid or truly fixed the cupboards are likely to be. It would help to add those to the question.
Shaving the edge of the hood
============================
As @isherwood says, stressing tempered glass (which this will be) is a dead end. It can't take it. But equally no need to take it to a glazier either (although definitely safest).
If you truly are missing just 1 - 2 mm of width, I'd buy a diamond faced wheel, and grind one or both edges myself. Low pressure from the tool, and use plenty of slightly diluted washing up liquid (USA: dish soap I think) or other cheap lubricant, in this case, rather than the more usual running water or light oil. (Squirt and smooth onto the surface before grinding). You can get cheap disposable dremel-style diamond faced 60-75mm wheels [like this](https://www.joom.com/en/products/5c0afc6b8b45130101c1ef80), online, larger will work better as a rule, easier to position and check its smooth.
You only need to shave a little off, and only up to about 30-35cm from the wall where it runs along the cupboard. So from the front it will look untouched and retain its polish. Drag the wheel at a slight angle, so you're grinding not cutting, and so you don't dig in.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VAXd4.jpg)
After you have the width right, run/grind the wheel again, this time at 30-45 degrees from both above and below, to ensure the newly shaped edges don't have sharp spurs at the top and bottom, as these might not fit (if the grind wasn't level), or could cut into the wood, or worst case may jam it.
A lightweight wheel like this has virtually no chance at all of cracking or stressing it, and can be used in any household drill.
Flexing the wall of the cupboards
=================================
I'd be wary of flexing with a temporary wedge, as one suggestion said. Same reason as above - when you remove the wedge, there will be extra pressure on the glass - and the glass is angled which reduces its ability to handle pressure side to side (in effect its already got a "fold" in it, as well as low tolerance of stress).
If you are going to flex the sides, perhaps use some kind of material with nice rounded ends that can be left in place, if possible, against the wall.
But even then I have my doubts. The board that makes up the back of the cupboards internally/behind may be a problem, though hopefully not. Depends on the material (thin hardboard or actual wood sheet, and whether if it slots in a groove or is nailed/glued (which makes the 4 sides a bit more rigid). They can be either.
That said, the cupboard sides may flex anyway but then I have a more serious concern - you dont want wood permamounted above a cooker, but at the same time any other material is hard to get to the exact width needed, and will prevent the hood lying flush to the wall. And also, more serious again, if you brace the back edges apart, the front edges (30 or so cm from the wall won't be braced apart and may retain their original spacing.
Overall don't like this idea.
Move the cupboards
==================
A millimeter isn't much, and they aren't plastered in place (from the photo).
Don't use a rubber mallet. Instead, if they have room to move at all, remove all internal shelves and put a 4x2 inch (100x50mm) piece of wood up against the side of the cupboard to spread the shock and prevent damage, and use a club hammer more towards the top where mounting is expected to be.
The pic gives the general idea, using a light piece of wood and lightweight hammer though. You want heavy hammer/mallet, so it can be hit relatively slowly and still transmit momentum/impulse/shock to the cupboard mount.
Also - important! - **the wood should be the full length, overlapping top and bottom corners, not just in the middle as I've shown,** so it moves the cupboard as a whole not just bends the side a bit.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f9Gxd.jpg)
Of course don't do this if the finish might be cracked by it. You'll have to judge that. It \* shouldn't \* ...... if its in decent condition.....
Replace the hood
================
Easy solution if grinding and nudging across aren't options. As you say, metal distorts a bit easier and certainly with less risk. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | Glass does not take well to sanding, cutting, etc. It *can* be done, but not so easily. It is even harder on an assembled large object, as opposed to large flat sheets.
On the other hand, wood and similar materials (e.g., products made from various combinations of wood fibers, glue, etc.) can handle sanding very well, with minimal loss of strength and virtually no chance of sudden failure. A crack in glass will almost inevitably lead to structural failure. A crack in wood, even if it goes quite deep, is not that big deal unless it is in a structural component - and even then often well within the margin of safety.
Sanding *will* ruin the finish. But due to location, that portion of the cabinet sides will almost certainly always be covered up by a hood. If someday you install a hood that does not cover the entire area that had previously been covered, there are a number of ways of hiding the damage. | Depending how handy you are, there's a few answers. Although other answers/comments touch on some of these, I'd like to recap to add my own comments to those, too.
I would also like to see pics of (1) **the hood itself**, perhaps slightly angled from above or below to get a sense of the 3D form, and (2) **the entire cupboard space**, like maybe a wide view, 600mm either side of the hood, to get a sense of context, and how rigid or truly fixed the cupboards are likely to be. It would help to add those to the question.
Shaving the edge of the hood
============================
As @isherwood says, stressing tempered glass (which this will be) is a dead end. It can't take it. But equally no need to take it to a glazier either (although definitely safest).
If you truly are missing just 1 - 2 mm of width, I'd buy a diamond faced wheel, and grind one or both edges myself. Low pressure from the tool, and use plenty of slightly diluted washing up liquid (USA: dish soap I think) or other cheap lubricant, in this case, rather than the more usual running water or light oil. (Squirt and smooth onto the surface before grinding). You can get cheap disposable dremel-style diamond faced 60-75mm wheels [like this](https://www.joom.com/en/products/5c0afc6b8b45130101c1ef80), online, larger will work better as a rule, easier to position and check its smooth.
You only need to shave a little off, and only up to about 30-35cm from the wall where it runs along the cupboard. So from the front it will look untouched and retain its polish. Drag the wheel at a slight angle, so you're grinding not cutting, and so you don't dig in.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VAXd4.jpg)
After you have the width right, run/grind the wheel again, this time at 30-45 degrees from both above and below, to ensure the newly shaped edges don't have sharp spurs at the top and bottom, as these might not fit (if the grind wasn't level), or could cut into the wood, or worst case may jam it.
A lightweight wheel like this has virtually no chance at all of cracking or stressing it, and can be used in any household drill.
Flexing the wall of the cupboards
=================================
I'd be wary of flexing with a temporary wedge, as one suggestion said. Same reason as above - when you remove the wedge, there will be extra pressure on the glass - and the glass is angled which reduces its ability to handle pressure side to side (in effect its already got a "fold" in it, as well as low tolerance of stress).
If you are going to flex the sides, perhaps use some kind of material with nice rounded ends that can be left in place, if possible, against the wall.
But even then I have my doubts. The board that makes up the back of the cupboards internally/behind may be a problem, though hopefully not. Depends on the material (thin hardboard or actual wood sheet, and whether if it slots in a groove or is nailed/glued (which makes the 4 sides a bit more rigid). They can be either.
That said, the cupboard sides may flex anyway but then I have a more serious concern - you dont want wood permamounted above a cooker, but at the same time any other material is hard to get to the exact width needed, and will prevent the hood lying flush to the wall. And also, more serious again, if you brace the back edges apart, the front edges (30 or so cm from the wall won't be braced apart and may retain their original spacing.
Overall don't like this idea.
Move the cupboards
==================
A millimeter isn't much, and they aren't plastered in place (from the photo).
Don't use a rubber mallet. Instead, if they have room to move at all, remove all internal shelves and put a 4x2 inch (100x50mm) piece of wood up against the side of the cupboard to spread the shock and prevent damage, and use a club hammer more towards the top where mounting is expected to be.
The pic gives the general idea, using a light piece of wood and lightweight hammer though. You want heavy hammer/mallet, so it can be hit relatively slowly and still transmit momentum/impulse/shock to the cupboard mount.
Also - important! - **the wood should be the full length, overlapping top and bottom corners, not just in the middle as I've shown,** so it moves the cupboard as a whole not just bends the side a bit.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f9Gxd.jpg)
Of course don't do this if the finish might be cracked by it. You'll have to judge that. It \* shouldn't \* ...... if its in decent condition.....
Replace the hood
================
Easy solution if grinding and nudging across aren't options. As you say, metal distorts a bit easier and certainly with less risk. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | First of all: Have you tried it?
Since you have already bought the hood you can just lift it in and try if it fits. Maybe your measurement is not entirely correct or the hood is a little bit smaller than promised.
If it is too tight a fit and its only about a few millimeters (and there is not a wall directly next to the cupboards) you can try to move them a tiny little bit.
Normally there is always a little wiggle room in the mounting of the cupboards. Empty the cupboards, loosen the screws a bit, push the cupboard to the side and fasten the screws again. Maybe even mount the hood while the cupboard is loose.
Before you start sanding the glass you should find a slightly smaller hood in exchange for the bigger one. | replace the end panels of the cabinet with thinner ones. if you only need a few millimeters that should do the trick. |
238,834 | I have just purchased a new glass cooker hood which is 600mm wide. The gap I have for it is also 600mm wide, though perhaps 599.9mm as it is currently a very snug fit. I am a little worried that the glass will break!
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rw7MA.jpg)
*The gap available for the new cooker hood*
I cannot move the cupboards. How do I remove a small amount of glass from the new cooker hood so that it fits well, rather than tightly? | 2021/11/23 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/238834",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/137420/"
] | Any glass intended for a kitchen is almost certainly tempered. You cannot modify tempered glass. It will explode or disintegrate. Even if it's not, you're unlikely to be successful without specialized tools and training.
You also wouldn't go grinding away at the finished end of your cabinet. That would make a real mess with no easy remedy. Unless you perfectly match a depression to the shape of your new hood, you'll have to deal with surface prep (flat and smooth), stain color, finish sheen, etc. It's a real bag of worms if you expect a professional result like I would.
I think of a hood as an appliance, and of cabinets as part of the home. Almost any time I've visually modified cabinets, or doors, or trim to accommodate something less permanent (or someone had before me) I've regretted it. Instead, **look at shortening a cabinet from a hidden point**. There's often a filler strip at the corners of the room that could be reduced, or you could pull off a side that's sandwiched against another cabinet and mill that down.
Show us more context for better answers. It may be as simple as re-mounting the cabinets a little more snugly to the side. | I'd loosen the screws on the back wall of the cabinets and tap them away from the center point of your opening to see if they move. If you can remove the left cabinet, look at the left side of that cabinet, there is usually only contact with the next cabinet at the face frame. You could shave the face frame by 1/8" or so (3mm) as needed to give you a bit of movement. Use a plane for best results. The longer the better. Enlarge the holes in the back wall of the cabinet and remount them to the wall using the existing holes in the wall. Some cabinets are also fastened to the face-frame of the adjacent cabinet. Tighten them up. Life is good. |
2,147,578 | I need to understand something about ASP.NET session state, as it applies to IIS 7 and ASP.net 3.5.
If an application is configured to use in-process session state, will that work OK if there are multiple worker processes? In other words, do worker processes share session state?
The default configuration for IIS 7 is to use in-process session state and to allocate a maximum of 10 worker processes. It would seem likely then, that this default configuration should work. I'm dealing with a company that has produced an ASP.NET MVC web app that is having some problems, they're blaming the server environment. The claim is that because I'm using the default settings of 10 worker processes, that is breaking their session state. I need to know whether this is in fact an accurate claim. I've never known an ASP.NET app to not work with the default configuration, so I'm a bit confused and need to have this clarified. | 2010/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2147578",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98516/"
] | Having multiple worker processes and using InProc does not seem to be compatible.
See [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20090204184907/http://gotnet.biz:80/Blog/post/Beware-Web-Gardens-and-InProc-Session-State.aspx):
>
> If you enable Web-garden mode by setting the webGarden attribute to true in the processModel element of the application's Web.config file, do not use InProc session state mode. If you do, data loss can occur if different requests for the same session are served by different worker processes.
>
>
> | I may be wrong, but as far as I know, by default you only have 1 worker process per application domain with multiple worker threads to handle requests. In this case In-Proc Session State should work just fine (the default settings).
But if you do have multiple worker processes (not just worker threads, actual worker processes) you do need out of process session state.
I think having more than 1 worker process in ASP.NET is referred to **web garden mode** which you have to specifically enable and if you do, then you need out of process state management. See the [comment box on this page](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178586.aspx) under the **In-Process Mode heading**. |
2,147,578 | I need to understand something about ASP.NET session state, as it applies to IIS 7 and ASP.net 3.5.
If an application is configured to use in-process session state, will that work OK if there are multiple worker processes? In other words, do worker processes share session state?
The default configuration for IIS 7 is to use in-process session state and to allocate a maximum of 10 worker processes. It would seem likely then, that this default configuration should work. I'm dealing with a company that has produced an ASP.NET MVC web app that is having some problems, they're blaming the server environment. The claim is that because I'm using the default settings of 10 worker processes, that is breaking their session state. I need to know whether this is in fact an accurate claim. I've never known an ASP.NET app to not work with the default configuration, so I'm a bit confused and need to have this clarified. | 2010/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2147578",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98516/"
] | I may be wrong, but as far as I know, by default you only have 1 worker process per application domain with multiple worker threads to handle requests. In this case In-Proc Session State should work just fine (the default settings).
But if you do have multiple worker processes (not just worker threads, actual worker processes) you do need out of process session state.
I think having more than 1 worker process in ASP.NET is referred to **web garden mode** which you have to specifically enable and if you do, then you need out of process state management. See the [comment box on this page](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178586.aspx) under the **In-Process Mode heading**. | I experienced session lost problem and finally struggled to find the root cause.
Recently I received several bug reprot about the session lost. If the website load is low, everything is OK. If the website load is high, the session lost issue happens. This is very weird.
The root cause is between Worker process setting and Session state. Here we have 5 worker processes, which means it will have 5 independent processes running when the website load is high. While the session is stored in process, IIS cannot guarantee that a client user will use the same worker process.
For example, the user client uses Process A when first visiting the web, and when he second visit the web, it may use Process B. There is no session stored in Process B, so his session is lost.
Why it is OK when the website load is low? Because IIS will only setup one worker process when the load is low. So the session lost issue will not happen. This explains why it is OK when I deploy a new version and test it OK at night, but the error happens again tomorrow morning. Because the website load is low at night.
Be careful to use session state in Process, it is unstable when your website load will be high and considering with mutiple worker processes. Try something like State Serversession state. |
2,147,578 | I need to understand something about ASP.NET session state, as it applies to IIS 7 and ASP.net 3.5.
If an application is configured to use in-process session state, will that work OK if there are multiple worker processes? In other words, do worker processes share session state?
The default configuration for IIS 7 is to use in-process session state and to allocate a maximum of 10 worker processes. It would seem likely then, that this default configuration should work. I'm dealing with a company that has produced an ASP.NET MVC web app that is having some problems, they're blaming the server environment. The claim is that because I'm using the default settings of 10 worker processes, that is breaking their session state. I need to know whether this is in fact an accurate claim. I've never known an ASP.NET app to not work with the default configuration, so I'm a bit confused and need to have this clarified. | 2010/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2147578",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98516/"
] | Having multiple worker processes and using InProc does not seem to be compatible.
See [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20090204184907/http://gotnet.biz:80/Blog/post/Beware-Web-Gardens-and-InProc-Session-State.aspx):
>
> If you enable Web-garden mode by setting the webGarden attribute to true in the processModel element of the application's Web.config file, do not use InProc session state mode. If you do, data loss can occur if different requests for the same session are served by different worker processes.
>
>
> | More than one worker process is a "web garden." In-process session state will not work correctly. You'll need to use either a single worker process for your web app, or use a session state server, or SQL Server for session state. |
2,147,578 | I need to understand something about ASP.NET session state, as it applies to IIS 7 and ASP.net 3.5.
If an application is configured to use in-process session state, will that work OK if there are multiple worker processes? In other words, do worker processes share session state?
The default configuration for IIS 7 is to use in-process session state and to allocate a maximum of 10 worker processes. It would seem likely then, that this default configuration should work. I'm dealing with a company that has produced an ASP.NET MVC web app that is having some problems, they're blaming the server environment. The claim is that because I'm using the default settings of 10 worker processes, that is breaking their session state. I need to know whether this is in fact an accurate claim. I've never known an ASP.NET app to not work with the default configuration, so I'm a bit confused and need to have this clarified. | 2010/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2147578",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98516/"
] | Having multiple worker processes and using InProc does not seem to be compatible.
See [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20090204184907/http://gotnet.biz:80/Blog/post/Beware-Web-Gardens-and-InProc-Session-State.aspx):
>
> If you enable Web-garden mode by setting the webGarden attribute to true in the processModel element of the application's Web.config file, do not use InProc session state mode. If you do, data loss can occur if different requests for the same session are served by different worker processes.
>
>
> | I experienced session lost problem and finally struggled to find the root cause.
Recently I received several bug reprot about the session lost. If the website load is low, everything is OK. If the website load is high, the session lost issue happens. This is very weird.
The root cause is between Worker process setting and Session state. Here we have 5 worker processes, which means it will have 5 independent processes running when the website load is high. While the session is stored in process, IIS cannot guarantee that a client user will use the same worker process.
For example, the user client uses Process A when first visiting the web, and when he second visit the web, it may use Process B. There is no session stored in Process B, so his session is lost.
Why it is OK when the website load is low? Because IIS will only setup one worker process when the load is low. So the session lost issue will not happen. This explains why it is OK when I deploy a new version and test it OK at night, but the error happens again tomorrow morning. Because the website load is low at night.
Be careful to use session state in Process, it is unstable when your website load will be high and considering with mutiple worker processes. Try something like State Serversession state. |
2,147,578 | I need to understand something about ASP.NET session state, as it applies to IIS 7 and ASP.net 3.5.
If an application is configured to use in-process session state, will that work OK if there are multiple worker processes? In other words, do worker processes share session state?
The default configuration for IIS 7 is to use in-process session state and to allocate a maximum of 10 worker processes. It would seem likely then, that this default configuration should work. I'm dealing with a company that has produced an ASP.NET MVC web app that is having some problems, they're blaming the server environment. The claim is that because I'm using the default settings of 10 worker processes, that is breaking their session state. I need to know whether this is in fact an accurate claim. I've never known an ASP.NET app to not work with the default configuration, so I'm a bit confused and need to have this clarified. | 2010/01/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2147578",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98516/"
] | More than one worker process is a "web garden." In-process session state will not work correctly. You'll need to use either a single worker process for your web app, or use a session state server, or SQL Server for session state. | I experienced session lost problem and finally struggled to find the root cause.
Recently I received several bug reprot about the session lost. If the website load is low, everything is OK. If the website load is high, the session lost issue happens. This is very weird.
The root cause is between Worker process setting and Session state. Here we have 5 worker processes, which means it will have 5 independent processes running when the website load is high. While the session is stored in process, IIS cannot guarantee that a client user will use the same worker process.
For example, the user client uses Process A when first visiting the web, and when he second visit the web, it may use Process B. There is no session stored in Process B, so his session is lost.
Why it is OK when the website load is low? Because IIS will only setup one worker process when the load is low. So the session lost issue will not happen. This explains why it is OK when I deploy a new version and test it OK at night, but the error happens again tomorrow morning. Because the website load is low at night.
Be careful to use session state in Process, it is unstable when your website load will be high and considering with mutiple worker processes. Try something like State Serversession state. |
278,616 | When I watch hulu on my second monitor the screen does not stay full screen when clicking on my main monitor. Is there a setting I can change to fix that? | 2013/04/06 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/278616",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/147339/"
] | Unfortunately this is just one of joys-of-Flash. As soon as it detects it has lost focus, it'll shut back down to regular size.
There are a couple of workarounds that work in the same way:
* Compiz's Enhanced Desktop Zoom (magnifier - whatever it's called!).
* `kmag` (KDE's magnifier app)
Both allow you to zoom in on something on the screen and both allow you to do this on one screen without affecting the other. Zoom in on the Flash applet (or game, or whatever) and you're away! | There is a better solution.
If you are in it for the kicks. Is to configure your machine to use Two X server simultaneously. This will allow you to keep focus on one screen. While still fully interacting with the other.
Basically you will run on X server instance on each screen , sharing keyboard and mouse in between them.
You will not be able to drag and drop applications between the two screens but except for that its quite nice. Since you can switch desktop independently on each screen.
I don't think unity supports this. At least it didn't last time i tried. So you might need to use another window manager. |
278,616 | When I watch hulu on my second monitor the screen does not stay full screen when clicking on my main monitor. Is there a setting I can change to fix that? | 2013/04/06 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/278616",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/147339/"
] | Unfortunately this is just one of joys-of-Flash. As soon as it detects it has lost focus, it'll shut back down to regular size.
There are a couple of workarounds that work in the same way:
* Compiz's Enhanced Desktop Zoom (magnifier - whatever it's called!).
* `kmag` (KDE's magnifier app)
Both allow you to zoom in on something on the screen and both allow you to do this on one screen without affecting the other. Zoom in on the Flash applet (or game, or whatever) and you're away! | There's a quite dirty hack to avoid this here:
<http://al.robotfuzz.com/content/workaround-fullscreen-flash-linux-multiheaded-desktops> |
27,422 | I am trying to build some base strength in the winter, doing some endurance training. I am mostly following the [TrainerRoad Base plan](http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/201893574-Base-Traditional) (which seems to be similar to the Bicycle Bible).
So I've tried to do a couple of 2-3h sessions per week. Should I add any energy during such a session?
I read that one would get better fat oxidation doing water-only rides, but would also get more tired, and experience a longer recovery time.
Any advice? I'm training for one 300km race, if it matters
Edit: i mean some added sugar to the water bottle, bars or gel.
Edit2: found this <http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/06/nutrition/inside-triathlon-magazine-fat-burning-machine_31034>
This guy seems to do a mix and add energy after 2h. | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/27422",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/14644/"
] | No Science Opinion #2
By not continuing to boost your blood sugar, your boy will theoretically switch to a metabolic state that burns more fat. I have seen endurance racers do it both ways. I have seen guys that may snack a bit inbetween, but will basically just eat two or three meals during a long race and not much in between. I also have seen guys that have bags and bags of candy and are constantly eating. I think the bigger question is finding out which works for you. I recommend you figure out if you are more comfortable eating and riding constantly (hard for some folks), or comfortable riding on a fairly full stomach (hard as well). Then, train and practice that method of keeping yourself fueled so when its time for your big ride, your body already understands what is going on. | Sorry, no science...
Last winter I did quite a lot of base miles and largely didn't eat during the rides of about (50/60 miles) though occasionally I'd stop of a coffee & cake close to home. I generally felt quite tired and hungry (I wanted to eat for Britain so to speak).
In mid March I went on my first longer ride (which ended up at 102 miles). I ate jelly babies all the way around and stopped once just to fill my water bottles. I didn't feel especially tired or hungry after that ride. Afterwards I felt like I'd wasted a whole winter.
This year I'm doing the same type of training but I'm eating jelly babies as I go (one every 30 minutes or so) . I feel much better for it, I'm not so tired and don't want to eat loads. |
27,422 | I am trying to build some base strength in the winter, doing some endurance training. I am mostly following the [TrainerRoad Base plan](http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/201893574-Base-Traditional) (which seems to be similar to the Bicycle Bible).
So I've tried to do a couple of 2-3h sessions per week. Should I add any energy during such a session?
I read that one would get better fat oxidation doing water-only rides, but would also get more tired, and experience a longer recovery time.
Any advice? I'm training for one 300km race, if it matters
Edit: i mean some added sugar to the water bottle, bars or gel.
Edit2: found this <http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/06/nutrition/inside-triathlon-magazine-fat-burning-machine_31034>
This guy seems to do a mix and add energy after 2h. | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/27422",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/14644/"
] | According to an [Australian Institute of Sport article about Eating before exercise](http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/competition_and_training/eating_before_exercise):
>
> Exercising in a fasted state (8 hours since the last meal) results in a greater proportion of fat being used as the exercise fuel compared to doing the same workload after a carbohydrate-containing meal or snack. However, it is possible that you may be able to exercise harder and for a longer period if you consume carbohydrate before exercise. Overall, this will result in greater energy use and a better contribution to the negative energy balance that is needed to cause fat loss.
>
>
> To make a decision about eating before your workout, it is useful to consider the goals of the session. If your primary goal is to improve performance, have something to eat before exercise. If your primary goal is weight loss, and you will do the same amount of exercise regardless of whether you eat or not, save your meal until after the session.
>
>
> | Sorry, no science...
Last winter I did quite a lot of base miles and largely didn't eat during the rides of about (50/60 miles) though occasionally I'd stop of a coffee & cake close to home. I generally felt quite tired and hungry (I wanted to eat for Britain so to speak).
In mid March I went on my first longer ride (which ended up at 102 miles). I ate jelly babies all the way around and stopped once just to fill my water bottles. I didn't feel especially tired or hungry after that ride. Afterwards I felt like I'd wasted a whole winter.
This year I'm doing the same type of training but I'm eating jelly babies as I go (one every 30 minutes or so) . I feel much better for it, I'm not so tired and don't want to eat loads. |
27,422 | I am trying to build some base strength in the winter, doing some endurance training. I am mostly following the [TrainerRoad Base plan](http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/201893574-Base-Traditional) (which seems to be similar to the Bicycle Bible).
So I've tried to do a couple of 2-3h sessions per week. Should I add any energy during such a session?
I read that one would get better fat oxidation doing water-only rides, but would also get more tired, and experience a longer recovery time.
Any advice? I'm training for one 300km race, if it matters
Edit: i mean some added sugar to the water bottle, bars or gel.
Edit2: found this <http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/06/nutrition/inside-triathlon-magazine-fat-burning-machine_31034>
This guy seems to do a mix and add energy after 2h. | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/27422",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/14644/"
] | Let me expand on the answer provided by @Mac. There are two important concepts here that need to be unpacked, 1) endurance training when in a fasted state and 2) eating either before or during an endurance training ride.
If your goal is improved fat metabolism, endurance training in a fasted state (e.g., 8 hours without food, no eating during exercise) shows larger gains than training under a fed state (i.e., eating either before or during exercise). Eating carbohydrates at any point inhibits fat metabolism, if improving fat metabolism is your goal, then this is bad.
**That said, I am also skeptical that prioritizing fat metabolism should be your training goal. See below for more details.**
Background
----------
The goal of base (endurance) training is typically to improve the metabolic efficiency and recruitment of your [type 1 muscle fibres](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_striated_muscle), the muscle fibres type with the greatest ability to perform endurance work. Training *must* be done by using slow long rides ([typical heart rate zone 2](http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/six-things-need-know-training-zones.html)). The low effort ensures most pedal force is generated by type 1 fibres and because type 1 muscle fibres generate the energy largely through fatty acid oxidation, your activity will be mostly powered by fat metabolism. If you start heading out of zone 2 (harder effort) you will recruit more of your type 2a muscle fibres and start using glycogen and blood glucose to fuel muscle contraction (note some blood glucose is used even during fat metabolism, this point is important, see the bonking section) as well as accumulate a lactate debt (your mitochondria in your muscles will no longer be able to process the lactate within, dumping lactate into your blood stream).
