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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | Try this:
1. In the Command window, right click the Title
bar and select Properties from the
popup menu. The property sheet
appears.
2. In the property sheet, select 'Full
Screen' in the 'Display Options'
box.
3. Close the property sheet by clicking
OK and select 'Save proeprties for
future windows with same title'. | Access **Properties** by right clicking on top of the CMD window, go back to the Font tab, select either 10 x 18 or 12 x 16, and then click OK. You'll then need to go back to the Layout tab and reset the Screen Buffer Size Width to the appropriate value. For example, I selected the 10 x 18 font size and then changed the Screen Buffer Size Width to 160X300 and window size width to 134X37. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | I would recommand that you use powershell
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/download.mspx>
It also support full screen mode, and some other nice feature. | Try this:
1. In the Command window, right click the Title
bar and select Properties from the
popup menu. The property sheet
appears.
2. In the property sheet, select 'Full
Screen' in the 'Display Options'
box.
3. Close the property sheet by clicking
OK and select 'Save proeprties for
future windows with same title'. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | Click on the top left icon in the window (the `"C:\"` one) and select "Properties".
Then select the "Layout" tab and change the window size to what you want it to be (I have 128x50 for the screen and 128x999 for the scroll buffer). You can also optionally set the top left position (I always have it at 1,1) if you don't want Windows itself deciding where the window goes.
When you click on OK, make sure you tell it to modify the shortcut that started the window.
Then it will remember.
This is for XP, other MS operating systems may vary slightly but the general idea should be the same. | Access **Properties** by right clicking on top of the CMD window, go back to the Font tab, select either 10 x 18 or 12 x 16, and then click OK. You'll then need to go back to the Layout tab and reset the Screen Buffer Size Width to the appropriate value. For example, I selected the 10 x 18 font size and then changed the Screen Buffer Size Width to 160X300 and window size width to 134X37. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | Click on the top left icon in the window (the `"C:\"` one) and select "Properties".
Then select the "Layout" tab and change the window size to what you want it to be (I have 128x50 for the screen and 128x999 for the scroll buffer). You can also optionally set the top left position (I always have it at 1,1) if you don't want Windows itself deciding where the window goes.
When you click on OK, make sure you tell it to modify the shortcut that started the window.
Then it will remember.
This is for XP, other MS operating systems may vary slightly but the general idea should be the same. | Try this:
1. In the Command window, right click the Title
bar and select Properties from the
popup menu. The property sheet
appears.
2. In the property sheet, select 'Full
Screen' in the 'Display Options'
box.
3. Close the property sheet by clicking
OK and select 'Save proeprties for
future windows with same title'. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | Click on the top left icon in the window (the `"C:\"` one) and select "Properties".
Then select the "Layout" tab and change the window size to what you want it to be (I have 128x50 for the screen and 128x999 for the scroll buffer). You can also optionally set the top left position (I always have it at 1,1) if you don't want Windows itself deciding where the window goes.
When you click on OK, make sure you tell it to modify the shortcut that started the window.
Then it will remember.
This is for XP, other MS operating systems may vary slightly but the general idea should be the same. | I would recommand that you use powershell
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/download.mspx>
It also support full screen mode, and some other nice feature. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | Click on the top left icon in the window (the `"C:\"` one) and select "Properties".
Then select the "Layout" tab and change the window size to what you want it to be (I have 128x50 for the screen and 128x999 for the scroll buffer). You can also optionally set the top left position (I always have it at 1,1) if you don't want Windows itself deciding where the window goes.
When you click on OK, make sure you tell it to modify the shortcut that started the window.
Then it will remember.
This is for XP, other MS operating systems may vary slightly but the general idea should be the same. | Check out [Console2](http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/), it seems to be about the most promising *window* enhancement for cmd.exe.
I have to say, cmd.exe is probably the worst part of windows! Especially the copy pasting support, etc.
Personally, I use putty to ssh into a Linux box when I really need to do command line work, you can't go past Bash.
Even though you could install that on windows using [Cygwin](http://www.cygwin.com/), which will allow you to use another console, although this doesn't have the ability to override the windows cmd.exe, it might be worth a shot given that you are trying to use a command line application, and not windows :). |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | I would recommand that you use powershell
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/download.mspx>
It also support full screen mode, and some other nice feature. | Command Window Default Properties
---------------------------------
Click on the sytem menu, or with focus set on the Command Windows, press Alt+Space, and select Properties. Change your Font, Window Size, and so on. I always change my Window Size (on the Layout tab) to Width 80 by Height 65 and Screen Buffer Size to 80 by 300. |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | I would recommand that you use powershell
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/download.mspx>
It also support full screen mode, and some other nice feature. | Check out [Console2](http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/), it seems to be about the most promising *window* enhancement for cmd.exe.
I have to say, cmd.exe is probably the worst part of windows! Especially the copy pasting support, etc.
Personally, I use putty to ssh into a Linux box when I really need to do command line work, you can't go past Bash.
Even though you could install that on windows using [Cygwin](http://www.cygwin.com/), which will allow you to use another console, although this doesn't have the ability to override the windows cmd.exe, it might be worth a shot given that you are trying to use a command line application, and not windows :). |
1,409,060 | I have a web site hosted in a CentOS 5-Plesk-Apache server. I have recently added a second site to the server for serve dynamic content. I have established rewrite rules for images (static content) that works pretty well. The module rewrites the URI in the static server to pointing to the the original file.
The problem is that the first site has the minify (<http://code.google.com/p/minify/>) script installed but i cannot realize how to write a modwrite rule that works, so if I have:
...
< style src='<http://www.mystaticserver.com/min/f=style.css>' >
...
somewhere, this becomes in the file with this URL
<http://www.myserver.com/min/f=style.css>
Any ideas? Thank you in advance
PS: I asked this question in serverfault but i don't get any answers | 2009/09/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1409060",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/20367/"
] | I would recommand that you use powershell
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/download.mspx>
It also support full screen mode, and some other nice feature. | Access **Properties** by right clicking on top of the CMD window, go back to the Font tab, select either 10 x 18 or 12 x 16, and then click OK. You'll then need to go back to the Layout tab and reset the Screen Buffer Size Width to the appropriate value. For example, I selected the 10 x 18 font size and then changed the Screen Buffer Size Width to 160X300 and window size width to 134X37. |
23,075,021 | What would be the best way to detect fields that has been modified in a bulk update grid view.
I'm currently retriving all data from database and comparing them to the submited one. But I would love to know a better approach. | 2014/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23075021",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/938595/"
] | Here is a typical work-flow for this type of data:
* 1) read in csv data, convert to DataFrame, coerce data type, write out using `HDFStore` (depending on your needs could be 'fixed' or 'table' format). Do this is a separate process, then exit the process. When the dataset is large, I read it in a logical format (e.g. say a range of dates), then output a 'table' format HDF5 file. Then can append to this.
* 2) query (again could be on dates or some other criteria). perform calculations, then write out **NEW** HDF5 files. This can be done in parallel (multiple processes). MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE WRITING SEPARATE FILES IN EACH PROCESS.
* 3) combine the prior data files into single HDF5 files. This is a SINGLE process event.
* 4) repeat 2 & 3 as needed.
The key is to do discrete steps, writing out intermediate data in between, and exiting processes in-between. This keeps a manageable in-memory data size and makes in-memory calculations fast. Further this allows multiple processing for cpu-intensive operations on a read-only HDF5 file.
It is important to do this in separate system processes to allow the system to reclaim memory.
HTH | Although I don't have much experience using HDF5 files, I'll suggest three Python libraries that might get you going in a better direction
[H5py](http://www.h5py.org/) is a Python library specifically built for encoding and decoding files to and from binary formats. I'm not claiming that it is better than Pandas HDFstore (I've found Pandas to be pretty awesome with handling sizable amounts of data 2.2M x 24) but it might do the trick.
[PyTables](http://www.pytables.org/moin) has been mentioned a few times in memory management conversations. I have no experience with this library but I have seen it in discussions dealing with [memory/HDf5 problems](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22998859/hdfstore-with-string-columns-gives-issues).
[mmap](https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/mmap.html) is a library used for memory mapping (The process of moving data from the disk, into memory for manipulating without the use of binary formatting). If you guessed that I have no experience using this library, then you would be a winner.
Again, I can't talk much from experience here, but I think these three routes might get you on you way of better utilizing your memory with Python when dealing with large data sets. |
3,248,161 | I have a report where I have about 5 fields right next to eachother that dont return data in about 90% of the reports. Is there a way to hide these fields if they are empty otherwise display them if they do contain data?
Thanks | 2010/07/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3248161",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/380432/"
] | You can suppress columns conditionally in the report designer in SSRS, by selecting the table column and editing the Visibility>Hidden property (in the Properties window) to be the suppression condition.
Note that if the suppression condition is False at any point in the report, the columns will be displayed throughout the whole report. | Yes, you can write VBScript in the RDL file to display the field if it is not Nothing and the like. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | **TL;DR: Since we can't see how the beam is supported on the other end, its not clear whether its structurally safe. Still, I don't believe this configuration can transfer safely any substantial structural load.**.
When I first saw the image, my first thought was that this is the one end of a simply supported beam. I thought is was an accident waiting to happen. Some of the things I don't like that pop to mind:
* The two beams (of the column for that matter) do not seem connected in any way.
* the web resting on the column is unstable.
* the web is now more susceptible prone to buckling instability. (it reminds me of trying to balance a pencil on its tip).
* The reduction in second moment of area will be high (probably not important).
* the contact stresses will be high (depending on the load that the beam carries)
If it is still standing, I am guessing there might be the following:
* only because there beam does not carry any load.
* the way the beam is supported on the portion of the image we can't see. I expect that it probably is an overhang simply supported beam. Like the following image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aynBN.png)
The part that we see in the question photo is the red rectangle. So the beam might be adequately supported from the other side. If that's the case then this end doesn't transfer any substantial loads.
However, I honestly don't see, how this arrangement can carry any substantial structural load. | Several comments above have suggested that the white and steel beams be welded together, however it looks to me like the white beam is wood! Even a gusset plate would be difficult, though not impossible, due to the great difference in width.
Regarding the cut steel beam, I would be suspicious of it unless the beam was *way* oversized. There is nothing at the bottom to stabilize the vertical web of the beam; with a heavy enough load it could buckle. Even a slight sideways bend (no longer resisted by the missing bottom web) could cascade as more and more load falls on the still-vertical portion of the vertical web. All in all, a thumbs down from me unless a replacement bottom web had been welded in (and connected to the remaining bottom web). |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | This is a textbook example of what not to do.
We don't get into stress concentration at the cut off of the corner of the beam, or the fact that the two very different stiffnesses of the beams are a constant cause of differential deflection and vibration.
The thin edge of the web sitting on the column cap is an unstable mechanism waiting to either kick the CC out from under it or rotating over it and causing the column cap to be pressured off from under the joint. Especially since there is no continuity between the new and old beam webs and flanges.
I would recommend:
==================
* Add a triangular splice at the bottom of the cut web to it and add to the lower flange an extension all the way to the CC with continuous weld all around.
* Add a 4-inch by 12-inch splice connecting the two beams on the web joint.
* Weld the flanges together.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AcHCf.jpg) | **TL;DR: Since we can't see how the beam is supported on the other end, its not clear whether its structurally safe. Still, I don't believe this configuration can transfer safely any substantial structural load.**.
When I first saw the image, my first thought was that this is the one end of a simply supported beam. I thought is was an accident waiting to happen. Some of the things I don't like that pop to mind:
* The two beams (of the column for that matter) do not seem connected in any way.
* the web resting on the column is unstable.
* the web is now more susceptible prone to buckling instability. (it reminds me of trying to balance a pencil on its tip).
* The reduction in second moment of area will be high (probably not important).
* the contact stresses will be high (depending on the load that the beam carries)
If it is still standing, I am guessing there might be the following:
* only because there beam does not carry any load.
* the way the beam is supported on the portion of the image we can't see. I expect that it probably is an overhang simply supported beam. Like the following image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aynBN.png)
The part that we see in the question photo is the red rectangle. So the beam might be adequately supported from the other side. If that's the case then this end doesn't transfer any substantial loads.
However, I honestly don't see, how this arrangement can carry any substantial structural load. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | **TL;DR: Since we can't see how the beam is supported on the other end, its not clear whether its structurally safe. Still, I don't believe this configuration can transfer safely any substantial structural load.**.
When I first saw the image, my first thought was that this is the one end of a simply supported beam. I thought is was an accident waiting to happen. Some of the things I don't like that pop to mind:
* The two beams (of the column for that matter) do not seem connected in any way.
* the web resting on the column is unstable.
* the web is now more susceptible prone to buckling instability. (it reminds me of trying to balance a pencil on its tip).
* The reduction in second moment of area will be high (probably not important).
* the contact stresses will be high (depending on the load that the beam carries)
If it is still standing, I am guessing there might be the following:
* only because there beam does not carry any load.
* the way the beam is supported on the portion of the image we can't see. I expect that it probably is an overhang simply supported beam. Like the following image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aynBN.png)
The part that we see in the question photo is the red rectangle. So the beam might be adequately supported from the other side. If that's the case then this end doesn't transfer any substantial loads.
However, I honestly don't see, how this arrangement can carry any substantial structural load. | I am not a structural engineer, but this whole setup seems like an accident waiting to happen:
* Steel is far stronger than wood, therefore logic would dictate that a new steel beam of the same strength would be the same size or smaller than the wooden beam it is replacing - yet it is actually far larger, necessitating the cut to make it fit.
* I-beams are absolutely not meant to be cut in this manner - their very structure is designed for optimal load-bearing capability. This cut not only decreases the load-bearing capability of the beam, but also does so at a location where the beam is going to experience high stress. The end result is that the beam is significantly weakened.
* Steel is far heavier than wood, yet there has apparently been no provision made for reinforcing or replacing the support column(s) of the new beam.
* There is nothing joining the old and new beams to each other, or to the support column. The only thing preventing this whole shebang from coming apart is the weight of the wood above pressing down and keeping everything in place. Natural expansion and contraction of the beams and support column could easily, over time, lead to one or both of the beam ends shifting off the top of the support column - with likely disastrous consequences.
In short, **I would strongly recommend getting a second opinion from a different structural engineer**. What you've been sold seems incredibly unsafe. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | This is a textbook example of what not to do.
We don't get into stress concentration at the cut off of the corner of the beam, or the fact that the two very different stiffnesses of the beams are a constant cause of differential deflection and vibration.
The thin edge of the web sitting on the column cap is an unstable mechanism waiting to either kick the CC out from under it or rotating over it and causing the column cap to be pressured off from under the joint. Especially since there is no continuity between the new and old beam webs and flanges.
I would recommend:
==================
* Add a triangular splice at the bottom of the cut web to it and add to the lower flange an extension all the way to the CC with continuous weld all around.
* Add a 4-inch by 12-inch splice connecting the two beams on the web joint.
* Weld the flanges together.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AcHCf.jpg) | The lower flanges resists a downward bending force that puts tensile stress on the lower flanges. Removing a short section of the lower flange lowers its bending strength but because of the very short lever arm at the cut , bending stresses are relatively very low ; So a clever solution. The shear strength is also reduced but from the visual sizes ,the black beam is substantially stronger ,so a non-issue. I have used this same technique with wood when there is a space problem. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | This is a textbook example of what not to do.
We don't get into stress concentration at the cut off of the corner of the beam, or the fact that the two very different stiffnesses of the beams are a constant cause of differential deflection and vibration.
The thin edge of the web sitting on the column cap is an unstable mechanism waiting to either kick the CC out from under it or rotating over it and causing the column cap to be pressured off from under the joint. Especially since there is no continuity between the new and old beam webs and flanges.
I would recommend:
==================
* Add a triangular splice at the bottom of the cut web to it and add to the lower flange an extension all the way to the CC with continuous weld all around.
* Add a 4-inch by 12-inch splice connecting the two beams on the web joint.
* Weld the flanges together.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AcHCf.jpg) | I am not a structural engineer, but this whole setup seems like an accident waiting to happen:
* Steel is far stronger than wood, therefore logic would dictate that a new steel beam of the same strength would be the same size or smaller than the wooden beam it is replacing - yet it is actually far larger, necessitating the cut to make it fit.
* I-beams are absolutely not meant to be cut in this manner - their very structure is designed for optimal load-bearing capability. This cut not only decreases the load-bearing capability of the beam, but also does so at a location where the beam is going to experience high stress. The end result is that the beam is significantly weakened.
* Steel is far heavier than wood, yet there has apparently been no provision made for reinforcing or replacing the support column(s) of the new beam.
* There is nothing joining the old and new beams to each other, or to the support column. The only thing preventing this whole shebang from coming apart is the weight of the wood above pressing down and keeping everything in place. Natural expansion and contraction of the beams and support column could easily, over time, lead to one or both of the beam ends shifting off the top of the support column - with likely disastrous consequences.
In short, **I would strongly recommend getting a second opinion from a different structural engineer**. What you've been sold seems incredibly unsafe. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | The lower flanges resists a downward bending force that puts tensile stress on the lower flanges. Removing a short section of the lower flange lowers its bending strength but because of the very short lever arm at the cut , bending stresses are relatively very low ; So a clever solution. The shear strength is also reduced but from the visual sizes ,the black beam is substantially stronger ,so a non-issue. I have used this same technique with wood when there is a space problem. | I am not a structural engineer, but this whole setup seems like an accident waiting to happen:
* Steel is far stronger than wood, therefore logic would dictate that a new steel beam of the same strength would be the same size or smaller than the wooden beam it is replacing - yet it is actually far larger, necessitating the cut to make it fit.