Endurance training in a fasted state.
-------------------------------------
A large number of studies (e.g., [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf), [De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045), and [Van Proeyen 2010](http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/1/236)) have show that consistent training in a fasted state (i.e., glycogen depleted state) can resulted in an increased capacity for muscles (type 1 and some evidence for type 2a) to oxidize fatty acids and as well as other health benefits (e.g., insulin response/glucose tolerance, reduced weight gain under higher energy diets) and other performance benefits (e.g., faster glycogen resynthesis see [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf)).
These same fat metabolism benefits were not obtained by individuals who were well fed with carbohydrates both before and during the exercise. The fasted individuals had abstained from eating for 8 hours prior to the exercise regime and did not eat during.
Depending on the study individuals exercised between 1-2 hours at an output of about 175 W. This part is key as the studies used shorter periods than the 2+ hours for your training plan.
Fat metabolism actually requires glucose to prime the reaction. If you ride too long in the fasted state you will eventually run the risk running out of blood glucose you will feel the sensation called "[hitting the wall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)" or "[bonking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)." Low blood glucose levels also affects neurological functioning, you can become light headed and will have trouble focusing. Your muscle firing patterns will also deteriorate.
**As such you need to be very careful if trying to do prolonged endurance training in a fasted state. The participates in the science experiments where carefully monitored during both the exercise and the recovery periods.**
Eating while exercising?
------------------------
This gets us to your primary question of whether or not to eat. If you are aiming to train in a fasted state, eating during exercise will also *inhibit* the prioritization of fat metabolism ([De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045)). This will be the same if you ingest carbohydrates prior to your ride.
**Therefore if you want to maximize fat metabolism, exercise in zone 2 in a fasted state and don't eat carbohydrates either before or during.**
Eating before exercise, but not during.
---------------------------------------
I haven't found any studies that test eating a meal before training, but riding without food (please correct me if I missed a study). I suspect when you start out your body will prioritize glycogen, the switch to fat as your stores run low. I am not clear how efficient the transition will occur or if you increase the probability of bonking. Even if your body successfully made this transition, you would still have a smaller window of prioritized fat metabolism and therefore lower gains.
General Advice / Caveats
------------------------
In my opinion training in a fasted state is an advanced technique that should be done carefully and under supervision and restricted to pro/elite athletes who know their body well and can intercept when something is going wrong (e.g., deterioration of muscle firing efficiency, bonking, etc). If you insist on attempting to training in a fasted state, I suggest caring energy gels and food so that you can intervene if you start to bonk.
In terms of improving your fat metabolism, the theory is that this could help you reduce glycogen consumption during a race leaving you with more energy later in the game when decisive tactical maneuvers are often made. While I am sure this is true, I think it may be over emphasized for most amateur athletes.
You can also maintain your glycogen stores simply by regularly consuming carbohydrates during a race (see [Coyle et al 1986](http://jap.physiology.org/content/61/1/165)). If you are at a Pro / Cat 1 level then better fat metabolism could give you an additional edge, but I am highly sceptical that athletes below this level will see real benefits over improved training volume and improved focus during training. Both of these will be inhibited in a fasted state. | Sorry, no science...
Last winter I did quite a lot of base miles and largely didn't eat during the rides of about (50/60 miles) though occasionally I'd stop of a coffee & cake close to home. I generally felt quite tired and hungry (I wanted to eat for Britain so to speak).
In mid March I went on my first longer ride (which ended up at 102 miles). I ate jelly babies all the way around and stopped once just to fill my water bottles. I didn't feel especially tired or hungry after that ride. Afterwards I felt like I'd wasted a whole winter.
This year I'm doing the same type of training but I'm eating jelly babies as I go (one every 30 minutes or so) . I feel much better for it, I'm not so tired and don't want to eat loads. |
27,422 | I am trying to build some base strength in the winter, doing some endurance training. I am mostly following the [TrainerRoad Base plan](http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/201893574-Base-Traditional) (which seems to be similar to the Bicycle Bible).
So I've tried to do a couple of 2-3h sessions per week. Should I add any energy during such a session?
I read that one would get better fat oxidation doing water-only rides, but would also get more tired, and experience a longer recovery time.
Any advice? I'm training for one 300km race, if it matters
Edit: i mean some added sugar to the water bottle, bars or gel.
Edit2: found this <http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/06/nutrition/inside-triathlon-magazine-fat-burning-machine_31034>
This guy seems to do a mix and add energy after 2h. | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/27422",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/14644/"
] | Let me expand on the answer provided by @Mac. There are two important concepts here that need to be unpacked, 1) endurance training when in a fasted state and 2) eating either before or during an endurance training ride.
If your goal is improved fat metabolism, endurance training in a fasted state (e.g., 8 hours without food, no eating during exercise) shows larger gains than training under a fed state (i.e., eating either before or during exercise). Eating carbohydrates at any point inhibits fat metabolism, if improving fat metabolism is your goal, then this is bad.
**That said, I am also skeptical that prioritizing fat metabolism should be your training goal. See below for more details.**
Background
----------
The goal of base (endurance) training is typically to improve the metabolic efficiency and recruitment of your [type 1 muscle fibres](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_striated_muscle), the muscle fibres type with the greatest ability to perform endurance work. Training *must* be done by using slow long rides ([typical heart rate zone 2](http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/six-things-need-know-training-zones.html)). The low effort ensures most pedal force is generated by type 1 fibres and because type 1 muscle fibres generate the energy largely through fatty acid oxidation, your activity will be mostly powered by fat metabolism. If you start heading out of zone 2 (harder effort) you will recruit more of your type 2a muscle fibres and start using glycogen and blood glucose to fuel muscle contraction (note some blood glucose is used even during fat metabolism, this point is important, see the bonking section) as well as accumulate a lactate debt (your mitochondria in your muscles will no longer be able to process the lactate within, dumping lactate into your blood stream).
Endurance training in a fasted state.
-------------------------------------
A large number of studies (e.g., [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf), [De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045), and [Van Proeyen 2010](http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/1/236)) have show that consistent training in a fasted state (i.e., glycogen depleted state) can resulted in an increased capacity for muscles (type 1 and some evidence for type 2a) to oxidize fatty acids and as well as other health benefits (e.g., insulin response/glucose tolerance, reduced weight gain under higher energy diets) and other performance benefits (e.g., faster glycogen resynthesis see [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf)).
These same fat metabolism benefits were not obtained by individuals who were well fed with carbohydrates both before and during the exercise. The fasted individuals had abstained from eating for 8 hours prior to the exercise regime and did not eat during.
Depending on the study individuals exercised between 1-2 hours at an output of about 175 W. This part is key as the studies used shorter periods than the 2+ hours for your training plan.
Fat metabolism actually requires glucose to prime the reaction. If you ride too long in the fasted state you will eventually run the risk running out of blood glucose you will feel the sensation called "[hitting the wall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)" or "[bonking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)." Low blood glucose levels also affects neurological functioning, you can become light headed and will have trouble focusing. Your muscle firing patterns will also deteriorate.
**As such you need to be very careful if trying to do prolonged endurance training in a fasted state. The participates in the science experiments where carefully monitored during both the exercise and the recovery periods.**
Eating while exercising?
------------------------
This gets us to your primary question of whether or not to eat. If you are aiming to train in a fasted state, eating during exercise will also *inhibit* the prioritization of fat metabolism ([De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045)). This will be the same if you ingest carbohydrates prior to your ride.
**Therefore if you want to maximize fat metabolism, exercise in zone 2 in a fasted state and don't eat carbohydrates either before or during.**
Eating before exercise, but not during.
---------------------------------------
I haven't found any studies that test eating a meal before training, but riding without food (please correct me if I missed a study). I suspect when you start out your body will prioritize glycogen, the switch to fat as your stores run low. I am not clear how efficient the transition will occur or if you increase the probability of bonking. Even if your body successfully made this transition, you would still have a smaller window of prioritized fat metabolism and therefore lower gains.
General Advice / Caveats
------------------------
In my opinion training in a fasted state is an advanced technique that should be done carefully and under supervision and restricted to pro/elite athletes who know their body well and can intercept when something is going wrong (e.g., deterioration of muscle firing efficiency, bonking, etc). If you insist on attempting to training in a fasted state, I suggest caring energy gels and food so that you can intervene if you start to bonk.
In terms of improving your fat metabolism, the theory is that this could help you reduce glycogen consumption during a race leaving you with more energy later in the game when decisive tactical maneuvers are often made. While I am sure this is true, I think it may be over emphasized for most amateur athletes.
You can also maintain your glycogen stores simply by regularly consuming carbohydrates during a race (see [Coyle et al 1986](http://jap.physiology.org/content/61/1/165)). If you are at a Pro / Cat 1 level then better fat metabolism could give you an additional edge, but I am highly sceptical that athletes below this level will see real benefits over improved training volume and improved focus during training. Both of these will be inhibited in a fasted state. | No Science Opinion #2
By not continuing to boost your blood sugar, your boy will theoretically switch to a metabolic state that burns more fat. I have seen endurance racers do it both ways. I have seen guys that may snack a bit inbetween, but will basically just eat two or three meals during a long race and not much in between. I also have seen guys that have bags and bags of candy and are constantly eating. I think the bigger question is finding out which works for you. I recommend you figure out if you are more comfortable eating and riding constantly (hard for some folks), or comfortable riding on a fairly full stomach (hard as well). Then, train and practice that method of keeping yourself fueled so when its time for your big ride, your body already understands what is going on. |
27,422 | I am trying to build some base strength in the winter, doing some endurance training. I am mostly following the [TrainerRoad Base plan](http://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/201893574-Base-Traditional) (which seems to be similar to the Bicycle Bible).
So I've tried to do a couple of 2-3h sessions per week. Should I add any energy during such a session?
I read that one would get better fat oxidation doing water-only rides, but would also get more tired, and experience a longer recovery time.
Any advice? I'm training for one 300km race, if it matters
Edit: i mean some added sugar to the water bottle, bars or gel.
Edit2: found this <http://triathlon.competitor.com/2014/06/nutrition/inside-triathlon-magazine-fat-burning-machine_31034>
This guy seems to do a mix and add energy after 2h. | 2015/01/05 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/27422",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/14644/"
] | Let me expand on the answer provided by @Mac. There are two important concepts here that need to be unpacked, 1) endurance training when in a fasted state and 2) eating either before or during an endurance training ride.
If your goal is improved fat metabolism, endurance training in a fasted state (e.g., 8 hours without food, no eating during exercise) shows larger gains than training under a fed state (i.e., eating either before or during exercise). Eating carbohydrates at any point inhibits fat metabolism, if improving fat metabolism is your goal, then this is bad.
**That said, I am also skeptical that prioritizing fat metabolism should be your training goal. See below for more details.**
Background
----------
The goal of base (endurance) training is typically to improve the metabolic efficiency and recruitment of your [type 1 muscle fibres](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_striated_muscle), the muscle fibres type with the greatest ability to perform endurance work. Training *must* be done by using slow long rides ([typical heart rate zone 2](http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/six-things-need-know-training-zones.html)). The low effort ensures most pedal force is generated by type 1 fibres and because type 1 muscle fibres generate the energy largely through fatty acid oxidation, your activity will be mostly powered by fat metabolism. If you start heading out of zone 2 (harder effort) you will recruit more of your type 2a muscle fibres and start using glycogen and blood glucose to fuel muscle contraction (note some blood glucose is used even during fat metabolism, this point is important, see the bonking section) as well as accumulate a lactate debt (your mitochondria in your muscles will no longer be able to process the lactate within, dumping lactate into your blood stream).
Endurance training in a fasted state.
-------------------------------------
A large number of studies (e.g., [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf), [De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045), and [Van Proeyen 2010](http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/1/236)) have show that consistent training in a fasted state (i.e., glycogen depleted state) can resulted in an increased capacity for muscles (type 1 and some evidence for type 2a) to oxidize fatty acids and as well as other health benefits (e.g., insulin response/glucose tolerance, reduced weight gain under higher energy diets) and other performance benefits (e.g., faster glycogen resynthesis see [De Bock 2005](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464435/pdf/tjp0564-0649.pdf)).
These same fat metabolism benefits were not obtained by individuals who were well fed with carbohydrates both before and during the exercise. The fasted individuals had abstained from eating for 8 hours prior to the exercise regime and did not eat during.
Depending on the study individuals exercised between 1-2 hours at an output of about 175 W. This part is key as the studies used shorter periods than the 2+ hours for your training plan.
Fat metabolism actually requires glucose to prime the reaction. If you ride too long in the fasted state you will eventually run the risk running out of blood glucose you will feel the sensation called "[hitting the wall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)" or "[bonking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_the_wall)." Low blood glucose levels also affects neurological functioning, you can become light headed and will have trouble focusing. Your muscle firing patterns will also deteriorate.
**As such you need to be very careful if trying to do prolonged endurance training in a fasted state. The participates in the science experiments where carefully monitored during both the exercise and the recovery periods.**
Eating while exercising?
------------------------
This gets us to your primary question of whether or not to eat. If you are aiming to train in a fasted state, eating during exercise will also *inhibit* the prioritization of fat metabolism ([De Bock 2008](http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/4/1045)). This will be the same if you ingest carbohydrates prior to your ride.
**Therefore if you want to maximize fat metabolism, exercise in zone 2 in a fasted state and don't eat carbohydrates either before or during.**
Eating before exercise, but not during.
---------------------------------------
I haven't found any studies that test eating a meal before training, but riding without food (please correct me if I missed a study). I suspect when you start out your body will prioritize glycogen, the switch to fat as your stores run low. I am not clear how efficient the transition will occur or if you increase the probability of bonking. Even if your body successfully made this transition, you would still have a smaller window of prioritized fat metabolism and therefore lower gains.
General Advice / Caveats
------------------------
In my opinion training in a fasted state is an advanced technique that should be done carefully and under supervision and restricted to pro/elite athletes who know their body well and can intercept when something is going wrong (e.g., deterioration of muscle firing efficiency, bonking, etc). If you insist on attempting to training in a fasted state, I suggest caring energy gels and food so that you can intervene if you start to bonk.
In terms of improving your fat metabolism, the theory is that this could help you reduce glycogen consumption during a race leaving you with more energy later in the game when decisive tactical maneuvers are often made. While I am sure this is true, I think it may be over emphasized for most amateur athletes.
You can also maintain your glycogen stores simply by regularly consuming carbohydrates during a race (see [Coyle et al 1986](http://jap.physiology.org/content/61/1/165)). If you are at a Pro / Cat 1 level then better fat metabolism could give you an additional edge, but I am highly sceptical that athletes below this level will see real benefits over improved training volume and improved focus during training. Both of these will be inhibited in a fasted state. | According to an [Australian Institute of Sport article about Eating before exercise](http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/competition_and_training/eating_before_exercise):
>
> Exercising in a fasted state (8 hours since the last meal) results in a greater proportion of fat being used as the exercise fuel compared to doing the same workload after a carbohydrate-containing meal or snack. However, it is possible that you may be able to exercise harder and for a longer period if you consume carbohydrate before exercise. Overall, this will result in greater energy use and a better contribution to the negative energy balance that is needed to cause fat loss.
>
>
> To make a decision about eating before your workout, it is useful to consider the goals of the session. If your primary goal is to improve performance, have something to eat before exercise. If your primary goal is weight loss, and you will do the same amount of exercise regardless of whether you eat or not, save your meal until after the session.
>
>
> |
413,971 | Imagine that someone thought he came up with an original idea. But actually I've heard that idea many times before. I want to express my exasperation, but I don't know which sentence is correct.
1. (Ugh) like it hadn't been done before.
2. Like it hasn't been done before.
If other people had come up with the idea in the past then you would say "it had been done before." But I'm talking about something from present times, so I'm all confused now as to how to say it the right way | 2017/10/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/413971",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/261324/"
] | See: [Use of "have had" , "had had", "has had"](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/373119/use-of-have-had-had-had-has-had) .
It had been done before **implies** a singularity and recency (present perfect tense), but it has been done before is plural and past tense (past perfect tense). [Implies means not critical but assumed, the recency is required and not implied for it to be had].
If there were a recent prior attempt (possibly multiple recent ones) then "it had been done before", but if it was done some time ago or multiple times (not recently) then "it has been done before".
By changing "had" to "had not" (hadn't) it is a negation of the above. The negation cancels the recency by imposing never upon the circumstances. So "has not" is that you are described by others as someone who didn't but "have not" is that you don't, as claimed by yourself or others ("I have not", "You have not", or third person singular "He has not" (talking like you are excluded from the conversation either by physical distance, or close up might be rudeness or lacking inclusiveness (shutting you out of the decision)).
That causes "has" to refer only to a third person, a "present perfect tense with a third person singular subject". Examples: "I or you have eaten", "I or you have not eaten", "He or she has eaten", but "They have eaten" or "They have not eaten". | The second, present perfect, expresses past event(s), but it's indefinite past, possibly recent but not necessary. If you were more specific, like "10 years ago" rather than "before", you'd need to use past tense, so "wasn't" instead of "hasn't been".
If your friend's idea is in present, then you should use present perfect, number 2.
But if your friend's idea is from the past, and you're expressing that it wasn't new then, then you should use number 1, past perfect, which expresses events before certain past event. |
269,205 | My question on Stack Exchange already has a fantastic answer. Now everyone, who just knows a little about the question, is trying to answer with his fuzzy logic which rushes on the post.
Can this thing stopable from further answering a question when there are great answers? | 2015/11/11 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/269205",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/199517/"
] | No. Technologies, languages and opinions can evolve in time. Something that is the best possible answer *now*, is considered inaccurate, outdated and useless in a few years.
If it attracts low-quality answers from < 10 rep users, the question might be protected. In all other cases: Why stop users from posting an answer and risk you will never end up with an even better answer?
Besides that, community wikis aren't yours, they belong to the community. And even if it would belong to you, it seems a bad idea to stop users from contributing. | Well in answer to your question about how you can lock it - only Moderators can. So you'd have to flag the question and request a moderator lock it.
**However.** It is very unlikely that they will though. Locking is really only used for questions that are historically useful to the site, but that aren't really on-topic any longer. Or they're locked because there is an ongoing content dispute about the contents. But those are temporary.
*What is more likely* (although still not especially probably) is that a moderator can '**Protect**' the question. This stops people with no reputation on the site from leaving answers. Mostly this is used when a question becomes a Hot Question and users from all over the network / social media / sharing sites etc discover the question and come in to leave spam answers, or 'Me Too!' answers. It doesn't prevent established users from leaving answers though.
It's unlikely a mod will lock or protect a question just because the answer it has is already sufficient though. |
42,338 | The crank arm on my bike fell off. How does one re-attach it?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tykd8.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4fMXI.jpg) | 2016/09/03 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/42338",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/29113/"
] | The picture appears to show a cover over the access hole in the crank arm. Remove the cover by either unscrewing it of prying off the crank arm. Inside you should find a flanged nut. Wipe any grease or grit off the shaft Install the crank arm in the correct orientation onto the shaft. Tighten the nut with a socket (usually a 14mm) to between 300 and 400 inch pounds. Reinstall the dust cover. | There should be a nut and washer at the threaded part of the axle. Get new ones, put on crank, washer and nut and tighten. |
42,338 | The crank arm on my bike fell off. How does one re-attach it?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tykd8.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4fMXI.jpg) | 2016/09/03 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/42338",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/29113/"
] | The first two threads on the spindle look stripped, meaning the nut will have stripped threads as well. The square taper in the crank is almost certain damaged from being used while loose. In other words, in my local slang, "it's munted"
The proper, safe and reliable fix probably requires a new BB spindle and almost certainly a replacement crank.
If you do not want to spend that much (I don't recommend this, as the crank coming off is a safety concern), replace the nut - its cheap. If you can source an used crank it should only cost a few dollars (local bike cop, recycle center or rubbish tip) I would do that rather than reuse the one that has fallen off.
As already said, the nut and a washer will be under the dust cover on the crank. | There should be a nut and washer at the threaded part of the axle. Get new ones, put on crank, washer and nut and tighten. |
42,338 | The crank arm on my bike fell off. How does one re-attach it?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tykd8.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4fMXI.jpg) | 2016/09/03 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/42338",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/29113/"
] | The first two threads on the spindle look stripped, meaning the nut will have stripped threads as well. The square taper in the crank is almost certain damaged from being used while loose. In other words, in my local slang, "it's munted"
The proper, safe and reliable fix probably requires a new BB spindle and almost certainly a replacement crank.
If you do not want to spend that much (I don't recommend this, as the crank coming off is a safety concern), replace the nut - its cheap. If you can source an used crank it should only cost a few dollars (local bike cop, recycle center or rubbish tip) I would do that rather than reuse the one that has fallen off.
As already said, the nut and a washer will be under the dust cover on the crank. | The picture appears to show a cover over the access hole in the crank arm. Remove the cover by either unscrewing it of prying off the crank arm. Inside you should find a flanged nut. Wipe any grease or grit off the shaft Install the crank arm in the correct orientation onto the shaft. Tighten the nut with a socket (usually a 14mm) to between 300 and 400 inch pounds. Reinstall the dust cover. |
112,629 | The original title, "has the bases of geometry been reconsidered in 20th century" of this question refers to Riemann's paper "On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry"， an English version can be found [here](http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~misha/ReadingSeminar/Papers/Riemann54.pdf).
When we talk about the physical "space", we model it in terms of manifold, and usually to do some geometry one starts with definitions of Riemannian manifolds, on which one can talk about length, angle, area, volume, etc. This, of course, models our intuition of the space we are in pretty well and it seems rather reasonable to believe the space we are in carries a Riemannian metric. However, Riemann predates all the physics break through in the 20th century, which includes general relativity and quantum mechanics. The former is like a major triumph of Riemannian geometry but I don't know if the latter has anything to do with it.
My question is the following: with these physics breakthrough,
>
> has the hypotheses which lie at the bases of geometry been reconsidered?
>
>
>
In other words, Riemannian geometry seems to model geometry on the scale of daily-life objects (i.e. not too small or too large) pretty well, and it seems to model the space pretty well on a large scale, but what about the microscopic level? Is it still a good model of the physical "space" on that scale?
In case people want to label this as "not a real question", let me quote Riemann's own question at the end of his paper ("plan of inquiry", copied from the English version):
>
> III. Application to Space.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > § 1. System of facts which suffice to determine the measure-relations of space assumed in geometry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > § 2. How far is the validity of these empirical determinations probable beyond the limits of observation towards the infinitely great?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > § 3. How far towards the infinitely small? Connection of this question with the interpretation of nature.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Question 2 and 3 on his list is the thing I want to ask here. (I don't understand what 1 means here.)
. | 2012/11/17 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/112629",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/11286/"
] | It seems easier to answer the (current) title than the body of the question, so here goes: The notion of "space" has been vastly enlarged in the 20th century, even including some notions that Riemann would probably not recognize as sufficiently like classical spaces to deserve the name. Topological spaces (and their relatives like uniform spaces and proximity spaces) arrived early in the century. Metrizable ones are fairly close to Riemann's picture, but general topological spaces can be far from metrizable. We also have "pointless" topology, where a space is identified with a lattice, which would be the lattice of open sets in the case of a topological space but can be more general. Although most authors use the words "frame" for the lattice and "locale" for the associated space (the same object but in the opposite category) others have used "locale" for the lattice and "space" for the dual object. Grothendieck gave us two generalizations of the notion of space, in two different directions, namely schemes and topoi. Schemes have been further generalized to things like stacks. The basic idea underlying both locales and schemes --- namely to take some algebraic entities (frames in the one case, commutative rings in the other), to regard the dual entities formally as spaces, and to discover that some spatial concepts and intuitions are still useful in this generality --- has been extended further to give us non-commutative spaces. | This question is ambigous because the word "geometry" can have several different meanings.
Rieman in his talk outlined the foundations of what is called Riemannian geometry now.
This is the theory of spaces (manifolds) equipped with a Riemannian metric. These spaces
studied in Riemannian geometry may have trivial isometry groups.
But there is a different approach and different point of view on geometry, outlined by Klein
in his Erlangen program. Here the main object is certain group of transformations acting on
the space. The space does not have to be equpped with a metric,
and when it is equipped, it does not have to be a Riemannian one.
This point of view is on my opinion closer to the geometry of Euclid, and to
classical projective geometry. It is in this sense that the word "geometry" is used in
the expression "geometrization program".
And when we talk about algebraic geometry, we mean something very different again.
So I think the question is meaningless as stated. All these various "Geometries" have their own
foundations.
By the way, the translation of Riemann you refer to is not a good one.
For a better Engish translation of this work I recommend "A comprehensive introduction
yo differential Geometry" by M. Spivak,
where this lecture is reproduced in Spivak's ranslation.
And it is followed by the chapter called "What did Riemann say?" |
67,930,882 | With Google releasing [Vertex AI](https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai) lately that integrates all its MLOps platforms, I wonder what would be the difference in serving a custom trained PyTorch/Tensorflow model on GKE vs Vertex AI (or AI Platform Unified, since the rebranding just took place and AI Platform already provides the capability to serve model prediction).
I did a lot of research but found little info on this. I'm already hosting my ML model on GKE and is it worth it to migrate to Vertex AI?
Note: I'm not planning to do training and other data preprocessing on cloud yet. | 2021/06/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/67930882",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11526586/"
] | It is worth considering Vertex AI as:
Vertex AI is a “**Managed**” ML platform for practitioners to accelerate experiments and deploy AI models. We don't need to manage the infrastructure/ servers/ health while deploying/training/ predicting ML models. Vertex AI will take care of that for you along with scaling according to the traffic.
Some key features which helps in considering Vertex AI:
1. [Vertex AI streamlines model development](https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/docs/explainable-ai/overview)
Once the model is trained we get detailed model evaluation metrics and feature attributions. (Feature attribution tells which features in the model signaled model’s predictions the most, which gives insights into how model is performing under the hood)
2. [Scalable deployment with endpoints](https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/docs/general/deployment)
Once the model is trained, it can be deployed to an endpoint. Traffic between models can be split for testing and machine type can also be customised
3. [Orchestrating Workflow using Vertex pipeline](https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/docs/pipelines)
Vertex Pipelines help to avoid Concept of model drift which can happen when the environment around your model changes. Vertex pipeline can help automate this retaining workflow.
4. [Monitoring deployed models using Vertex AI](https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/docs/model-monitoring)
Vertex model monitoring can be used to detect things like drift and training-serving-skew, so rather than manually checking to make sure the model is still performing correctly, using vertex AI provides confidence in model reliability because we'll be alerted anytime something changes. | I have also been exploring using Vertex AI for machine learning. Some points I found useful when it comes to serving model predictions from custom containers are as follows:
* Serving predictions from a custom container on Vertex AI as opposed to a GKE cluster frees you from managing the infrastructure. Cost wise, GKE autopilot clusters seem more expensive compared to Vertex AI, but the difference in the case of GKE standard mode is not so clear. The compute engine pricing used for standard mode is lower than that for similar Vertex AI nodes but there is the added cluster management fee for standard mode.
* I have not explored AI Platform much but in Vertex AI, the only available machine types for prediction are "N1", which cannot be scaled down to 0, at least 1 will always be running. This is a significant issue from the point of view of cost, especially if you deploy multiple models since each model will have it's own associated nodes independent from other models and scaling of nodes also happens at node level. There are workarounds though, to be able to serve multiple models from a single node, but the more I move towards custom models and such workarounds, the more it seems that the only advantage of Vertex AI is that of not having to manage the prediction serving infrastructure. Typically, there is a lot of pre and post processing that needs to happen when someone uses custom prediction containers. All that logic is contained in the custom container. I am still reading the documentation but based on what I have seen so far, many Vertex AI features, such as model monitoring, explainable ai seem very straightforward if using AutoML models, whereas if you are using custom models then there is some configuration that needs to be done. How straightforward that configuration is, I am yet to find out. |
141,351 | Is it right to say
>
> "I engaged in some research projects".
>
>
>
or should I say
>
> "I was engaged in some research projects".
>
>
> | 2017/09/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/141351",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/61850/"
] | First sentence is incomplete. Some words in between may change the meaning.
Like
a) I got engaged in....
b) I engaged myself in ......etc.
For me it is correct to say,
1) "I am engaged in some research projects."
It is present Tense giving idea about your present state/situation.
2) "I was engaged in some research projects".
it is purely past tense gives idea about your past state/Situation. | Looks to me that both examples given would be acceptable, but have slightly different meanings. The former means you took some action, the latter describes a condition in which you took action. Choose the version which best suits your feeling of the situation. |
4,755 | What are the differences and where would you use each? | 2010/10/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/4755",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/1411/"
] | NAND flash is cheaper, so you want to use it if you can. The drawback is that it's not as reliable. NAND flash is faster at most operations, with the notable exception being small random access reads. If you want to read a couple bytes from a random address in memory, NOR is faster. For large memory reads, NAND does reasonably well, and actually beats NOR for large enough chunks.
Most embedded operating systems include code to correct the errors in NAND Flash. There are also microcontrollers with hardware error correction. The real problem happens at boot time-- first-level bootloaders don't have error-correcting code, and they haven't configured the memory controller to run hardware ECC yet. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem-- you can't load the ECC code without errors because you haven't loaded the ECC code yet.
To get around this problem, some memory manufacturers will specify a certain region of the chip that is guaranteed to be error free (the first 4 kB, or something like that). You put a bootloader with software ECC there (like [U-boot](http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome)), read it out with no errors, and then use it to read out your OS kernel, correcting errors as you go. You can also store a bootloader in a serial flash, and just use NAND flash for large stuff like an OS kernel or filesystem.
I've found this Atmel application note useful: <http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc6255.pdf> | NOR allows for random access, but NAND does not (page access only.)
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Distinction_between_NOR_and_NAND_flash):
>
> NOR and NAND flash get their names from the structure of the
> interconnections between memory cells. In NOR flash, cells
> are connected in parallel to the bitlines, allowing cells to
> be read and programmed individually. The parallel connection
> of cells resembles the parallel connection of transistors in
> a CMOS NOR gate. In NAND flash, cells are connected in series,
> resembling a NAND gate. The series connections consume less
> space than parallel ones, reducing the cost of NAND flash. It
> does not, by itself, prevent NAND cells from being read and
> programmed individually.
>
>
> |
4,755 | What are the differences and where would you use each? | 2010/10/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/4755",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/1411/"
] | There is a lot of trade-off to it.
Wikipedia also:
>
> Despite the additional transistors,
> the reduction in ground wires and bit
> lines allows a denser layout and
> greater storage capacity per chip. In
> addition, NAND flash is typically
> permitted to contain a certain number
> of faults (NOR flash, as is used for a
> BIOS ROM, is expected to be
> fault-free). Manufacturers try to
> maximize the amount of usable storage
> by shrinking the size of the
> transistor below the size where they
> can be made reliably, to the size
> where further reductions would
> increase the number of faults faster
> than it would increase the total
> storage available.
>
>
>
So, NOR flash can address easier, but is not even close to as dense.
If you take at a look at a [pretty decent comparison PDF.](http://maltiel-consulting.com/NAND_vs_NOR_Flash_Memory_Technology_Overview_Read_Write_Erase_speed_for_SLC_MLC_semiconductor_consulting_expert.pdf)
NOR has lower standyby power, is easy for code execution and has a high read speed.
NAND has much lower active power(writing bits is faster and lower cost), higher write speed(by a lot), much higher capacity, much much lower cost per bit and is very easy for file storage use. due to it's lower read speed when using it for code execution you really need to ghost it to ram.
To quote a small section with a great table above it...
>
> [The characteristics of NAND Flash are:
> high density, medium read speed, high
> write speed, high erase speed, and an
> indirect or I/O like access. The
> characteristics of NOR Flash are lower
> density, high read speed, slow write
> speed, slow erase speed, and a random
> access interface.](http://maltiel-consulting.com/NAND_vs_NOR_Flash_Memory_Technology_Overview_Read_Write_Erase_speed_for_SLC_MLC_semiconductor_consulting_expert.pdf)
>
>
> | NOR allows for random access, but NAND does not (page access only.)
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Distinction_between_NOR_and_NAND_flash):
>
> NOR and NAND flash get their names from the structure of the
> interconnections between memory cells. In NOR flash, cells
> are connected in parallel to the bitlines, allowing cells to
> be read and programmed individually. The parallel connection
> of cells resembles the parallel connection of transistors in
> a CMOS NOR gate. In NAND flash, cells are connected in series,
> resembling a NAND gate. The series connections consume less
> space than parallel ones, reducing the cost of NAND flash. It
> does not, by itself, prevent NAND cells from being read and
> programmed individually.
>
>
> |
4,755 | What are the differences and where would you use each? | 2010/10/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/4755",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/1411/"
] | There is a lot of trade-off to it.
Wikipedia also:
>
> Despite the additional transistors,
> the reduction in ground wires and bit
> lines allows a denser layout and
> greater storage capacity per chip. In
> addition, NAND flash is typically
> permitted to contain a certain number
> of faults (NOR flash, as is used for a
> BIOS ROM, is expected to be
> fault-free). Manufacturers try to
> maximize the amount of usable storage
> by shrinking the size of the
> transistor below the size where they
> can be made reliably, to the size
> where further reductions would
> increase the number of faults faster
> than it would increase the total
> storage available.
>
>
>
So, NOR flash can address easier, but is not even close to as dense.
If you take at a look at a [pretty decent comparison PDF.](http://maltiel-consulting.com/NAND_vs_NOR_Flash_Memory_Technology_Overview_Read_Write_Erase_speed_for_SLC_MLC_semiconductor_consulting_expert.pdf)
NOR has lower standyby power, is easy for code execution and has a high read speed.
NAND has much lower active power(writing bits is faster and lower cost), higher write speed(by a lot), much higher capacity, much much lower cost per bit and is very easy for file storage use. due to it's lower read speed when using it for code execution you really need to ghost it to ram.
To quote a small section with a great table above it...
>
> [The characteristics of NAND Flash are:
> high density, medium read speed, high
> write speed, high erase speed, and an
> indirect or I/O like access. The
> characteristics of NOR Flash are lower
> density, high read speed, slow write
> speed, slow erase speed, and a random
> access interface.](http://maltiel-consulting.com/NAND_vs_NOR_Flash_Memory_Technology_Overview_Read_Write_Erase_speed_for_SLC_MLC_semiconductor_consulting_expert.pdf)
>
>
> | NAND flash is cheaper, so you want to use it if you can. The drawback is that it's not as reliable. NAND flash is faster at most operations, with the notable exception being small random access reads. If you want to read a couple bytes from a random address in memory, NOR is faster. For large memory reads, NAND does reasonably well, and actually beats NOR for large enough chunks.
Most embedded operating systems include code to correct the errors in NAND Flash. There are also microcontrollers with hardware error correction. The real problem happens at boot time-- first-level bootloaders don't have error-correcting code, and they haven't configured the memory controller to run hardware ECC yet. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem-- you can't load the ECC code without errors because you haven't loaded the ECC code yet.
To get around this problem, some memory manufacturers will specify a certain region of the chip that is guaranteed to be error free (the first 4 kB, or something like that). You put a bootloader with software ECC there (like [U-boot](http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome)), read it out with no errors, and then use it to read out your OS kernel, correcting errors as you go. You can also store a bootloader in a serial flash, and just use NAND flash for large stuff like an OS kernel or filesystem.
I've found this Atmel application note useful: <http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc6255.pdf> |
157,078 | I'm currently typing up some lecture notes for a university course, and I'm having trouble deciding how exactly I should typeset the title of the document.
The title consists of the subject abbreviation, the course number, and the course name.
For example, if I were typing up notes for an abstract algebra course, I'd title the document something like "MATH 123: Introduction to Abstract Algebra".
Here is that title typeset in Libertinus Serif with different combinations of capitalization and figure styles:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ItNo5.png)
Option 1 (all caps and lining figures) is what I currently have.
The abbreviation looks out of place since it's all cap-height, which is why I'm considering the other 4 options.
However, none of them stand out to me as particularly good solutions.
On one hand, Option 2 (small caps and lining figures) and Option 4 (small caps and text figures) both preserve the uniform capitalization of the abbreviation but look somewhat strange since the abbreviation clashes with the rest of the title case text.
On the other hand, Option 3 (mixed caps and lining figures) and Option 5 (mixed caps and text figures) fit with the rest of the title case text but don't preserve the uniformity of the abbreviation's glyph heights (plus, the mixed capitalization would look really strange if the abbreviation weren't a real word, such as "CS" for Computer Science).
Answers to other posts don't seem to share a consensus on the matter.
[This answer](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/39518) recommends preserving the capitalization while [this one](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/106282/173906) and [this one](https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/110038) recommend preserving the abbreviation, and most simply recommend rephrasing to avoid abbreviations at the start of a sentence.
My situation is somewhat different since I'm not typesetting running text and there's no good way for me to rephrase the text.
Since this appears to basically boil down to personal preference, which option would you prefer and why?
I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on the matter. | 2022/05/11 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/157078",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/173906/"
] | I would rule out the uppercase small caps, which, arguably, defeat the purpose of using small caps. I would also rule out lining figures, because those work better with normal case type.
I would pick your version #4, in complete lowercase small caps, and text figures.
Then, all your 5 versions lack some information priority, because you are squeezing too much into a single line.
To separate this better and remove the "clash with the rest of the title", I would break this into distinct lines and enlarge the font size on the "Introduction to.." part.
This way, you make it very clear that the main title of the document is "Introduction to..", while "Math 123" is secondary. Yes, even if they are reversed, the difference in font size will dictate their priority.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1YQnF.png) | If you can’t ask your tutors to explain your organisation’s house style, or rephrase the Question, or both, please consider these few points:
Since the styling of “Introduction to Abstract Algebra” is unchanging, how is it relevant?
Through 20 years in publication and design, I never noticed either “full caps” or “lining figures”. Could this be some difference between British and US American English, or what?
“… full caps” might mean either “all caps” or “upper case caps”. Which one works for you, either technically or in layman’s terms? I assume “small …” means “lower-case caps”. Is that right?
What are “lining figures” or “text figures”?
Does “preserve the uniform capitalization” mean “keep the word - here ’math’ - in all capitals” or what?
“… the abbreviation clashes with the rest of the titlecase text” doesn’t work, for two reasons. First, there is no clash: that’s what, in this context, colons are for… one side goes one way, the other goes another way and there is no clash. Secondly, “titlecase” isn’t a thing in typography or the parts of graphic design related to typography. “titlecase” has meaning only in (some) word-processing apps, who’s names can’t matter here.
“Mixed caps” would be difficult to place in typography. It might mean the first word started in upper-case and was followed by lower-case caps… but what rule would apply to a second or any subsequent words and how, exactly? “Mixed caps and text figures” looks like magnifying that problem. What’s meant by that having “the opposite issue…” I can’t guess.
If “mixed capitalization” had a clear meaning, how would that make it look strange if the abbreviation wasn't a real word, such as "CS" for “Computer Science”? Neither "CS" nor “Computer Science” is “a real word”. What did you really mean? |
157,078 | I'm currently typing up some lecture notes for a university course, and I'm having trouble deciding how exactly I should typeset the title of the document.
The title consists of the subject abbreviation, the course number, and the course name.
For example, if I were typing up notes for an abstract algebra course, I'd title the document something like "MATH 123: Introduction to Abstract Algebra".
Here is that title typeset in Libertinus Serif with different combinations of capitalization and figure styles:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ItNo5.png)
Option 1 (all caps and lining figures) is what I currently have.
The abbreviation looks out of place since it's all cap-height, which is why I'm considering the other 4 options.
However, none of them stand out to me as particularly good solutions.
On one hand, Option 2 (small caps and lining figures) and Option 4 (small caps and text figures) both preserve the uniform capitalization of the abbreviation but look somewhat strange since the abbreviation clashes with the rest of the title case text.
On the other hand, Option 3 (mixed caps and lining figures) and Option 5 (mixed caps and text figures) fit with the rest of the title case text but don't preserve the uniformity of the abbreviation's glyph heights (plus, the mixed capitalization would look really strange if the abbreviation weren't a real word, such as "CS" for Computer Science).
Answers to other posts don't seem to share a consensus on the matter.
[This answer](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/39518) recommends preserving the capitalization while [this one](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/106282/173906) and [this one](https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/110038) recommend preserving the abbreviation, and most simply recommend rephrasing to avoid abbreviations at the start of a sentence.
My situation is somewhat different since I'm not typesetting running text and there's no good way for me to rephrase the text.
Since this appears to basically boil down to personal preference, which option would you prefer and why?
I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on the matter. | 2022/05/11 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/157078",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/173906/"
] | I would rule out the uppercase small caps, which, arguably, defeat the purpose of using small caps. I would also rule out lining figures, because those work better with normal case type.
I would pick your version #4, in complete lowercase small caps, and text figures.
Then, all your 5 versions lack some information priority, because you are squeezing too much into a single line.
To separate this better and remove the "clash with the rest of the title", I would break this into distinct lines and enlarge the font size on the "Introduction to.." part.
This way, you make it very clear that the main title of the document is "Introduction to..", while "Math 123" is secondary. Yes, even if they are reversed, the difference in font size will dictate their priority.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1YQnF.png) | To my mind, in academic and technical writing\* full caps is likely to be correct for an abbreviation (initialism or acronym), but unlikely in other cases. A course code could be "MATH123" or "MATH 123", but if it's "Math123" or even "math123" (also with spaces), going for full caps would be incorrect. Here, department codes are all-caps, and course codes don't look like they contain words but are alphanumeric with uppercase letters.
On the other hand, small caps are logically equivalent to lowercase, and starting a sentence or title with lowercase is generally avoided (any capitalisation other than "pH" for the symbol in chemistry is just plain wrong; titles are usually worded so it doesn't appear at the start.
Copy-pasting of small caps is inconsistent as unicode small caps are sometimes output, but a when properly done using font formats, small caps semantically map to lowercase. Web searching is generally case-insensitive, but not all systems are, so I'd prefer to match the case if pasted into a plain-test field.
On the whole, I'd stick to true uppercase as that seems to be the course code convention - if this document is for general consumption and publication.
\* where my rule of thumb is "clarity first", and exactly matching terminology is often important. |
157,078 | I'm currently typing up some lecture notes for a university course, and I'm having trouble deciding how exactly I should typeset the title of the document.
The title consists of the subject abbreviation, the course number, and the course name.
For example, if I were typing up notes for an abstract algebra course, I'd title the document something like "MATH 123: Introduction to Abstract Algebra".
Here is that title typeset in Libertinus Serif with different combinations of capitalization and figure styles:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ItNo5.png)
Option 1 (all caps and lining figures) is what I currently have.
The abbreviation looks out of place since it's all cap-height, which is why I'm considering the other 4 options.
However, none of them stand out to me as particularly good solutions.
On one hand, Option 2 (small caps and lining figures) and Option 4 (small caps and text figures) both preserve the uniform capitalization of the abbreviation but look somewhat strange since the abbreviation clashes with the rest of the title case text.
On the other hand, Option 3 (mixed caps and lining figures) and Option 5 (mixed caps and text figures) fit with the rest of the title case text but don't preserve the uniformity of the abbreviation's glyph heights (plus, the mixed capitalization would look really strange if the abbreviation weren't a real word, such as "CS" for Computer Science).
Answers to other posts don't seem to share a consensus on the matter.
[This answer](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/39518) recommends preserving the capitalization while [this one](https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/106282/173906) and [this one](https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/110038) recommend preserving the abbreviation, and most simply recommend rephrasing to avoid abbreviations at the start of a sentence.
My situation is somewhat different since I'm not typesetting running text and there's no good way for me to rephrase the text.
Since this appears to basically boil down to personal preference, which option would you prefer and why?
I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on the matter. | 2022/05/11 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/157078",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/173906/"
] | To my mind, in academic and technical writing\* full caps is likely to be correct for an abbreviation (initialism or acronym), but unlikely in other cases. A course code could be "MATH123" or "MATH 123", but if it's "Math123" or even "math123" (also with spaces), going for full caps would be incorrect. Here, department codes are all-caps, and course codes don't look like they contain words but are alphanumeric with uppercase letters.
On the other hand, small caps are logically equivalent to lowercase, and starting a sentence or title with lowercase is generally avoided (any capitalisation other than "pH" for the symbol in chemistry is just plain wrong; titles are usually worded so it doesn't appear at the start.
Copy-pasting of small caps is inconsistent as unicode small caps are sometimes output, but a when properly done using font formats, small caps semantically map to lowercase. Web searching is generally case-insensitive, but not all systems are, so I'd prefer to match the case if pasted into a plain-test field.
On the whole, I'd stick to true uppercase as that seems to be the course code convention - if this document is for general consumption and publication.
\* where my rule of thumb is "clarity first", and exactly matching terminology is often important. | If you can’t ask your tutors to explain your organisation’s house style, or rephrase the Question, or both, please consider these few points:
Since the styling of “Introduction to Abstract Algebra” is unchanging, how is it relevant?
Through 20 years in publication and design, I never noticed either “full caps” or “lining figures”. Could this be some difference between British and US American English, or what?
“… full caps” might mean either “all caps” or “upper case caps”. Which one works for you, either technically or in layman’s terms? I assume “small …” means “lower-case caps”. Is that right?
What are “lining figures” or “text figures”?
Does “preserve the uniform capitalization” mean “keep the word - here ’math’ - in all capitals” or what?
“… the abbreviation clashes with the rest of the titlecase text” doesn’t work, for two reasons. First, there is no clash: that’s what, in this context, colons are for… one side goes one way, the other goes another way and there is no clash. Secondly, “titlecase” isn’t a thing in typography or the parts of graphic design related to typography. “titlecase” has meaning only in (some) word-processing apps, who’s names can’t matter here.
“Mixed caps” would be difficult to place in typography. It might mean the first word started in upper-case and was followed by lower-case caps… but what rule would apply to a second or any subsequent words and how, exactly? “Mixed caps and text figures” looks like magnifying that problem. What’s meant by that having “the opposite issue…” I can’t guess.
If “mixed capitalization” had a clear meaning, how would that make it look strange if the abbreviation wasn't a real word, such as "CS" for “Computer Science”? Neither "CS" nor “Computer Science” is “a real word”. What did you really mean? |
34,562 | One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).
He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).
What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies? | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34562",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/23068/"
] | Just because someone can think of it doesn't mean it has a name. In this case the idea appears to be homespun, and not part of a named movement. You can take his name and add "-ism" to it!
It seems internally inconsistent: If there is no government, who does the splitting into companies? If it is to be done by your friend alone, that would make it a dictatorship. | If he believes that there needs to be someone who mandates the size and scope of companies then he is neither an anarchist nor a capitalist in any sense of the words. How does he reconcile "that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves" and "people should be split into companies that are extremely niche...so that there is no competition"?
Taking your friends proposed leadership out of the situation here, and it sounds like you're looking for Syndicalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. But really your friend just wants to be a communist dictator |
34,562 | One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).
He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).
What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies? | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34562",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/23068/"
] | Just because someone can think of it doesn't mean it has a name. In this case the idea appears to be homespun, and not part of a named movement. You can take his name and add "-ism" to it!
It seems internally inconsistent: If there is no government, who does the splitting into companies? If it is to be done by your friend alone, that would make it a dictatorship. | By the way, I shared your friends' point of view. The ideology is not very popular yet. So there is no fix names.
However, according to <http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/why-i-think-the-state-itself-should-be-more-like-private-companies.739494/>
Some possible names are
* capitalistic feudalism.
* capitalistic republic
* joint stock republic
* privatized competing states
* capitalistic provinces capitalism 2.0
* extending capitalism to states
* states with owners and shares and
valuation
* capitalistic colonialism
* corporate protectorate
* States privatization
* Joint Stock Republic
All names are not exactly the same though. Each captures a bit of an essence. For example, corporate feudalism stress the idea that the governor, which is a corporation, don't just rule but also "own" the "province".
Joint stock republic would be a privatized cities/provinces that have gone through IPO I guess.
**Basic tenets:**
*Basically, the states are like corporations. The citizens are the share holders. The tax payers are the customers. The states can pretty much do many things (hence statism) but have to compete to get tax payers. (this will encourage some libertarian values, such as lower tax). Positive right libertarianism will like it I think.*
One way to set that up is the following. Say California wants to be privatized. Californian citizens are free from income tax. But the state itself pay protection money to USA for military protection. Now, it's up to californian to decide how they tax the population. All californian residency is converted at shares. People coming to California and newborn babies do not automatically get shares. Shares must be bought or inherited or granted.
So shares are like citizenship. Except that if someone have 40 children, the citizen/shareholders will think, what? Our shares worth $100k per piece. Now someone just have 40 children and we have to give free shares for that diluting our ownership? No way.
Now the shareholders can embrace status quo and keep giving free shares to all born on certain places. If shares cannot be bought and sold too, it will be exactly like normal democracy. However, it's something that CEO and board of directors can decide rather than something sacrosanct set in stone.
Basically there are several people that share the same point of view. I will summarize them
<http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1549518924/12#12> Like you this guy is also looking for a name
Another is someone in lesswrong
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin>
The idea that states should be run like businesses do not come from libertarians only.
VOC and EIC is also run like businesses. It has a clear goal. Both are not libertarian. VOC conquer the whole Indonesia and EIC conquer the whole India.
So even if a country is not libertarian, running it like a profit seeking entity have some benefits. Corporations have very clear measurable goals. We can check the ROI.
<http://getrichbangbabes.com/benefit-of-further-privatization-of-governments/>
The benefits are:
1. Less poverty. You don't give extra shares for some guy producing 40
children.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html> In normal democracy, an idiot producing 40 children will have 40 new
voters running your life voting for more idiocy, tax, and welfare. 1
Religious terrorists producing 40 jihadist will not have to blow
themselves up again. They just breed and vote for anti blasphemy
laws. In fact, many terrorism in US happens because somebody breed
those terrorists.
2. You don't have to fear immigrants so much if your state max profit.
Only useful immigrants will be admitted. Think about it. Say you
have a house, and you accept 10 starving children. Under "democracy"
those 10 children will simply vote you out of your own house. Now
states have owners. You can accept workers, deal with them fairly,
and they will never rule your state unless you agree to it or buy
more shares.
3. Profit seeking corporations can easily bump their GDP by breeding
their most productive tax payers. Imagine a world where Bill Gates
and Jeff Bezos produces 40 children. At the same tax rate we can
give money to welfare parasites easily. Not that we should. I prefer
lowering tax rate. But each welfare parasite can have more if they
produce less children and Bill Gates produce more.
4. More diverse choice. Your friends would love those. If cities are
privatized arguing whether drug should be legal or not will be as
pointless as arguing whether Burger King is as good as Pizza Hut. He
like LSD? DMT? Weed? Just go to cities where all those legal. Fear
that his sons would try LSD? Go to where it's illegal. What about
dangerous drugs like fentanyl or crocodile? Well, a profit seeking
state will correctly judge whether those drugs bring more tax than
problems. In democracy, histeria governed. US have prohibition of
alcohol that took years to repeal. Is legalization good or bad? For
who? Now each can go where they like.
5. You know where your country is run well or not. This is why VOC and
EIC can control large chunk of life. Normal countries always fight
over what's "good". In Indonesia, I've heard there is a story about
country that fight. Basically the purist muslim fight the moderate
one. Result? They both got swallowed by the dutch. Not happening if
a country is privatized.
6. The rest of the country can experiment to see which one is best. Say
someone try libertarianism and georgism. Well, that combo may work
well. The rest of the country can follow.
7. Easier to move around. Under "normal" democracy, shareholders and
customers are combined into citizens. Often they should have
different interests. What's good for one citizen is bad for another. Look at legalization of drugs or anti blasphemy laws. Under corporate governments, any share holders
that disagree can sell shares and any customers that don't like the
product can go to other shop.
The idea is not just a theory. It's been tried very successfully. EIC and VOC governed India and Indonesia respectively. Also they are not necessarily more cruel than kingdoms they replaced. However, I do not like VOC and EIC. I prefer smaller states that are privatized and still kow tow to big normal states for protection like normal corporations. |
34,562 | One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).
He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).
What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies? | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34562",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/23068/"
] | For political views without ruling countries, you can usually just put the word "Global" in front of the political term. In this case, as James mentioned, there would need to be someone who defined which company did what, distributed funding between companies using a method that didn't look similar to taxation but had a comparable effect, and took action if [when] harm occurred.
Grouping by occupation rather than location is a different twist, but if substituting the word "commune" for "company" works without changing the nature of your colleague's political views, I think we would have an answer. | If he believes that there needs to be someone who mandates the size and scope of companies then he is neither an anarchist nor a capitalist in any sense of the words. How does he reconcile "that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves" and "people should be split into companies that are extremely niche...so that there is no competition"?
Taking your friends proposed leadership out of the situation here, and it sounds like you're looking for Syndicalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. But really your friend just wants to be a communist dictator |
34,562 | One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).
He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).
What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies? | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34562",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/23068/"
] | For political views without ruling countries, you can usually just put the word "Global" in front of the political term. In this case, as James mentioned, there would need to be someone who defined which company did what, distributed funding between companies using a method that didn't look similar to taxation but had a comparable effect, and took action if [when] harm occurred.