* I-beams are absolutely not meant to be cut in this manner - their very structure is designed for optimal load-bearing capability. This cut not only decreases the load-bearing capability of the beam, but also does so at a location where the beam is going to experience high stress. The end result is that the beam is significantly weakened.
* Steel is far heavier than wood, yet there has apparently been no provision made for reinforcing or replacing the support column(s) of the new beam.
* There is nothing joining the old and new beams to each other, or to the support column. The only thing preventing this whole shebang from coming apart is the weight of the wood above pressing down and keeping everything in place. Natural expansion and contraction of the beams and support column could easily, over time, lead to one or both of the beam ends shifting off the top of the support column - with likely disastrous consequences.
In short, **I would strongly recommend getting a second opinion from a different structural engineer**. What you've been sold seems incredibly unsafe. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | This is a textbook example of what not to do.
We don't get into stress concentration at the cut off of the corner of the beam, or the fact that the two very different stiffnesses of the beams are a constant cause of differential deflection and vibration.
The thin edge of the web sitting on the column cap is an unstable mechanism waiting to either kick the CC out from under it or rotating over it and causing the column cap to be pressured off from under the joint. Especially since there is no continuity between the new and old beam webs and flanges.
I would recommend:
==================
* Add a triangular splice at the bottom of the cut web to it and add to the lower flange an extension all the way to the CC with continuous weld all around.
* Add a 4-inch by 12-inch splice connecting the two beams on the web joint.
* Weld the flanges together.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AcHCf.jpg) | If the white beam on the left is adequate, the one on the right is much bigger than it needs to be, so hacking a piece out of it might not matter.
In general this idea is a horrible example of engineering "design".
Still, if you follow the sticker on the wall and "maintain social distancing," that will reduce the number of deaths when it fails :) |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | **TL;DR: Since we can't see how the beam is supported on the other end, its not clear whether its structurally safe. Still, I don't believe this configuration can transfer safely any substantial structural load.**.
When I first saw the image, my first thought was that this is the one end of a simply supported beam. I thought is was an accident waiting to happen. Some of the things I don't like that pop to mind:
* The two beams (of the column for that matter) do not seem connected in any way.
* the web resting on the column is unstable.
* the web is now more susceptible prone to buckling instability. (it reminds me of trying to balance a pencil on its tip).
* The reduction in second moment of area will be high (probably not important).
* the contact stresses will be high (depending on the load that the beam carries)
If it is still standing, I am guessing there might be the following:
* only because there beam does not carry any load.
* the way the beam is supported on the portion of the image we can't see. I expect that it probably is an overhang simply supported beam. Like the following image.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aynBN.png)
The part that we see in the question photo is the red rectangle. So the beam might be adequately supported from the other side. If that's the case then this end doesn't transfer any substantial loads.
However, I honestly don't see, how this arrangement can carry any substantial structural load. | The lower flanges resists a downward bending force that puts tensile stress on the lower flanges. Removing a short section of the lower flange lowers its bending strength but because of the very short lever arm at the cut , bending stresses are relatively very low ; So a clever solution. The shear strength is also reduced but from the visual sizes ,the black beam is substantially stronger ,so a non-issue. I have used this same technique with wood when there is a space problem. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | While not an ideal situation, it is common enough that this type of cut/reduction of the beam as it comes to its support actually has a name. This is more often referred to as a coped or dapped steel I beam. There are various ways to transition from the full depth of the beam to the depth you may require at your support. Some examples are:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y4gez.png)
Sometimes the top flange (wide thin plate at top and bottom of beam) will also be cut back to permit connections to the sides of other beams and avoid interference with their flanges.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1JTO9.png)
At your connection, the moment your beam is required to support in this case is essentially 0. The moment is resisted primarily by the flanges that is why it is not that big of a deal to trim them back at the end of the beam in a simply supported case (ie not continuous with the next beam, or rigid connection to the support). I am assuming the span for the beam on the right is either much longer than the beam on the left, has a higher loading on it, or requires less deflection. Those would be some of the main criteria for using a deeper section.
The force you usually need to worry about at your column is shear. Shear is primarily carried by the web (tall thin vertical part of the beam). In your setup, Shear is greatest at the support. IF the loading conditions of the beam on the right is very similar or less than the beam on the left, you should be ok for the shear capacity in the web, because (assumption) the web of the beam on the left is about the same size as what is remaining on your beam on the right.
Now depending on the loading conditions, your beam may be absolutely fine the way it is. And after rereading your question, apparently it is just fine as an engineer signed off on it. It is just not common to see it without a few more pieces that are missing. These missing pieces would stress a few engineers to some degree without knowing the full loading conditions which your local engineer had access to.
If you compare your beam end detail to the detail in the first picture example you should notice a couple of things. First and foremost, there does not appear to be a flange welded on to the bottom of the cut web. This is done to help reduce the contact pressure of the web on the supporting material that it will rest on. You will often hear this piece of steal referred to a bearing plate or shoe. Shoe and bearing plate, and bottom flanges are typically anchored to their support in some fashion that keeps them from sliding out of place. It cannot be seen from the angle of your photo, but I am really hoping that the web of the beam on the right is welded to that thick steel plate at the top of your column. This help will keep it from slipping off.
The other thing you will note is a vertical stiffener plate (see picture below) in the example but not in your photo. While they are not always required (depends on code and loading conditions) it is quite common to find them at bearing support conditions at end of beams, under point loads, and around/adjacent to cut outs. There are other reasons for them too but not going into that detail. The job of the stiffener in this case would be to ad stability to the web and keep it from buckling.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mYuqH.png)
I once evaluated a bridge in a different region than me. My calculations showed the beam as being fine for shear and moment. A local engineer pointed out that there were no stiffener plates at the supports. In my region the beams are usually made up from welded plate that have been suitably sized for the required thickness and do not require these support stiffeners. I went into the code and did the check and it turned out the web without a stiffener plate was 50% undersized. I thought this was crazy that a bridge could have been around for so long without serious issues and be 50% undersized. I wound up going back about 4 versions of the bridge code, and between version 5 and version 4, the formula for calculating capacity changed and a 2 was added to the formula. So the bridge was fine when originally designed, but due to changes in the code, it now required support stiffeners. Thankfully a relatively easy fix.
That story mainly to tell you that an engineer with knowledge of local conditions and codes can be very helpful in keeping you out of trouble. You did the right thing by having a local structural engineer review the connection.
There is nothing wrong with dapping or coping a beam as long as the coping/dapping has been properly design to deal with the loading conditions it will be expected to face.
### UPDATE
Just stumbled on this photo while I was closing out my various google searches for images. It shows the type of connection people would ideally like to see. Note the copped wood timbers so the can fit inside the support steel I beam too! looks like they welded the top plate instead of bolting the beams to it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T15I4.jpg) | I am not a structural engineer, but this whole setup seems like an accident waiting to happen:
* Steel is far stronger than wood, therefore logic would dictate that a new steel beam of the same strength would be the same size or smaller than the wooden beam it is replacing - yet it is actually far larger, necessitating the cut to make it fit.
* I-beams are absolutely not meant to be cut in this manner - their very structure is designed for optimal load-bearing capability. This cut not only decreases the load-bearing capability of the beam, but also does so at a location where the beam is going to experience high stress. The end result is that the beam is significantly weakened.
* Steel is far heavier than wood, yet there has apparently been no provision made for reinforcing or replacing the support column(s) of the new beam.
* There is nothing joining the old and new beams to each other, or to the support column. The only thing preventing this whole shebang from coming apart is the weight of the wood above pressing down and keeping everything in place. Natural expansion and contraction of the beams and support column could easily, over time, lead to one or both of the beam ends shifting off the top of the support column - with likely disastrous consequences.
In short, **I would strongly recommend getting a second opinion from a different structural engineer**. What you've been sold seems incredibly unsafe. |
37,915 | I'd like to confirm whether the replaced beam in the attached picture is structurally sound given the end was cut to a T instead of an I. I had a qualified structural engineer approve the work but I'm curious about the engineering properties of the final result.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4FWz3.jpg) | 2020/09/30 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/37915",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/28861/"
] | The lower flanges resists a downward bending force that puts tensile stress on the lower flanges. Removing a short section of the lower flange lowers its bending strength but because of the very short lever arm at the cut , bending stresses are relatively very low ; So a clever solution. The shear strength is also reduced but from the visual sizes ,the black beam is substantially stronger ,so a non-issue. I have used this same technique with wood when there is a space problem. | Several comments above have suggested that the white and steel beams be welded together, however it looks to me like the white beam is wood! Even a gusset plate would be difficult, though not impossible, due to the great difference in width.
Regarding the cut steel beam, I would be suspicious of it unless the beam was *way* oversized. There is nothing at the bottom to stabilize the vertical web of the beam; with a heavy enough load it could buckle. Even a slight sideways bend (no longer resisted by the missing bottom web) could cascade as more and more load falls on the still-vertical portion of the vertical web. All in all, a thumbs down from me unless a replacement bottom web had been welded in (and connected to the remaining bottom web). |
7,239 | [Gödel's incompleteness theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#First_incompleteness_theorem) is wholly formal (in my understanding), and relies on a proof system that I assume is first-order. Does it make any difference to the theorem if higher-order logic is used?
Am I correct in thinking that it doesn't, because first-order logic is subsumed in higher-order logic?
Presumably, also, Gödel made use of a [Hilbert-style inference system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_system) and it doesn't make any difference if natural deduction type inference systems are used instead. | 2013/06/14 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7239",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | This is more on the lines of commentary on your question, rather than an answer.
If one uses the *usual* natural numbers then yes. But are there other systems of natural numbers?
1. There are non-standard integers: The integers are axiomatically defined by the Peano Axioms. We actually obtain them in a model. The question here is are all such models isomorphic - that is categorial. If we use second-order logic, they are; if first-order then not. But the initial segment of any non-standard integer model is isomorphic to the usual ones. So this doesn't work.
2. We could use topos rather than semantics for the PA axioms, this means the axioms are interpreted in a topos. This means that the topos must have a Natural Number Object. Whether there is a topos, within which the condition you specify fails, is for me, an open question. | Yes, if "natural numbers" is the commonly agreed on term from arithmetic. When there is no other possibility, there can only be the distinct, unqualified answer. |
431,243 | Where are female to female jumper wires used? They only have provision to allow other wires to be plugged into so cannot be used on breadboards. So, practically, where are they used? | 2019/04/07 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/431243",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/211240/"
] | Not on breadboards, that is true, but you can use them very well to connect to single pins of pin headers. For example the Raspberry Pi offers a 40-pin header, and the female jumper wires are a very convenient way to prope these pins.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TFbNj.jpg) | One use is to jumper between male headers found on circuit boards. |
164,344 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [Remote Desktop: Prompt before logging off user](https://superuser.com/questions/85164/remote-desktop-prompt-before-logging-off-user)
>
>
>
We have 1 xp machine that serveral people can remote desktop to. It is logged in at all times as just one user, which we all use the same login details for.
The problem is, that we never know when someone is currently connected or not. So we end up kicking the other person off, which is not very nice thing to do but more importantly they could be in the middle of something crucial.
I wondered if there was a way to prevent others from connecting once there is and RDP session already established? Or even better a way of prompting the user that someone is trying to connect, allow/dissallow kind of thing? | 2010/07/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/164344",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/43072/"
] | If you can afford a Windows Server license, it sounds like you should really be using [Windows Terminal Services](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Desktop_Services) for this.
If that won't work, there do exist workarounds to enable multiple remote desktop sessions simultaneously on Windows XP. Since it's unclear how that sits with Microsoft (they provided the feature in a beta version of SP2, then removed it - people subsequently hacked the beta files into the current versions of XP), I won't link to it, but if you look, it's not too hard to find it out there. | you don need windows server to prevent multiple remote desktop connections, just modify the remote desktop group policy accordingly. i'm on my phone now but i'll post instructions later, but google should provide some good info in the mean time. |
2,861,435 | I'm writing a file compressor utility in C++ that I want support for PCM WAV files, however I want to keep it in PCM encoding and just convert it to a lower sample rate and change it from stereo to mono if applicable to yield a lower file size.
I understand the WAV file header, however I have no experience or knowledge of how the actual sound data works. So my question is, would it be relatively easy to programmatically manipulate the "data" sub-chunk in a WAV file to convert it to another sample rate and change the channel number, or would I be much better off using an existing library for it? If it is, then how would it be done? Thanks in advance. | 2010/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2861435",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/258002/"
] | PCM merely means that the value of the original signal is sampled at equidistant points in time.
For stereo, there are two sequences of these values. To convert them to mono, you merely take piecewise average of the two sequences.
Resampling the signal at lower sampling rate is a little bit more tricky -- you have to filter out high frequencies from the signal so as to prevent alias (spurious low-frequency signal) from being created. | I don't think there's really the need of reinventing the wheel (unless you want to do it for your personal learning).
For instance you can try to use [libsnd](http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/) |
2,861,435 | I'm writing a file compressor utility in C++ that I want support for PCM WAV files, however I want to keep it in PCM encoding and just convert it to a lower sample rate and change it from stereo to mono if applicable to yield a lower file size.
I understand the WAV file header, however I have no experience or knowledge of how the actual sound data works. So my question is, would it be relatively easy to programmatically manipulate the "data" sub-chunk in a WAV file to convert it to another sample rate and change the channel number, or would I be much better off using an existing library for it? If it is, then how would it be done? Thanks in advance. | 2010/05/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2861435",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/258002/"
] | I agree with avakar and nico, but I'd like to add a little more explanation. Lowering the sample rate of PCM audio is not trivial unless two things are true:
1. Your signal only contains significant frequencies lower than 1/2 the new sampling rate ([Nyquist rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_theorem)). In this case you do not need an anti-aliasing filter.
2. You are downsampling by an integer value. In this case, downampling by N just requires keeping every Nth sample and dropping the rest.
If these are true, you can just drop samples at a regular interval to downsample. However, they are both probably not true if you're dealing with anything other than a synthetic signal.
To address problem one, you will have to filter the audio samples with a low-pass filter to make sure the resulting signal only contains frequency content up to 1/2 the new sampling rate. If this is not done, high frequencies will not be accurately represented and will alias back into the frequencies that can be properly represented, causing major distortion. Check out the [critical frequency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_theorem#Critical_frequency) section of this wikipedia article for an explanation of aliasing. Specifically, see figure 7 that shows 3 different signals that are indistinguishable by just the samples because the sampling rate is too low.
Addressing problem two can be done in multiple ways. Sometimes it is performed in two steps: an upsample followed by a downsample, therefore achieving rational change in the sampling rate. It may also be done using interpolation or other techniques. Basically the problem that must be solved is that the samples of the new signal do not line up in time with samples of the original signal.
As you can see, resampling audio can be quite involved, so I would take nico's advice and use an existing library. Getting the filter step right will require you to learn a lot about signal processing and frequency analysis. You won't have to be an expert, but it will take some time. | I don't think there's really the need of reinventing the wheel (unless you want to do it for your personal learning).
For instance you can try to use [libsnd](http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/) |
171,740 | I have a mental image of a humanoid species with hands possessing three fingers and two thumbs, on opposite sides of the hand:
\*note: it could be animalistic or reptilian, it doesn’t need to be exactly humanoid.
-What creatures would this species evolve from?
-Why would that species have evolved this design? | 2020/03/21 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/171740",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/72222/"
] | A group of people gets a stable form of functional polydactyly (1). Combined with evolutionary pressures to do more complicated stuff with your hands it would mean this genetic abnormality would more often happen until the people without it are considered the mutants who reverted a part of their evolution.
(1): <https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/a-sixth-finger-on-our-hands-would-actually-be-super-useful> | This hand arrangement could evolve from an intelligent creature whose hands had 2 fingers and a thumb that develop on the ulnar side. Then, a mutation might give the species an advantage over other species, but also causes ulnar dimelia. |
171,740 | I have a mental image of a humanoid species with hands possessing three fingers and two thumbs, on opposite sides of the hand:
\*note: it could be animalistic or reptilian, it doesn’t need to be exactly humanoid.
-What creatures would this species evolve from?
-Why would that species have evolved this design? | 2020/03/21 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/171740",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/72222/"
] | I'd risk saying tree dwellers, maybe some type of theropod before the loss of 2 of its fingers. You see, this design could be considered as zygodactyl as seen in these images:
Note that the external toe of the owl can swivel to switch between a zygodactyl foot for perching and a "eagle" foot for grabbing prey.
Now, why is this beneficial? The fact that it's common in tree-clinging birds should say enough: it's a great design for climbing and perching. So your hand could perhaps appear in a 5 digit reptilian that went somewhat along the theropod evolutionary path, eventually becorming a feathered creature with traits more found in tree-dwelling primates, maybe backed by a tail for additional support and improved balance. This hand would help it climb trees with ease and wrap its hands around branches, and would likely have sharp claws at the end of each finger. This path wouldn't be too different from ours, as our own opposing digit comes from our tree dwelling ancestors, except yours might also be able to have more controlled descends, going down trees head first due to having backwards facing claws, a trait which would stick around even after they left the trees. | This hand arrangement could evolve from an intelligent creature whose hands had 2 fingers and a thumb that develop on the ulnar side. Then, a mutation might give the species an advantage over other species, but also causes ulnar dimelia. |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | You never stated where you're from, so we cannot say if this is the normal procedure where you live. However, I think that singing a new contract *before* handing in your notice for the old is pretty common. After all, if you don't do it in this order, you could end up without a job.
On such a short notice and being a multi national company, I don't think they mean harm. Probably, they just need the time to get the contract through their buerocracy and mailing it back and forth would take too long.