Grouping by occupation rather than location is a different twist, but if substituting the word "commune" for "company" works without changing the nature of your colleague's political views, I think we would have an answer. | By the way, I shared your friends' point of view. The ideology is not very popular yet. So there is no fix names.
However, according to <http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/why-i-think-the-state-itself-should-be-more-like-private-companies.739494/>
Some possible names are
* capitalistic feudalism.
* capitalistic republic
* joint stock republic
* privatized competing states
* capitalistic provinces capitalism 2.0
* extending capitalism to states
* states with owners and shares and
valuation
* capitalistic colonialism
* corporate protectorate
* States privatization
* Joint Stock Republic
All names are not exactly the same though. Each captures a bit of an essence. For example, corporate feudalism stress the idea that the governor, which is a corporation, don't just rule but also "own" the "province".
Joint stock republic would be a privatized cities/provinces that have gone through IPO I guess.
**Basic tenets:**
*Basically, the states are like corporations. The citizens are the share holders. The tax payers are the customers. The states can pretty much do many things (hence statism) but have to compete to get tax payers. (this will encourage some libertarian values, such as lower tax). Positive right libertarianism will like it I think.*
One way to set that up is the following. Say California wants to be privatized. Californian citizens are free from income tax. But the state itself pay protection money to USA for military protection. Now, it's up to californian to decide how they tax the population. All californian residency is converted at shares. People coming to California and newborn babies do not automatically get shares. Shares must be bought or inherited or granted.
So shares are like citizenship. Except that if someone have 40 children, the citizen/shareholders will think, what? Our shares worth $100k per piece. Now someone just have 40 children and we have to give free shares for that diluting our ownership? No way.
Now the shareholders can embrace status quo and keep giving free shares to all born on certain places. If shares cannot be bought and sold too, it will be exactly like normal democracy. However, it's something that CEO and board of directors can decide rather than something sacrosanct set in stone.
Basically there are several people that share the same point of view. I will summarize them
<http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1549518924/12#12> Like you this guy is also looking for a name
Another is someone in lesswrong
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin>
The idea that states should be run like businesses do not come from libertarians only.
VOC and EIC is also run like businesses. It has a clear goal. Both are not libertarian. VOC conquer the whole Indonesia and EIC conquer the whole India.
So even if a country is not libertarian, running it like a profit seeking entity have some benefits. Corporations have very clear measurable goals. We can check the ROI.
<http://getrichbangbabes.com/benefit-of-further-privatization-of-governments/>
The benefits are:
1. Less poverty. You don't give extra shares for some guy producing 40
children.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html> In normal democracy, an idiot producing 40 children will have 40 new
voters running your life voting for more idiocy, tax, and welfare. 1
Religious terrorists producing 40 jihadist will not have to blow
themselves up again. They just breed and vote for anti blasphemy
laws. In fact, many terrorism in US happens because somebody breed
those terrorists.
2. You don't have to fear immigrants so much if your state max profit.
Only useful immigrants will be admitted. Think about it. Say you
have a house, and you accept 10 starving children. Under "democracy"
those 10 children will simply vote you out of your own house. Now
states have owners. You can accept workers, deal with them fairly,
and they will never rule your state unless you agree to it or buy
more shares.
3. Profit seeking corporations can easily bump their GDP by breeding
their most productive tax payers. Imagine a world where Bill Gates
and Jeff Bezos produces 40 children. At the same tax rate we can
give money to welfare parasites easily. Not that we should. I prefer
lowering tax rate. But each welfare parasite can have more if they
produce less children and Bill Gates produce more.
4. More diverse choice. Your friends would love those. If cities are
privatized arguing whether drug should be legal or not will be as
pointless as arguing whether Burger King is as good as Pizza Hut. He
like LSD? DMT? Weed? Just go to cities where all those legal. Fear
that his sons would try LSD? Go to where it's illegal. What about
dangerous drugs like fentanyl or crocodile? Well, a profit seeking
state will correctly judge whether those drugs bring more tax than
problems. In democracy, histeria governed. US have prohibition of
alcohol that took years to repeal. Is legalization good or bad? For
who? Now each can go where they like.
5. You know where your country is run well or not. This is why VOC and
EIC can control large chunk of life. Normal countries always fight
over what's "good". In Indonesia, I've heard there is a story about
country that fight. Basically the purist muslim fight the moderate
one. Result? They both got swallowed by the dutch. Not happening if
a country is privatized.
6. The rest of the country can experiment to see which one is best. Say
someone try libertarianism and georgism. Well, that combo may work
well. The rest of the country can follow.
7. Easier to move around. Under "normal" democracy, shareholders and
customers are combined into citizens. Often they should have
different interests. What's good for one citizen is bad for another. Look at legalization of drugs or anti blasphemy laws. Under corporate governments, any share holders
that disagree can sell shares and any customers that don't like the
product can go to other shop.
The idea is not just a theory. It's been tried very successfully. EIC and VOC governed India and Indonesia respectively. Also they are not necessarily more cruel than kingdoms they replaced. However, I do not like VOC and EIC. I prefer smaller states that are privatized and still kow tow to big normal states for protection like normal corporations. |
34,562 | One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).
He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).
What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies? | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34562",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/23068/"
] | If he believes that there needs to be someone who mandates the size and scope of companies then he is neither an anarchist nor a capitalist in any sense of the words. How does he reconcile "that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves" and "people should be split into companies that are extremely niche...so that there is no competition"?
Taking your friends proposed leadership out of the situation here, and it sounds like you're looking for Syndicalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. But really your friend just wants to be a communist dictator | By the way, I shared your friends' point of view. The ideology is not very popular yet. So there is no fix names.
However, according to <http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/why-i-think-the-state-itself-should-be-more-like-private-companies.739494/>
Some possible names are
* capitalistic feudalism.
* capitalistic republic
* joint stock republic
* privatized competing states
* capitalistic provinces capitalism 2.0
* extending capitalism to states
* states with owners and shares and
valuation
* capitalistic colonialism
* corporate protectorate
* States privatization
* Joint Stock Republic
All names are not exactly the same though. Each captures a bit of an essence. For example, corporate feudalism stress the idea that the governor, which is a corporation, don't just rule but also "own" the "province".
Joint stock republic would be a privatized cities/provinces that have gone through IPO I guess.
**Basic tenets:**
*Basically, the states are like corporations. The citizens are the share holders. The tax payers are the customers. The states can pretty much do many things (hence statism) but have to compete to get tax payers. (this will encourage some libertarian values, such as lower tax). Positive right libertarianism will like it I think.*
One way to set that up is the following. Say California wants to be privatized. Californian citizens are free from income tax. But the state itself pay protection money to USA for military protection. Now, it's up to californian to decide how they tax the population. All californian residency is converted at shares. People coming to California and newborn babies do not automatically get shares. Shares must be bought or inherited or granted.
So shares are like citizenship. Except that if someone have 40 children, the citizen/shareholders will think, what? Our shares worth $100k per piece. Now someone just have 40 children and we have to give free shares for that diluting our ownership? No way.
Now the shareholders can embrace status quo and keep giving free shares to all born on certain places. If shares cannot be bought and sold too, it will be exactly like normal democracy. However, it's something that CEO and board of directors can decide rather than something sacrosanct set in stone.
Basically there are several people that share the same point of view. I will summarize them
<http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1549518924/12#12> Like you this guy is also looking for a name
Another is someone in lesswrong
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin>
The idea that states should be run like businesses do not come from libertarians only.
VOC and EIC is also run like businesses. It has a clear goal. Both are not libertarian. VOC conquer the whole Indonesia and EIC conquer the whole India.
So even if a country is not libertarian, running it like a profit seeking entity have some benefits. Corporations have very clear measurable goals. We can check the ROI.
<http://getrichbangbabes.com/benefit-of-further-privatization-of-governments/>
The benefits are:
1. Less poverty. You don't give extra shares for some guy producing 40
children.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html> In normal democracy, an idiot producing 40 children will have 40 new
voters running your life voting for more idiocy, tax, and welfare. 1
Religious terrorists producing 40 jihadist will not have to blow
themselves up again. They just breed and vote for anti blasphemy
laws. In fact, many terrorism in US happens because somebody breed
those terrorists.
2. You don't have to fear immigrants so much if your state max profit.
Only useful immigrants will be admitted. Think about it. Say you
have a house, and you accept 10 starving children. Under "democracy"
those 10 children will simply vote you out of your own house. Now
states have owners. You can accept workers, deal with them fairly,
and they will never rule your state unless you agree to it or buy
more shares.
3. Profit seeking corporations can easily bump their GDP by breeding
their most productive tax payers. Imagine a world where Bill Gates
and Jeff Bezos produces 40 children. At the same tax rate we can
give money to welfare parasites easily. Not that we should. I prefer
lowering tax rate. But each welfare parasite can have more if they
produce less children and Bill Gates produce more.
4. More diverse choice. Your friends would love those. If cities are
privatized arguing whether drug should be legal or not will be as
pointless as arguing whether Burger King is as good as Pizza Hut. He
like LSD? DMT? Weed? Just go to cities where all those legal. Fear
that his sons would try LSD? Go to where it's illegal. What about
dangerous drugs like fentanyl or crocodile? Well, a profit seeking
state will correctly judge whether those drugs bring more tax than
problems. In democracy, histeria governed. US have prohibition of
alcohol that took years to repeal. Is legalization good or bad? For
who? Now each can go where they like.
5. You know where your country is run well or not. This is why VOC and
EIC can control large chunk of life. Normal countries always fight
over what's "good". In Indonesia, I've heard there is a story about
country that fight. Basically the purist muslim fight the moderate
one. Result? They both got swallowed by the dutch. Not happening if
a country is privatized.
6. The rest of the country can experiment to see which one is best. Say
someone try libertarianism and georgism. Well, that combo may work
well. The rest of the country can follow.
7. Easier to move around. Under "normal" democracy, shareholders and
customers are combined into citizens. Often they should have
different interests. What's good for one citizen is bad for another. Look at legalization of drugs or anti blasphemy laws. Under corporate governments, any share holders
that disagree can sell shares and any customers that don't like the
product can go to other shop.
The idea is not just a theory. It's been tried very successfully. EIC and VOC governed India and Indonesia respectively. Also they are not necessarily more cruel than kingdoms they replaced. However, I do not like VOC and EIC. I prefer smaller states that are privatized and still kow tow to big normal states for protection like normal corporations. |
878,207 | so im trying to move my windows to different disk without harming them, and suddenly I found those two partitions in my disk:
Can I just delete them or are they something important?
from what I read on internet people say that its efi loader, is it true? | 2015/02/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/878207",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/418724/"
] | I had the same problem but have worked out what is happening. The thing is it seems that when you install Windows Server Essentials Media Pack it appears to install a whole new server. ie you now have 2 servers.
The one called Digital Media Server comes from Windows Server Essentials. it is controlled through the Dashboard - Start > Windows Server Essentials Dashboard > Settings > Media. On my system this one did not work so I Turned it off.
The second one comes from Server 2012R2. it is controlled through Control Panel Network & Sharing > Media Streaming Options. This seems to be the one linked to the local Video library.
Hope that helps.
...and a little more info for folks who have this problem.
The two servers create two different shares for storing content.
For example > Server 2012 R2 uses the user Libraries C:\Users\\Videos,
Wheras Windows Server Essentials creates shared folders at C:\ServerFolders\Videos
All in all - installing Windows Server Essentials on top of Server 2012R2 really makes a mess of Server 2012R2 and in my experience I would definitely NOT recommend it. | The other Media Server's are most likely other computers on your network that have Media Streaming enabled. Follow these steps on all of the other devices on your network and ensure that Media Streaming is disabled on all of them:
1. Open **Control Panel** and choose the **Network and Sharing Center** option. If you can't find that option, use the Search feature or change the view to small or large icons.
2. On the Networking and Sharing Center panel, click on the **Change advanced sharing settings** option (on the left).
3. On the following screen, expand the **Home or Work** section and then open the Media Streaming options (Choose media streaming options).
4. The first entry on the list will be for the current device. On the drop-down to the right, choose the **Blocked** option.
5. If you have done the above on all other devices on your network, you should only see the Server 2012 R2 Media Server on your network. |
878,207 | so im trying to move my windows to different disk without harming them, and suddenly I found those two partitions in my disk:
Can I just delete them or are they something important?
from what I read on internet people say that its efi loader, is it true? | 2015/02/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/878207",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/418724/"
] | I had the same problem but have worked out what is happening. The thing is it seems that when you install Windows Server Essentials Media Pack it appears to install a whole new server. ie you now have 2 servers.
The one called Digital Media Server comes from Windows Server Essentials. it is controlled through the Dashboard - Start > Windows Server Essentials Dashboard > Settings > Media. On my system this one did not work so I Turned it off.
The second one comes from Server 2012R2. it is controlled through Control Panel Network & Sharing > Media Streaming Options. This seems to be the one linked to the local Video library.
Hope that helps.
...and a little more info for folks who have this problem.
The two servers create two different shares for storing content.
For example > Server 2012 R2 uses the user Libraries C:\Users\\Videos,
Wheras Windows Server Essentials creates shared folders at C:\ServerFolders\Videos
All in all - installing Windows Server Essentials on top of Server 2012R2 really makes a mess of Server 2012R2 and in my experience I would definitely NOT recommend it. | This is just a guess, but are there other Windows user accounts on your system? Perhaps each media server corresponds to the media library of a different user account? |
54,296 | I would like to use photos from the [Public Domain Archive](http://publicdomainarchive.com/) without attribution. They say that their photos are free for personal and commerical use. But they don't mention whether or not they need attribution. They are licensed under the [cc0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). Do I need to attribute them for the use of one of their photos? | 2015/05/30 | [
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/54296",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com",
"https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/users/44574/"
] | No. CC0 (and its equivalents) is the closest "moral equivalent" to public domain; it says, essentially, that the work is licensed for all uses with no restrictions or qualifications, other than that the author of the work still holds copyright in those jurisdictions where voluntary alienation (release into the public domain) is legally impossible. Attribution is nice, sometimes, but not necessary.
(And there are times when the author of the work would just as soon nobody mentioned them because the work is "off brand" - it doesn't fit into their normal style or genre, and it would just confuse their market.) | This is a legal question and the best answer to your question would be to consult with a legal professional licensed in your jurisdiction. All that being said, and understanding that we can't provide legal advice, CC0 means the creator has provided it to the public domain, without any copyright assertion, for **any** and **all** use. That suggests that attribution is not required. But again, consult with a legal professional for actual legal advice. |
49,092 | According to one My Hero Academia wikia
>
> he is also capable of using it to "revive" people, as he has done to Rappa multiple times
>
>
>
and
>
> Sir Nighteye assumes that Chisaki's Quirk is responsible for the healing of the Team Reservoir Dogs
>
>
>
Also
>
> Overhaul's characters in his name are composed of "治" (chi, lit.
> "govern, regulate, administer"), "崎" (saki, lit. "promontory, cape,
> spit") and "廻" (kai, lit. "revolve, **return**, curving"
>
>
>
If he can revive and may be heal people, isnt reving the most difficult/extreme "rewind" of a person's state? Couldnt Overhaul be used in the same way of Eri's rewind quirk? | 2018/10/08 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/49092",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/3028/"
] | According to description of Overhaul ability, it allows its user to disassemble and reassemble anything, which makes it kinda similar to alchemy from Fullmetal Alchemist. This leads me to speculation, that while disassembling something or someone, Kai Chisaki learns how this object or person is structured, and thus is able to reconstruct it or them to the previous shape. This is partially backed up by the fact, that most of people, that were "revived" by Kai Chisaki, were killed by his ability as well.
Description of Eri's ability is rather vague, but it seems she can just "rewind" person to previous state (it is still not clear what "parameters" of person she can "rewind"), even being not aware what this state was. Another difference is that according to situation when
>
> Midoriya was using 100% Full Cowl for pretty extended time,
>
>
>
Eri is able to "fix" person in their current "state", instantly reverting any changes to their body, unlike Overhaul, which is singular action.
Most limitations to quirks are never explained by author, but taking into account, that Kai Chisaki was never using his quirk to achieve same result as Eri is able to do, I'd say he can't "simulate" it. | Quirks are somewhat related to DNA and blood. Quirks are also like a muscle in the human body; Overusing them can be strainful, Quirk can be trained to become more efficient, just like a muscle, and last, but not least, they have limits, and guess what also has limits? I'll give you a hint: A GODDAMN MUSCLE.
But, it's also about what the Quirk effects in question. In all honesty, even a random Quirk might be related to everything in the human body. Kai, with Overhaul, has been shown to turn straight-up blood into solid, non-organic bullets that can remove Quirks. This means that he could literally create bullets with different effects that are related to the quirk's ability. And, it's already been said that the quirk itself has full control over matter when reassembling something, whether it be organic or non-organic. And, this also may or may not be true, I'm not sure, but Kai could fuse himself with people by using Overhaul to disassemble himself and then reassemble the person's body, giving him control over their Quirk(s).
If Kai could do all of that, then I'm sure he would be able to remove someone's Quirk by disassembling and reassembling them to where the Quirk didn't even exist at all in the human body, or even in their DNA. In fact, you could probably make someone younger with this Quirk, or augment or decrease the power of a Quirk. Basically, the Quirk can disassemble something and reassemble matter in any form or shape, which is just OP as hell. |
2,240 | Are questions about VA's, producers, studios, etc. allowed on the main site?
While not about the actual subject material they are an integral part of the topic.
If there is no precedent for this, then maybe a better question would be:
Should these questions be allowed? | 2015/01/28 | [
"https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2240",
"https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11206/"
] | Asking about the industry, its workings, its staff, and notable figures are all fine and on-topic.
Asking about a notable figure's personal life, hobbies, etc, is a bit off-topic. But if it has a connection to a series or anime/manga production staff. It should be fine.
For an example, if I were to ask [shirobako](https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/shirobako "show questions tagged 'shirobako'") *"Are any of the characters in the anime based off real life people?"* This is a perfectly acceptable question. [anime-production](https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/anime-production "show questions tagged 'anime-production'") *"What productions did {{insert notable animation director}} work as key animator?"* is also perfectly acceptable.
If I were to ask *"What are {{insert notable voice actress}}'s three sizes?"* This would be off topic for the site. If you're really curious and want to know, you can as this in our [main chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6697/maid-cafe-), where *almost* nothing is off-topic. | I think as long as it is linked to anime - whether that be through history, a particular show, etc, it should be fine.
Questions about their personal lives etc probably aren't appropriate.
Here's one that already exists:
[Who was the first seiyuu?](https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/14344/who-was-the-first-seiyuu) |
12,669 | **Edit:** To sum the question up, I have a voxel based world (Minecraft style (Thanks Communist Duck)) which is suffering from poor performance. I am not positive on the source but would like any possible advice on how to get rid of it.
I am working on a project where a world consists of a large quantity of cubes (I would give you a number, but it is user defined worlds). My test one is around (48 x 32 x 48) blocks.
Basically these blocks don't do anything in themselves. They just sit there.
They start being used when it comes to player interaction.
I need to check what cubes the users mouse interacts with (mouse over, clicking, etc.), and for collision detecting as the player moves.
Now I had a massive amount of lag at first, looping through every block.
I have managed to decrease that lag, by looping through all the blocks, and finding which blocks are within a particular range of the character, and then only looping through those blocks for the collision detection, etc.
However, I am still going at a depressing 2fps.
Does anyone have any other ideas on how I could decrease this lag?
Btw, I am using XNA (C#) and yes, it is 3d. | 2011/05/24 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/12669",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/7514/"
] | I agree with Daniels answer, in that iterating through large amounts of boxes is the most likely cause, and that by using spacial partitioning you could speed the game up a lot - but the problem *could* also be elsewhere, and you could be wasting your time.
**In order to increase the speed of your game significantly you need to profile your code.** Identify where the bottleneck is, this will allow you to make the biggest improvements.
There are lots of ways to profile your code, you could roll your own performance analysis class (which could make use of the [Stopwatch class (MSDN)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.stopwatch.aspx)), or you could use PIX to get a general idea of how busy the CPU/GPU is.
You can also put [PIX event markers](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.directx_sdk.reference.d3dperf_beginevent%28v=vs.85%29.aspx) in your code, which will show up as colored regions in PIX's readouts. There isn't an official C# interface to these functions, but [this thread](http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/16667/86975.aspx) shows how you can make a C# interface yourself. | If your player is large relative to the size of the cubes, then you probably want an octree or other spatial partitioning structure, as other's have suggested.
However, if your player is small relative to the size of the cubes, then probably the fastest way to detect collision with the cubes is to do a simple linear search of the area around the player.
Since your player is smaller than 1 cube, then you only need to test for collision against the neighboring 27 cubes, at most.
This assumes that you store the cubes in an array that you can index into, with one slot in the array for every cube.
As other's have pointed out, you need to profile your code to see what is actually slowing you down.
If I had to guess though, I'd say that you are probably doing a draw call for every cube, which would be your bottleneck by far. To fix that, you should look into geometry instancing. |
12,669 | **Edit:** To sum the question up, I have a voxel based world (Minecraft style (Thanks Communist Duck)) which is suffering from poor performance. I am not positive on the source but would like any possible advice on how to get rid of it.
I am working on a project where a world consists of a large quantity of cubes (I would give you a number, but it is user defined worlds). My test one is around (48 x 32 x 48) blocks.
Basically these blocks don't do anything in themselves. They just sit there.
They start being used when it comes to player interaction.
I need to check what cubes the users mouse interacts with (mouse over, clicking, etc.), and for collision detecting as the player moves.
Now I had a massive amount of lag at first, looping through every block.
I have managed to decrease that lag, by looping through all the blocks, and finding which blocks are within a particular range of the character, and then only looping through those blocks for the collision detection, etc.
However, I am still going at a depressing 2fps.
Does anyone have any other ideas on how I could decrease this lag?
Btw, I am using XNA (C#) and yes, it is 3d. | 2011/05/24 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/12669",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/7514/"
] | I agree with Daniels answer, in that iterating through large amounts of boxes is the most likely cause, and that by using spacial partitioning you could speed the game up a lot - but the problem *could* also be elsewhere, and you could be wasting your time.
**In order to increase the speed of your game significantly you need to profile your code.** Identify where the bottleneck is, this will allow you to make the biggest improvements.
There are lots of ways to profile your code, you could roll your own performance analysis class (which could make use of the [Stopwatch class (MSDN)](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.stopwatch.aspx)), or you could use PIX to get a general idea of how busy the CPU/GPU is.
You can also put [PIX event markers](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.directx_sdk.reference.d3dperf_beginevent%28v=vs.85%29.aspx) in your code, which will show up as colored regions in PIX's readouts. There isn't an official C# interface to these functions, but [this thread](http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/16667/86975.aspx) shows how you can make a C# interface yourself. | One more suggestion to speed things up: Your blocks are approximately fixed--that means that there's no way a player can collide with most of them. Add a boolean to blocks indicating whether they are exposed or not. (This can be recalculated by looking at their neighbors.) A block which isn't exposed need not be checked for collisions.
It's obvious Minecraft does something akin to this--I hit a non-loaded chunk once that gave me a view into the world--I could see right through the solid ground, all that showed up was the open spaces (the far side of them was an exposed surface and therefore rendered.) |
12,669 | **Edit:** To sum the question up, I have a voxel based world (Minecraft style (Thanks Communist Duck)) which is suffering from poor performance. I am not positive on the source but would like any possible advice on how to get rid of it.
I am working on a project where a world consists of a large quantity of cubes (I would give you a number, but it is user defined worlds). My test one is around (48 x 32 x 48) blocks.
Basically these blocks don't do anything in themselves. They just sit there.
They start being used when it comes to player interaction.
I need to check what cubes the users mouse interacts with (mouse over, clicking, etc.), and for collision detecting as the player moves.
Now I had a massive amount of lag at first, looping through every block.
I have managed to decrease that lag, by looping through all the blocks, and finding which blocks are within a particular range of the character, and then only looping through those blocks for the collision detection, etc.
However, I am still going at a depressing 2fps.
Does anyone have any other ideas on how I could decrease this lag?
Btw, I am using XNA (C#) and yes, it is 3d. | 2011/05/24 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/12669",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/7514/"
] | If your player is large relative to the size of the cubes, then you probably want an octree or other spatial partitioning structure, as other's have suggested.
However, if your player is small relative to the size of the cubes, then probably the fastest way to detect collision with the cubes is to do a simple linear search of the area around the player.
Since your player is smaller than 1 cube, then you only need to test for collision against the neighboring 27 cubes, at most.
This assumes that you store the cubes in an array that you can index into, with one slot in the array for every cube.
As other's have pointed out, you need to profile your code to see what is actually slowing you down.
If I had to guess though, I'd say that you are probably doing a draw call for every cube, which would be your bottleneck by far. To fix that, you should look into geometry instancing. | One more suggestion to speed things up: Your blocks are approximately fixed--that means that there's no way a player can collide with most of them. Add a boolean to blocks indicating whether they are exposed or not. (This can be recalculated by looking at their neighbors.) A block which isn't exposed need not be checked for collisions.
It's obvious Minecraft does something akin to this--I hit a non-loaded chunk once that gave me a view into the world--I could see right through the solid ground, all that showed up was the open spaces (the far side of them was an exposed surface and therefore rendered.) |
208,116 | I have a belkin wireless router and four computers (2PC's + 2 Mac's) that connect to it regularly. Recently we have been consuming a lot of bandwidth. Is there a way to find out which computer is consuming most of the bandwidth without having to install monitoring software on all of the computers? (no two computers have the same OS!). Can I just install software one one PC and solve this problem?
EDIT: The router model number is F5D7632-4
EDIT: One PC with windows XP is connected directly by cable to the router. | 2010/11/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/208116",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/15881/"
] | See the [overview](http://www.ntop.org/overview.html) for [ntop](http://www.ntop.org/news.php)
* Analyse IP traffic and sort it according to the source/destination
* Display IP Traffic Subnet matrix (who's talking to who?)
---
EDIT
Ntop can show traffic statistics between other PCs and the internet, you just have to make sure the computer running ntop is able to see all the traffic. Modern ethernet switches segregate traffic so the a computer only sees traffic addressed to it. A managed switch will allow you to set up [port-mirroring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch#Traffic_monitoring_on_a_switched_network) to the computer running ntop.
It seems the Belkin's built-in switch doesn't support Port-mirroring. Maybe you could interpose a [suitable inexpensive switch](http://www.miarec.com/knowledge/switches-port-mirroring) between the Belkin and the four wired PCs.
Old ethernet hubs (not switches) also allow any computer to see all traffic. I have an old Netgear EN104 10-Base-T hub I used to use for this. I see they are available for a [few dollars](http://shop.ebay.com/?_nkw=en104)
See [ntop blog](http://www.ntop.org/blog/?p=14) about this
If the PCs are on the WLAN you'll need a different solution.
<http://www.tech-faq.com/how-to-monitor-wireless-traffic.html>
There are commercial products that claim to do this. E.g.
<http://www.tamos.com/products/commwifi/>
If the Belkin F5D7632-4 supported RMON or Netflow, you might be able to use that. | If you are worried about consuming your Internet account bandwidth and your ISP has a monitoring tool, you could switch on one computer at a time for a fixed period and see how much the ISP tool says has been used. |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | >
> Could an airliner exceed Mach 1 in a zero-G power dive and safely recover?
>
>
>
There is only one answer here and that is NO, especially for the A320 in your example (there are other airliners better suited to tolerate higher transonic speeds).
Yes, it's possible to recover from such a condition, but nothing about it would be safe. Recovering from this condition would be a situation in which you would consider yourself *lucky*, because the aircraft is simply not designed to operate under such conditions and catastrophic mechanical failure becomes a serious possibility. Successful escape will always be on account of some degree of *good fortune* (ie: things you didn't plan, didn't think to plan, or couldn't plan, but that went OK and conspired to save your bacon). The aircraft will likely suffer damage - with *luck*, it isn't critical damage.
Who is to say what the weak link would be, but it could be anything - a single mechanical component could mean the difference between life and death. Does your plane have a critical support that's on the weak side of the bell curve? Maybe a sister craft made the next day might survive a dive that yours would not. Each plane will fail in a different way depending on whatever component happens to fail first. When you're outside the envelope there are no guarantees - you might get lucky, you might not.
>
> How do I get out of this in one piece?
>
>
>
What's important to understand is that the outcome in these situations becomes highly unpredictable. Subtle changes in the test conditions, weather, environment, etc, can all cascade quickly into an uncontrollable situation, regardless of the pilot's skill. Despite your best efforts, the result may still be fatal.
That someone managed to do it successfully once is not an indicator that it would be safe to attempt again.
>
> how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece?
>
>
>
It's already too late. The faster you go, the higher the chance you won't make it.
---
Supersonic aircraft are specifically designed to minimize the destructiveness of the pressure waves they generate and otherwise stiffen the airframe against the residual stresses that result.
Airliners, by contrast, optimize entirely for sub/transonic cruise speed and, critically, efficiency. They incorporate no such design features and in fact have efficiency-minded elements of their design that make them *particularly* ill-suited for supersonic flight. As such, they tend to generate more disruptive and destructive pressure waves than supersonic aircraft during transonic flight.
Because supersonic stresses appear in largely different areas of the aircraft than subsonic stresses, airliners are also far less structurally capable of withstanding them. Doubly so these days because the aircraft all have a variety of overspeed protection systems which allow the designers to certify the aircraft closer to the danger zone of the flight envelope.
From : [IATA -- Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I) Prevention : Beyond the Control of Pilots](https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b6eb2adc248c484192101edd1ed36015/loc-prevention-beyond-the-control-of-pilots.pdf)
>
> ### 4.8.4 Benefit of Overspeed Protection Systems
>
>
> Automated overspeed protection systems may be seen as something designed to help avoid a dangerous high speed condition. At least that is the perception of many pilots – why else would a designer make the effort to develop and certify the system if not for the benefit of protecting the aircraft? Well, there is one big commercial aspect which is not so well known, and that is significant aircraft weight savings. **By installing an overspeed protection system the designer is permitted by the standards to bring VMO/MMO much closer to the design dive speed**[*emphasis mine*] and hence the speed at which the airframe will eventually start to flutter and disintegrate. In other words, the structural integrity margins between the maximum normal operating speeds used by the pilot and the speed at which damage will occur may be narrower, meaning that the aircraft structure need not be as robust. Structural strength usually equates to weight in aircraft construction so ultimately the overspeed protection system allows a lighter overall aircraft structure.
>
>
>
Airline travel is such big business that the rules bend to allow them to shave efficiency right up to the margin.
For a relatively recent real example of it not ending well : [**Adam Air 574**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air_Flight_574) : 737-400
>
> The aircraft reached 490 knots (910 km/h) at the end of the recording, in excess of the aircraft's maximum operating speed (400 knots (740 km/h; 460 mph)). The descent rate varied during the fatal dive, with a maximum recorded value of 53,760 feet per minute, roughly (531 knots (983 km/h; 611 mph)). The tailplane suffered a structural failure twenty seconds prior to the end of the recording,[11]:52 at which time the investigators concluded the aircraft was in a "critically unrecoverable state". Both flight recorders ceased to function when the 737 broke up in mid-air at 9,000 feet above sea level.
>
>
>
The cause was determined to be pilot error. | It Theoretically could, but not likely due to the fact that when you are pulling up at the speed of sound, you would be exerting more g forces that the plane could handle. Also take into account, Pilot Error, Density altitude, weather factors, Weight and balance and the recent inspection of the aircraft. These factors would greatly decrease your chances of survival. Here is a link that shows for example what a typical structural chart would look like. ( One for Each aircraft model)[Structural Chart for GA Aircraft](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uavnavigation.com%2Fsupport%2Fkb%2Fgeneral%2Fgeneral-system-info%2Fflight-envelope&psig=AOvVaw0F86PnrB6EY4yasfb7vGpn&ust=1617999483057000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOiF5_W77-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD) |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | After you break the sound barrier, a shock wave will be generated in front of your main wings and tail wings. Though the design of wings on modern planes may hold that situation and can still generate some lift (which is impossible for traditional wings, leading to a fatal stall), the control surfaces on your main wings and tail wings will nearly lose their effect (the shock wave in front of the wing will weaken the energy of air flow near the control surface). So it will be extremely hard to pull up with normal control surfaces.
However, you do have other effective ways to control the plane. By adjusting the pitch trim, you can change the AOI of your tail wings, which is still effective in the supersonic situation and will be the main way for you to pull up the plane (you will see the same way on supersonic fighters). | It really depends on the aircraft. A DC-8 is known to have done this. (<https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/>) There are 2 sources of stress on the airframe in this situation- airliners aren't designed to fly past Mach 1 (except the Concorde and Tu-144...), so there's one issue. There's also the issue of the recovery, as airliners have G-limits.
>
> "In pitch, when an input is made on the sidestick, the flight control computers interpret this input as a “g” demand/pitch rate. Consequently, elevator deflection is not directly related to sidestick input. The aircraft responds to a sidestick order with a pitch rate at low speed and a flight path rate or “g” at high speed. When no input is made on the sidestick, the computers maintain a 1g flight path." <http://www.aviationchief.com/airbus-control-laws.html>
>
>
>
So, an Airbus airplane will prevent you from introducing a too-high g-load. In the clean configuration, an A320's g envelope is -1 to +2.5 g, and the same is true on the Boeing 737. (<https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/a320/a320-limitations.pdf>) (<http://www.b737.org.uk/limitations.htm#Flight_Manoeuvring_Load_Acceleration_Limits>) I can't find anything indicating the presence of a G-limiter on Boeing airplanes, so you'd have more careful.
How long you could go before initiating recovery depends on where you are. If you're over the Alps or another mountain range, it would be wise to initiate recovery as soon as possible, since you'll be limited by g-load on the rate you can recover. The maximum speed you could attain would depend on the airframe; MMO for the 737 is 0.82 Mach, so you're already having issues. Per the A320 TCDS the MMO of that airplane is also 0.82 Mach.
Given this, it's possible that you might survive, but you're risking damage to the aircraft and recovery isn't guaranteed. During the recovery, you may need to actually pitch further into the dive to unload the trims, so that's increasing the risk that A) you push the airframe a little too far, and B) you hit the ground before you recover. Nothing about it would be safe. The A320 and 737 would be bad choices, other airliners have higher MMO's. The Concorde might be able to do it but it has the same 2.5g limit. Ultimately, the margin for error is extremely low and it's not possible to do this safely. |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) | It Theoretically could, but not likely due to the fact that when you are pulling up at the speed of sound, you would be exerting more g forces that the plane could handle. Also take into account, Pilot Error, Density altitude, weather factors, Weight and balance and the recent inspection of the aircraft. These factors would greatly decrease your chances of survival. Here is a link that shows for example what a typical structural chart would look like. ( One for Each aircraft model)[Structural Chart for GA Aircraft](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uavnavigation.com%2Fsupport%2Fkb%2Fgeneral%2Fgeneral-system-info%2Fflight-envelope&psig=AOvVaw0F86PnrB6EY4yasfb7vGpn&ust=1617999483057000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOiF5_W77-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD) |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | There is actually some data (albeit limited) on this scenario:
[On August 21st 1961 this test was performed in a DC-8](https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/). When this test was performed they were supersonic for about 16 seconds which took a lot of planning to pull off. You first need to climb higher than the plane typically does to have enough altitude to pull this off, then make sure you understand how the control surfaces are loaded in the dive. You get out in once piece by planning for it and understanding *exactly* what's going on:
>
> We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it
> in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He
> didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by
> itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for
> maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered. But the recovery was a little
> scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do
> anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the
> stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did,
> because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He
> pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the
> stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the
> relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet.
>
>
>
Remember you're diving fast, really fast, so you likely can't go much faster as you will ultimately run out of time to accelerate:
>
> The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s
> much more accurate to use airspeed. So every thousand feet I would
> read off to Bill the airspeed [he needed] at the next altitude. As we
> were coming down, I was talking almost all the time because at a
> descent rate of 500 feet per second, every two seconds we were 1,000
> feet lower. Looking out the window—which I stopped doing—it looked
> like it was straight down.
>
>
>
[The trick is to not over stress the airframe.](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/could-a-test-crew-replicate-the-1961-dc-8-supersonic-dive-in-a-more-modern-airli) | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) | >
> Could an airliner exceed Mach 1 in a zero-G power dive and safely recover?
>
>
>
There is only one answer here and that is NO, especially for the A320 in your example (there are other airliners better suited to tolerate higher transonic speeds).
Yes, it's possible to recover from such a condition, but nothing about it would be safe. Recovering from this condition would be a situation in which you would consider yourself *lucky*, because the aircraft is simply not designed to operate under such conditions and catastrophic mechanical failure becomes a serious possibility. Successful escape will always be on account of some degree of *good fortune* (ie: things you didn't plan, didn't think to plan, or couldn't plan, but that went OK and conspired to save your bacon). The aircraft will likely suffer damage - with *luck*, it isn't critical damage.
Who is to say what the weak link would be, but it could be anything - a single mechanical component could mean the difference between life and death. Does your plane have a critical support that's on the weak side of the bell curve? Maybe a sister craft made the next day might survive a dive that yours would not. Each plane will fail in a different way depending on whatever component happens to fail first. When you're outside the envelope there are no guarantees - you might get lucky, you might not.
>
> How do I get out of this in one piece?
>
>
>
What's important to understand is that the outcome in these situations becomes highly unpredictable. Subtle changes in the test conditions, weather, environment, etc, can all cascade quickly into an uncontrollable situation, regardless of the pilot's skill. Despite your best efforts, the result may still be fatal.
That someone managed to do it successfully once is not an indicator that it would be safe to attempt again.
>
> how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece?
>
>
>
It's already too late. The faster you go, the higher the chance you won't make it.
---
Supersonic aircraft are specifically designed to minimize the destructiveness of the pressure waves they generate and otherwise stiffen the airframe against the residual stresses that result.
Airliners, by contrast, optimize entirely for sub/transonic cruise speed and, critically, efficiency. They incorporate no such design features and in fact have efficiency-minded elements of their design that make them *particularly* ill-suited for supersonic flight. As such, they tend to generate more disruptive and destructive pressure waves than supersonic aircraft during transonic flight.
Because supersonic stresses appear in largely different areas of the aircraft than subsonic stresses, airliners are also far less structurally capable of withstanding them. Doubly so these days because the aircraft all have a variety of overspeed protection systems which allow the designers to certify the aircraft closer to the danger zone of the flight envelope.
From : [IATA -- Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I) Prevention : Beyond the Control of Pilots](https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b6eb2adc248c484192101edd1ed36015/loc-prevention-beyond-the-control-of-pilots.pdf)
>
> ### 4.8.4 Benefit of Overspeed Protection Systems
>
>
> Automated overspeed protection systems may be seen as something designed to help avoid a dangerous high speed condition. At least that is the perception of many pilots – why else would a designer make the effort to develop and certify the system if not for the benefit of protecting the aircraft? Well, there is one big commercial aspect which is not so well known, and that is significant aircraft weight savings. **By installing an overspeed protection system the designer is permitted by the standards to bring VMO/MMO much closer to the design dive speed**[*emphasis mine*] and hence the speed at which the airframe will eventually start to flutter and disintegrate. In other words, the structural integrity margins between the maximum normal operating speeds used by the pilot and the speed at which damage will occur may be narrower, meaning that the aircraft structure need not be as robust. Structural strength usually equates to weight in aircraft construction so ultimately the overspeed protection system allows a lighter overall aircraft structure.
>
>
>
Airline travel is such big business that the rules bend to allow them to shave efficiency right up to the margin.
For a relatively recent real example of it not ending well : [**Adam Air 574**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air_Flight_574) : 737-400
>
> The aircraft reached 490 knots (910 km/h) at the end of the recording, in excess of the aircraft's maximum operating speed (400 knots (740 km/h; 460 mph)). The descent rate varied during the fatal dive, with a maximum recorded value of 53,760 feet per minute, roughly (531 knots (983 km/h; 611 mph)). The tailplane suffered a structural failure twenty seconds prior to the end of the recording,[11]:52 at which time the investigators concluded the aircraft was in a "critically unrecoverable state". Both flight recorders ceased to function when the 737 broke up in mid-air at 9,000 feet above sea level.
>
>
>
The cause was determined to be pilot error. |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) | After you break the sound barrier, a shock wave will be generated in front of your main wings and tail wings. Though the design of wings on modern planes may hold that situation and can still generate some lift (which is impossible for traditional wings, leading to a fatal stall), the control surfaces on your main wings and tail wings will nearly lose their effect (the shock wave in front of the wing will weaken the energy of air flow near the control surface). So it will be extremely hard to pull up with normal control surfaces.
However, you do have other effective ways to control the plane. By adjusting the pitch trim, you can change the AOI of your tail wings, which is still effective in the supersonic situation and will be the main way for you to pull up the plane (you will see the same way on supersonic fighters). |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | There is actually some data (albeit limited) on this scenario:
[On August 21st 1961 this test was performed in a DC-8](https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/). When this test was performed they were supersonic for about 16 seconds which took a lot of planning to pull off. You first need to climb higher than the plane typically does to have enough altitude to pull this off, then make sure you understand how the control surfaces are loaded in the dive. You get out in once piece by planning for it and understanding *exactly* what's going on:
>
> We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it
> in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He
> didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by
> itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for
> maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered. But the recovery was a little
> scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do
> anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the
> stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did,
> because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He
> pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the
> stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the
> relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet.
>
>
>
Remember you're diving fast, really fast, so you likely can't go much faster as you will ultimately run out of time to accelerate:
>
> The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s
> much more accurate to use airspeed. So every thousand feet I would
> read off to Bill the airspeed [he needed] at the next altitude. As we
> were coming down, I was talking almost all the time because at a
> descent rate of 500 feet per second, every two seconds we were 1,000
> feet lower. Looking out the window—which I stopped doing—it looked
> like it was straight down.
>
>
>
[The trick is to not over stress the airframe.](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/could-a-test-crew-replicate-the-1961-dc-8-supersonic-dive-in-a-more-modern-airli) | After you break the sound barrier, a shock wave will be generated in front of your main wings and tail wings. Though the design of wings on modern planes may hold that situation and can still generate some lift (which is impossible for traditional wings, leading to a fatal stall), the control surfaces on your main wings and tail wings will nearly lose their effect (the shock wave in front of the wing will weaken the energy of air flow near the control surface). So it will be extremely hard to pull up with normal control surfaces.
However, you do have other effective ways to control the plane. By adjusting the pitch trim, you can change the AOI of your tail wings, which is still effective in the supersonic situation and will be the main way for you to pull up the plane (you will see the same way on supersonic fighters). |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | There is actually some data (albeit limited) on this scenario:
[On August 21st 1961 this test was performed in a DC-8](https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/). When this test was performed they were supersonic for about 16 seconds which took a lot of planning to pull off. You first need to climb higher than the plane typically does to have enough altitude to pull this off, then make sure you understand how the control surfaces are loaded in the dive. You get out in once piece by planning for it and understanding *exactly* what's going on:
>
> We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it
> in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He
> didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by
> itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for
> maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered. But the recovery was a little
> scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do
> anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the
> stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did,
> because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He
> pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the
> stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the
> relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet.
>
>
>
Remember you're diving fast, really fast, so you likely can't go much faster as you will ultimately run out of time to accelerate:
>
> The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s
> much more accurate to use airspeed. So every thousand feet I would
> read off to Bill the airspeed [he needed] at the next altitude. As we
> were coming down, I was talking almost all the time because at a
> descent rate of 500 feet per second, every two seconds we were 1,000
> feet lower. Looking out the window—which I stopped doing—it looked
> like it was straight down.
>
>
>
[The trick is to not over stress the airframe.](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/could-a-test-crew-replicate-the-1961-dc-8-supersonic-dive-in-a-more-modern-airli) | It Theoretically could, but not likely due to the fact that when you are pulling up at the speed of sound, you would be exerting more g forces that the plane could handle. Also take into account, Pilot Error, Density altitude, weather factors, Weight and balance and the recent inspection of the aircraft. These factors would greatly decrease your chances of survival. Here is a link that shows for example what a typical structural chart would look like. ( One for Each aircraft model)[Structural Chart for GA Aircraft](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uavnavigation.com%2Fsupport%2Fkb%2Fgeneral%2Fgeneral-system-info%2Fflight-envelope&psig=AOvVaw0F86PnrB6EY4yasfb7vGpn&ust=1617999483057000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOiF5_W77-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD) |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) | Mach 1 is approximately 67,000 feet per second. At a max ceiling of maybe 40,000 feet, an airliner couldn't even get close to Mach 1 speed in that distance. Given enough height it could do it but it would be starting the dive from Space or very close to it. |
86,357 | (I looked for duplicates. I really did.)
Being as it is that "safety" and this are mutually exclusive:
I am stupid. I take a cruising A320, apply TOGA power, and push zero Gs until I exceed Mach 1. How do I get out of this in one piece? And how much faster can I go before I need to start this process of getting out in one piece? | 2021/04/05 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/86357",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/45534/"
] | The TWA Flight 841 accident in 1979 involving a Boeing 727 comes pretty close to your conditions. Not a zero-G dive but an unintended spiral dive starting at 39,000 feet, reaching mach 0.96 at 31,800 feet, becoming a 90 degree nose-down dive at 29,000 feet with total loss of control authority. With speed brakes ineffective, the pilot extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft and finally regained control at about 5000 feet. The aircraft landed safely. Eight passengers received minor injuries, most of whom had been standing and were forced to the floor and held there by the 6-G acceleration force. The aircraft sustained damage, but it was repaired and returned to service.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))
[NTSB Report](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8108.pdf) (PDF) | Past Vmo/Mmo (well, probably Vmd) there's no telling if you're gonna be able to recover. AFAIK it's not about the G-forces, it's about the aerodynamics of the wings and control surfaces. The elevator just might not work anymore to effect a pullup, and the ailerons may become useless. You're likely to be left with an uncontrollable aircraft whose parts will tear off at some point as the speed keeps increasing.
The Learjet 55 had a stick puller (preceded by a nasty aural warning) that was intended to prevent it going too fast. There was a reason they put that in, and I'm sure it had to do with someone's soiled underwear!
Nevertheless Bill Magruder's idea to push rather than pull on August 21, 1961 in his DC-8 was bloody brilliant and worth remembering.
Just don't go there! |
9,372,188 | Ruby has a few good document generators like Yard, rDoc, even Glyph. The thing is that Sphinx does websites, PDF's, epub, LaTex...etc. It does all these things in restructuredtext.
Is there an alternative to this in the Ruby world? Maybe a combination of programs? If I could use Markdown as well that would be even better. | 2012/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9372188",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1026169/"
] | Since version 1.0, Sphinx has had a concept of "domains" which are ways of marking up code entities (like method calls, objects, functions, whatever) from lannguages other than Python and/or C.
There is a [ruby domain](http://packages.python.org/sphinxcontrib-rubydomain/), so you could just use Sphinx itself. The only thing you would be missing (I think) is Sphinx's ability to create documentation from source automatically using the [autodoc](http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ext/autodoc.html) extension, which works specifically on Python code. | If you want to use Markdown, you might check out [JDoc](https://github.com/tombenner/jdoc), which is a very simple, Ruby-based documentation framework that lets you use widely-supported markup and put it under source control. It lets you edit the documentation in your text editor of choice, and it supports:
* Markdown or Textile
* syntax highlighting
* easy internal links
* a hierarchical documentation structure (useful for large projects)
* customizable styling and structure (but it looks nice out of the box, too)
It generates static HTML, so the resulting documentation is easy to host and doesn't have much of an impact on your server load.
To see it in action, check out [wpmvc.org](http://wpmvc.org/). |
9,372,188 | Ruby has a few good document generators like Yard, rDoc, even Glyph. The thing is that Sphinx does websites, PDF's, epub, LaTex...etc. It does all these things in restructuredtext.
Is there an alternative to this in the Ruby world? Maybe a combination of programs? If I could use Markdown as well that would be even better. | 2012/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9372188",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1026169/"
] | Since version 1.0, Sphinx has had a concept of "domains" which are ways of marking up code entities (like method calls, objects, functions, whatever) from lannguages other than Python and/or C.
There is a [ruby domain](http://packages.python.org/sphinxcontrib-rubydomain/), so you could just use Sphinx itself. The only thing you would be missing (I think) is Sphinx's ability to create documentation from source automatically using the [autodoc](http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ext/autodoc.html) extension, which works specifically on Python code. | Another couple of options would be to use Middleman which is a static site generator that accepts either Kramdown or Markdown as input.
There are also frameworks that are designed specifically for technical documentation that use Middleman (both of which are on GitHub) including lord/slate and pnerger/dpslate (the later is a fork of the former and provides some enhancements that were not appropriate for pulling). The Slate format provides a format for documentation that includes many of the features of Sphinx with some additional enhancements. It features a three-pane view of a document which includes an automatically generated Table of Contents, a Main center body, and then sample code panel to the right. Like Sphinx the sample code has syntax highlighting. |
9,372,188 | Ruby has a few good document generators like Yard, rDoc, even Glyph. The thing is that Sphinx does websites, PDF's, epub, LaTex...etc. It does all these things in restructuredtext.
Is there an alternative to this in the Ruby world? Maybe a combination of programs? If I could use Markdown as well that would be even better. | 2012/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9372188",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1026169/"
] | If you want to use Markdown, you might check out [JDoc](https://github.com/tombenner/jdoc), which is a very simple, Ruby-based documentation framework that lets you use widely-supported markup and put it under source control. It lets you edit the documentation in your text editor of choice, and it supports:
* Markdown or Textile
* syntax highlighting
* easy internal links
* a hierarchical documentation structure (useful for large projects)
* customizable styling and structure (but it looks nice out of the box, too)
It generates static HTML, so the resulting documentation is easy to host and doesn't have much of an impact on your server load.
To see it in action, check out [wpmvc.org](http://wpmvc.org/). | Another couple of options would be to use Middleman which is a static site generator that accepts either Kramdown or Markdown as input.
There are also frameworks that are designed specifically for technical documentation that use Middleman (both of which are on GitHub) including lord/slate and pnerger/dpslate (the later is a fork of the former and provides some enhancements that were not appropriate for pulling). The Slate format provides a format for documentation that includes many of the features of Sphinx with some additional enhancements. It features a three-pane view of a document which includes an automatically generated Table of Contents, a Main center body, and then sample code panel to the right. Like Sphinx the sample code has syntax highlighting. |
1,051,149 | I have a web-based interface for handing invoices, customer records and other transaction records which interacts currently with a database of all the aforementioned stored upon the same machine. As you can imagine, this is quite a simple set-up consisting of a web-app (PHP) and a database (MySQL). However, the ideal scenario is to keep the records on the machine they are currently on (easy) and move the web-app to another server within the same network (again, easy) ... but in addition, provide facilities on a public-facing website for managing accounts by customers and so forth. The problem is this - the public-facing web server is located in a completely separate location as it is a dedicated server provided by a well-known ISP.
What would be the best way to enable the records to be accessible from this other server whilst ensuring that all communications are secure. Speed is not a huge factor, although any outages on either side should be handled gracefully. Initially my thoughts went towards web services (XML-RPC/SOAP/[Hessian](http://hessian.caucho.com/)), but these options seem to present difficulties (security being the main one, overcomplexity as well).
The web-app must remain PHP-based. The public-facing site is likely to be PHP-based as well, although Python (likely using Django) is another option. The introduction of any other technologies (Java etc) is not a problem, although it is preferred if they be Linux-friendly (so .NET would not be the best fit here).
Apologies if this question is somewhat verbose and vague. I am testing the water somewhat in regards to this kind of problem. Any advice or suggestions gratefully received. | 2009/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1051149",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6844/"
] | I've done something similar. You can expose a web service to the internet that will do the database access, but requests to the service must match a strong hashed and salted password (which will be secured on the ISP's server in the DMZ.)
Either this or some sort of public/private key encryption scheme. | OK, this might seem a bit silly, but what if you just used mysql replication?
Instead of using all sorts of fancy web services, just have a master sql server on one machine, then have it replicate to another server that holds the slave sql server as well as the web app |
8,075 | I'm still new to the all-grain scene and I've messed up my sparge more than once, leaving me with a pre-boil gravity that is too low. I got to thinking, if I fall short (in pre-boil gravity) in the future, I could simply do another sparge. Assuming I have room in my kettle, I don't see any harm in collecting a 3rd or 4th running --even if it gets my kettle volume higher than I want it to be. Naturally, I'll have to boil down the kettle until I reach my desired volume, but at least I'll have the sugar I failed to collect from the previous sparge (the water will boil away, but the sugar will stay behind).
As long as I don't throw extra ingredients into the kettle until the appropriate time, is there any harm with collecting additional runoffs and boiling the water long enough to reach my desired kettle volume? | 2012/12/07 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/8075",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/2714/"
] | Yes there is a risk - with each successive sparge you increase the risk of extracting tannins, causing the beer to taste "puckering"/astringent (think sucking on a teabag.) Before doing extra sparges, should also be sure that the low extraction is because of your lautering efficiency and not because of mash efficiency, so do an iodine test for complete conversion first.