Why don't you ask them if you can come over and sign the contract at their place before handing your notice to your old boss? | When I started [mumble] decades ago, seeing the paperwork on the first day on site was still pretty much the norm. You can still negotiate some terms in that setting, or if there's a real problem say so and ask for time to sanity check w/ your own lawyer. |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | You never stated where you're from, so we cannot say if this is the normal procedure where you live. However, I think that singing a new contract *before* handing in your notice for the old is pretty common. After all, if you don't do it in this order, you could end up without a job.
On such a short notice and being a multi national company, I don't think they mean harm. Probably, they just need the time to get the contract through their buerocracy and mailing it back and forth would take too long.
Why don't you ask them if you can come over and sign the contract at their place before handing your notice to your old boss? | I'm afraid it is the norm, especially when it comes to junior positions. As far as I know, they prefer to sign paperwork and have the introduction chat at the same day so that the soon-to-be employee doesn't have to come to the office for something that can be scheduled for the first day of work. Of course, it can also be used to "hurry" the candidate to sign something that cannot be (or is very difficult to be) renegotiated.
In any case, you should *always* read carefully the contract or any NDA before signing it. Read it as much times you need, paying attention that everything that was agreed with the HR people is there (salary, office hours, overtime, medical insurance, vacation days and any other benefits). If you find anything that doesn't feel right in your opinion, contact the HR person and request clarification.
Good luck!
\*\*Edit: \*\* As you have no formal offer yet, I think you're still on time to send a friendly email to HR asking for information, like "Sorry to bother you, but can you send me the benefits details again? It seems the email you sent me got lost". I don't think you should this with salary, tough. |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | >
> I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
>
>
>
Turning the table, why would an employer not want have people sign before their first day? I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:
* Binds an employee to that day, rather than a loose day say three weeks out before the employee has thought about moving, finished their old job, etc. Thus, **speeding up the hiring process.**
* The employer could have a lot of perspective employees breaking their signed offers off, and find this method to be more effective.
* **Prevents you from negotiating the offer.**
The last part is the most important. It sounds like you have received a very informal offer. It is entirely possible that something happens between your current job and starting the next job that could become a real problem, but not likely. What this does do is **put you into the position where the details you need to make a good decision are not provided when you have only one option left.**
You might know there is a good salary and a few benefits, but how detailed are they? Have they sent you a detailed benefits package (who, what, where, etc)? Do they have a 401k? Does this 401k have a vesting period? These are things that are essential to me when considering an offer.
On the other hand, I have had one job offer like this and I had absolutely no problems with it. Looking back, it was my best option at the time (and my first job, so I had nothing to lose!).
**note:** I made a big assumption here that you have probably done a lot of verbal communication, and not a ton of written. I figure you have a lot of macro detail, but it is crucial to have micro detail. | You never stated where you're from, so we cannot say if this is the normal procedure where you live. However, I think that singing a new contract *before* handing in your notice for the old is pretty common. After all, if you don't do it in this order, you could end up without a job.
On such a short notice and being a multi national company, I don't think they mean harm. Probably, they just need the time to get the contract through their buerocracy and mailing it back and forth would take too long.
Why don't you ask them if you can come over and sign the contract at their place before handing your notice to your old boss? |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | I'm afraid it is the norm, especially when it comes to junior positions. As far as I know, they prefer to sign paperwork and have the introduction chat at the same day so that the soon-to-be employee doesn't have to come to the office for something that can be scheduled for the first day of work. Of course, it can also be used to "hurry" the candidate to sign something that cannot be (or is very difficult to be) renegotiated.
In any case, you should *always* read carefully the contract or any NDA before signing it. Read it as much times you need, paying attention that everything that was agreed with the HR people is there (salary, office hours, overtime, medical insurance, vacation days and any other benefits). If you find anything that doesn't feel right in your opinion, contact the HR person and request clarification.
Good luck!
\*\*Edit: \*\* As you have no formal offer yet, I think you're still on time to send a friendly email to HR asking for information, like "Sorry to bother you, but can you send me the benefits details again? It seems the email you sent me got lost". I don't think you should this with salary, tough. | When I started [mumble] decades ago, seeing the paperwork on the first day on site was still pretty much the norm. You can still negotiate some terms in that setting, or if there's a real problem say so and ask for time to sanity check w/ your own lawyer. |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | >
> I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
>
>
>
Turning the table, why would an employer not want have people sign before their first day? I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:
* Binds an employee to that day, rather than a loose day say three weeks out before the employee has thought about moving, finished their old job, etc. Thus, **speeding up the hiring process.**
* The employer could have a lot of perspective employees breaking their signed offers off, and find this method to be more effective.
* **Prevents you from negotiating the offer.**
The last part is the most important. It sounds like you have received a very informal offer. It is entirely possible that something happens between your current job and starting the next job that could become a real problem, but not likely. What this does do is **put you into the position where the details you need to make a good decision are not provided when you have only one option left.**
You might know there is a good salary and a few benefits, but how detailed are they? Have they sent you a detailed benefits package (who, what, where, etc)? Do they have a 401k? Does this 401k have a vesting period? These are things that are essential to me when considering an offer.
On the other hand, I have had one job offer like this and I had absolutely no problems with it. Looking back, it was my best option at the time (and my first job, so I had nothing to lose!).
**note:** I made a big assumption here that you have probably done a lot of verbal communication, and not a ton of written. I figure you have a lot of macro detail, but it is crucial to have micro detail. | When I started [mumble] decades ago, seeing the paperwork on the first day on site was still pretty much the norm. You can still negotiate some terms in that setting, or if there's a real problem say so and ask for time to sanity check w/ your own lawyer. |
46,730 | I've been through a really long hiring process, almost 2 months. After 5 interviews with managers and directors, a psychotechnic evaluation and finally a health analysis, they called me, and told me that I got the job!
I'm really happy, but nervous at the same time, because they wanted me to start this following monday; I told them that I really needed a week to settle things in my current job. They were ok with this, and we set the starting day a week from now.
They also told me that the signing of the contract and the welcome to the company meeting will be on my first day.
I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
It's my first job at a big company so I wasn't fast enough to ask about it or inquire further, I was rushed because of the excitement, and couldn't think this through.
I want to add, though, that this is a multi-national company, and I don't think they are messy with this kind of things, but given the fact that I have to resign my current job without signing anything before, Im trusting completely that everything will go as planned.
What do you guys think about this?, Should I do something? Is this normal procedure? | 2015/05/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/46730",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/34493/"
] | >
> I always thought that an offer was supposed to be given, stating the starting day, and that it was meant to be signed before the first day.
>
>
>
Turning the table, why would an employer not want have people sign before their first day? I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:
* Binds an employee to that day, rather than a loose day say three weeks out before the employee has thought about moving, finished their old job, etc. Thus, **speeding up the hiring process.**
* The employer could have a lot of perspective employees breaking their signed offers off, and find this method to be more effective.
* **Prevents you from negotiating the offer.**
The last part is the most important. It sounds like you have received a very informal offer. It is entirely possible that something happens between your current job and starting the next job that could become a real problem, but not likely. What this does do is **put you into the position where the details you need to make a good decision are not provided when you have only one option left.**
You might know there is a good salary and a few benefits, but how detailed are they? Have they sent you a detailed benefits package (who, what, where, etc)? Do they have a 401k? Does this 401k have a vesting period? These are things that are essential to me when considering an offer.
On the other hand, I have had one job offer like this and I had absolutely no problems with it. Looking back, it was my best option at the time (and my first job, so I had nothing to lose!).
**note:** I made a big assumption here that you have probably done a lot of verbal communication, and not a ton of written. I figure you have a lot of macro detail, but it is crucial to have micro detail. | I'm afraid it is the norm, especially when it comes to junior positions. As far as I know, they prefer to sign paperwork and have the introduction chat at the same day so that the soon-to-be employee doesn't have to come to the office for something that can be scheduled for the first day of work. Of course, it can also be used to "hurry" the candidate to sign something that cannot be (or is very difficult to be) renegotiated.
In any case, you should *always* read carefully the contract or any NDA before signing it. Read it as much times you need, paying attention that everything that was agreed with the HR people is there (salary, office hours, overtime, medical insurance, vacation days and any other benefits). If you find anything that doesn't feel right in your opinion, contact the HR person and request clarification.
Good luck!
\*\*Edit: \*\* As you have no formal offer yet, I think you're still on time to send a friendly email to HR asking for information, like "Sorry to bother you, but can you send me the benefits details again? It seems the email you sent me got lost". I don't think you should this with salary, tough. |
688,495 | I have a large number of audio files, each of which contains the pronounciation of a certain word. I need to batch process these files such that they all sound equaly loud when I'm finished with them. I also wish to remove the short pauses that occur at the start and end of each file.
I am working on Mac Os X Mavericks but I can also do this on Windows 7.
Please state if your solution involves software which must be purchased.
Also, I can program using Python so if there is a command line solution which does not have a batch mode, I can probably program the batch part. | 2013/12/14 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/688495",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/200818/"
] | Two options spring to mind:
1. **[Audacity](http://audacity.sourceforge.net)** *(free/open source + multiplatform)* - provides batch processing of audio files using something called Chains. You can select from a list of effects, filters and edits. Here's [a video example of the process](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrqa876HJg). Check the [Audacity docs](http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Chains_-_for_batch_processing_and_effects_automation) for further information. *MP3 support is provided as a separate (free) install depending on your OS* - e.g. LAME encoder.
2. **[Adobe Audition](http://www.adobe.com/products/audition.html)** *(paid + Windows/OSX)* - Supports batch processing of audio files with multiple effects, filters, etc. More features and slicker interface than Audacity. Called Favourites in Audition [this video](http://tv.adobe.com/watch/no-stupid-questions-with-colin-smith/favorites-and-batch-processing-behaviors/) gives a quick introduction to the system and [this guide](http://helpx.adobe.com/audition/using/automating-common-tasks-cs6.html) may help too. | You can batch trim silence at the beginning and the end with Amadeus Pro for Mac OS (need to purchase). You can also normalize (make the same loudness) with Amadeus, but normalization is much more complicated process. There is normalization by the actual loudness of the file and perceived loudness. Amadeus can only provide 'actual loudness normalization'. For perceived loudness you better use Platinum Notes or JRiver Media Center. Need to purchase both. I work with such kind of software every day and, unfortunately, didn't find anything free good enough.
But, if you can program, you can try to find something free with Replay Gain algorithm (it's used in JRiver). Not sure, but you might find something. But you should have in mind that most of the players using Replay Gain can not save the files normalized. Only play them. |
73,076 | I am asking if there are noted philosophers that have thought about the following paradox before, or something resembling it.
Democracy is seen here as a system in which a nation is governed by a majority.
If most people are too immoral to let them be free in their choice, then democracy can't be the solution? Because if *most* people are too immoral to let them live their own life in freedom, how can they suddenly be trusted to choose something important, like the political leadership?
It seems to me that if you are too immoral, than you can't be trusted. But if most people are moral enough to take responsibility themselves, then you don't need much politics. You still need law, but not the politicians who will decide what people have to do. | 2020/05/18 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/73076",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/28454/"
] | This was Hobbes' original argument, that the mass of people were too immoral — venal, violent, selfish — to effectively govern themselves. They thus needed a strong, dominating government to create and enforce civil society. Of course, Hobbes wasn't overtly arguing for dictatorship or totalitarianism. He felt that choosing such a government was a *rational* choice, and that people should collectively *choose* to establish the government that would best restrain all for the benefit of everyone. In that sense he was echoing Aristotle's earlier distinction between a *polity* (community-centered government by virtuous citizens) and a *democracy* (senseless government by the unlettered, emotion-driven masses), with the twist that the emotion-driven masses could construct a polity for themselves by rationally adopting a set of oppressive institutions.
Of course, Hobbes' views were unpopular within the early Liberal movement, for all the obvious reasons, and most of early Liberal philosophy rejected his premise outright. They re-conceptualized people as, variously, rational individualists (Locke), community-oriented contractarians (Rousseau), or gregarious bargainers pulled together by their desire for trade and variety (Smith). The idea that people are 'too immoral to be free in their choice' is dismissed outright by the first two, and tempered into competitiveness by the last, so it ceased for a while to be a philosophical problem.
The issue wasn't revisited again until a century later, when political thinkers in the soon-to-be United States were faced with the task of implementing a pragmatic system of Liberal governance. Some of them, at least, were uncomfortable merely denying Hobbes' insight even as they clung to the more positive ideals, so they adopted a new strategy that was a bit of a mix of all of the earlier political thinking. They decided to create a system that leveraged all of these human weaknesses and follies. They came up with what we call *Madisonian democracy*, or sometimes *agonistic democracy*: a system in which people are expected to be self-interested and independent, but in which power is distributed so broadly, with so many checks and balances that pit each body and each individual against every other, that people will have to be cooperative and socially conscious merely to get the things that they selfishly want. It's a political version of Smith's economic 'Invisible Hand', combined with institutional and contractual controls on the accumulation of power into a small number of hands. It isn't a pretty system, and it's filled with numerous traps and dangers for the unwary, but it has stood the test of time thus far. | * As Plato has noted in his Republic, even a gang of thieves cannot keep its unity nor functon correctly without adopting certain rules of justice. In particular, thieves will adopt the rule according to which theft is forbidden inside the gang.
* So, ok, each person is ( by hypothesis) immoral.
But, immorality is precisely the kind of behavior that even immoral persons do not want to get generalized ( Kant noted this point).
For example, even racists will not vote a law according to which racial discrimination is universally ok , even if it is, say, black segregationism against white people. White racists are not ok with racism *in general* .
People that practice tax fraud are not ok with fraud in general : they want to have schools, hospitals, roads, police and army forces ; they want, as citizens , the State to be able to fullfil its missions.
* So I would say that the immorality of people is not an argument against democracy provided people are only allowed to vote laws that apply universally to everyone, ***even to themselves***.
What I've just said is inspired by Rousseau , On Social Contract.
See also Rawls, A Theory Of Justice.
* Another answer would be : democracy is not the ruling of the people, but the ***controlling of rulers*** by the people. |
73,076 | I am asking if there are noted philosophers that have thought about the following paradox before, or something resembling it.
Democracy is seen here as a system in which a nation is governed by a majority.
If most people are too immoral to let them be free in their choice, then democracy can't be the solution? Because if *most* people are too immoral to let them live their own life in freedom, how can they suddenly be trusted to choose something important, like the political leadership?
It seems to me that if you are too immoral, than you can't be trusted. But if most people are moral enough to take responsibility themselves, then you don't need much politics. You still need law, but not the politicians who will decide what people have to do. | 2020/05/18 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/73076",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/28454/"
] | This was Hobbes' original argument, that the mass of people were too immoral — venal, violent, selfish — to effectively govern themselves. They thus needed a strong, dominating government to create and enforce civil society. Of course, Hobbes wasn't overtly arguing for dictatorship or totalitarianism. He felt that choosing such a government was a *rational* choice, and that people should collectively *choose* to establish the government that would best restrain all for the benefit of everyone. In that sense he was echoing Aristotle's earlier distinction between a *polity* (community-centered government by virtuous citizens) and a *democracy* (senseless government by the unlettered, emotion-driven masses), with the twist that the emotion-driven masses could construct a polity for themselves by rationally adopting a set of oppressive institutions.
Of course, Hobbes' views were unpopular within the early Liberal movement, for all the obvious reasons, and most of early Liberal philosophy rejected his premise outright. They re-conceptualized people as, variously, rational individualists (Locke), community-oriented contractarians (Rousseau), or gregarious bargainers pulled together by their desire for trade and variety (Smith). The idea that people are 'too immoral to be free in their choice' is dismissed outright by the first two, and tempered into competitiveness by the last, so it ceased for a while to be a philosophical problem.
The issue wasn't revisited again until a century later, when political thinkers in the soon-to-be United States were faced with the task of implementing a pragmatic system of Liberal governance. Some of them, at least, were uncomfortable merely denying Hobbes' insight even as they clung to the more positive ideals, so they adopted a new strategy that was a bit of a mix of all of the earlier political thinking. They decided to create a system that leveraged all of these human weaknesses and follies. They came up with what we call *Madisonian democracy*, or sometimes *agonistic democracy*: a system in which people are expected to be self-interested and independent, but in which power is distributed so broadly, with so many checks and balances that pit each body and each individual against every other, that people will have to be cooperative and socially conscious merely to get the things that they selfishly want. It's a political version of Smith's economic 'Invisible Hand', combined with institutional and contractual controls on the accumulation of power into a small number of hands. It isn't a pretty system, and it's filled with numerous traps and dangers for the unwary, but it has stood the test of time thus far. | The argument is wrong because we are not consistently immoral. Maybe 20% would be immoral concerning personal property, 20% immoral concerning treatment of animals, 20% immoral about sex with children. Plenty of bad things would happen if everyone had absolute freedom, but in a democracy there would be a large majority against any of these immoral things.
The argument is also wrong because even an immoral person understands it is bad for themselves if everyone is free to do what they like. Even thieves think that *their* property should be safe, and their wives should not be in fear of rapists. So in a democracy, even immoral people would vote for moral behaviour. With some regrets, perhaps, and they would be hypocritical, but they would still vote for moral behaviour. |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | In the above example, in a computer context, either form is "legal". The choice really has to do with the wider context of how you are discussing permission, and therefore which form is more consistent.
Eg, if the set of bits controlling permission is referred to as "permissions" (vs, say, "permission bits") then "a permission" is appropriate. But if "permissions" is not used in describing the set then the article "a" is likely inappropriate. | ***[Permission](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/permission)*** is an uncountable noun:
(noun [ U ] UK)
>
> * If someone is given permission to do something, they are allowed to do it:
> + *[ + to infinitive ] You will need permission from your parents to go on the trip.*
>
>
>
note:
***Permit vs permission***:
>
> * ***The countable noun permit*** (pronounced /ˈpɜ:mɪt/) refers to an official document that allows you to do something or go somewhere. ***The uncountable noun permission*** refers to when someone is allowed to do something. It does not refer to a document.
>
>
>
Checking with [Ngram](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a%20permission%20&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ca%20permission%3B%2Cc0) you can see that "permission" is also used as a countable noun, not only in information technology contexts.
I think the reason is that it is often used with the meaning of a single instance, like a permit. |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | ***[Permission](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/permission)*** is an uncountable noun:
(noun [ U ] UK)
>
> * If someone is given permission to do something, they are allowed to do it:
> + *[ + to infinitive ] You will need permission from your parents to go on the trip.*
>
>
>
note:
***Permit vs permission***:
>
> * ***The countable noun permit*** (pronounced /ˈpɜ:mɪt/) refers to an official document that allows you to do something or go somewhere. ***The uncountable noun permission*** refers to when someone is allowed to do something. It does not refer to a document.
>
>
>
Checking with [Ngram](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a%20permission%20&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ca%20permission%3B%2Cc0) you can see that "permission" is also used as a countable noun, not only in information technology contexts.
I think the reason is that it is often used with the meaning of a single instance, like a permit. | I'm sure you realise most advanced access control schemes have
* resource
* user
* user group
* role
* permission
On one end is the user, attempting to access the resource on the other end.
There are a couple of granularity of access, with \*ix OS being read/write/execute/sticky, and Windows being read/write/execute/list/delete/other-whatnots.
Let's stick to the simple, where permission is granted by the resources as
* read
* write
* exec
The resource may grant such permission either to individual users, a user group, or to a role.
Where a role may be appropriately named such as admin, sys, nobody, public, trumplover, highstrunguser, etc.
Where a user or a group can be tagged as having a number of roles.
As you can see, there are multiple ways a user can have executable access to a resource.
Therefore, you should not even use the term "permission" because "permission" is only one facet of the access flow. The accepted term is "access", that is why such schemes are called *Access Control*, ACL (Access Control Lists).
The way we say it is
>
> Make sure the user has *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
Since there are multiple ways the user may be allowed this *execute* access, and you wish to emphasize at least one *execute* access pathway, you would say
>
> Make sure the user has an *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
However, you say "make sure user has an execute permission", when you are intending to say to your colleagues,
>
> I wish to test our new fangled ACL scheme. Please make sure each of the 100 users has an *execute* permission. Each user's *execute* permission can either be from the application or from the server, or both. That *execute* permission could be granted directly to the user, or to one of its user-groups, or to one of its roles. Each user should have an *execute* permission, and no two users should have the same ACL combination. I want to trace the *execute* attempts of different ACL combinations.
>
>
> |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | ***[Permission](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/permission)*** is an uncountable noun:
(noun [ U ] UK)
>
> * If someone is given permission to do something, they are allowed to do it:
> + *[ + to infinitive ] You will need permission from your parents to go on the trip.*
>
>
>
note:
***Permit vs permission***:
>
> * ***The countable noun permit*** (pronounced /ˈpɜ:mɪt/) refers to an official document that allows you to do something or go somewhere. ***The uncountable noun permission*** refers to when someone is allowed to do something. It does not refer to a document.
>
>
>
Checking with [Ngram](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a%20permission%20&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ca%20permission%3B%2Cc0) you can see that "permission" is also used as a countable noun, not only in information technology contexts.
I think the reason is that it is often used with the meaning of a single instance, like a permit. | The only time " a permission" is used is in the phrase "a permission letter" or in a similar structure; otherwise, "permission" is a non-countable noun. |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | In the above example, in a computer context, either form is "legal". The choice really has to do with the wider context of how you are discussing permission, and therefore which form is more consistent.
Eg, if the set of bits controlling permission is referred to as "permissions" (vs, say, "permission bits") then "a permission" is appropriate. But if "permissions" is not used in describing the set then the article "a" is likely inappropriate. | I'm sure you realise most advanced access control schemes have
* resource
* user
* user group
* role
* permission
On one end is the user, attempting to access the resource on the other end.
There are a couple of granularity of access, with \*ix OS being read/write/execute/sticky, and Windows being read/write/execute/list/delete/other-whatnots.
Let's stick to the simple, where permission is granted by the resources as
* read
* write
* exec
The resource may grant such permission either to individual users, a user group, or to a role.
Where a role may be appropriately named such as admin, sys, nobody, public, trumplover, highstrunguser, etc.
Where a user or a group can be tagged as having a number of roles.
As you can see, there are multiple ways a user can have executable access to a resource.
Therefore, you should not even use the term "permission" because "permission" is only one facet of the access flow. The accepted term is "access", that is why such schemes are called *Access Control*, ACL (Access Control Lists).
The way we say it is
>
> Make sure the user has *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
Since there are multiple ways the user may be allowed this *execute* access, and you wish to emphasize at least one *execute* access pathway, you would say
>
> Make sure the user has an *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
However, you say "make sure user has an execute permission", when you are intending to say to your colleagues,
>
> I wish to test our new fangled ACL scheme. Please make sure each of the 100 users has an *execute* permission. Each user's *execute* permission can either be from the application or from the server, or both. That *execute* permission could be granted directly to the user, or to one of its user-groups, or to one of its roles. Each user should have an *execute* permission, and no two users should have the same ACL combination. I want to trace the *execute* attempts of different ACL combinations.
>
>
> |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | In the above example, in a computer context, either form is "legal". The choice really has to do with the wider context of how you are discussing permission, and therefore which form is more consistent.
Eg, if the set of bits controlling permission is referred to as "permissions" (vs, say, "permission bits") then "a permission" is appropriate. But if "permissions" is not used in describing the set then the article "a" is likely inappropriate. | The only time " a permission" is used is in the phrase "a permission letter" or in a similar structure; otherwise, "permission" is a non-countable noun. |
354,911 | We have a small discussion with colleagues regarding the article usage in a sentence "Make sure that the user has a permission to execute X".
Should I use "a" article there? E.g.
>
> Make sure that the user has **a** permission to execute X.
>
>
>
vs
>
> Make sure that the user has permission to execute X.
>
>
>
Is there any rule that permits to omit an article here? | 2016/10/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354911",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/199602/"
] | I'm sure you realise most advanced access control schemes have
* resource
* user
* user group
* role
* permission
On one end is the user, attempting to access the resource on the other end.
There are a couple of granularity of access, with \*ix OS being read/write/execute/sticky, and Windows being read/write/execute/list/delete/other-whatnots.
Let's stick to the simple, where permission is granted by the resources as
* read
* write
* exec
The resource may grant such permission either to individual users, a user group, or to a role.
Where a role may be appropriately named such as admin, sys, nobody, public, trumplover, highstrunguser, etc.
Where a user or a group can be tagged as having a number of roles.
As you can see, there are multiple ways a user can have executable access to a resource.
Therefore, you should not even use the term "permission" because "permission" is only one facet of the access flow. The accepted term is "access", that is why such schemes are called *Access Control*, ACL (Access Control Lists).
The way we say it is
>
> Make sure the user has *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
Since there are multiple ways the user may be allowed this *execute* access, and you wish to emphasize at least one *execute* access pathway, you would say
>
> Make sure the user has an *execute* access with application-resourceA on cpu-resourceB.
>
>
>
However, you say "make sure user has an execute permission", when you are intending to say to your colleagues,
>
> I wish to test our new fangled ACL scheme. Please make sure each of the 100 users has an *execute* permission. Each user's *execute* permission can either be from the application or from the server, or both. That *execute* permission could be granted directly to the user, or to one of its user-groups, or to one of its roles. Each user should have an *execute* permission, and no two users should have the same ACL combination. I want to trace the *execute* attempts of different ACL combinations.
>
>
> | The only time " a permission" is used is in the phrase "a permission letter" or in a similar structure; otherwise, "permission" is a non-countable noun. |
38,293,441 | I am currently building a deep learning model to recognize images. From what I have read, data augmentation such as random cropping of images will lead to less overfitting of the model. However, I am not sure if doing it excessively will lead to a worse model. Of course, I can try one with more cropping and one with less cropping. But the problem is how can I know if the problem arises from the number of crops made.
***Will making all possible crops of a size m x m from an image of size n x n lead to a better performance of the model?***
I believe that it will. My reasoning is this: when we train a deep learning model, we look at the train loss and validation loss and train the model until it has a very low loss. Assume that initially we have a train set of 1000 images and the model takes 100 epochs to train. Now, we crop 10x extra images from the original train set. Each epoch can now be seen as equivalent to 10 epochs in the previous model which has less training data. However, each of training data in this 10 epochs is slightly different, compared with 10x duplicates in the previous model. Surely, this will lead to less overfitting. Is my reasoning correct?
***In that case, is there any downsides of cropping all possible images of a smaller size, assuming that we have enough computational resources?***
Currently I am looking at cropping all possible 64x64 images from an image of 72x72 which gives me a total of 64 new images per original image.
I have not seen any papers that deal with this. I will appreciate if someone can point me to one. Thanks. | 2016/07/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/38293441",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Answering your question, no. It will not harm performance, it will add, however, a few miliseconds to the general process. Maybe the best answer you could get is experiment with different approaches. | From my experiments, the performance gain is negligible and might lead to overfitting since similar images are repeatedly seen. |
10,963,903 | In a scenario where you have to perform multiple operations at the service end, on a form submission, e.g. inserting data into multiple tables, is it better to make a single service call having a large datacontract or multiple service calls with multiple small datacontracts?
To elaborate my question further, with an example, let's say we have a form for adding a "conference". That form allows users to fill information about the conference e.g. ConferenceName, ConferenceDate, ...., Presenters, Sponsors, etc. Since some of the information would be inserted in the conference table, some in the ConferencePresenters table and some in the ConferenceSponsors table. So would it be better to send all the data to the webservice using a single call with a large datacontract or to have separate service calls with multiple datacontracts?
Which of the two is more expensive - having a large datacontract or multiple service calls? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10963903",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/741636/"
] | It's hard to quantify *better*. But you could consider things like bandwidth, atomicity, service organization, etc.
For bandwidth, one big chunky request will be faster over the wire since each request adds time. Plus, the client is not waiting for n\*latency for the various entities to be created before their children (for lack of a better word) are.
I assume you have a database backing your service, which would let you do this operation in a transaction. If you choose to have a chatty service, you'll be on your own for managing rollbacks, etc.
Another important thing to consider is how your service API is designed. Does the chunky operation make sense? If you find your chunk growing with optional operations, you could factor those out. If you find that 2 apis are always called together and make sense to combine, combine them.
So, you'll probably find that having a large data contract is more performant for operations like you mentioned above (Creation of a conference with sponsors, etc.), but you have make sure the performance boost is worth the tradeoffs of having such a big, specific api call. | You can also look at this problem from an architecture point of view.
You have a service:
* A Service should represent something with business meaning.
* A Service should not leak information about the internal implementation of the service, including the table structure of the database
From this point of view you should have a single operation. |
10,963,903 | In a scenario where you have to perform multiple operations at the service end, on a form submission, e.g. inserting data into multiple tables, is it better to make a single service call having a large datacontract or multiple service calls with multiple small datacontracts?
To elaborate my question further, with an example, let's say we have a form for adding a "conference". That form allows users to fill information about the conference e.g. ConferenceName, ConferenceDate, ...., Presenters, Sponsors, etc. Since some of the information would be inserted in the conference table, some in the ConferencePresenters table and some in the ConferenceSponsors table. So would it be better to send all the data to the webservice using a single call with a large datacontract or to have separate service calls with multiple datacontracts?
Which of the two is more expensive - having a large datacontract or multiple service calls? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10963903",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/741636/"
] | It's hard to quantify *better*. But you could consider things like bandwidth, atomicity, service organization, etc.
For bandwidth, one big chunky request will be faster over the wire since each request adds time. Plus, the client is not waiting for n\*latency for the various entities to be created before their children (for lack of a better word) are.
I assume you have a database backing your service, which would let you do this operation in a transaction. If you choose to have a chatty service, you'll be on your own for managing rollbacks, etc.
Another important thing to consider is how your service API is designed. Does the chunky operation make sense? If you find your chunk growing with optional operations, you could factor those out. If you find that 2 apis are always called together and make sense to combine, combine them.
So, you'll probably find that having a large data contract is more performant for operations like you mentioned above (Creation of a conference with sponsors, etc.), but you have make sure the performance boost is worth the tradeoffs of having such a big, specific api call. | Chunky, every time, or as chunky as you possibly can be. Rule of thumb make conversations as large as possible, it cuts down on chaff. |
10,963,903 | In a scenario where you have to perform multiple operations at the service end, on a form submission, e.g. inserting data into multiple tables, is it better to make a single service call having a large datacontract or multiple service calls with multiple small datacontracts?
To elaborate my question further, with an example, let's say we have a form for adding a "conference". That form allows users to fill information about the conference e.g. ConferenceName, ConferenceDate, ...., Presenters, Sponsors, etc. Since some of the information would be inserted in the conference table, some in the ConferencePresenters table and some in the ConferenceSponsors table. So would it be better to send all the data to the webservice using a single call with a large datacontract or to have separate service calls with multiple datacontracts?
Which of the two is more expensive - having a large datacontract or multiple service calls? | 2012/06/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10963903",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/741636/"
] | You can also look at this problem from an architecture point of view.
You have a service:
* A Service should represent something with business meaning.
* A Service should not leak information about the internal implementation of the service, including the table structure of the database
From this point of view you should have a single operation. | Chunky, every time, or as chunky as you possibly can be. Rule of thumb make conversations as large as possible, it cuts down on chaff. |
5,705,653 | **The Project**
We have a competition coded in PHP, with CodeIgniter. The form has validation on email addresses and mobile numbers. The page itself is hosted inside an iframe on a different domain (it's an agency-client relationship).
**The Problem**
We get users with 1000s of entries. We know they are fake because:
1. They use the same mobile number - assumedly they figure out a mobile number that passes the validation and then use that every time.
2. The email addresses are all on weird domains, with some of the domains repeated multiple times.
However, the IP addresses are unique, the entries are spread over a few days, the domains themselves have MX records, the user-agents look normal.
The client doesn't want to do anything which could result in fewer entries.
**The Question**
What are the pros and cons of methods like Captcha? What UI and code patterns have you used that worked?
One method I read is to allow entries that are suspicious, so that spammers entries are accepted, but their data has a 'suspicious' flag against it, which is then checked manually. What data can I check to see whether it is suspicious? | 2011/04/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5705653",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/582278/"
] | Some methods you could use:
* **Captcha**: Stops bots submitting the form
* **Email Validation**: Send them an email with a unique link to *activate* their competition entry. Stops invalid email addresses.
* **Mobile Number Validation**: Send them a text message with an *activation code*. Stops invalid phone numbers.
In my opinion your approach should not be to prevent submission of entries but to require a level of validation on the details entered. | Captcha is perfect in spam protection while confusing people very often.
But there is a workaround - You can use JavaScript to hide the captcha for real users (using browsers with JavaScript turned ON) while it will always be "visible" for spam bots (that do not have JS). It's quite simple - just by using of JS You set the div where the captcha is held to display:none, and create a hidden input with value containing that from captcha image...
Strongest approach may be the email validation - but then it means sometimes the rwritting of application. If user submit his reply You register it as not active and send him a validation email to the email address provided. If it is valid, after clicking on the link he will validate his email answer and You can turn his reply to status active...
Also a good workaround for users to prevent the re-submitting of forms on refresh is to redirect users to that same page after the form is submitted and processed... Yes, it takes a second or two longer to view the result, but it's much safer... |
5,705,653 | **The Project**
We have a competition coded in PHP, with CodeIgniter. The form has validation on email addresses and mobile numbers. The page itself is hosted inside an iframe on a different domain (it's an agency-client relationship).
**The Problem**
We get users with 1000s of entries. We know they are fake because:
1. They use the same mobile number - assumedly they figure out a mobile number that passes the validation and then use that every time.
2. The email addresses are all on weird domains, with some of the domains repeated multiple times.
However, the IP addresses are unique, the entries are spread over a few days, the domains themselves have MX records, the user-agents look normal.
The client doesn't want to do anything which could result in fewer entries.
**The Question**
What are the pros and cons of methods like Captcha? What UI and code patterns have you used that worked?
One method I read is to allow entries that are suspicious, so that spammers entries are accepted, but their data has a 'suspicious' flag against it, which is then checked manually. What data can I check to see whether it is suspicious? | 2011/04/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5705653",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/582278/"
] | CONS of CAPTCHA:
1. Users hate it, and it can be frustrating when implemented poorly (failed captcha resets other form fields for instance).
2. Can be difficult for legit users to complete when the letters are hard to read.
3. Doesn't always work. Someone just [scammed Ticketmaster by beating ReCAPTCHA](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/wiseguys-plead-guilty/) a few months ago for instance\*.
4. Ugly, more code to implement, and it passes the burden or responsibility from you to the users. PROVE YOU ARE HUMAN is not what I want to see when sending a form, very insulting.
@Nick's got the right idea, use text/email validation. IP checking can be OK sometimes, but as you said, you're getting unique IPs with the same mobile number, so it's not reliable.
There are lots of great posts here regarding CAPTCHA alternatives, definitely worth a read if you plan on employing it. You'll probably have to find a balance between making it easy for the user (encouraging submissions) and front end security techniques.
Why though, can't you simply disregard duplicate mobile numbers or phome number + IP combination? Just because they can can submit multiple times doesn't mean you have to accept it. If it is a human, let them think they are sending in multiple votes :)
>
> \*Ticketmaster used various means
> to try to thwart Wiseguy’s operation,
> at one point switching to a service
> called reCaptcha, which is also used
> by Facebook. It’s a third-party
> Captcha that feeds a Captcha challenge
> to a site’s visitors. When a customer
> tries to purchase tickets,
> Ticketmaster’s network sends a unique
> code to reCaptcha, which then
> transmits a Captcha challenge to the
> customer.