If you do sparge extra, you'll need a longer boil, which uses more energy and may darken the wort a touch, so keep that in mind if you're aiming for a very pale beer.
Personally, I'm not sure it's worth it. I would just add some LME/DME if you're wildly under target, or just forget about it for small undershoot, and look at either anticipating this efficiency next time, or look at ways to improve lautering efficiency if you find that is the cause.
Unless you forgot to stir the mash or made some other mistake that affects lautering efficiency, subsequent run-offs are usually too small in volume and do not have a high enough yield to make any significant difference. Just add more fermentables directly to the kettle and chalk it up to experience! | Braukaiser's [Batch Sparge Analysis](http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Batch_Sparging_Analysis) does a good job of answering the multiple sparges question ([summary](http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Batch_Sparging_Analysis#Summary)). Regarding the negative effects of boiling longer, take a look at: [Any reason not to boil for longer?](https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/7751/any-reason-not-to-boil-for-longer/7752)
Basically, you run into diminishing returns after 2 batch sparges. If you're worried about efficiency, you also need to keep in mind the time cost of additional sparges plus boiling the wort for longer, in addition to the monetary cost of boiling the wort longer. Depending on how you value your time, it'll probably be cheaper overall to just add more grain to compensate for your effeciency, or look into other ways to improve it. |
227,063 | My world has no axial tilt. Therefore instead of having seasons from axial tilt it gets its seasons from actually moving farther away from its parent star. In the mid latitudes the temperature fluctuates from a balmy summer in the mid-high 70s (Fahrenheit of course) to a brutal -20 or -50 degree winter in the worst areas (average temperature). My question is what kind of mechanisms would plants, namely trees, develop to cope with this extreme swing? A full day is fairly normal at 25 hours. | 2022/03/21 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/227063",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/66159/"
] | **Thermogenic roots.**
[Thermogenic plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenic_plant) generate metabolic heat. These are plants on our world!
On your world, the deep roots of your trees make heat - enough to prevent themselves from freezing. Insulated underground, the heat does not escape. The roots are big with mighty sugar reserves. Thus they overwinter. When things warm up, the roots and cells wintering there flow back up and reconstitute the tree above.
That deep zone in the forest is considerably warmer than the surface, with all the root warmth. The animal life takes advantage of this, hunkering down deep for their hibernations where the trees will keep them warm. | You are describing most of the Boreal forest that covers the northern hemisphere. Look up temperatures for Cities in the region. Yellow Knife has recorded extreme low -50C/-60F recorded high +35C/80F. Yellow Knife is below the tree line, further north can get colder.
Look into Boreal, alpine, and tundra biomes. |
227,063 | My world has no axial tilt. Therefore instead of having seasons from axial tilt it gets its seasons from actually moving farther away from its parent star. In the mid latitudes the temperature fluctuates from a balmy summer in the mid-high 70s (Fahrenheit of course) to a brutal -20 or -50 degree winter in the worst areas (average temperature). My question is what kind of mechanisms would plants, namely trees, develop to cope with this extreme swing? A full day is fairly normal at 25 hours. | 2022/03/21 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/227063",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/66159/"
] | The climate you describe is not unlike the highest settlements in Tibet, e.g. [Nagqu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagqu#Geography_and_climate). It's too cold for trees to grow, but as you can see from [e.g. Google Maps photos](https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Nagqu,+Tibet,+China/@31.1747527,86.7013894,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipOPXbjsgSB0lYTHrJD1rTUdLFMTx3hA6kdyUHuX!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOPXbjsgSB0lYTHrJD1rTUdLFMTx3hA6kdyUHuX%3Dw152-h86-k-no!7i1920!8i1080!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x376530c9d373a977:0x83b13173a523ec44!2sNagqu,+Tibet,+China!3b1!8m2!3d31.4761399!4d92.05136!3m4!1s0x376530c9d373a977:0x83b13173a523ec44!8m2!3d31.4761399!4d92.05136), grass grows just fine. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagqu#Wildlife) mentions some other herbs as well. | You are describing most of the Boreal forest that covers the northern hemisphere. Look up temperatures for Cities in the region. Yellow Knife has recorded extreme low -50C/-60F recorded high +35C/80F. Yellow Knife is below the tree line, further north can get colder.
Look into Boreal, alpine, and tundra biomes. |
227,063 | My world has no axial tilt. Therefore instead of having seasons from axial tilt it gets its seasons from actually moving farther away from its parent star. In the mid latitudes the temperature fluctuates from a balmy summer in the mid-high 70s (Fahrenheit of course) to a brutal -20 or -50 degree winter in the worst areas (average temperature). My question is what kind of mechanisms would plants, namely trees, develop to cope with this extreme swing? A full day is fairly normal at 25 hours. | 2022/03/21 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/227063",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/66159/"
] | Truly extreme cold resistant flora exists on earth.
---------------------------------------------------
Have a look over at the article written here:
<https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2015.00884/full#T1>
This is a study compiling data from experiments to discern the low temperature tolerance of woody tree species. It was found that a significant amount of cold-tolerant species can survive even liquid nitrogen (at -196 °C / -321 °F): Their seeds or bark was found to be capable of reproducing after being slowly cooled to freezer temperatures, then quenched in liquid nitrogen.
This isn't too surprising. Temperatures in the siberian taiga can drop down to -70 °C / -94 °F with -50°C / -58 °F being average for the coldest months (climate change has upped this to -40 to -45°C / -40 to -50°F in modern times), and the difference between that and -196°C / -321 °F, to a living organism, is not much.
In other words, plants can potentially have **absolute cold tolerance**. I.e. only absolute zero is enough to guarantee that you can wipe out a plant within a short amount of time.
Cold, in general, has two main deleterious effects on plants.
* *Freezing* of the liquid contained within the cells.
* *Dehydration* as water is extracted from living plant cells into surrounding ice.
How does a plant survive winter?
--------------------------------
Plants can combat the effects of cold thorugh a variety of ways:
* Changing the *chemical composition* of the liquid within their cells1
* Reducing the permeability of cell membranes to prevent/reduce dehydration.
* Burning sugars to remain warm.
* Having a cell or root structure that is more isolated form the environment.
* Allow part of the plant to die to reduce its surface area.
1: Sugars and alcohols can have lower freeze temperatures of cellular lipid (fats and oils) by up to 57°C / 103 °F , see <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1300786/>, and thus reduce the energy a plant needs to expend. The rate of osmosis can be reduced this way too.
Plants on alien worlds can have additional adaptations. For example, you could have a different atmosphere. Or the plants may have deep roots with access to abundant geothermal energy.
Variations
----------
Not all species have all cold adaptations. There's some cost associated with them. There appears to be significant groups of plants that die off after temperatures go below -40°C to -50°C / -40 to -58 °F, and another big group that tolerates down to about -70°C to-80°C or -94 to -112 °F. (Coinciding with typical minimums possible in Northern hemisphere boreal climates with and without oceanic influence)
How does a plant then grow?
---------------------------
If a climate has monthly temperatures below -3 °C / 25 °F year-round, there's not enough liquid water, hence no plants. The local surroundings are either a glacier, or (when very dry) a rocky wasteland.
In order for plants to grow, they mainly need three things. Liquid water, carbon, and sunlight. Then, they need enough of this during the short summer to not lose more in the long winter (I.e. to produce enough sugar to last through winter and have a surplus in an average year). Liquid water forms at temperatures above 0 °C / 32 °F, the higher above zero, the more quickly snow will melt.
Permafrost
----------
In these extreme climates, average (yearly) temperatures are sometimes far below 0 °C / 32 °F. Underground temperatures (isolated by the earth) at low depth are usually equal to the average yearly temperature, excepting volcanic hotspots. This creates a problem: the ground is frozen and hard for roots to permeate or extract nutrients from. Thus don't expect to see the largest and tallest trees when there is permafrost. The size of root systems is restricted to how much of the permafrost melts each year (I.e. the amount of degree-days above 0 °C / 32 °F is correlated with how tall trees can get).
Climate classification
----------------------
Look up <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trewartha_climate_classification>, especially the sections on group E and group F.
We can see how much trees need by observing where the *Tree-Line* is on tall mountains and in the arctic north, the separation between a boreal and alpine or tundra climate. This is the limit at which the above condition is met for a plant that actually survives through the winter itself (a perennial plant). A quick rule of thumb for an earth-like climate is that you need about 50 out of 360 days with average temperatures above 0 °C / 32 °F during which the top layer of permafrost melts, or about a 10 °C / 50 °F maximum in the warmest month. This is what common climate classifications are based on. They're fairly accurate, though exceptions may exist due to specific local conditions.
There's also a second category, plants that die off, but their seeds survive through winter. This strategy is even hardier than the above (as a plant can invest a large amount of energy in keeping a very small amount of cells alive), and is the only way plants survive in the Tundra climate. A quick rule of thumb for this climate is that you need about 2 weeks of frost-free days (0 °C or above average daytime temperature).
On the border between these two climates, you'll find Krummholz, where some local spots (like rock formations or valleys) provide some cover against freezing wind, but the landscape as a whole is in the Tundra category.
Length and Depth of winter
--------------------------
These figures are written with respect to *Earth*. On your alien world, if the year lasts longer (typically, your year will be longer if your orbit is more eiliptical, unless you make your star lighter than the sun is to compensate), then you might need a bit more time above 10 °C / 50°F before you hit the *Ec* Trewartha climate (read, the ability to have Trees). Similarly, if winters are even colder than in siberia, you might need a bit more energy during summer to compensate (say, 40 days above 10 °C / 50°F instead of 30 days). These rules of thumb work for Earth, the more alien your custom planet, the more you may need to adjust them. | You are describing most of the Boreal forest that covers the northern hemisphere. Look up temperatures for Cities in the region. Yellow Knife has recorded extreme low -50C/-60F recorded high +35C/80F. Yellow Knife is below the tree line, further north can get colder.
Look into Boreal, alpine, and tundra biomes. |
19,763 | I'm working on a form (using Freeform) that lives in a modal box (become a partner on this page: <http://framework.tunnel7.com/partners>
What I'm trying to accomplish is having the error messages displayed inline (I have those parameters in place) when a user hits submit in the same modal window.
What is happening now is on submit the modal closes and if you click on the become a member button again it displays with the errors inline (so it's working) ... but I can't see a way to keep the modal open if there is an error.
Is there a way to accomplish this that I'm overlooking? | 2014/02/25 | [
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/19763",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com",
"https://expressionengine.stackexchange.com/users/560/"
] | I use the jQuery Validation Plugin <http://bassistance.de/jquery-plugins/jquery-plugin-validation/>
with Freeform and it works really well. With it, the form is not sent (no page reload) until all errors are gone, and there is a lot of flexibility in customising the validations. | You could use $.post() to submit the form, then give the user feedback based on the response you receive. If you get an error, you tell the user about it, either within the modal or on a dedicated error page. If the form submitted successfully you either update the modal right there on the page or redirect the user to some sort of success/thank you page. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Sennheiser makes great headphones for iPhone with working mic/remote. I have the version for Android phones and everything works fine and sounds great. Just make sure you check the package for the "made for iPhone" label. | And note that some headsets have plugs with 4 metal bands, but the order is different, these won't work (older Nokia, for instance):
Instead of
"mic, ground, right, left"
they will have
"ground, mic, right, left" |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Here is the visual comparison of Apple TRRS plug and a standard TRS plug.
On the top you can see a 4-pin headset connector. A headset connector needs to be using the same TRRS standard, or it will not function properly if at all.
On the bottom you can see a 3-pin headphone connector. Any headphone connector will work fine.
---
Standard 3.5mm jack stereo headphones have a 3-conductor configuration of TRS (Tip, Ring, Sleeve). The pinout for these connectiors is: Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground. Connectors for headphones with a mic have an additional ring which results in a 4-conductor TRRS configuration (Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve).
There have been different TRRS standards:
1. The original **OMTP** configuration, which was created by Nokia and has a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Mic, Ground.
2. **AHJ** (American Headset Jack) with a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground, Mic.
3. **CTIA**, named after [The Wireless Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association), which replaced AHJ and has the same pinout. CTIA jacks have improved compatibility to support not only AHJ but also OMTP. CTIA is by default [required for Android](https://source.android.com/accessories/headset-spec.html) device manufacturers.
Source: [All About Windows Phone](http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/flow/item/17561_Jays_AB_headset_for_Windows_Ph.php)
Wikipedia has a short [overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_%28audio%29#TRRS_standards) for which device uses which standard.
At last a few points to note:
* Plugging an OMTP headset into an AHJ jack, and vice versa, will result in the audio-out being inaudible or very quiet. Converters to switch between the two types of headsets are readily [available](http://www.ebay.com/sch/?&_nkw=OMTP), but do add extra bulk, and may not work reliably with remote control functionality.
* Apple uses a CTIA/AHJ connector arrangement, but uses a non-standard microphone and volume control signaling method. Simple commands like Play/Pause and Skip however should work across modern mobile devices. | Any headphone with a 3.5mm jack will work.
**But** be mindful about the remote controls. If it doesn't specifically says compatible with iPhone/iPod, it may not work with your iPhone.
As long as you just care about listening to sound on the headphones, as long as the tip is undamaged and standard, you won't harm the iPhone using any headphones. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Any headphone with a 3.5mm jack will work.
**But** be mindful about the remote controls. If it doesn't specifically says compatible with iPhone/iPod, it may not work with your iPhone.
As long as you just care about listening to sound on the headphones, as long as the tip is undamaged and standard, you won't harm the iPhone using any headphones. | I use Yurbuds Ironman Inspire Black In-Ear Sport Headphones, purchased at a TELUS store and they work perfectly well as regular earphones when I want privacy as well as in the proper mode including the mic function with my iPhone 5s and they should also work with an iPhone 6. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Here is the visual comparison of Apple TRRS plug and a standard TRS plug.
On the top you can see a 4-pin headset connector. A headset connector needs to be using the same TRRS standard, or it will not function properly if at all.
On the bottom you can see a 3-pin headphone connector. Any headphone connector will work fine.
---
Standard 3.5mm jack stereo headphones have a 3-conductor configuration of TRS (Tip, Ring, Sleeve). The pinout for these connectiors is: Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground. Connectors for headphones with a mic have an additional ring which results in a 4-conductor TRRS configuration (Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve).
There have been different TRRS standards:
1. The original **OMTP** configuration, which was created by Nokia and has a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Mic, Ground.
2. **AHJ** (American Headset Jack) with a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground, Mic.
3. **CTIA**, named after [The Wireless Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association), which replaced AHJ and has the same pinout. CTIA jacks have improved compatibility to support not only AHJ but also OMTP. CTIA is by default [required for Android](https://source.android.com/accessories/headset-spec.html) device manufacturers.
Source: [All About Windows Phone](http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/flow/item/17561_Jays_AB_headset_for_Windows_Ph.php)
Wikipedia has a short [overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_%28audio%29#TRRS_standards) for which device uses which standard.
At last a few points to note:
* Plugging an OMTP headset into an AHJ jack, and vice versa, will result in the audio-out being inaudible or very quiet. Converters to switch between the two types of headsets are readily [available](http://www.ebay.com/sch/?&_nkw=OMTP), but do add extra bulk, and may not work reliably with remote control functionality.
* Apple uses a CTIA/AHJ connector arrangement, but uses a non-standard microphone and volume control signaling method. Simple commands like Play/Pause and Skip however should work across modern mobile devices. | Any headphones with a 3.5mm headphone jack will work fine with the iPhone, not just Apple products. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Any headphones with a 3.5mm headphone jack will work fine with the iPhone, not just Apple products. | I misplaced my iPhone headphones but had my old Blackberry Bold headphones (with the remote attached). These worked perfectly on my iPhone 5. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Here is the visual comparison of Apple TRRS plug and a standard TRS plug.
On the top you can see a 4-pin headset connector. A headset connector needs to be using the same TRRS standard, or it will not function properly if at all.
On the bottom you can see a 3-pin headphone connector. Any headphone connector will work fine.
---
Standard 3.5mm jack stereo headphones have a 3-conductor configuration of TRS (Tip, Ring, Sleeve). The pinout for these connectiors is: Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground. Connectors for headphones with a mic have an additional ring which results in a 4-conductor TRRS configuration (Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve).
There have been different TRRS standards:
1. The original **OMTP** configuration, which was created by Nokia and has a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Mic, Ground.
2. **AHJ** (American Headset Jack) with a pinout of Left Audio, Right Audio, Ground, Mic.
3. **CTIA**, named after [The Wireless Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association), which replaced AHJ and has the same pinout. CTIA jacks have improved compatibility to support not only AHJ but also OMTP. CTIA is by default [required for Android](https://source.android.com/accessories/headset-spec.html) device manufacturers.
Source: [All About Windows Phone](http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/flow/item/17561_Jays_AB_headset_for_Windows_Ph.php)
Wikipedia has a short [overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_%28audio%29#TRRS_standards) for which device uses which standard.
At last a few points to note:
* Plugging an OMTP headset into an AHJ jack, and vice versa, will result in the audio-out being inaudible or very quiet. Converters to switch between the two types of headsets are readily [available](http://www.ebay.com/sch/?&_nkw=OMTP), but do add extra bulk, and may not work reliably with remote control functionality.
* Apple uses a CTIA/AHJ connector arrangement, but uses a non-standard microphone and volume control signaling method. Simple commands like Play/Pause and Skip however should work across modern mobile devices. | I misplaced my iPhone headphones but had my old Blackberry Bold headphones (with the remote attached). These worked perfectly on my iPhone 5. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Any headphone with a 3.5mm jack will work.
**But** be mindful about the remote controls. If it doesn't specifically says compatible with iPhone/iPod, it may not work with your iPhone.
As long as you just care about listening to sound on the headphones, as long as the tip is undamaged and standard, you won't harm the iPhone using any headphones. | And note that some headsets have plugs with 4 metal bands, but the order is different, these won't work (older Nokia, for instance):
Instead of
"mic, ground, right, left"
they will have
"ground, mic, right, left" |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | And note that some headsets have plugs with 4 metal bands, but the order is different, these won't work (older Nokia, for instance):
Instead of
"mic, ground, right, left"
they will have
"ground, mic, right, left" | I use Yurbuds Ironman Inspire Black In-Ear Sport Headphones, purchased at a TELUS store and they work perfectly well as regular earphones when I want privacy as well as in the proper mode including the mic function with my iPhone 5s and they should also work with an iPhone 6. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Any headphone with a 3.5mm jack will work.
**But** be mindful about the remote controls. If it doesn't specifically says compatible with iPhone/iPod, it may not work with your iPhone.
As long as you just care about listening to sound on the headphones, as long as the tip is undamaged and standard, you won't harm the iPhone using any headphones. | Sennheiser makes great headphones for iPhone with working mic/remote. I have the version for Android phones and everything works fine and sounds great. Just make sure you check the package for the "made for iPhone" label. |
135,967 | Is it okay to connect non-Apple headphones to an iPhone (a 5s, in this case) or do I need to use apple branded or authorized headphones for some reason? | 2014/06/24 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/135967",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/72908/"
] | Any headphones with a 3.5mm headphone jack will work fine with the iPhone, not just Apple products. | I use Yurbuds Ironman Inspire Black In-Ear Sport Headphones, purchased at a TELUS store and they work perfectly well as regular earphones when I want privacy as well as in the proper mode including the mic function with my iPhone 5s and they should also work with an iPhone 6. |
173,576 | The staircase to the girls' dormitory in Gryffindor is enchanted to become smooth when a boy is trying to climb it.
>
> He was on the sixth stair when it happened. There was a loud, wailing, klaxonlike sound and the steps melted together to make a long, smooth stone slide. There was a brief moment when Ron tried to keep running, arms working madly like windmills, then he toppled over backward and shot down the newly created slide, coming to rest on his back at Harry’s feet. “Er — I don’t think we’re allowed in the girls’ dormitories,” said Harry
>
>
>
If a boy were to take a polyjuice potion of a girl, would they be able to pass the staircase? If there is no concrete evidence pointing to one way or the other, is there at least any references as to whether the polyjuice potion can fool enchantments or spells similar to this? | 2017/11/07 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/173576",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/34909/"
] | We don't know for sure, but it would probably work
--------------------------------------------------
We never see it tested, and we don't know what enchantments the stairs use for detection (although whatever it is, we can reasonably assume it triggers the [Glisseo charm](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Glisseo)). But there are a few observations we can make.
The stairs seem more interested in *what* you are than *who* you are. While the magical capability to determine one's "true self" certainly exists (such as those employed by the Marauder's Map), it seems like it would be overkill for the stairs to have an enchantment that thorough and specific, especially when you consider that there are other ways around such a simple deterrent for the truly determined (brooms, levitation, etc).
This can be corroborated by the fact that the majority of Hogwarts' protective enchantments are equally naive. Why would the common rooms or headmaster's office use simplistic passwords when they could use more reliable/secure identity enchantments? A basic enchantment to check for male/female seems to be the most likely implementation, for which polyjuice is sufficient enough to fool. | Probably not, but it may work, I think it would depend on the date of invention of Polyjuice. A good number of magical relics like the Marauders' Map are not fooled by the Polyjuice transformation but those are all items that post-date the invention of Polyjuice Potion; the castle, and thus its defenses and enchantments, is *old* so if the creators didn't take such a possibility into account, because "of course you can't do that with magic, we would know", then you might get away with it. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
In v16, Jesus says he has (present tense) sheep (1) that are not yet in "this sheepfold", (2) that he is still to bring and (3) that are still to hear his voice. They are his sheep prior to hearing his voice.
In vv25-27, he has sheep that he calls "my sheep", and that are already his sheep when they hear his voice. They are contrasted with those in v25-26 who do not believe because they are not his sheep.
Therefore, the second alternative is true.
How then did they come to be his sheep in the first place, if it preceded hearing his voice? Jesus tells us plainly the one big reason why his sheep are his sheep, even the “other sheep” who, as he speaks, “will hear [his] voice”. As he speaks, the Father has given (dedōken, a perfect indicative) them to him already (29). The hand that has placed his sheep into his hand ensures “they will definitely not perish”. | Roman 10:
>
> 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
>
>
> 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have **not heard**? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
>
>
>
Horizontally speaking, some believer has to be sent for people to hear. After having heard the good news, then some of them believe and officially join the flock.
Vertically speaking, Jesus has already known who would listen to his voice before he calls them as in
John 10:16
>
> I have other **sheep** that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too **will listen** to my voice, and there **shall be** one flock and one shepherd.
>
>
>
In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
Both are true depending on the perspective. This is the notion of Co-Reality. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | Excellent and perceptive question about the Shepherd metaphor in John 10.
We should observe several things about this very eastern metaphor of the sheep.
Ancient shepherds were mobile and wandered around for fresh pasture. In this way shepherds and their attached flocks often met - the shepherd would chat and spend some time together. The two flocks would mix. When the time came for the two shepherds to move on, their would each call and all the sheep would follow the correct shepherd because, "his sheep follow him because they know his voice" (John 10:4).
One of the points about this shepherd metaphor is the recognition of the sheep of their shepherd.
>
> the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and
> leads them out. (V3)
>
>
>
The sheep are distinguished from other by the very fact that they recognize their shepherd. In fact as Jesus notes in V5
>
> But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will flee from
> him because they do not recognize his voice.”
>
>
>
In this metaphor, every sheep hears the voices of the various shepherds, but Jesus flock follow Jesus because only they recognize His voice. Note that Jesus emphasizes this point again in V8 -
>
> All who came before Me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not
> listen to them
>
>
>
Again in V14 -
>
> I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me
>
>
>
Thus, when a person becomes a disciple of Christ - somehow the person learns to recognize the voice of Jesus in their life. Just how this occurs varies from person to person which is not the subject of this question. | In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
In v16, Jesus says he has (present tense) sheep (1) that are not yet in "this sheepfold", (2) that he is still to bring and (3) that are still to hear his voice. They are his sheep prior to hearing his voice.
In vv25-27, he has sheep that he calls "my sheep", and that are already his sheep when they hear his voice. They are contrasted with those in v25-26 who do not believe because they are not his sheep.
Therefore, the second alternative is true.
How then did they come to be his sheep in the first place, if it preceded hearing his voice? Jesus tells us plainly the one big reason why his sheep are his sheep, even the “other sheep” who, as he speaks, “will hear [his] voice”. As he speaks, the Father has given (dedōken, a perfect indicative) them to him already (29). The hand that has placed his sheep into his hand ensures “they will definitely not perish”. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | Excellent and perceptive question about the Shepherd metaphor in John 10.
We should observe several things about this very eastern metaphor of the sheep.
Ancient shepherds were mobile and wandered around for fresh pasture. In this way shepherds and their attached flocks often met - the shepherd would chat and spend some time together. The two flocks would mix. When the time came for the two shepherds to move on, their would each call and all the sheep would follow the correct shepherd because, "his sheep follow him because they know his voice" (John 10:4).
One of the points about this shepherd metaphor is the recognition of the sheep of their shepherd.
>
> the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and
> leads them out. (V3)
>
>
>
The sheep are distinguished from other by the very fact that they recognize their shepherd. In fact as Jesus notes in V5
>
> But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will flee from
> him because they do not recognize his voice.”
>
>
>
In this metaphor, every sheep hears the voices of the various shepherds, but Jesus flock follow Jesus because only they recognize His voice. Note that Jesus emphasizes this point again in V8 -
>
> All who came before Me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not
> listen to them
>
>
>
Again in V14 -
>
> I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me
>
>
>
Thus, when a person becomes a disciple of Christ - somehow the person learns to recognize the voice of Jesus in their life. Just how this occurs varies from person to person which is not the subject of this question. | What qualifies someone/sheep to be part of a flock? At the most basic level, they must follow the Shepherd, otherwise they do as they please and go where they will.
>
> ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but **the one who does the will of my Father** who is in heaven.”
> Matthew 7:21
>
>
>
Who enacts the will of the Father?
>
> “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
> John 15:10
>
>
>
So Jesus the Shepherd is able to lead because He too kept the commandments of the Father
What words are we to hear and follow?
>
> ““**Everyone then who hears** these words of mine **and does them** will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
>
>
>
>
> And **everyone who hears** these words of mine **and does not do them** will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
> Matthew 7:24, 26
>
>
>
And these words are recorded for us to read, believe and practice. Start with the Scriptures and even if you receive guidance in your spirit, that guidance **must** be filtered through the Scriptures. So major in the Scriptures
>
> “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
> Psalm 119:105
>
>
>
>
> “If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.””
> Luke 11:36
>
>
>
Therefore ingest the Scriptures and illuminate your path
>
> “With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes!
> I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.”