>
>
> But the defendants allegedly were
> able to thwart this, as well. They
> wrote a script that impersonated users
> trying to access Facebook, and
> downloaded hundreds of thousands of
> possible Captcha challenges from
> reCaptcha, prosecutors maintained.
> They identified the file ID of each
> Captcha challenge and created a
> database of Captcha “answers” to
> correspond to each ID. The bot would
> then identify the file ID of a
> challenge at Ticketmaster and feed
> back the corresponding answer. The bot
> also mimicked human behavior by
> occasionally making mistakes in typing
> the answer, authorities said.
>
>
> | Captcha is perfect in spam protection while confusing people very often.
But there is a workaround - You can use JavaScript to hide the captcha for real users (using browsers with JavaScript turned ON) while it will always be "visible" for spam bots (that do not have JS). It's quite simple - just by using of JS You set the div where the captcha is held to display:none, and create a hidden input with value containing that from captcha image...
Strongest approach may be the email validation - but then it means sometimes the rwritting of application. If user submit his reply You register it as not active and send him a validation email to the email address provided. If it is valid, after clicking on the link he will validate his email answer and You can turn his reply to status active...
Also a good workaround for users to prevent the re-submitting of forms on refresh is to redirect users to that same page after the form is submitted and processed... Yes, it takes a second or two longer to view the result, but it's much safer... |
1,152,571 | Just would like to know if anyone has tried using source control for Infopath 2007 forms specifically for Subversion. Is it advisable to upload these type of sources (not in text format) in SVN? | 2009/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1152571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | By versioning .xsn files you’re putting binary files under version control which has some drawbacks:
1. No ability to compare between versions (although SVN can compare bitmap files).
2. No ability to merge with the work of other users.
Having said that, there are still benefits:
1. You can revert work in progress at any time.
2. You can roll back to a previous revision at any time.
3. You can easily share your work with others (although you have the merge limitation mentioned above).
4. You can still store your code in a central location.
If the drawbacks are not showstoppers then I’d do it for the sake of the benefits.
BTW, remember there are plenty of other binary files often stored in SCM; bitmap images, Flash animations etc. | Yes you can add this type of data to subversion is added in octeam-sream type, next you can use subversion and administrate versions. |
1,152,571 | Just would like to know if anyone has tried using source control for Infopath 2007 forms specifically for Subversion. Is it advisable to upload these type of sources (not in text format) in SVN? | 2009/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1152571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The InfoPath form .xsn is a packed container format that contains a bunch of XML files and some images.
I would rather sugesst to extract the InfoPath form to source files and check them in.
You can work on source files as well as on the packed `.xsn` of course.
The source files are XML and the **history can be tracked** well by SVN. | Yes you can add this type of data to subversion is added in octeam-sream type, next you can use subversion and administrate versions. |
1,152,571 | Just would like to know if anyone has tried using source control for Infopath 2007 forms specifically for Subversion. Is it advisable to upload these type of sources (not in text format) in SVN? | 2009/07/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1152571",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | By versioning .xsn files you’re putting binary files under version control which has some drawbacks:
1. No ability to compare between versions (although SVN can compare bitmap files).
2. No ability to merge with the work of other users.
Having said that, there are still benefits:
1. You can revert work in progress at any time.
2. You can roll back to a previous revision at any time.
3. You can easily share your work with others (although you have the merge limitation mentioned above).
4. You can still store your code in a central location.
If the drawbacks are not showstoppers then I’d do it for the sake of the benefits.
BTW, remember there are plenty of other binary files often stored in SCM; bitmap images, Flash animations etc. | The InfoPath form .xsn is a packed container format that contains a bunch of XML files and some images.
I would rather sugesst to extract the InfoPath form to source files and check them in.
You can work on source files as well as on the packed `.xsn` of course.
The source files are XML and the **history can be tracked** well by SVN. |
100,393 | We have Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and (I hope I remember it right) in the Kaer Maga Handbook they even mention that mixing halflings and humans often ends up in handicapped children. But I have never heard of Half-Dwarves in Golarion. Is there a reason why they do not exist in Golarion? Or do they exist and I have simply not found the source yet? | 2017/05/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/100393",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15567/"
] | ### Golarion dwarves cannot breed with non-supernatural races
*Player Companion: Bastards of Golarion* has a sidebar discussing this. For whatever reason, Pathfinder's developers have decided that gnomes, halflings, and dwarves cannot have crossbreeds with other PC races. It's detailed in a sidebar on page 33. I'm not sure the design and writing reason, but the in-universe reason is as follows:
>
> **WHY ARE THERE NO HALF-DWARVES?**
>
>
> Although humans can have children with many other races, there are limits to this gift. Half-dwarves, half-gnomes, half-halflings, and numerous other combinations are all but unheard of on Golarion. Biological incompatibility is the first and foremost reason that such half-races cannot exist. Simply put, dwarves, gnomes, and others just aren’t compatible with other races, even humans.
>
>
> In a realm shrouded in magic, it would be foolish to assume no spell in the known multiverse could produce a viable child between a dwarf and a humanoid of another race. Indeed, dwarven aasimars and gnome tieflings are known to exist, arising through the influence of outsiders or because of magical anomalies understood by few. A *miracle* or *wish* spell could likewise result in the birth of a half-dwarf, though the individuals able or willing to practice such spellcraft are few and far between.
>
>
> | From a gaming history standpoint, like a lot of things this can be traced back to Tolkien. *The Lord of the Rings* has both half-elves and half-orcs, but no half-dwarves or half-hobbits (the people of Gondor refer to hobbits as "halflings", hence the D&D name, but that's because they're half the size of a human, not because they're the product of interbreeding).
Pathfinder inherits the player races of D&D 3.5, since much of the setting was drawn from D&D games that the designers ran, and because one of the design goals was to be backwards-compatible with D&D 3.5. |
100,393 | We have Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and (I hope I remember it right) in the Kaer Maga Handbook they even mention that mixing halflings and humans often ends up in handicapped children. But I have never heard of Half-Dwarves in Golarion. Is there a reason why they do not exist in Golarion? Or do they exist and I have simply not found the source yet? | 2017/05/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/100393",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15567/"
] | ### Golarion dwarves cannot breed with non-supernatural races
*Player Companion: Bastards of Golarion* has a sidebar discussing this. For whatever reason, Pathfinder's developers have decided that gnomes, halflings, and dwarves cannot have crossbreeds with other PC races. It's detailed in a sidebar on page 33. I'm not sure the design and writing reason, but the in-universe reason is as follows:
>
> **WHY ARE THERE NO HALF-DWARVES?**
>
>
> Although humans can have children with many other races, there are limits to this gift. Half-dwarves, half-gnomes, half-halflings, and numerous other combinations are all but unheard of on Golarion. Biological incompatibility is the first and foremost reason that such half-races cannot exist. Simply put, dwarves, gnomes, and others just aren’t compatible with other races, even humans.
>
>
> In a realm shrouded in magic, it would be foolish to assume no spell in the known multiverse could produce a viable child between a dwarf and a humanoid of another race. Indeed, dwarven aasimars and gnome tieflings are known to exist, arising through the influence of outsiders or because of magical anomalies understood by few. A *miracle* or *wish* spell could likewise result in the birth of a half-dwarf, though the individuals able or willing to practice such spellcraft are few and far between.
>
>
> | Originally, the [Derro](http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Derro) were supposed to be half-dwarves/half-human, as illustrated by [this post](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hf07?HalfDwarves#21) from [James Jacobs](http://paizo.com/people/JamesJacobs) (Paizo's Creative Direction) from 2007, and again on [this thread](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hcvy?What-races-to-chose-from#18), illustrating his love for derros.
The idea, of course, was scrapped [sometime later](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jw7j?You-know-what-I-love-about-Pathfinder-the#31) (2008) during the development of Pathfinder and [Golarion as a campaign setting](http://paizo.com/products/btpy84eo?Pathfinder-Chronicles-Campaign-Setting) (2009).
Aparently, the source of that is much older than Golarion. Back in the Monster Mannual for 3.x, Derros used to be half-dwarf/half-human. On D&D 2nd edition's [Scarlet Brotherhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Brotherhood), a regional sourcebook for the Greyhawk campaign setting written by [Sean K. Reynolds](http://paizo.com/people/SeanKReynolds) (ex-developer from Paizo) in 1999, also claimed that they were dwarf and human hybrids created by wizards that wanted a race of thralls completely loyal to them (the Derro, here, being a failure on that objective).
The source of all this might be the **2nd edition's Monster Mannual II** (1983, by Gary Gygax) that stated that derro were possibly half-human/half-dwarf hybrids.
>
> The derro are a degenerate race of dwarf-like stature, possibly a cross
> between evil humans and dwarves. They inhabit the great subterranean
> realms common to drow and their ilk (kuo-toans, mind flayers, troglodytes,
> etc.).
>
>
> (...)
>
>
> Derroes are very much like humans, only shorter and slightly more muscular in proportion to their height. Their features tend towards grossness. Their hair is pale tanoryellow, their skin isverywhitewith a bluish undertone, and their eyes are very large.
>
>
>
Back when the [Curse of the Crimson Throne](http://paizo.com/products/btpy81xw?Pathfinder-7-Curse-of-the-Crimson-Throne-Chapter-1-Edge-of-Anarchy) was originally published (2008), all references to Derros used the 3.5's *Monster Manual* and nothing in the book mentioned anything about their origin or what they actually are. It's safe to assume [their new identity with new flavor](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=609?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#30428) wasn't set in stone yet.
Their new flavor and origin in Golarion was actually revealed in the [Into the Darklands](http://paizo.com/products/btpy85ej?Pathfinder-Chronicles-Into-the-Darklands) campaign setting book (later that same year):
>
> The origins of the derro are murky at best, but study of
> ancient orc carvings and dwarven texts reveals a disturbing
> truth—the derro existed long before either of those races
> rose to prominence in Nar-Voth tens of thousands of years
> ago. (...)
> In fact, the first **derro are the descendants of a much
> more benign stone-loving fey race known as the pech**.
> After the fall of the Vault Keepers, one tribe of pech chose
> to flee upward through the Darklands, and when they
> reached the surface world they realized they had gone
> as far as they could go.
>
>
>
You asked why we don't have half-dwarves, since we have half-orcs and half-elves. When asked [why we got half-orcs](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqwl?Why-HalfOrc#5) (2008), James Jacobs answered this:
>
> We're going with half-orcs for two reasons.
>
>
> 1) Half-orcs have been a player choice for race since first edition, and as the previous poster mentions, **we're trying to retain the feel of D&D as much as possible in the Pathfinder RPG**.
>
>
> 2) Orcs are monsters in Pathfinder, not heroes. There are several other great games that present orcs as heroes, but that's not the type of game we're trying to present the baseline for with the Pathfinder RPG. The core rules are meant to steer players toward playing the more humanlike races for a reason; because the main world those rules will support, Golarion, is a world built with those races in mind. In Golarion, the orcs are ravenous, brutal, savage monsters; an orc PC wouldn't fit well into the setting as a result unless the campaign he was playing in was an all-orc game.
>
>
> That all said... this doesn't mean that you can't choose to play an orc anyway. Nor does it mean we'll NEVER present the orc as a PC race in an expansion to the rules a few years down the road. It's just not one of the baseline choices we want to present for the core game.
>
>
> In closing... you're right about there not being many half-orcs in the world. There aren't many half-elves either. But both races make GREAT choices for PCs, since this lets a PC play the "underdog" or the character who has no real home to call his own. Also, keep in mind that in any one campaign, you've only got around 5 PCs at a time, so even if ALL of them are half-orcs, that's still only 5 people overall; half-orcs can still be rare and be a PC race without making the race common.
>
>
>
Half-dwarves, aside from Darksun campaign setting and the Derro from Greyhawk, have never been a popular player choice, unlike half-orcs and half-elves. |
100,393 | We have Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and (I hope I remember it right) in the Kaer Maga Handbook they even mention that mixing halflings and humans often ends up in handicapped children. But I have never heard of Half-Dwarves in Golarion. Is there a reason why they do not exist in Golarion? Or do they exist and I have simply not found the source yet? | 2017/05/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/100393",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/15567/"
] | From a gaming history standpoint, like a lot of things this can be traced back to Tolkien. *The Lord of the Rings* has both half-elves and half-orcs, but no half-dwarves or half-hobbits (the people of Gondor refer to hobbits as "halflings", hence the D&D name, but that's because they're half the size of a human, not because they're the product of interbreeding).
Pathfinder inherits the player races of D&D 3.5, since much of the setting was drawn from D&D games that the designers ran, and because one of the design goals was to be backwards-compatible with D&D 3.5. | Originally, the [Derro](http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Derro) were supposed to be half-dwarves/half-human, as illustrated by [this post](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hf07?HalfDwarves#21) from [James Jacobs](http://paizo.com/people/JamesJacobs) (Paizo's Creative Direction) from 2007, and again on [this thread](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hcvy?What-races-to-chose-from#18), illustrating his love for derros.
The idea, of course, was scrapped [sometime later](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jw7j?You-know-what-I-love-about-Pathfinder-the#31) (2008) during the development of Pathfinder and [Golarion as a campaign setting](http://paizo.com/products/btpy84eo?Pathfinder-Chronicles-Campaign-Setting) (2009).
Aparently, the source of that is much older than Golarion. Back in the Monster Mannual for 3.x, Derros used to be half-dwarf/half-human. On D&D 2nd edition's [Scarlet Brotherhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Brotherhood), a regional sourcebook for the Greyhawk campaign setting written by [Sean K. Reynolds](http://paizo.com/people/SeanKReynolds) (ex-developer from Paizo) in 1999, also claimed that they were dwarf and human hybrids created by wizards that wanted a race of thralls completely loyal to them (the Derro, here, being a failure on that objective).
The source of all this might be the **2nd edition's Monster Mannual II** (1983, by Gary Gygax) that stated that derro were possibly half-human/half-dwarf hybrids.
>
> The derro are a degenerate race of dwarf-like stature, possibly a cross
> between evil humans and dwarves. They inhabit the great subterranean
> realms common to drow and their ilk (kuo-toans, mind flayers, troglodytes,
> etc.).
>
>
> (...)
>
>
> Derroes are very much like humans, only shorter and slightly more muscular in proportion to their height. Their features tend towards grossness. Their hair is pale tanoryellow, their skin isverywhitewith a bluish undertone, and their eyes are very large.
>
>
>
Back when the [Curse of the Crimson Throne](http://paizo.com/products/btpy81xw?Pathfinder-7-Curse-of-the-Crimson-Throne-Chapter-1-Edge-of-Anarchy) was originally published (2008), all references to Derros used the 3.5's *Monster Manual* and nothing in the book mentioned anything about their origin or what they actually are. It's safe to assume [their new identity with new flavor](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=609?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#30428) wasn't set in stone yet.
Their new flavor and origin in Golarion was actually revealed in the [Into the Darklands](http://paizo.com/products/btpy85ej?Pathfinder-Chronicles-Into-the-Darklands) campaign setting book (later that same year):
>
> The origins of the derro are murky at best, but study of
> ancient orc carvings and dwarven texts reveals a disturbing
> truth—the derro existed long before either of those races
> rose to prominence in Nar-Voth tens of thousands of years
> ago. (...)
> In fact, the first **derro are the descendants of a much
> more benign stone-loving fey race known as the pech**.
> After the fall of the Vault Keepers, one tribe of pech chose
> to flee upward through the Darklands, and when they
> reached the surface world they realized they had gone
> as far as they could go.
>
>
>
You asked why we don't have half-dwarves, since we have half-orcs and half-elves. When asked [why we got half-orcs](http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqwl?Why-HalfOrc#5) (2008), James Jacobs answered this:
>
> We're going with half-orcs for two reasons.
>
>
> 1) Half-orcs have been a player choice for race since first edition, and as the previous poster mentions, **we're trying to retain the feel of D&D as much as possible in the Pathfinder RPG**.
>
>
> 2) Orcs are monsters in Pathfinder, not heroes. There are several other great games that present orcs as heroes, but that's not the type of game we're trying to present the baseline for with the Pathfinder RPG. The core rules are meant to steer players toward playing the more humanlike races for a reason; because the main world those rules will support, Golarion, is a world built with those races in mind. In Golarion, the orcs are ravenous, brutal, savage monsters; an orc PC wouldn't fit well into the setting as a result unless the campaign he was playing in was an all-orc game.
>
>
> That all said... this doesn't mean that you can't choose to play an orc anyway. Nor does it mean we'll NEVER present the orc as a PC race in an expansion to the rules a few years down the road. It's just not one of the baseline choices we want to present for the core game.
>
>
> In closing... you're right about there not being many half-orcs in the world. There aren't many half-elves either. But both races make GREAT choices for PCs, since this lets a PC play the "underdog" or the character who has no real home to call his own. Also, keep in mind that in any one campaign, you've only got around 5 PCs at a time, so even if ALL of them are half-orcs, that's still only 5 people overall; half-orcs can still be rare and be a PC race without making the race common.
>
>
>
Half-dwarves, aside from Darksun campaign setting and the Derro from Greyhawk, have never been a popular player choice, unlike half-orcs and half-elves. |
25,112 | I have 2 kids. 3.5 yrs old girl and 10 month boy. We live in apartment.
Daily my kids used to make mess in whole house. What I mean my "mess" is that they put their toys everywhere, drag their washed cloths here and there, take out kitchen items and play with those, never allow us to throw their nappy boxes and play with it. But not painting on the wall, pulling/tilting over furniture etc. They do have their room to play. But they never played there. My younger one just follows my daughter's toys. He haven't started his own messing yet.
Sometimes it is up to a point where I have to watch my every step when I walk in to house. For me it's really hard to clean and vacuum after long day at work. Whenever friends and families come over, I don't have time to clean and house looks very messy. It's really embarrassing.
This is where me and wife used to argue. I prefer a reasonably clean house with a dedicated play area. And I argue with her saying,
>
> you haven't properly trained them to behave. You should teach them to play and pick-up the toys after that.
>
>
>
But she tells
>
> kids need to learn and I should let then play creatively anywhere. And we don't have back yard as well. So this is the only option to me.
>
>
>
I am wondering am I reacting too much? or is it very common on every-houses with similar age kids/toddlers? | 2016/05/30 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/25112",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/22318/"
] | It is a very common problem. I've been to plenty of houses that looked like the way you described yours. But I think the problem has several causes:
1) Too many accessible toys. The bulk of the toys needs to be in an area or closet where kids cannot get to. Kids love unpacking so they'd unpack whatever they can put their hands on. If the toys are out of reach, that doesn't happen. There should still be some toys they can reach, though. But those should preferably be the ones that are easiest to put way. Personally I like having less toys, but quality toys, around. I keep putting away bags of toys that aren't be played with anymore.
2) Kids need to learn to clean up. This doesn't apply to very young kids who can't clean up (the 10 month old). Still, before the next toy is brought out, the previous toy should be packed up. Only one or two toys out at a time. Mom has to get down and clean up with the kids to show them how it's done (they don't learn magically on their own). | Make cleaning up a family activity. When you get home (or even once a week) do a clean up game with your kids. Make it short (like 10 minute putting all toys in a proper bin) and don't worry too much about what didn't get done. It's only the big visual things that matter, not dust free environment.
That way your kids learn to clean and it isn't turning into an argument between you and your wife that between sitting at home all day between 2 yelling kids she doens't do enough cleaning.
Also you get quick about it so just 15 minutes before other people stop by you can do a quick cleaning with your kids and you don't need to be embarrassed about it anymore. |
25,112 | I have 2 kids. 3.5 yrs old girl and 10 month boy. We live in apartment.
Daily my kids used to make mess in whole house. What I mean my "mess" is that they put their toys everywhere, drag their washed cloths here and there, take out kitchen items and play with those, never allow us to throw their nappy boxes and play with it. But not painting on the wall, pulling/tilting over furniture etc. They do have their room to play. But they never played there. My younger one just follows my daughter's toys. He haven't started his own messing yet.
Sometimes it is up to a point where I have to watch my every step when I walk in to house. For me it's really hard to clean and vacuum after long day at work. Whenever friends and families come over, I don't have time to clean and house looks very messy. It's really embarrassing.
This is where me and wife used to argue. I prefer a reasonably clean house with a dedicated play area. And I argue with her saying,
>
> you haven't properly trained them to behave. You should teach them to play and pick-up the toys after that.
>
>
>
But she tells
>
> kids need to learn and I should let then play creatively anywhere. And we don't have back yard as well. So this is the only option to me.
>
>
>
I am wondering am I reacting too much? or is it very common on every-houses with similar age kids/toddlers? | 2016/05/30 | [
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/25112",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com",
"https://parenting.stackexchange.com/users/22318/"
] | It is a very common problem. I've been to plenty of houses that looked like the way you described yours. But I think the problem has several causes:
1) Too many accessible toys. The bulk of the toys needs to be in an area or closet where kids cannot get to. Kids love unpacking so they'd unpack whatever they can put their hands on. If the toys are out of reach, that doesn't happen. There should still be some toys they can reach, though. But those should preferably be the ones that are easiest to put way. Personally I like having less toys, but quality toys, around. I keep putting away bags of toys that aren't be played with anymore.
2) Kids need to learn to clean up. This doesn't apply to very young kids who can't clean up (the 10 month old). Still, before the next toy is brought out, the previous toy should be packed up. Only one or two toys out at a time. Mom has to get down and clean up with the kids to show them how it's done (they don't learn magically on their own). | Your oldest kid this might not work anymore but this was our solution:
1. lock everything they are not allowed to play with (especially kitchen and medical stuff, rooms and drawers/closets). These things are great:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WYZvD.jpg)
2. Make rest of the room kids friendly. don't leave your own stuff laying around everywhere keep, the rooms clean and simple.
3. For things that can't be removed but should not be played with: be clear and constantly say no and punish for it.
4. For the rest let them roam around and plunder. I think kids should be allowed to explore but certain things are off limits and that's fine. Just make sure they don't have too many toys and things they can pull out of the closet. |
25,565 | Iran is a Shia country. Turkey and Pakistan are both Sunni countries. Both of them have borders with Iran.
It seems to me that [Turkey-Iran relationship is functioning well](https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2017/10/19/turkey-and-iran-to-maintain-cooperation-in-security-economy), but, Iran-Pakistan relationship is not.
1. June 21, 2017 - [Iranian drone shot down by PAF, confirms FO](https://www.dawn.com/news/1340897).
2. May 8, 2017 - [Iran threatens to cross Pakistan border](http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iran-warns-pakistan-terror-safe-heavens-jaish-al-adl-militant-group/1/948716.html).
3. [Revealed: What Iran did for India and why it is hurt](http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03spec1.htm)
4. [Iran rejects allegations of its agencies’ links to Uzair Baloch](https://www.dawn.com/news/1327101)
So, why is that going on like this? | 2017/10/19 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25565",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Common interests:
Iran and Turkey both have an interest in preventing greater autonomy for their Kurdish regions. They are both involved in opposing Daesh, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
On the other hand, elements in Pakistan have been tolerant of Taliban and Al Qaeda. There is no common enemy, like the Kurds, for Iran and Pakistan to join in opposition.
Such alliances are often fragile and relatively short lived. | Since the question is built on the most common religious beliefs in the said countries, one possible and alternative answer is in the [Constitution of Turkey](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey).
>
> *Article 2: Characteristics of the Republic*
>
>
> The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, **secular** and social state
> governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public
> peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal
> to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set
> forth in the Preamble.
>
>
>
Turkey is a secular state and foreign affairs don't have to be based on any religion. Even some practices of Justice and Development Party (AKP) cannot change that.
For example: [2008 Justice and Development Party closure trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Justice_and_Development_Party_closure_trial) |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | ***[Goodness knows](http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/goodness+knows)*** is a derivation of *God* *knows*, so it is still 'religious' but not overtly so.
>
> goodness knows
>
>
> 1. No one knows. (A variant of "God knows.")
> *Goodness knows how long it will take for my application to be processed*.
> 2. It is true, certain, or definite that; it is obvious or clear that.
>
>
>
If you want to go aggressively secular, there is ***[Fuck knows](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck_knows)***
>
> fuck knows
>
>
> (idiomatic, vulgar, followed by a wh-clause) I don't know; nobody
> knows; it is unclear. Fuck knows what
> we'll do now the car's broken down.
>
>
>
but while 'fuck knows' can substitute in many situations, the requirement for a subsequent wh-clause means it wouldn't work in your example construction. | Using '***so***' instead.
"*Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.*"
'*Heaven knows*' here is underlining/emphasising the speaker's awareness of not being perfect - "Not only am I not perfect,..." they are saying, "...but it's clear for all to see that I'm not perfect." <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/heaven-knows>
This negative emphatic sense of 'heaven knows' can often be heard using '***so***' (<http://painintheenglish.com/case/427>).
"*I'm **so** not perfect when it comes to exercise.*" |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | In London a commonn saying is "fuck knows"
I know this is vulgar but it is by far the most common variation of the phrase where I live and it's not religious, so hey :) | With a reference to an avoidance of Heaven and religion, I think "remains to be evident" is appropriate and universally fitting. It also offers some depth into a span of contexts.
My favorite comes out of the scientific and political contexts within the medical and health industries. Variations of "sufficient research is not available at this time" certainly offers immense vagueness, and often, seemingly intentional ambiguity with a touch of legal security. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | >
> **try as I may** and **try as I might**
>
>
>
[from the free dictionary](http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/try+as+I+may)
>
> Cliché a phrase that introduces an expression of regret or failure.
>
>
> *Bill: Try as I may, I cannot get this thing put together right. Andy: Did you read the instructions?*
>
>
> *Rachel: Wow! This place is a mess! Mother: **Try as I might**, I can't get Andrew to clean up after himself.*
>
>
>
So, for your example:
"Try as I may, I'm not perfect when it comes to excercize"
I think this answer isn't some sort of santized version of the apeal to spiritual 'karma' | With a reference to an avoidance of Heaven and religion, I think "remains to be evident" is appropriate and universally fitting. It also offers some depth into a span of contexts.
My favorite comes out of the scientific and political contexts within the medical and health industries. Variations of "sufficient research is not available at this time" certainly offers immense vagueness, and often, seemingly intentional ambiguity with a touch of legal security. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | ***[Goodness knows](http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/goodness+knows)*** is a derivation of *God* *knows*, so it is still 'religious' but not overtly so.
>
> goodness knows
>
>
> 1. No one knows. (A variant of "God knows.")
> *Goodness knows how long it will take for my application to be processed*.
> 2. It is true, certain, or definite that; it is obvious or clear that.
>
>
>
If you want to go aggressively secular, there is ***[Fuck knows](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck_knows)***
>
> fuck knows
>
>
> (idiomatic, vulgar, followed by a wh-clause) I don't know; nobody
> knows; it is unclear. Fuck knows what
> we'll do now the car's broken down.
>
>
>
but while 'fuck knows' can substitute in many situations, the requirement for a subsequent wh-clause means it wouldn't work in your example construction. | You could always try to be more explicit, and describe specifically what you want to say. For instance:
* I can't say how we can solve this.
* I really don't know the answer.
* This might not work, but I think it's worth a try.
For something more idiomatic, but also more explicit, try "I haven't a clue".
>
> I haven't got a clue where this is going to end up.
>
>
> |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | ***Goodness knows***... (when I'll see you again).
<http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/goodness+knows>
OR,
***Who knows/can tell***...(when I'll see you again).
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/who_knows> | "The dogs in the street know" is sometimes used in the context of the 'everyone knows' meaning. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | Another "aggressively secular" option (aside from the excellent *fuck knows*) is to replace heaven/god with the name or title of a deity/demon you don't actually believe in. E.g.
* The goddess knows
* Cthulu knows
* etc.
I consider these "secular" in that they're not associated with any actual/professed religious belief by the speaker and making a clear point to avoid saying "god", and "aggressive" in that they're likely to be offensive to an audience who actually is religious and believes in one god, and possibly also to people who are associated with alternative/occult/etc. beliefs and who might interpret your words as mocking their beliefs. | "The dogs in the street know" is sometimes used in the context of the 'everyone knows' meaning. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | The phrase is rather **ambigous**, so replacing it really depends on what you want to say:
* Your example means *'Everyone knows'*.
* But **usually** one means *'Nobody knows'*, e.g. : *'God/Heaven knows when we'll meet again'*.
For meaning **one**: use. *'Surely'* or *'Everyone knows'*.
For meaning **two**: use *'Who knows'*.. | [***Evidently***](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidently) seems to be an appropriate alternative in this context.
>
> in an evident manner : clearly, obviously ([Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidently))
>
>
> to all appearances; apparently (Collins via [The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidently))
>
>
>
I like this one because it feels like a great counterpoint: *evidently*, relating to evidence as in science, counter to the religious expression, which references the speaker's faith in some omniscient power.
It's important to note that "heaven knows" has two somewhat opposite definitions:
>
> (1) used to mean "I don't know"
>
>
> (2) used to emphasize a statement
>
>
>
([Cambridge Dictionary](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/goodness-god-heaven-christ-knows))
Within the context of the OP's phrase, I believe "heaven knows" is used in its 2nd sense. *Evidently* is synonymous with this definition, but it is antonymous to the 1st one.
>
> Evidently, I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I also like it because *evidently* is just high-brow enough to sound slightly self-deprecating in this context, perhaps even more so when the phrase is spoken rather than written. It gives the phrase a somewhat humorous and humble tone. Contrast that with the more common:
>
> Obviously, I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
...which to me comes off as a bit sarcastic, and:
>
> Clearly, I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
...which comes off as a bit frustrated, relative to *evidently*.
>
> Apparently, I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
...somewhat implies reaching a conclusion, accepting mediocrity, or giving up.
Of course, these are just my personal impressions of the shades of meaning these words carry in this particular context. YMMV. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | In your example "heaven knows" or "the Lord knows" is an emphatic way to say "this is true". One way to express that is with **"the truth is"**:
>
> The truth is, I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
You can also leave out the word "the", and just use "Truth is, …", which is easier to say, and might sound a little more folksy.
This expresses the same idea, minus the religious references, as "heaven knows" in your example, while avoiding commenting on which other people might already know about it. Instead of a deity as an arbiter of truth, it refers to [the truth](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20truth):
>
> the real facts about something: the things that are true
>
>
> | "The dogs in the street know" is sometimes used in the context of the 'everyone knows' meaning. |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | Using '***so***' instead.
"*Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.*"
'*Heaven knows*' here is underlining/emphasising the speaker's awareness of not being perfect - "Not only am I not perfect,..." they are saying, "...but it's clear for all to see that I'm not perfect." <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/heaven-knows>
This negative emphatic sense of 'heaven knows' can often be heard using '***so***' (<http://painintheenglish.com/case/427>).
"*I'm **so** not perfect when it comes to exercise.*" | You could always try to be more explicit, and describe specifically what you want to say. For instance:
* I can't say how we can solve this.
* I really don't know the answer.
* This might not work, but I think it's worth a try.
For something more idiomatic, but also more explicit, try "I haven't a clue".
>
> I haven't got a clue where this is going to end up.
>
>
> |
376,246 | Are there any nonreligious versions of the phrase "heaven knows"? For example:
>
> Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.
>
>
>
I've heard other religious variants like "the Lord knows", but I can't find a nonreligious version. | 2017/03/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/376246",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/9598/"
] | Using '***so***' instead.
"*Heaven knows I'm not perfect when it comes to exercise.*"
'*Heaven knows*' here is underlining/emphasising the speaker's awareness of not being perfect - "Not only am I not perfect,..." they are saying, "...but it's clear for all to see that I'm not perfect." <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/heaven-knows>
This negative emphatic sense of 'heaven knows' can often be heard using '***so***' (<http://painintheenglish.com/case/427>).
"*I'm **so** not perfect when it comes to exercise.*" | With a reference to an avoidance of Heaven and religion, I think "remains to be evident" is appropriate and universally fitting. It also offers some depth into a span of contexts.
My favorite comes out of the scientific and political contexts within the medical and health industries. Variations of "sufficient research is not available at this time" certainly offers immense vagueness, and often, seemingly intentional ambiguity with a touch of legal security. |
49,453 | I'm attempting to build a rocket with 8 fins (four on bottom and four smaller ones towards the top). The four fins near to the top will be attached to servo motors and programmed to stabilize or guide the rocket. The problem I ran into is that if the rocket spins, then the fins will be useless, the rocket would just spiral. So is there something I can do or add to the rocket so that it won't spin? Any help will be greatly appreciated, I'm relatively new at this. | 2021/01/07 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/49453",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/38853/"
] | UK guided missiles historically tended to use a "twist and pitch" scheme, which only requires two steerable fins. The vehicle rolls to the correct angle and varies in pitch.
It might be worth looking into that as it may require less weight for the actuators, and it may be conceptually easier to understand. | No. Fins on the opposite sides need to have an opposite angle. Thus, their net result will be a torque to the rocket, which can compensate the spin. |
49,453 | I'm attempting to build a rocket with 8 fins (four on bottom and four smaller ones towards the top). The four fins near to the top will be attached to servo motors and programmed to stabilize or guide the rocket. The problem I ran into is that if the rocket spins, then the fins will be useless, the rocket would just spiral. So is there something I can do or add to the rocket so that it won't spin? Any help will be greatly appreciated, I'm relatively new at this. | 2021/01/07 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/49453",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/38853/"
] | Foreword: This is generally considered a difficult proposition, and [books](http://www.arapress.com/vertical-trajectory-systems-print-version/) have been written on the subject. This "technology" could also fall under [ITAR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations), so that's why there was some hesitation in answering your question at first. The consensus in the model rocket community seems to be as long as the goal is straight up, and not towards a target, it's fine, but [IANAL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL). There is also a lot of additional information in [this thread](https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/i-could-use-just-a-little-guidance.122042/) on the Rocketry Forum.
**Basic Rocket Science**
Every flying thing has two very important points that determine how well it will fly, known as the [Center of Pressure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_pressure_%28fluid_mechanics%29) (CP) and the [Center of Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass) (CM). The CM you are probably most familiar with; it is also known as the centroid, and is essentially the "average" location of the mass of the vehicle. In other words, if you were to cut the vehicle in half along any line that passed through the CM, both halves would weight the same. The CP is similar, but rather than worrying about the mass, you are averaging the drag/lift on the whole vehicle.
Odd as it may seem, you can largely predict how any airplane or rocket will perform just by knowing where these points are. If you want pictures, there's a great explanation here: <https://i.imgur.com/qoJjVPu.jpg>
Putting that diagram in words, if your CP is "behind" your CM with regards to the direction you want to go, then it will be stable, generally wanting to stay going in a straight line, like a dart or an arrow. If your CP is ahead of your CM, it will want to flip around and fly butt-first. This is bad. If they are aligned, your rocket will just flip all over the place, like a sheet of paper. You can also experiment with this by making a paper airplane, and placing a paperclip at different places along the centerline. Where it is placed will affect the behavior of the plane.