> Psalm 119:10-12, 15-16
>
>
>
### Additional
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock His? Yes in the sense that they are drawn to Him
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock part of His flock? No they are not
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock saved? Not until they walk through the gate
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock following Him and benefit from His protection, leading and salvation? No
>
> “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and **leads them out**. When he has **brought out ALL his own**, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
> John 10:3-4
>
>
>
If we are going to set precedent and not include a qualifying “because” then this is the context
Jesus leads His sheep OUT. Meaning they were IN to begin with. Secondly the verse says
When He has brought **out ALL** His own. I guess either all means all or it doesn’t. He says all. Therefore any sheep that are not in the stall/sheepfold/barn are NOT part of ALL His own.
So whatever Jesus means by
>
> “And **I have other sheep** that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
Must be in this context of NOT part of all His own.
Which was preceded by
>
> “I am the good shepherd. I know my own **and my own know me**,”
> John 10:14
>
>
>
And they KNOW HIM. But the sheep that are not of that fold, do they know Him? No, they can’t
>
> “Formerly, when you did not know God... But now that you have come to know God,”
> Galatians 4:8-9
>
>
>
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—”
> Ephesians 2:1, 4-5
>
>
>
Once again do they know Him, for all His sheep know Him? No they don’t. Therefor win context these other sheep that are His, His to recover and redeem, all future tense
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will *(future tense)* listen to my voice. So there will *(future tense)* be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
These sheep are His when they hear His voice and accept to be part of the fold. They are Jesus’ in the sense that they gravitate toward truth and the Father seeing that they gravitate toward truth, draws them to Jesus. They are set aside to come in contact with the Shepherd and when that happens they accept Him and accept to follow Him.
### Dishonest interpretation
It would be dishonest to say the following
* His sheep follow him because they can hear his voice.
* Everyone else who doesn’t follow him must therefore not hear his voice.
This is entirely inconsistent because His sheep can hear the voice of another Shepherd
>
> “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, **for they do not know the voice of strangers**.””
> John 10:5
>
>
>
It doesn’t say they can’t hear a stranger’s voice but merely that they are not intimately acquainted (close to the heart) with it and refuse to follow a stranger.
The fact that Jesus says after being asked if He was the Messiah
>
> “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Christ, tell us plainly**.””
> John 10:24
>
>
>
Answers in the affirmative thereby calling himself the messiah/Christ/anointed
>
> “Jesus answered them, “**I told you**, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”
> John 10:25
>
>
>
And He answers by saying that He told them, which implies they HEARD Him but still didn’t believe in Him, doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear (because they weren’t his sheep). They refused to believe what He had to say because they were not intimately acquainted with His voice, a voice of TRUTH
Let’s contrast why these were of a different shepherd and what his name is
>
> “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and **does not stand in the truth**, because there is **no truth in him**. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, **for he is a liar** and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? **If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me**? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.””
> John 8:44-47
>
>
>
These men were already of another sheepfold with a different shepherd. They were listening to the truth and could not accept it because they were already given over to lies
### BUT
But what about the other sheep Jesus speaks of? Can they hear?
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
No not initially
>
> “We know that we are from God, and **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**.”
> 1 John 5:19
>
>
>
But how were they of God?
>
> “We know that **everyone who has been born of God** does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
> 1 John 5:18
>
>
>
They were born again of the Spirit through the Word. In other words they entered through the gate.
These other sheep have NEVER entered through this gate
>
> “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.”
> John 10:9
>
>
>
So how then are they His sheep?
>
> “No one can come to me unless **the Father who sent me draws him**. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
> John 6:44
>
>
>
They were drawn by the Father. HOW? How does the Father draw people and set them aside to be drawn to Jesus? The text explains
>
> “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And **they will all be taught by God**.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
> John 6:45
>
>
>
From what will they learn and be taught by the Father? The Scriptures or the OT. Anyone who believes the OT Scriptures is drawn by the Father to Jesus. This is in a pre-Crucifixion context. We look back but they looked forward to a coming Messiah. Those who believed the Scriptures that promised a savior believing the Father and essentially the GOSPEL (Good News) are drawn to Jesus
>
> “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And **how are they to hear without someone preaching**?
>
>
>
>
> So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
> Romans 10:13-14, 17
>
>
>
So the question remains did they or did they not hear?
>
> “But I ask, **have they not heard**? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “**All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people**.””
> Romans 10:18-21
>
>
>
So these other sheep were not even Jews they were Gentiles and they heard. Heard what? The Gospel from the OT and they believed and entered through the gate to be saved.
Were they saved prior to hearing The gospel, believing and entering through the gate to be saved? No but they were His sheep to save because they believed the good news the Father told them through those He sent to preach it and Jesus in FUTURE TENSE brings them too
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they **will** listen to my voice. So there **will** be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
In other words no one was predestined prior to being in Christ from the foundation of the world because they were never in Christ.
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”
> Ephesians 2:1
>
>
>
Everyone was in the first Adam and dead in sin and trespasses
But those who heard the Father’s good news and believed and accepted it were drawn to Jesus who let them IN through the gate to be SAVED
>
> “even as he chose us **in him** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
> Ephesians 1:4-5
>
>
>
IN HIM, anyone who enters into Jesus through the gate that IS JESUS is predestined THROUGH HIM because Jesus from the foundation of the world was predestined to be holy and blameless before the Father and we too can accept this by faith and be made holy and blameless.
That’s how ONE HEARS His voice, by the preaching of the OT good news Scriptures that point to Jesus and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved! |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | Excellent and perceptive question about the Shepherd metaphor in John 10.
We should observe several things about this very eastern metaphor of the sheep.
Ancient shepherds were mobile and wandered around for fresh pasture. In this way shepherds and their attached flocks often met - the shepherd would chat and spend some time together. The two flocks would mix. When the time came for the two shepherds to move on, their would each call and all the sheep would follow the correct shepherd because, "his sheep follow him because they know his voice" (John 10:4).
One of the points about this shepherd metaphor is the recognition of the sheep of their shepherd.
>
> the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and
> leads them out. (V3)
>
>
>
The sheep are distinguished from other by the very fact that they recognize their shepherd. In fact as Jesus notes in V5
>
> But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will flee from
> him because they do not recognize his voice.”
>
>
>
In this metaphor, every sheep hears the voices of the various shepherds, but Jesus flock follow Jesus because only they recognize His voice. Note that Jesus emphasizes this point again in V8 -
>
> All who came before Me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not
> listen to them
>
>
>
Again in V14 -
>
> I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me
>
>
>
Thus, when a person becomes a disciple of Christ - somehow the person learns to recognize the voice of Jesus in their life. Just how this occurs varies from person to person which is not the subject of this question. | The difficulty with asking your question based on John 10 is Jesus used sheep as an illustration, and we can draw too much out of a figure of speech.
>
> This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
> (John 10:6, ESV)
>
>
>
The primary purpose of this figure of speech is to point out that Jesus is the true Messiah/Christ. Sheep don't choose their owner. They learn their shepherd's voice. But, that is probably pushing the illustration too far. There is a passage in John from one of Jesus' discourses that specifically answers your question.
>
> All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
> (John 6:37, ESV)
>
>
>
This answers you question saying it is not either... or but both... and. From our standpoint we choose to come to Christ. He will not refuse anyone who comes to him. But, from God's stand point, he knows who will come to him. He created people, and from the beginning knew who would come to him. Thus, he chose us (Rom. 9).
But from the human standpoint nothing hinders us from coming to Christ. It is our choice and responsibility. Nothing prevents us. Christ will not reject us.
To interpret properly Jesus' figurative discourse in John 10, it is necessarily to stick to the points Jesus' made. The first point is the shepherd of the sheep enter through the gate, not climbing over the fence. Jesus didn't gather followers in secret, but openly taught in public, even in the temple.
Then, Jesus make the point that the sheep recognize their shepherd's voice (see [What is the nature of the "voice" John 10:27 is talking about?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/53185/what-is-the-nature-of-the-voice-john-1027-is-talking-about/53329#53329)). In Jesus' context, shepherds called their flocks out of the other flocks from watering troughs or holes, calling them by name and they came.
The signs that Jesus' is the true Messiah is he came openly to the temple, and his followers hear him and followed him. So many people followed Jesus that the Jewish leaders feared to arrest him in public.
Jesus is the door (the way) to enter into salvation. The others claiming to be the messiah were lawless insurrectionists, who brought destruction. Jesus came to give abundant life. Then, of course, Jesus demonstrated he was the good shepherd by laying down his life (τὴν ψυχήν) for us. The other flock is the Gentiles, who will become one flock with his Jewish followers.
It's probably pushing the illustration too far to answer your question based on John 10. With sheep they heard the shepherd's voice because they learned it as his sheep, but Jesus made the not-his-sheep distinction with not follow him although they heard the same teachings as those when they first followed. Those who did not followed probably heard just as much of Jesus' teachings as those when they first decided to follow. The twelve were an exception, but far from the entire flock.
A last point, as the good shepherd protects the sheep from predators, Jesus gives us security of salvation by protecting us.
I used John 6:37 to answer your question because John 10 doesn't give a clear answer. We could eisegete an answer by looking at characteristics of sheep Jesus didn't mention here. But, to be true to Jesus' teachings, when he used figures of speech, we need to stick to the points Jesus was making. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | What qualifies someone/sheep to be part of a flock? At the most basic level, they must follow the Shepherd, otherwise they do as they please and go where they will.
>
> ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but **the one who does the will of my Father** who is in heaven.”
> Matthew 7:21
>
>
>
Who enacts the will of the Father?
>
> “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
> John 15:10
>
>
>
So Jesus the Shepherd is able to lead because He too kept the commandments of the Father
What words are we to hear and follow?
>
> ““**Everyone then who hears** these words of mine **and does them** will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
>
>
>
>
> And **everyone who hears** these words of mine **and does not do them** will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
> Matthew 7:24, 26
>
>
>
And these words are recorded for us to read, believe and practice. Start with the Scriptures and even if you receive guidance in your spirit, that guidance **must** be filtered through the Scriptures. So major in the Scriptures
>
> “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
> Psalm 119:105
>
>
>
>
> “If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.””
> Luke 11:36
>
>
>
Therefore ingest the Scriptures and illuminate your path
>
> “With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes!
> I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.”
> Psalm 119:10-12, 15-16
>
>
>
### Additional
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock His? Yes in the sense that they are drawn to Him
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock part of His flock? No they are not
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock saved? Not until they walk through the gate
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock following Him and benefit from His protection, leading and salvation? No
>
> “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and **leads them out**. When he has **brought out ALL his own**, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
> John 10:3-4
>
>
>
If we are going to set precedent and not include a qualifying “because” then this is the context
Jesus leads His sheep OUT. Meaning they were IN to begin with. Secondly the verse says
When He has brought **out ALL** His own. I guess either all means all or it doesn’t. He says all. Therefore any sheep that are not in the stall/sheepfold/barn are NOT part of ALL His own.
So whatever Jesus means by
>
> “And **I have other sheep** that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
Must be in this context of NOT part of all His own.
Which was preceded by
>
> “I am the good shepherd. I know my own **and my own know me**,”
> John 10:14
>
>
>
And they KNOW HIM. But the sheep that are not of that fold, do they know Him? No, they can’t
>
> “Formerly, when you did not know God... But now that you have come to know God,”
> Galatians 4:8-9
>
>
>
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—”
> Ephesians 2:1, 4-5
>
>
>
Once again do they know Him, for all His sheep know Him? No they don’t. Therefor win context these other sheep that are His, His to recover and redeem, all future tense
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will *(future tense)* listen to my voice. So there will *(future tense)* be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
These sheep are His when they hear His voice and accept to be part of the fold. They are Jesus’ in the sense that they gravitate toward truth and the Father seeing that they gravitate toward truth, draws them to Jesus. They are set aside to come in contact with the Shepherd and when that happens they accept Him and accept to follow Him.
### Dishonest interpretation
It would be dishonest to say the following
* His sheep follow him because they can hear his voice.
* Everyone else who doesn’t follow him must therefore not hear his voice.
This is entirely inconsistent because His sheep can hear the voice of another Shepherd
>
> “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, **for they do not know the voice of strangers**.””
> John 10:5
>
>
>
It doesn’t say they can’t hear a stranger’s voice but merely that they are not intimately acquainted (close to the heart) with it and refuse to follow a stranger.
The fact that Jesus says after being asked if He was the Messiah
>
> “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Christ, tell us plainly**.””
> John 10:24
>
>
>
Answers in the affirmative thereby calling himself the messiah/Christ/anointed
>
> “Jesus answered them, “**I told you**, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”
> John 10:25
>
>
>
And He answers by saying that He told them, which implies they HEARD Him but still didn’t believe in Him, doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear (because they weren’t his sheep). They refused to believe what He had to say because they were not intimately acquainted with His voice, a voice of TRUTH
Let’s contrast why these were of a different shepherd and what his name is
>
> “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and **does not stand in the truth**, because there is **no truth in him**. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, **for he is a liar** and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? **If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me**? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.””
> John 8:44-47
>
>
>
These men were already of another sheepfold with a different shepherd. They were listening to the truth and could not accept it because they were already given over to lies
### BUT
But what about the other sheep Jesus speaks of? Can they hear?
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
No not initially
>
> “We know that we are from God, and **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**.”
> 1 John 5:19
>
>
>
But how were they of God?
>
> “We know that **everyone who has been born of God** does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
> 1 John 5:18
>
>
>
They were born again of the Spirit through the Word. In other words they entered through the gate.
These other sheep have NEVER entered through this gate
>
> “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.”
> John 10:9
>
>
>
So how then are they His sheep?
>
> “No one can come to me unless **the Father who sent me draws him**. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
> John 6:44
>
>
>
They were drawn by the Father. HOW? How does the Father draw people and set them aside to be drawn to Jesus? The text explains
>
> “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And **they will all be taught by God**.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
> John 6:45
>
>
>
From what will they learn and be taught by the Father? The Scriptures or the OT. Anyone who believes the OT Scriptures is drawn by the Father to Jesus. This is in a pre-Crucifixion context. We look back but they looked forward to a coming Messiah. Those who believed the Scriptures that promised a savior believing the Father and essentially the GOSPEL (Good News) are drawn to Jesus
>
> “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And **how are they to hear without someone preaching**?
>
>
>
>
> So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
> Romans 10:13-14, 17
>
>
>
So the question remains did they or did they not hear?
>
> “But I ask, **have they not heard**? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “**All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people**.””
> Romans 10:18-21
>
>
>
So these other sheep were not even Jews they were Gentiles and they heard. Heard what? The Gospel from the OT and they believed and entered through the gate to be saved.
Were they saved prior to hearing The gospel, believing and entering through the gate to be saved? No but they were His sheep to save because they believed the good news the Father told them through those He sent to preach it and Jesus in FUTURE TENSE brings them too
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they **will** listen to my voice. So there **will** be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
In other words no one was predestined prior to being in Christ from the foundation of the world because they were never in Christ.
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”
> Ephesians 2:1
>
>
>
Everyone was in the first Adam and dead in sin and trespasses
But those who heard the Father’s good news and believed and accepted it were drawn to Jesus who let them IN through the gate to be SAVED
>
> “even as he chose us **in him** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
> Ephesians 1:4-5
>
>
>
IN HIM, anyone who enters into Jesus through the gate that IS JESUS is predestined THROUGH HIM because Jesus from the foundation of the world was predestined to be holy and blameless before the Father and we too can accept this by faith and be made holy and blameless.
That’s how ONE HEARS His voice, by the preaching of the OT good news Scriptures that point to Jesus and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved! | In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
In v16, Jesus says he has (present tense) sheep (1) that are not yet in "this sheepfold", (2) that he is still to bring and (3) that are still to hear his voice. They are his sheep prior to hearing his voice.
In vv25-27, he has sheep that he calls "my sheep", and that are already his sheep when they hear his voice. They are contrasted with those in v25-26 who do not believe because they are not his sheep.
Therefore, the second alternative is true.
How then did they come to be his sheep in the first place, if it preceded hearing his voice? Jesus tells us plainly the one big reason why his sheep are his sheep, even the “other sheep” who, as he speaks, “will hear [his] voice”. As he speaks, the Father has given (dedōken, a perfect indicative) them to him already (29). The hand that has placed his sheep into his hand ensures “they will definitely not perish”. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | The difficulty with asking your question based on John 10 is Jesus used sheep as an illustration, and we can draw too much out of a figure of speech.
>
> This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
> (John 10:6, ESV)
>
>
>
The primary purpose of this figure of speech is to point out that Jesus is the true Messiah/Christ. Sheep don't choose their owner. They learn their shepherd's voice. But, that is probably pushing the illustration too far. There is a passage in John from one of Jesus' discourses that specifically answers your question.
>
> All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
> (John 6:37, ESV)
>
>
>
This answers you question saying it is not either... or but both... and. From our standpoint we choose to come to Christ. He will not refuse anyone who comes to him. But, from God's stand point, he knows who will come to him. He created people, and from the beginning knew who would come to him. Thus, he chose us (Rom. 9).
But from the human standpoint nothing hinders us from coming to Christ. It is our choice and responsibility. Nothing prevents us. Christ will not reject us.
To interpret properly Jesus' figurative discourse in John 10, it is necessarily to stick to the points Jesus' made. The first point is the shepherd of the sheep enter through the gate, not climbing over the fence. Jesus didn't gather followers in secret, but openly taught in public, even in the temple.
Then, Jesus make the point that the sheep recognize their shepherd's voice (see [What is the nature of the "voice" John 10:27 is talking about?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/53185/what-is-the-nature-of-the-voice-john-1027-is-talking-about/53329#53329)). In Jesus' context, shepherds called their flocks out of the other flocks from watering troughs or holes, calling them by name and they came.
The signs that Jesus' is the true Messiah is he came openly to the temple, and his followers hear him and followed him. So many people followed Jesus that the Jewish leaders feared to arrest him in public.
Jesus is the door (the way) to enter into salvation. The others claiming to be the messiah were lawless insurrectionists, who brought destruction. Jesus came to give abundant life. Then, of course, Jesus demonstrated he was the good shepherd by laying down his life (τὴν ψυχήν) for us. The other flock is the Gentiles, who will become one flock with his Jewish followers.
It's probably pushing the illustration too far to answer your question based on John 10. With sheep they heard the shepherd's voice because they learned it as his sheep, but Jesus made the not-his-sheep distinction with not follow him although they heard the same teachings as those when they first followed. Those who did not followed probably heard just as much of Jesus' teachings as those when they first decided to follow. The twelve were an exception, but far from the entire flock.
A last point, as the good shepherd protects the sheep from predators, Jesus gives us security of salvation by protecting us.
I used John 6:37 to answer your question because John 10 doesn't give a clear answer. We could eisegete an answer by looking at characteristics of sheep Jesus didn't mention here. But, to be true to Jesus' teachings, when he used figures of speech, we need to stick to the points Jesus was making. | Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11). Who can be excluded from his flock? Thus *all* are his sheep before they hear his voice.
* I am the door; if *anyone* enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. (v. 9, emphasis added)
This is the story of the good shepherd. He calls, and he gathers. He knows each sheep by name. Between shepherd and sheep, the relationship is reciprocal. He calls; they listen (v.3). He leads; they follow (v.4). He knows his sheep, and his sheep know him (v.14).
This is the story of the true shepherd, he who alone is good. He came so that the sheep may have life (v.10). He is the door by which all must enter (v.7). Those who enter by any other means are as thieves and hired hands. Thieves steal and destroy (v.10). Hired hands care not for the sheep; they flee and abandon the sheep to the wolves (v.12).
The sheep may thus be snatched and scattered (v.12). Some have yet to hear his voice (v.16). In the relationship between sheep and shepherd, the only true constant is the love of the shepherd (v.13), who never tires of gathering his sheep and bringing them home. In the end, as from the beginning, there is one shepherd, one flock, and one God over all (v.16, vv. 29-30). And those who listen to his voice, who follow, and are known by him – these no one can snatch from his hand.
* My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. (v.28-30) |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
In v16, Jesus says he has (present tense) sheep (1) that are not yet in "this sheepfold", (2) that he is still to bring and (3) that are still to hear his voice. They are his sheep prior to hearing his voice.
In vv25-27, he has sheep that he calls "my sheep", and that are already his sheep when they hear his voice. They are contrasted with those in v25-26 who do not believe because they are not his sheep.
Therefore, the second alternative is true.
How then did they come to be his sheep in the first place, if it preceded hearing his voice? Jesus tells us plainly the one big reason why his sheep are his sheep, even the “other sheep” who, as he speaks, “will hear [his] voice”. As he speaks, the Father has given (dedōken, a perfect indicative) them to him already (29). The hand that has placed his sheep into his hand ensures “they will definitely not perish”. | Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11). Who can be excluded from his flock? Thus *all* are his sheep before they hear his voice.
* I am the door; if *anyone* enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. (v. 9, emphasis added)
This is the story of the good shepherd. He calls, and he gathers. He knows each sheep by name. Between shepherd and sheep, the relationship is reciprocal. He calls; they listen (v.3). He leads; they follow (v.4). He knows his sheep, and his sheep know him (v.14).
This is the story of the true shepherd, he who alone is good. He came so that the sheep may have life (v.10). He is the door by which all must enter (v.7). Those who enter by any other means are as thieves and hired hands. Thieves steal and destroy (v.10). Hired hands care not for the sheep; they flee and abandon the sheep to the wolves (v.12).
The sheep may thus be snatched and scattered (v.12). Some have yet to hear his voice (v.16). In the relationship between sheep and shepherd, the only true constant is the love of the shepherd (v.13), who never tires of gathering his sheep and bringing them home. In the end, as from the beginning, there is one shepherd, one flock, and one God over all (v.16, vv. 29-30). And those who listen to his voice, who follow, and are known by him – these no one can snatch from his hand.
* My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. (v.28-30) |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | What qualifies someone/sheep to be part of a flock? At the most basic level, they must follow the Shepherd, otherwise they do as they please and go where they will.
>
> ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but **the one who does the will of my Father** who is in heaven.”
> Matthew 7:21
>
>
>
Who enacts the will of the Father?
>
> “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
> John 15:10
>
>
>
So Jesus the Shepherd is able to lead because He too kept the commandments of the Father
What words are we to hear and follow?
>
> ““**Everyone then who hears** these words of mine **and does them** will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
>
>
>
>
> And **everyone who hears** these words of mine **and does not do them** will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
> Matthew 7:24, 26
>
>
>
And these words are recorded for us to read, believe and practice. Start with the Scriptures and even if you receive guidance in your spirit, that guidance **must** be filtered through the Scriptures. So major in the Scriptures
>
> “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
> Psalm 119:105
>
>
>
>
> “If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.””
> Luke 11:36
>
>
>
Therefore ingest the Scriptures and illuminate your path
>
> “With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes!
> I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.”
> Psalm 119:10-12, 15-16
>
>
>
### Additional
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock His? Yes in the sense that they are drawn to Him
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock part of His flock? No they are not
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock saved? Not until they walk through the gate
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock following Him and benefit from His protection, leading and salvation? No
>
> “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and **leads them out**. When he has **brought out ALL his own**, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
> John 10:3-4
>
>
>
If we are going to set precedent and not include a qualifying “because” then this is the context
Jesus leads His sheep OUT. Meaning they were IN to begin with. Secondly the verse says
When He has brought **out ALL** His own. I guess either all means all or it doesn’t. He says all. Therefore any sheep that are not in the stall/sheepfold/barn are NOT part of ALL His own.
So whatever Jesus means by
>
> “And **I have other sheep** that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
Must be in this context of NOT part of all His own.
Which was preceded by
>
> “I am the good shepherd. I know my own **and my own know me**,”
> John 10:14
>
>
>
And they KNOW HIM. But the sheep that are not of that fold, do they know Him? No, they can’t
>
> “Formerly, when you did not know God... But now that you have come to know God,”
> Galatians 4:8-9
>
>
>
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—”
> Ephesians 2:1, 4-5
>
>
>
Once again do they know Him, for all His sheep know Him? No they don’t. Therefor win context these other sheep that are His, His to recover and redeem, all future tense
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will *(future tense)* listen to my voice. So there will *(future tense)* be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
These sheep are His when they hear His voice and accept to be part of the fold. They are Jesus’ in the sense that they gravitate toward truth and the Father seeing that they gravitate toward truth, draws them to Jesus. They are set aside to come in contact with the Shepherd and when that happens they accept Him and accept to follow Him.
### Dishonest interpretation
It would be dishonest to say the following
* His sheep follow him because they can hear his voice.
* Everyone else who doesn’t follow him must therefore not hear his voice.
This is entirely inconsistent because His sheep can hear the voice of another Shepherd
>
> “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, **for they do not know the voice of strangers**.””
> John 10:5
>
>
>
It doesn’t say they can’t hear a stranger’s voice but merely that they are not intimately acquainted (close to the heart) with it and refuse to follow a stranger.
The fact that Jesus says after being asked if He was the Messiah
>
> “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Christ, tell us plainly**.””
> John 10:24
>
>
>
Answers in the affirmative thereby calling himself the messiah/Christ/anointed
>
> “Jesus answered them, “**I told you**, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”
> John 10:25
>
>
>
And He answers by saying that He told them, which implies they HEARD Him but still didn’t believe in Him, doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear (because they weren’t his sheep). They refused to believe what He had to say because they were not intimately acquainted with His voice, a voice of TRUTH
Let’s contrast why these were of a different shepherd and what his name is
>
> “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and **does not stand in the truth**, because there is **no truth in him**. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, **for he is a liar** and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? **If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me**? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.””
> John 8:44-47
>
>
>
These men were already of another sheepfold with a different shepherd. They were listening to the truth and could not accept it because they were already given over to lies
### BUT
But what about the other sheep Jesus speaks of? Can they hear?
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
No not initially
>
> “We know that we are from God, and **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**.”
> 1 John 5:19
>
>
>
But how were they of God?
>
> “We know that **everyone who has been born of God** does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
> 1 John 5:18
>
>
>
They were born again of the Spirit through the Word. In other words they entered through the gate.
These other sheep have NEVER entered through this gate
>
> “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.”
> John 10:9
>
>
>
So how then are they His sheep?
>
> “No one can come to me unless **the Father who sent me draws him**. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
> John 6:44
>
>
>
They were drawn by the Father. HOW? How does the Father draw people and set them aside to be drawn to Jesus? The text explains
>
> “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And **they will all be taught by God**.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
> John 6:45
>
>
>
From what will they learn and be taught by the Father? The Scriptures or the OT. Anyone who believes the OT Scriptures is drawn by the Father to Jesus. This is in a pre-Crucifixion context. We look back but they looked forward to a coming Messiah. Those who believed the Scriptures that promised a savior believing the Father and essentially the GOSPEL (Good News) are drawn to Jesus
>
> “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And **how are they to hear without someone preaching**?