If you want the most maneuverable vehicle, like a stunt plane or a missile, you want your CP and CM to be close together, so that the control surfaces (the things you can adjust, like ailerons, rudder, etc.) don't have to move that much to have a large effect. You might think that therefore you should have fins at the front and the back, to balance the CP, but it's not that simple:
1. The rocket nose itself generates a lot of drag, generally causing the CP to be roughly centered with just rear fins.
2. The CM on a rocket moves during flight. The rocket motor is generally the heaviest part of the rocket, and is generally located at the back of the rocket. For this reason, the CM generally moves forward during flight. If your CP & CM are close at the start of the flight, they will be far apart once the motor has burned, which means the flight behavior you start out with is not what you have a few seconds later. Rockets which have this problem generally wobble a lot right off the launchpad, then suddenly straighten out and go flying in a weird direction. The wobbling will make control more difficult.
For mainly the second reason, you generally want to have ~2 "calibers" of stability for your rocket. This means that your CP is roughly 2 body-tube diameters behind your CM when you launch.
Now, you might say "But if I can build a "stable" rocket without controlled fins, then what good is active stabilization?" There are a couple things that control could solve, one of which you have already mentioned:
1. **Spin:** If the fins are not perfect, or if the rocket nozzle is offset, or for many other reasons, non-stabilized rockets can spin. A "guided" rocket (I would use "stabilized") could overcome this problem, leading to a prettier launch, better on-board video, etc. A worthy goal.
2. **Weathercocking:** If you are launching with a slight wind, or if there is wind at altitude, then as the rocket travels through it, it will want to fly into the wind. A stabilized rocket could adjust to keep going perfectly straight, which would be awesome. However, you should note that the rocket comes back down through the wind, this time on a parachute that travels downwind. Often flying slightly into the wind is good, as it can lead to the rocket touching down close to the launch site, rather than drifting a mile downwind. Your stabilized rocket could account for this, though, and calculate an optimum angle to get it to land back on the pad.
**Design of Control Surfaces**
Although I said that fins up high might not be the best idea, some rockets *do* have the controlled fins higher up, this is because they are incorporated into the avbay. Harder to design aerodynamically, easier to build mechanically.
**Controller Design**
Servo motors should work as actuators, at worst if they are underpowered you will still have a stable rocket. I don't know what you are planning to use for a microcontroller, but a fast arduino should work, you may have to optimize your code though. You will also need something to sense your position - not GPS, that is too slow, you probably want an IMU breakout board (a bunch of accelerometers that tells you your position). This gets you your computer, your position, and control of your control surfaces.
For the actual control algorithm the PID (Proportional-Integral-Derivative) family is probably your best bet. Starting out with just P control is what I would recommend, then add I once P is working okay. P control means that there is a link between how far the rocket is off course, and how far the control algorithm wants to tilt the fins. This relationship is linked by a constant ratio, so it is Proportional. Integral control will allow the rocket to slowly "learn" about imperfections, like the servos not turning as far as they should, etc. Creating a virtual model of your rocket and controller in python or some other programming language is also recommended, it will help you understand more and testing things out virtually first will be less expensive than launching 100 rockets. There is some additional advice on the Rocketry Forum with regards to tuning [here](https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/pid-tuning-help.157226/).
**Clubs**
Lastly, a word about legality. In the USA, a stabilized rocket doesn't appear to be illegal ([IANAL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL)), but flying rockets above a certain power outside of a [NAR](https://www.nar.org/) or [Tripoli](http://www.tripoli.org/) launch definitely is. If you are outside the USA, Tripoli has some international clubs, and I imagine there are other organizations. Joining a local club will give you a multitude of advantages, including:
1. Mentors that can help you design and build your rocket in such a way that it doesn't immediately crash.
2. Some degree of insurance in case you damage a house, car, etc. with your rocket (at an approved launch).
3. Knowledge of where good launch sites are, and permission to launch there.
4. Access to higher-power rocket motors, to help you launch a rocket to higher altitudes or with a bigger payload.
5. An established friendly relationship (hopefully) with local law enforcement.
6. Regular meets, where you can see lots of different kinds of rockets, and learn what works and what doesn't.
7. If your local university has a rocket club, you may also be able to find help in designing the controller for your rocket.
PS: If you want to design a rocket, I have found [OpenRocket](http://openrocket.info/) to be a good software to design in, there are a few tutorials out on the internet as well. If you want to design virtual rockets and actually fly them, [KSP](https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/) (while requiring some cash and a decent computer to run) is great. There are also some mods ([kOS](https://ksp-kos.github.io/KOS/) is one example) that allow you to mess with PID tuning in the game, effectively making your own flight controller. | No. Fins on the opposite sides need to have an opposite angle. Thus, their net result will be a torque to the rocket, which can compensate the spin. |
49,453 | I'm attempting to build a rocket with 8 fins (four on bottom and four smaller ones towards the top). The four fins near to the top will be attached to servo motors and programmed to stabilize or guide the rocket. The problem I ran into is that if the rocket spins, then the fins will be useless, the rocket would just spiral. So is there something I can do or add to the rocket so that it won't spin? Any help will be greatly appreciated, I'm relatively new at this. | 2021/01/07 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/49453",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/38853/"
] | Foreword: This is generally considered a difficult proposition, and [books](http://www.arapress.com/vertical-trajectory-systems-print-version/) have been written on the subject. This "technology" could also fall under [ITAR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations), so that's why there was some hesitation in answering your question at first. The consensus in the model rocket community seems to be as long as the goal is straight up, and not towards a target, it's fine, but [IANAL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL). There is also a lot of additional information in [this thread](https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/i-could-use-just-a-little-guidance.122042/) on the Rocketry Forum.
**Basic Rocket Science**
Every flying thing has two very important points that determine how well it will fly, known as the [Center of Pressure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_pressure_%28fluid_mechanics%29) (CP) and the [Center of Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass) (CM). The CM you are probably most familiar with; it is also known as the centroid, and is essentially the "average" location of the mass of the vehicle. In other words, if you were to cut the vehicle in half along any line that passed through the CM, both halves would weight the same. The CP is similar, but rather than worrying about the mass, you are averaging the drag/lift on the whole vehicle.
Odd as it may seem, you can largely predict how any airplane or rocket will perform just by knowing where these points are. If you want pictures, there's a great explanation here: <https://i.imgur.com/qoJjVPu.jpg>
Putting that diagram in words, if your CP is "behind" your CM with regards to the direction you want to go, then it will be stable, generally wanting to stay going in a straight line, like a dart or an arrow. If your CP is ahead of your CM, it will want to flip around and fly butt-first. This is bad. If they are aligned, your rocket will just flip all over the place, like a sheet of paper. You can also experiment with this by making a paper airplane, and placing a paperclip at different places along the centerline. Where it is placed will affect the behavior of the plane.
If you want the most maneuverable vehicle, like a stunt plane or a missile, you want your CP and CM to be close together, so that the control surfaces (the things you can adjust, like ailerons, rudder, etc.) don't have to move that much to have a large effect. You might think that therefore you should have fins at the front and the back, to balance the CP, but it's not that simple:
1. The rocket nose itself generates a lot of drag, generally causing the CP to be roughly centered with just rear fins.
2. The CM on a rocket moves during flight. The rocket motor is generally the heaviest part of the rocket, and is generally located at the back of the rocket. For this reason, the CM generally moves forward during flight. If your CP & CM are close at the start of the flight, they will be far apart once the motor has burned, which means the flight behavior you start out with is not what you have a few seconds later. Rockets which have this problem generally wobble a lot right off the launchpad, then suddenly straighten out and go flying in a weird direction. The wobbling will make control more difficult.
For mainly the second reason, you generally want to have ~2 "calibers" of stability for your rocket. This means that your CP is roughly 2 body-tube diameters behind your CM when you launch.
Now, you might say "But if I can build a "stable" rocket without controlled fins, then what good is active stabilization?" There are a couple things that control could solve, one of which you have already mentioned:
1. **Spin:** If the fins are not perfect, or if the rocket nozzle is offset, or for many other reasons, non-stabilized rockets can spin. A "guided" rocket (I would use "stabilized") could overcome this problem, leading to a prettier launch, better on-board video, etc. A worthy goal.
2. **Weathercocking:** If you are launching with a slight wind, or if there is wind at altitude, then as the rocket travels through it, it will want to fly into the wind. A stabilized rocket could adjust to keep going perfectly straight, which would be awesome. However, you should note that the rocket comes back down through the wind, this time on a parachute that travels downwind. Often flying slightly into the wind is good, as it can lead to the rocket touching down close to the launch site, rather than drifting a mile downwind. Your stabilized rocket could account for this, though, and calculate an optimum angle to get it to land back on the pad.
**Design of Control Surfaces**
Although I said that fins up high might not be the best idea, some rockets *do* have the controlled fins higher up, this is because they are incorporated into the avbay. Harder to design aerodynamically, easier to build mechanically.
**Controller Design**
Servo motors should work as actuators, at worst if they are underpowered you will still have a stable rocket. I don't know what you are planning to use for a microcontroller, but a fast arduino should work, you may have to optimize your code though. You will also need something to sense your position - not GPS, that is too slow, you probably want an IMU breakout board (a bunch of accelerometers that tells you your position). This gets you your computer, your position, and control of your control surfaces.
For the actual control algorithm the PID (Proportional-Integral-Derivative) family is probably your best bet. Starting out with just P control is what I would recommend, then add I once P is working okay. P control means that there is a link between how far the rocket is off course, and how far the control algorithm wants to tilt the fins. This relationship is linked by a constant ratio, so it is Proportional. Integral control will allow the rocket to slowly "learn" about imperfections, like the servos not turning as far as they should, etc. Creating a virtual model of your rocket and controller in python or some other programming language is also recommended, it will help you understand more and testing things out virtually first will be less expensive than launching 100 rockets. There is some additional advice on the Rocketry Forum with regards to tuning [here](https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/pid-tuning-help.157226/).
**Clubs**
Lastly, a word about legality. In the USA, a stabilized rocket doesn't appear to be illegal ([IANAL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL)), but flying rockets above a certain power outside of a [NAR](https://www.nar.org/) or [Tripoli](http://www.tripoli.org/) launch definitely is. If you are outside the USA, Tripoli has some international clubs, and I imagine there are other organizations. Joining a local club will give you a multitude of advantages, including:
1. Mentors that can help you design and build your rocket in such a way that it doesn't immediately crash.
2. Some degree of insurance in case you damage a house, car, etc. with your rocket (at an approved launch).
3. Knowledge of where good launch sites are, and permission to launch there.
4. Access to higher-power rocket motors, to help you launch a rocket to higher altitudes or with a bigger payload.
5. An established friendly relationship (hopefully) with local law enforcement.
6. Regular meets, where you can see lots of different kinds of rockets, and learn what works and what doesn't.
7. If your local university has a rocket club, you may also be able to find help in designing the controller for your rocket.
PS: If you want to design a rocket, I have found [OpenRocket](http://openrocket.info/) to be a good software to design in, there are a few tutorials out on the internet as well. If you want to design virtual rockets and actually fly them, [KSP](https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/) (while requiring some cash and a decent computer to run) is great. There are also some mods ([kOS](https://ksp-kos.github.io/KOS/) is one example) that allow you to mess with PID tuning in the game, effectively making your own flight controller. | UK guided missiles historically tended to use a "twist and pitch" scheme, which only requires two steerable fins. The vehicle rolls to the correct angle and varies in pitch.
It might be worth looking into that as it may require less weight for the actuators, and it may be conceptually easier to understand. |
596,925 | In English there is a very notable asymmetry between demonyms ending in *-ese* and *-ish* and other demonyms. The latter can be used as a regular count noun, but the former are almost always restricted to being plural:
* An American, two Americans, the Americans
* \*A British, \*two British, the British
* \*A Portuguese, \*two Portuguese, the Portuguese
In these examples, the *-ish* and *-ese* demonyms are not only mostly used in the plural, but mostly used in the specific construction "the \_\_\_\_ese/-ish". The other forms are possible, but seem discouraged and even criticized by some pedants.
It's especially strange when it comes to the French-origin *-ese* suffix. Parallels in German and of course French don't inhibit countability and declension at all:
* (German) Ein Chinese, zwei Chinesen, die Chinesen (singular *Chinese*, plural *Chinesen*; *ein* for "a(n)/one", *zwei* for "two", *die* for plural "the")
* (French) Un Angl**ais**, deux Anglais, les Anglais (singular Anglais, plural Anglais; *Anglais* for "English(man)", *un* for "a(n)/one", *deux* for "two", *les* for plural "the")
* (French) Un Finn**ois**, deux Finnois, les Finnois (singular Finnois, plural Finnois; *Finnois* for "Finn")
(Note for the French examples, there's no irregularity. The plural forms are simply exactly the same as the singular ones because the singular ones already have an *s* at the end.)
German doesn't seem to use its own version of *-ish*, *-isch*, for demonymic nouns, instead opting for *-er* as in *Engländer* (not \* *Englisch*) or *Deutscher* (not \* *Deut**sch***).
So what is with English that there's this arbitrary "rule"? Why doesn't it sound quite "right" to say something like "I saw two Japanese at the market yesterday" or "There was a blond British at the mall"?
**Edit:** Apparently the way the suffix *-ese* behaves now is rather new. It used to be acceptable to use *Chinese* the same way you would have *American*. Here are some quotes from Basil Hall Chamberlain's translation of the Kojiki:
>
> Korean King and of **three or four other Koreans and Chinese**.
>
>
> But the compiler of the latter work, whose object it was to appear
> and to make his forefathers appear, as reasonable as **a learned
> Chinese**, adds a gloss to the effect that [...]
>
>
> **A Japanese**, to whom the origin of the word is patent, and who uses it every day in contexts by no means divine [...]
>
>
> | 2022/10/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/596925",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/120439/"
] | There is already an established way to nominalise the following country adjectives: English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and French and that is by adding the suffixes *-man*, *-men*, *-woman* and *-women*: *Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman, Irishman, and Frenchman* are still used today along with their female counterparts while the gender-neutral *person* is rarely, if ever, attached to a demonymic word \*[Englishperson](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Englishperson).
There is also ***Briton*** and its plural ***Britons*** from which the more popular diminutive forms *[Brit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Brit)* and *Brits* were most likely derived. This might explain why the English language has never felt the necessity to make the demonyms *English* and *British* function as nouns too, that gap had already been filled.
On a final note, the plural *[Englishes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes#Schneider%27s_dynamic_model_of_postcolonial_Englishes)* denotes the different varieties of the spoken language in the world and not to the inhabitants of England. | The answer lies in the function of these words:
In English, no\* adjectives take inflections regardless of their function in the sentence:
The large cat / the American soldier
\*The larges cats / \* the Americans soldiers.
The word **British** is **not** a common noun, it is only an adjective that can be used
(i) attributively: "The British weather is fickle."
(ii) predicatively "I am British" and
(iii) substantivised "The British are phlegmatic."
There is a parallel with other such words, e.g. "deaf"
The deaf patients are seen on Thursday / He is deaf / The deaf are very patient. (\* The deafs are in the waiting room.)
Thus substantivised adjectives appear to act as uncountable nouns.
Some, but not all, demonyms (see [Wikipedia's List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adjectival_and_demonymic_forms_for_countries_and_nations)) are common nouns and thus **do** take a plural:
That American has a large car / Those American**s** have large car**s**.
\**valid for large values of "no." There are a few adopted foreign adjectives that are sometimes pretentiously inflected for gender.* |
22,443 | In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing? | 2017/09/01 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22443",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12021/"
] | These books are wrong, which is why relatively few Buddhists are stream-enterers or reach jhana.
To observe the computer screen in front of you, you do not have to do anything with your eyes. The seeing of the computer screen happens automatically, as long as your head is pointed in the direction of the computer screen & your mind is not asleep.
Similarly, in meditation, feeling & knowing the breathing happens automatically, as long as the mind is quiet, still & gentle. All that is really needed is to sit upright with a still, quiet, gentle, awake mind.
The difficult part is the quiet clear mind. If this can be done, the breathing part is easy because the body breathes automatically & the mind knows breathing automatically when the mind is quiet.
The path of the Buddha is the giving up of craving, which includes not craving when meditating.
The Zen masters say: '*The silent mind can listen to grass*'. | You can't not breathe, it's automatic. All you have to do is be aware that you're doing it and keep bringing the mind back to it. You're only controlling it if you feel you try to change the breaths for example making them longer or shorter which by the way is useful in some circumstances. Don't over think it. Just sit and breathe |
22,443 | In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing? | 2017/09/01 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22443",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12021/"
] | These books are wrong, which is why relatively few Buddhists are stream-enterers or reach jhana.
To observe the computer screen in front of you, you do not have to do anything with your eyes. The seeing of the computer screen happens automatically, as long as your head is pointed in the direction of the computer screen & your mind is not asleep.
Similarly, in meditation, feeling & knowing the breathing happens automatically, as long as the mind is quiet, still & gentle. All that is really needed is to sit upright with a still, quiet, gentle, awake mind.
The difficult part is the quiet clear mind. If this can be done, the breathing part is easy because the body breathes automatically & the mind knows breathing automatically when the mind is quiet.
The path of the Buddha is the giving up of craving, which includes not craving when meditating.
The Zen masters say: '*The silent mind can listen to grass*'. | Only mindfulness will bring everything in order. Just focus on breathing. Knowing out-breath, knowing in-breath is enough. Whenever the mind wander, just pay attention on out-breath, in-breath. In the early moment, one cannot focus on it as mind wander outside. As time goes by, concentration arise and it is very clear. Dhamma will show by itself. Some people may think, it is the beginning of meditation. But later he/she will know this out-breath in-breath noticing is all the way from beginning, middle and the end, the only way to nibbana, no two. |
22,443 | In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing? | 2017/09/01 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22443",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12021/"
] | (Ānāpānas)sati-kammaṭṭhāna=**mindfulness, on breath, meditation**. It is not breath meditation.