>
>
>
>
> So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
> Romans 10:13-14, 17
>
>
>
So the question remains did they or did they not hear?
>
> “But I ask, **have they not heard**? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “**All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people**.””
> Romans 10:18-21
>
>
>
So these other sheep were not even Jews they were Gentiles and they heard. Heard what? The Gospel from the OT and they believed and entered through the gate to be saved.
Were they saved prior to hearing The gospel, believing and entering through the gate to be saved? No but they were His sheep to save because they believed the good news the Father told them through those He sent to preach it and Jesus in FUTURE TENSE brings them too
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they **will** listen to my voice. So there **will** be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
In other words no one was predestined prior to being in Christ from the foundation of the world because they were never in Christ.
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”
> Ephesians 2:1
>
>
>
Everyone was in the first Adam and dead in sin and trespasses
But those who heard the Father’s good news and believed and accepted it were drawn to Jesus who let them IN through the gate to be SAVED
>
> “even as he chose us **in him** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
> Ephesians 1:4-5
>
>
>
IN HIM, anyone who enters into Jesus through the gate that IS JESUS is predestined THROUGH HIM because Jesus from the foundation of the world was predestined to be holy and blameless before the Father and we too can accept this by faith and be made holy and blameless.
That’s how ONE HEARS His voice, by the preaching of the OT good news Scriptures that point to Jesus and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved! | Roman 10:
>
> 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
>
>
> 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have **not heard**? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
>
>
>
Horizontally speaking, some believer has to be sent for people to hear. After having heard the good news, then some of them believe and officially join the flock.
Vertically speaking, Jesus has already known who would listen to his voice before he calls them as in
John 10:16
>
> I have other **sheep** that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too **will listen** to my voice, and there **shall be** one flock and one shepherd.
>
>
>
In John 10;1-16, 25-29, does someone become Christ's sheep when he hears his voice, or does he hear his voice because he is his sheep?
Both are true depending on the perspective. This is the notion of Co-Reality. |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | What qualifies someone/sheep to be part of a flock? At the most basic level, they must follow the Shepherd, otherwise they do as they please and go where they will.
>
> ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but **the one who does the will of my Father** who is in heaven.”
> Matthew 7:21
>
>
>
Who enacts the will of the Father?
>
> “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
> John 15:10
>
>
>
So Jesus the Shepherd is able to lead because He too kept the commandments of the Father
What words are we to hear and follow?
>
> ““**Everyone then who hears** these words of mine **and does them** will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
>
>
>
>
> And **everyone who hears** these words of mine **and does not do them** will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
> Matthew 7:24, 26
>
>
>
And these words are recorded for us to read, believe and practice. Start with the Scriptures and even if you receive guidance in your spirit, that guidance **must** be filtered through the Scriptures. So major in the Scriptures
>
> “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
> Psalm 119:105
>
>
>
>
> “If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.””
> Luke 11:36
>
>
>
Therefore ingest the Scriptures and illuminate your path
>
> “With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes!
> I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.”
> Psalm 119:10-12, 15-16
>
>
>
### Additional
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock His? Yes in the sense that they are drawn to Him
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock part of His flock? No they are not
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock saved? Not until they walk through the gate
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock following Him and benefit from His protection, leading and salvation? No
>
> “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and **leads them out**. When he has **brought out ALL his own**, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
> John 10:3-4
>
>
>
If we are going to set precedent and not include a qualifying “because” then this is the context
Jesus leads His sheep OUT. Meaning they were IN to begin with. Secondly the verse says
When He has brought **out ALL** His own. I guess either all means all or it doesn’t. He says all. Therefore any sheep that are not in the stall/sheepfold/barn are NOT part of ALL His own.
So whatever Jesus means by
>
> “And **I have other sheep** that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
Must be in this context of NOT part of all His own.
Which was preceded by
>
> “I am the good shepherd. I know my own **and my own know me**,”
> John 10:14
>
>
>
And they KNOW HIM. But the sheep that are not of that fold, do they know Him? No, they can’t
>
> “Formerly, when you did not know God... But now that you have come to know God,”
> Galatians 4:8-9
>
>
>
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—”
> Ephesians 2:1, 4-5
>
>
>
Once again do they know Him, for all His sheep know Him? No they don’t. Therefor win context these other sheep that are His, His to recover and redeem, all future tense
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will *(future tense)* listen to my voice. So there will *(future tense)* be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
These sheep are His when they hear His voice and accept to be part of the fold. They are Jesus’ in the sense that they gravitate toward truth and the Father seeing that they gravitate toward truth, draws them to Jesus. They are set aside to come in contact with the Shepherd and when that happens they accept Him and accept to follow Him.
### Dishonest interpretation
It would be dishonest to say the following
* His sheep follow him because they can hear his voice.
* Everyone else who doesn’t follow him must therefore not hear his voice.
This is entirely inconsistent because His sheep can hear the voice of another Shepherd
>
> “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, **for they do not know the voice of strangers**.””
> John 10:5
>
>
>
It doesn’t say they can’t hear a stranger’s voice but merely that they are not intimately acquainted (close to the heart) with it and refuse to follow a stranger.
The fact that Jesus says after being asked if He was the Messiah
>
> “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Christ, tell us plainly**.””
> John 10:24
>
>
>
Answers in the affirmative thereby calling himself the messiah/Christ/anointed
>
> “Jesus answered them, “**I told you**, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”
> John 10:25
>
>
>
And He answers by saying that He told them, which implies they HEARD Him but still didn’t believe in Him, doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear (because they weren’t his sheep). They refused to believe what He had to say because they were not intimately acquainted with His voice, a voice of TRUTH
Let’s contrast why these were of a different shepherd and what his name is
>
> “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and **does not stand in the truth**, because there is **no truth in him**. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, **for he is a liar** and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? **If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me**? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.””
> John 8:44-47
>
>
>
These men were already of another sheepfold with a different shepherd. They were listening to the truth and could not accept it because they were already given over to lies
### BUT
But what about the other sheep Jesus speaks of? Can they hear?
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
No not initially
>
> “We know that we are from God, and **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**.”
> 1 John 5:19
>
>
>
But how were they of God?
>
> “We know that **everyone who has been born of God** does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
> 1 John 5:18
>
>
>
They were born again of the Spirit through the Word. In other words they entered through the gate.
These other sheep have NEVER entered through this gate
>
> “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.”
> John 10:9
>
>
>
So how then are they His sheep?
>
> “No one can come to me unless **the Father who sent me draws him**. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
> John 6:44
>
>
>
They were drawn by the Father. HOW? How does the Father draw people and set them aside to be drawn to Jesus? The text explains
>
> “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And **they will all be taught by God**.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
> John 6:45
>
>
>
From what will they learn and be taught by the Father? The Scriptures or the OT. Anyone who believes the OT Scriptures is drawn by the Father to Jesus. This is in a pre-Crucifixion context. We look back but they looked forward to a coming Messiah. Those who believed the Scriptures that promised a savior believing the Father and essentially the GOSPEL (Good News) are drawn to Jesus
>
> “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And **how are they to hear without someone preaching**?
>
>
>
>
> So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
> Romans 10:13-14, 17
>
>
>
So the question remains did they or did they not hear?
>
> “But I ask, **have they not heard**? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “**All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people**.””
> Romans 10:18-21
>
>
>
So these other sheep were not even Jews they were Gentiles and they heard. Heard what? The Gospel from the OT and they believed and entered through the gate to be saved.
Were they saved prior to hearing The gospel, believing and entering through the gate to be saved? No but they were His sheep to save because they believed the good news the Father told them through those He sent to preach it and Jesus in FUTURE TENSE brings them too
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they **will** listen to my voice. So there **will** be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
In other words no one was predestined prior to being in Christ from the foundation of the world because they were never in Christ.
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”
> Ephesians 2:1
>
>
>
Everyone was in the first Adam and dead in sin and trespasses
But those who heard the Father’s good news and believed and accepted it were drawn to Jesus who let them IN through the gate to be SAVED
>
> “even as he chose us **in him** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
> Ephesians 1:4-5
>
>
>
IN HIM, anyone who enters into Jesus through the gate that IS JESUS is predestined THROUGH HIM because Jesus from the foundation of the world was predestined to be holy and blameless before the Father and we too can accept this by faith and be made holy and blameless.
That’s how ONE HEARS His voice, by the preaching of the OT good news Scriptures that point to Jesus and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved! | Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11). Who can be excluded from his flock? Thus *all* are his sheep before they hear his voice.
* I am the door; if *anyone* enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. (v. 9, emphasis added)
This is the story of the good shepherd. He calls, and he gathers. He knows each sheep by name. Between shepherd and sheep, the relationship is reciprocal. He calls; they listen (v.3). He leads; they follow (v.4). He knows his sheep, and his sheep know him (v.14).
This is the story of the true shepherd, he who alone is good. He came so that the sheep may have life (v.10). He is the door by which all must enter (v.7). Those who enter by any other means are as thieves and hired hands. Thieves steal and destroy (v.10). Hired hands care not for the sheep; they flee and abandon the sheep to the wolves (v.12).
The sheep may thus be snatched and scattered (v.12). Some have yet to hear his voice (v.16). In the relationship between sheep and shepherd, the only true constant is the love of the shepherd (v.13), who never tires of gathering his sheep and bringing them home. In the end, as from the beginning, there is one shepherd, one flock, and one God over all (v.16, vv. 29-30). And those who listen to his voice, who follow, and are known by him – these no one can snatch from his hand.
* My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. (v.28-30) |
59,184 | Mt. 6:34b "Each day has enough trouble of its own." | 2021/04/19 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59184",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/42737/"
] | What qualifies someone/sheep to be part of a flock? At the most basic level, they must follow the Shepherd, otherwise they do as they please and go where they will.
>
> ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but **the one who does the will of my Father** who is in heaven.”
> Matthew 7:21
>
>
>
Who enacts the will of the Father?
>
> “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
> John 15:10
>
>
>
So Jesus the Shepherd is able to lead because He too kept the commandments of the Father
What words are we to hear and follow?
>
> ““**Everyone then who hears** these words of mine **and does them** will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
>
>
>
>
> And **everyone who hears** these words of mine **and does not do them** will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
> Matthew 7:24, 26
>
>
>
And these words are recorded for us to read, believe and practice. Start with the Scriptures and even if you receive guidance in your spirit, that guidance **must** be filtered through the Scriptures. So major in the Scriptures
>
> “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
> Psalm 119:105
>
>
>
>
> “If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.””
> Luke 11:36
>
>
>
Therefore ingest the Scriptures and illuminate your path
>
> “With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes!
> I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.”
> Psalm 119:10-12, 15-16
>
>
>
### Additional
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock His? Yes in the sense that they are drawn to Him
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock part of His flock? No they are not
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock saved? Not until they walk through the gate
* Are the sheep Jesus has that are not of His current flock following Him and benefit from His protection, leading and salvation? No
>
> “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and **leads them out**. When he has **brought out ALL his own**, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
> John 10:3-4
>
>
>
If we are going to set precedent and not include a qualifying “because” then this is the context
Jesus leads His sheep OUT. Meaning they were IN to begin with. Secondly the verse says
When He has brought **out ALL** His own. I guess either all means all or it doesn’t. He says all. Therefore any sheep that are not in the stall/sheepfold/barn are NOT part of ALL His own.
So whatever Jesus means by
>
> “And **I have other sheep** that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
Must be in this context of NOT part of all His own.
Which was preceded by
>
> “I am the good shepherd. I know my own **and my own know me**,”
> John 10:14
>
>
>
And they KNOW HIM. But the sheep that are not of that fold, do they know Him? No, they can’t
>
> “Formerly, when you did not know God... But now that you have come to know God,”
> Galatians 4:8-9
>
>
>
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—”
> Ephesians 2:1, 4-5
>
>
>
Once again do they know Him, for all His sheep know Him? No they don’t. Therefor win context these other sheep that are His, His to recover and redeem, all future tense
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will *(future tense)* listen to my voice. So there will *(future tense)* be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
These sheep are His when they hear His voice and accept to be part of the fold. They are Jesus’ in the sense that they gravitate toward truth and the Father seeing that they gravitate toward truth, draws them to Jesus. They are set aside to come in contact with the Shepherd and when that happens they accept Him and accept to follow Him.
### Dishonest interpretation
It would be dishonest to say the following
* His sheep follow him because they can hear his voice.
* Everyone else who doesn’t follow him must therefore not hear his voice.
This is entirely inconsistent because His sheep can hear the voice of another Shepherd
>
> “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, **for they do not know the voice of strangers**.””
> John 10:5
>
>
>
It doesn’t say they can’t hear a stranger’s voice but merely that they are not intimately acquainted (close to the heart) with it and refuse to follow a stranger.
The fact that Jesus says after being asked if He was the Messiah
>
> “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Christ, tell us plainly**.””
> John 10:24
>
>
>
Answers in the affirmative thereby calling himself the messiah/Christ/anointed
>
> “Jesus answered them, “**I told you**, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”
> John 10:25
>
>
>
And He answers by saying that He told them, which implies they HEARD Him but still didn’t believe in Him, doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear (because they weren’t his sheep). They refused to believe what He had to say because they were not intimately acquainted with His voice, a voice of TRUTH
Let’s contrast why these were of a different shepherd and what his name is
>
> “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and **does not stand in the truth**, because there is **no truth in him**. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, **for he is a liar** and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? **If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me**? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.””
> John 8:44-47
>
>
>
These men were already of another sheepfold with a different shepherd. They were listening to the truth and could not accept it because they were already given over to lies
### BUT
But what about the other sheep Jesus speaks of? Can they hear?
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
No not initially
>
> “We know that we are from God, and **the whole world lies in the power of the evil one**.”
> 1 John 5:19
>
>
>
But how were they of God?
>
> “We know that **everyone who has been born of God** does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
> 1 John 5:18
>
>
>
They were born again of the Spirit through the Word. In other words they entered through the gate.
These other sheep have NEVER entered through this gate
>
> “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.”
> John 10:9
>
>
>
So how then are they His sheep?
>
> “No one can come to me unless **the Father who sent me draws him**. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
> John 6:44
>
>
>
They were drawn by the Father. HOW? How does the Father draw people and set them aside to be drawn to Jesus? The text explains
>
> “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And **they will all be taught by God**.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
> John 6:45
>
>
>
From what will they learn and be taught by the Father? The Scriptures or the OT. Anyone who believes the OT Scriptures is drawn by the Father to Jesus. This is in a pre-Crucifixion context. We look back but they looked forward to a coming Messiah. Those who believed the Scriptures that promised a savior believing the Father and essentially the GOSPEL (Good News) are drawn to Jesus
>
> “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And **how are they to hear without someone preaching**?
>
>
>
>
> So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
> Romans 10:13-14, 17
>
>
>
So the question remains did they or did they not hear?
>
> “But I ask, **have they not heard**? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “**All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people**.””
> Romans 10:18-21
>
>
>
So these other sheep were not even Jews they were Gentiles and they heard. Heard what? The Gospel from the OT and they believed and entered through the gate to be saved.
Were they saved prior to hearing The gospel, believing and entering through the gate to be saved? No but they were His sheep to save because they believed the good news the Father told them through those He sent to preach it and Jesus in FUTURE TENSE brings them too
>
> “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they **will** listen to my voice. So there **will** be one flock, one shepherd.”
> John 10:16
>
>
>
In other words no one was predestined prior to being in Christ from the foundation of the world because they were never in Christ.
>
> “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”
> Ephesians 2:1
>
>
>
Everyone was in the first Adam and dead in sin and trespasses
But those who heard the Father’s good news and believed and accepted it were drawn to Jesus who let them IN through the gate to be SAVED
>
> “even as he chose us **in him** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
> Ephesians 1:4-5
>
>
>
IN HIM, anyone who enters into Jesus through the gate that IS JESUS is predestined THROUGH HIM because Jesus from the foundation of the world was predestined to be holy and blameless before the Father and we too can accept this by faith and be made holy and blameless.
That’s how ONE HEARS His voice, by the preaching of the OT good news Scriptures that point to Jesus and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved! | The difficulty with asking your question based on John 10 is Jesus used sheep as an illustration, and we can draw too much out of a figure of speech.
>
> This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
> (John 10:6, ESV)
>
>
>
The primary purpose of this figure of speech is to point out that Jesus is the true Messiah/Christ. Sheep don't choose their owner. They learn their shepherd's voice. But, that is probably pushing the illustration too far. There is a passage in John from one of Jesus' discourses that specifically answers your question.
>
> All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
> (John 6:37, ESV)
>
>
>
This answers you question saying it is not either... or but both... and. From our standpoint we choose to come to Christ. He will not refuse anyone who comes to him. But, from God's stand point, he knows who will come to him. He created people, and from the beginning knew who would come to him. Thus, he chose us (Rom. 9).
But from the human standpoint nothing hinders us from coming to Christ. It is our choice and responsibility. Nothing prevents us. Christ will not reject us.
To interpret properly Jesus' figurative discourse in John 10, it is necessarily to stick to the points Jesus' made. The first point is the shepherd of the sheep enter through the gate, not climbing over the fence. Jesus didn't gather followers in secret, but openly taught in public, even in the temple.
Then, Jesus make the point that the sheep recognize their shepherd's voice (see [What is the nature of the "voice" John 10:27 is talking about?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/53185/what-is-the-nature-of-the-voice-john-1027-is-talking-about/53329#53329)). In Jesus' context, shepherds called their flocks out of the other flocks from watering troughs or holes, calling them by name and they came.
The signs that Jesus' is the true Messiah is he came openly to the temple, and his followers hear him and followed him. So many people followed Jesus that the Jewish leaders feared to arrest him in public.
Jesus is the door (the way) to enter into salvation. The others claiming to be the messiah were lawless insurrectionists, who brought destruction. Jesus came to give abundant life. Then, of course, Jesus demonstrated he was the good shepherd by laying down his life (τὴν ψυχήν) for us. The other flock is the Gentiles, who will become one flock with his Jewish followers.
It's probably pushing the illustration too far to answer your question based on John 10. With sheep they heard the shepherd's voice because they learned it as his sheep, but Jesus made the not-his-sheep distinction with not follow him although they heard the same teachings as those when they first followed. Those who did not followed probably heard just as much of Jesus' teachings as those when they first decided to follow. The twelve were an exception, but far from the entire flock.
A last point, as the good shepherd protects the sheep from predators, Jesus gives us security of salvation by protecting us.
I used John 6:37 to answer your question because John 10 doesn't give a clear answer. We could eisegete an answer by looking at characteristics of sheep Jesus didn't mention here. But, to be true to Jesus' teachings, when he used figures of speech, we need to stick to the points Jesus was making. |
661 | Ce site est encore en phase beta, aussi je me permets de poser cette question au sens large; de poser une question par rapport à la définition même de ce qu'est french.stackexchange.com.
En lisant les réponses sur les quelques premières questions de la page d'accueil, je m'aperçois que la position généralement acceptée est que si une expression est du langage populaire, elle est valide en tant que réponse à quelqu'un qui désire apprendre le Français.
Au sens large, ce site ne pourrait-il pas plutôt tenter d'offrir la référence actuelle, acceptée internationalement, plutôt que des expressions qui dépendent largement de la localisation de la personne qui réponds?
Par exemple, le mot cucul (offert en traduction à cheesy) qui, damnation, semble être maintenant inscrit dans les sites en lignes (au moins, ils ont la décence d'inscrire "familier"). Je trouve terrible qu'on apprenne aux gens à utiliser des termes du genre plutôt qu'une expression valide ("à l'eau de rose" ou "exagéré" sont déjà beaucoup mieux).
Qu'en pensez-vous? Suis-je vieux jeu? Trop conservateur? Je trouverais sincèrement dommage, dans 10 ans, de voir ces expressions familières entrer dans le dictionnaire à proprement parler. Comment tracer une limite? "Des chevals" est utilisé régulièrement, est-ce qu'on devrait pour autant l'accepter et l'enseigner aux apprenants?
---
This site is in beta phase, so I'll ask this in a larger scope; I'll ask about the very definition of this site's goal.
While reading some answers on the front page, I realize the accepted stance is that if an expression is of the familiar language, it is a valid answer to give to someone who's trying to learn French.
Couldn't this site be used to teach an internationally recognized reference, instead of localized opinions and terms of what can be used to mean something?
For instance, the word "cucul" (given as translation for cheesy) which, seven hells, is now included in online reference (which have the decency of defining as "familiar"). I find it is terrible to teach people these terms instead of a valid expression ("à l'eau de rose" or "exagéré" would be much better)
What do you think? Am I old fashioned? Too conservative? I'd be sad if in 10 years all these expressions would be part of the dictionary itself. How to draw the line? "Des chevals" is often used, should we accept it and teach it to learners? | 2017/03/13 | [
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/661",
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5825/"
] | Je ne pense pas qu'il faille refuser un certain langage, mais qu'il faille bien préciser dans quel registre il s'utilise.
Lorsqu'une personne non francophone demande l'équivalent d'une expression, elle doit aussi préciser le contexte et on se doit de lui répondre par une expression du même contexte. On peut aussi, pour sa culture, lui donner des équivalents dans d'autres contextes, mais ce que la personne cherche avant tout, c'est garder le contexte.
À ma connaissance, "cheesy" est familier en anglais. Imaginez, par exemple, qu'on souhaite traduire une conversation entre adolescents dans laquelle l'un d'eux dit "cheezy". Pensez-vous qu'"à l'eau de rose" soit réaliste ? | Aussi, il faut bien parler des mots que les gens entendront, même s'ils ne sont pas recommandables. Je pense que si l'on précise le registre, c'est bon.
Pour ce qui est de l'évolution de la langue, ce n'est sous le contrôle de personne, en fait, et il est fort probable que, d'une part, les Romains qui nous ont précédés considéreraient notre langue comme "dégénérée", et d'autre, que nous ne reconnaîtrions pas la langue "française" dans 100 ans, ou même 20 ans... |
661 | Ce site est encore en phase beta, aussi je me permets de poser cette question au sens large; de poser une question par rapport à la définition même de ce qu'est french.stackexchange.com.
En lisant les réponses sur les quelques premières questions de la page d'accueil, je m'aperçois que la position généralement acceptée est que si une expression est du langage populaire, elle est valide en tant que réponse à quelqu'un qui désire apprendre le Français.
Au sens large, ce site ne pourrait-il pas plutôt tenter d'offrir la référence actuelle, acceptée internationalement, plutôt que des expressions qui dépendent largement de la localisation de la personne qui réponds?
Par exemple, le mot cucul (offert en traduction à cheesy) qui, damnation, semble être maintenant inscrit dans les sites en lignes (au moins, ils ont la décence d'inscrire "familier"). Je trouve terrible qu'on apprenne aux gens à utiliser des termes du genre plutôt qu'une expression valide ("à l'eau de rose" ou "exagéré" sont déjà beaucoup mieux).
Qu'en pensez-vous? Suis-je vieux jeu? Trop conservateur? Je trouverais sincèrement dommage, dans 10 ans, de voir ces expressions familières entrer dans le dictionnaire à proprement parler. Comment tracer une limite? "Des chevals" est utilisé régulièrement, est-ce qu'on devrait pour autant l'accepter et l'enseigner aux apprenants?
---
This site is in beta phase, so I'll ask this in a larger scope; I'll ask about the very definition of this site's goal.
While reading some answers on the front page, I realize the accepted stance is that if an expression is of the familiar language, it is a valid answer to give to someone who's trying to learn French.
Couldn't this site be used to teach an internationally recognized reference, instead of localized opinions and terms of what can be used to mean something?
For instance, the word "cucul" (given as translation for cheesy) which, seven hells, is now included in online reference (which have the decency of defining as "familiar"). I find it is terrible to teach people these terms instead of a valid expression ("à l'eau de rose" or "exagéré" would be much better)
What do you think? Am I old fashioned? Too conservative? I'd be sad if in 10 years all these expressions would be part of the dictionary itself. How to draw the line? "Des chevals" is often used, should we accept it and teach it to learners? | 2017/03/13 | [
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/661",
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://french.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5825/"
] | French.SE est un site ouvert à toute personne intéressée par le français, que sa langue maternelle soit le français ou toute autre langue.
Ce n'est pas un site d'enseignement, et encore moins un site limité à une forme de français ou une autre. Toutes les questions relatives à la langue française, son histoire, ses variantes, ses registres, ses expressions, ses difficultés, sa prononciation, etc. sont bienvenues; et toutes les réponses qui apparaissent pertinentes à leurs auteurs sont tout autant bienvenues.
Si quelqu'un souhaite apporter une réponse qui satisfait à ses propres critères tels que par exemple « *offrir la référence actuelle, acceptée internationalement, plutôt que des expressions qui dépendent largement de la localisation de la personne qui répond* », c'est très bien mais chacun est libre d'apporter d'autres réponses avec d'autres critères.
Il faut rester ouvert. Grandes sont les variétés d'ages, de culture et d'expertise entre les membres de FSE. Il ne faut donc pas s'attendre à des opinions homogènes. Par exemple Simon Deschamps considère comme moi que « mièvre » que je propose comme traduction possible de *cheesy* est d'un registre soutenu, mais Shautieh pense l'inverse.
Le système de votes et d'acceptation de la « meilleure » réponse par l'auteur de la question est certes discutable. On peut même dire, pour paraphraser Churchill, que c'est le pire des systèmes de gouvernance ... à l'exclusion de tous les autres.
Pour ce qui est de « cucul », je trouve qu'il s'agit d'une très bonne proposition. Ce mot correspond bien à ce qui peut encore être dit aujourd'hui en France dans un registre familier et on aurait pu d'ailleurs aussi ajouter l'imagé « cucul la praline ». Il est fort possible que « cucul » qui n'est pas vraiment vulgaire en France soit perçu comme très déplacé au Québec ou ailleurs. Si c'est le cas, le mieux est d'apporter cette information comme commentaire à la réponse. Une critique constructive est souvent avantageuse pour tout le monde, c'est une *win-win situation* alors qu'un rejet et/ou un vote négatif est au contraire souvent source de frustration pour les deux parties. | Je ne pense pas qu'il faille refuser un certain langage, mais qu'il faille bien préciser dans quel registre il s'utilise.
Lorsqu'une personne non francophone demande l'équivalent d'une expression, elle doit aussi préciser le contexte et on se doit de lui répondre par une expression du même contexte. On peut aussi, pour sa culture, lui donner des équivalents dans d'autres contextes, mais ce que la personne cherche avant tout, c'est garder le contexte.
À ma connaissance, "cheesy" est familier en anglais. Imaginez, par exemple, qu'on souhaite traduire une conversation entre adolescents dans laquelle l'un d'eux dit "cheezy". Pensez-vous qu'"à l'eau de rose" soit réaliste ? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.