There for, the practitioner training mindfulness, not breath.
**The breathing is always automatic. The practitioner doesn't have to control it.**
The problem is that the natural of breath is soft and little, so people who never train mindfulness on breath have not enough mindfulness power to notice it.
To fix this problem, return your focus back to point at nose tip, when you find their, without worry, your mindfulness will meditate up to see your breath.
Trust the buddha that breath is automatic. Don't worry about breath. It is certainly automatic. So just find it only at nose tip. Shortly after that, a breath will appear to your mindfulness.
Summary each step of meditation:
<http://122.155.190.19/revata/download/Books/Pa-Auk_Eng_Books/Mindfulness%20of%20Breathing.pdf>
Ᾱnāpānassati (Mindfulness-of-breathing) - An Introduction:
<http://www.pamc.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=32>
The Meditation Practice of Pa Auk Forest Monastery 1-3:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMQBXmaSFTM> | You can't not breathe, it's automatic. All you have to do is be aware that you're doing it and keep bringing the mind back to it. You're only controlling it if you feel you try to change the breaths for example making them longer or shorter which by the way is useful in some circumstances. Don't over think it. Just sit and breathe |
22,443 | In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing? | 2017/09/01 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22443",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12021/"
] | (Ānāpānas)sati-kammaṭṭhāna=**mindfulness, on breath, meditation**. It is not breath meditation.
There for, the practitioner training mindfulness, not breath.
**The breathing is always automatic. The practitioner doesn't have to control it.**
The problem is that the natural of breath is soft and little, so people who never train mindfulness on breath have not enough mindfulness power to notice it.
To fix this problem, return your focus back to point at nose tip, when you find their, without worry, your mindfulness will meditate up to see your breath.
Trust the buddha that breath is automatic. Don't worry about breath. It is certainly automatic. So just find it only at nose tip. Shortly after that, a breath will appear to your mindfulness.
Summary each step of meditation:
<http://122.155.190.19/revata/download/Books/Pa-Auk_Eng_Books/Mindfulness%20of%20Breathing.pdf>
Ᾱnāpānassati (Mindfulness-of-breathing) - An Introduction:
<http://www.pamc.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=32>
The Meditation Practice of Pa Auk Forest Monastery 1-3:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMQBXmaSFTM> | Only mindfulness will bring everything in order. Just focus on breathing. Knowing out-breath, knowing in-breath is enough. Whenever the mind wander, just pay attention on out-breath, in-breath. In the early moment, one cannot focus on it as mind wander outside. As time goes by, concentration arise and it is very clear. Dhamma will show by itself. Some people may think, it is the beginning of meditation. But later he/she will know this out-breath in-breath noticing is all the way from beginning, middle and the end, the only way to nibbana, no two. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | **Short Answer:** There is strong evidence from Scripture that they actually **received the Spirit** at Pentecost, and that what we see in John 20:22 was Jesus giving them a visual illustration and command in preparation for that event.
The Controversy
---------------
For reference, here is the statement in question:
>
> He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." [***-John 20:22***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=NASB)
>
>
>
The question is, ***why*** did Jesus say this? There are two main views:
* **A)** Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" because He was actually **imparting** the Holy Spirit at this time, and wanted them to understand what was happening. The "breathing" was to illustrate the giving of *Spiritual* life, and would be familiar imagery from their knowledge of [Genesis 2:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:7&version=NASB).
* **B)** Jesus blew on them to [illustrate](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5-8,%2020:22,%20Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB)1 to His disciples that [He and the Spirit were one](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:17-18&version=NASB), and that the Spirit would [come forth from Him](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&version=NASB). He then **commanded** them in advance to "Receive the Holy Spirit" because it was almost time for Him to [go to the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB) and for the [Spirit to come](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB), and He wouldn't be with them to explain it when it happened.
1: Note that the Greek word for *Spirit* (πνεῦμα) is the same Greek word for *wind*, and for *breath*.
The Debate
----------
The **A** group would say to the **B** group:
* Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Clearly that means they received the Holy Spirit.
* The Spirit was to be given after Jesus was glorified, and He was glorified through His crucifiction and resurrection
The **B** group would say to the **A** group:
* Jesus did not say they received the Holy Spirit. There is no record in Scripture of them receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of this **command** - only a record of Jesus giving the **command**. It is not "safe" to [apply meaning beyond what was actually said](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:22-23&version=NASB), to [reason from an absence of Scripture](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:30,%2021:25&version=NASB), or to [interpret Jesus' commands as statements of historical record](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:36&version=NASB). Also, this would not be the first time Jesus did something purely for illustration. ([examples](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:41-42,%20John%2013:5-20&version=NASB))
* It is not clear in Scripture that Jesus was glorified at the time of the resurrection, as opposed to the time of His ascension. Regardless, both events (the statement in John 20:22 as well as Pentecost) were after His resurrection, so this is a moot point.
Obviously it is not **clear** from this passage alone *when* the Holy Spirit was given. We need to interpret the unclear passages of Scripture in light of what we know from the more clear passages of Scripture.
The Context of Scripture
------------------------
The event in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB) is referred to in Scripture as [the promise of the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB), [the baptism in the Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:5&version=NASB), [**the Holy Spirit coming upon them**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), receiving the [power to be His witnesses](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), and being [filled with the Holy Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:4&version=NASB).
**1)** Jesus told His disciples:
>
> I am going to Him who sent Me ... it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. [***-John 16:5-7***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB)
>
>
>
This passage indicates (A) that Jesus had to go to the Father in order for the Spirit to come, and (B) that Jesus would "send" the Spirit after He went. Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1:9-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB).
* The **A** group might argue that Jesus could have gone to the Father between His crucifiction and John 20, but [John 20:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:17&version=NASB) seems to say otherwise.
* I suppose the **A** group could try to explain the passage by arguing that the Spirit came according to the Father's foreknowledge that Jesus ***would*** go to the Father, but that would throw a wrench in the entire discussion by invalidating the Biblical chronology altogether!
**The most obvious solution is that Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB), and the Spirit was sent in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB).**
**2)** [John 15:26-27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26-27&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in them being witnesses. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 1:8](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB).)
**3)** [John 16:7-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7-11&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in the conviction of the world. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:14-41](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-41&version=NASB).)
---
See [here](http://www.thegracetabernacle.org/studies/gtsn_john20.html) for a long list of further evidence in support of this interpretation. | Yes, because:
>
> "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the **disciples** glad, when they saw the Lord.
>
>
> Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
>
>
> And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, **Receive ye the Holy Ghost**" John 20:22
>
>
>
First, notice Yeshua breathed on his "disciples". This means Matthias also received the *spirit set-apart* this day (Acts 1:21 confirms this). Thomas didn't need to be there to receive the spirit. He saw Yeshua later, and there is no reason why Yeshua couldn't have breathed on him as well. However, we know that Thomas did receive it, because:
>
> "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were **all** with one accord in one place.
>
>
> And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
>
>
> And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
>
>
> And they were **all filled with the Holy Ghost**, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4
>
>
>
This passage says that all twelve Apostles were "filled" with the *spirit set-apart*. Nothing in Acts says that the Apostles "received" it on this day. Being "filled" with the spirit is common in Acts:
>
> "Then Peter, **filled** with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel" Acts 4:8
>
>
> And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all **filled** with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." Acts 4:31
>
>
> "And the disciples were **filled** with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." Acts 13:52
>
>
>
So the disciples did receive the spirit when Yeshua breathed on them, and Thomas received it as well. As a bonus, I believe Matthias and all the disciples received it. It gave them the authority to forgive sins, and it gave them the power to speak other languages in *Acts* 2. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | As far as I have understood, this is a parallell to the Genesis creation narrative, where God gives Adam life by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2,7). I guess this should be read in the light of the promise in e.g. Ezekiel 11,19 and a response to the prayer in Ps. 51,12.
I don't think this verse should be seen separate from the next, which concerns the power to bind and to loose, and thus is connected with Jesus' word to Peter. I believe that "what happens here" is something different from what happens et pentecost, where everybody receives this spirit: this is something exclusive for Jesus' inner circle, the apostles. | Addendum:
The Ezekiel allusion is good. After he spoke to the bones they came to life but "there was no breath in them" v.8. even though he said he would put breath in them. This tells us that the breath he put in them was expended in giving life to the flesh.
So he commanded the wind, after which they had breath.
Receiving the Holy Spirit was a two-step process. [1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) They were brought to life when Jesus breathed upon them (by the Spirit of Christ)[2] and then they received the breathe at Pentecost.
Jesus expended his breath (life) upon the cross to give us life. The gift of the Holy Spirit came after.
Just as in the Trinity, there are three Spirits which are one(The Spirit of God, The Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). They may be referred to interchangeably in the same manner as the Trinity when referring to God, or distinctively when speaking of one of the persons of the Trinity.
---
**Refs**
[[1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104)]
My answer on [how the bread and the word are related](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) supports the two-stage receiving of the Spirit. Just as man does not live by bread (the cross) alone, we live by every word. The cross is where the Spirit of Christ makes us born again, so that we may see the kingdom of heaven. His spirit is expended in giving us life. The Holy Spirit is given so that we may walk in that new life.
[2]
>
> Php 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your
> prayer, and the supply of the **Spirit of Jesus Christ**,
>
>
> |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | Yes, because:
>
> "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the **disciples** glad, when they saw the Lord.
>
>
> Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
>
>
> And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, **Receive ye the Holy Ghost**" John 20:22
>
>
>
First, notice Yeshua breathed on his "disciples". This means Matthias also received the *spirit set-apart* this day (Acts 1:21 confirms this). Thomas didn't need to be there to receive the spirit. He saw Yeshua later, and there is no reason why Yeshua couldn't have breathed on him as well. However, we know that Thomas did receive it, because:
>
> "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were **all** with one accord in one place.
>
>
> And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
>
>
> And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
>
>
> And they were **all filled with the Holy Ghost**, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4
>
>
>
This passage says that all twelve Apostles were "filled" with the *spirit set-apart*. Nothing in Acts says that the Apostles "received" it on this day. Being "filled" with the spirit is common in Acts:
>
> "Then Peter, **filled** with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel" Acts 4:8
>
>
> And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all **filled** with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." Acts 4:31
>
>
> "And the disciples were **filled** with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." Acts 13:52
>
>
>
So the disciples did receive the spirit when Yeshua breathed on them, and Thomas received it as well. As a bonus, I believe Matthias and all the disciples received it. It gave them the authority to forgive sins, and it gave them the power to speak other languages in *Acts* 2. | John 20:22 and Acts 2:1-4 are in tension, so that New Testament commentators seek to harmonise the two accounts within the framework of their faith. The following three examples are different ways of harmonising the two accounts:
* [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/john/20.htm) says this was a symbolical
conveyance to them of the Spirit, so they did not actually receive
anything tangible.
* [Matthew Poole](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/john/20.htm) says they before this had received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, and had received a power to work miracles, but Jesus here assures them of the presence of the Holy Spirit with them, in their more ordinary ministry, in instructing and governing the church. For Poole, this was again an exterior sign or symbol.
* [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/john/20.htm) resolves the issue by saying there was a Paschal as distinct from a Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, the one preparatory to the other. We are not told in what way a Paschal Holy Spirit differs from a Pentecostal Holy Spirit.
J. Carl L. Laney (*[John- Moody Gospel Commentary](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HMZtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT422&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=john%2020%3A22%20commentary&f=false)*) says those who take John 20:22 as a promise of the Spirit's coming fail to appreciate the full significance of the symbolic gesture associated with Jesus' words. He breated on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." He did not say, "You will receive the Holy Spirit." In Laney's view (and that of Plumer), this plainly implies that something was bestowed there and then, very likely a provisional provision for the disciples during the fifty days until Pentecost. We are not told why a provisional provision would be necessary, and it could be a difficulty for Trinitarianism if Jesus was unable to bestow a full provision of the Holy Spirit.
Craig S. Keener (*[Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6raEhIMnzl8C&pg=PT1840&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEISzAJ#v=onepage&q=%22john%2020%3A22%22&f=false)*) says some scholars think that Luke and John view the same event but with different theological emphases. This leads Keener to ask whether Luke had invented his version of Pentecost or whether John altered the setting so as to include the Pentecost before his Gospel finishes.
An alternative position is that *John* and *Acts* simply come from two different traditions and each was written without knowledge of the other. They were not different tellings of the same event, simply because the narratives and imagery are so different. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | Jesus is not giving the disciples "the Spirit" because "spirit" is a bogus concept. "Spirit" is just a synonym for "breath". He is giving them holy breath. Ever since Genesis 2:7 the idea of God filling people with his own breath has permeated the scriptures. Paul calls this "the principle of the breath of life":
>
> Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit [breath] of life in Christ Jesus
> has set me free from the law of sin and of death.
>
>
>
This principle, that the breath gives life is explicitly stated by Jesus:
>
> John 6:63 [cleaned up] The breath gives life; the flesh is no help
> at all. The words that I have spoken to you are breath and life.
>
>
>
Notice that Jesus relates his words to "the breath of life" in contrast to the "bread of life". First he says that he is the bread of life that he gives and it gives life to the world:
>
> Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any
> man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I
> will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
>
>
>
He speaks about "eating" his flesh, but then he clarifies to say that his flesh is a gospel message and not a meal and that eating it involves faith in the message of his death and resurrection, not literal physical eating:
>
> John 6:63 [cleaned up] The breath gives life; the flesh is no help
> at all. The words that I have spoken to you are breath and life.
>
>
>
The idea of words being "breath" is not a difficult one because breath is the medium of words. In fact, the original Paul did not believe that someone could be impacted by the gospel if it weren't spoken by one filled with the breath of God:
>
> 2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by
> us, written not with ink but with the Spirit [breath] of the living
> God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Co 3:4
> Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 2Co
> 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as
> coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 2Co 3:6 who has
> made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the
> letter but of the Spirit [breath]. For the letter kills, but **the
> Spirit [breath] gives life.**
>
>
> Rom 10:14 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?**
>
>
> Eze 37:5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, **I will
> cause breath to enter you, and you shall live**. Eze 37:6 And I will
> lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover
> you with skin, **and put breath in you, and you shall live**, and you
> shall know that I am the LORD."
> ... Eze 37:8 And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and
> flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. **But there was no
> breath in them**. Eze 37:9 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the
> breath; prophesy, son of man, and **say to the breath, Thus says the
> Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these
> slain, that they may live.**" Eze 37:10 So I prophesied as he
> commanded me, and **the breath came into them, and they lived** and stood
> on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
>
>
>
Later, in 2 Tim a letter purporting to be from Paul suggests that written text also can be life-giving because it is "breathed by God":
>
> ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is **breathed out by God** and
> profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training
> in righteousness,
>
>
>
The disobedient breathe completely different air:
>
> Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world,
> following the prince of the power of **the air of the breath** that is
> now at work in the sons of disobedience—
>
>
>
Contrast this solid intertextuality with the idea of "breathing Spirit". Simply put, one does not breathe "spirit" because "spirit" (as defined by those who embrace Substance Dualism) is immaterial. It has no physicality, no physical properties and thus is an abstraction.
So one can part company from the dualists and embrace the scriptural principle or reject the scriptural princple and embrace dualism but these two are at odds with each other. Only by the knowledge that what Jesus breathed is breath can one make any real sense of the passage.
The exception to this rule is that one can understand "spirit" to be a synonym for "breath". In the original languages, and all relevant languages prior to the KJV when they coined the word "spirit" from the Latin word for "breath", "spiritus", there was only one word. Personally I think the ideal would to only have the word "spirit" and lose the word "breath" because the ancients believed that the breath was a divine force, not just gases. It was conceived to be a type of "intelligent organ" with mystical properties. When it entered the clay statue of Yehovah (Adam) it animated it and made it intelligent.
So Jesus was giving "the breath of life" and if we properly regard "spirit" as a synonym for "breath" then yes, he was giving "the spirit" but not the "spirit of the world":
>
> 1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the breath. For
> the breath searches everything, even the depths of God. 1Co 2:11 For
> who knows a person's thoughts except the breath of that person, which
> is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the
> breath of God. 1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the breath of the
> world, but the breath that is from God, that we might understand the
> things freely given us by God.
>
>
>
Once you shed Substance Dualism and see that "the principle of the breath of life" begins in Genesis and runs through Revelation then the scriptures open up. Talk of "spirit" just muddies the waters and makes every verse a meaningless enigma. | John 20:22 and Acts 2:1-4 are in tension, so that New Testament commentators seek to harmonise the two accounts within the framework of their faith. The following three examples are different ways of harmonising the two accounts:
* [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/john/20.htm) says this was a symbolical
conveyance to them of the Spirit, so they did not actually receive
anything tangible.
* [Matthew Poole](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/john/20.htm) says they before this had received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, and had received a power to work miracles, but Jesus here assures them of the presence of the Holy Spirit with them, in their more ordinary ministry, in instructing and governing the church. For Poole, this was again an exterior sign or symbol.
* [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/john/20.htm) resolves the issue by saying there was a Paschal as distinct from a Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, the one preparatory to the other. We are not told in what way a Paschal Holy Spirit differs from a Pentecostal Holy Spirit.
J. Carl L. Laney (*[John- Moody Gospel Commentary](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HMZtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT422&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=john%2020%3A22%20commentary&f=false)*) says those who take John 20:22 as a promise of the Spirit's coming fail to appreciate the full significance of the symbolic gesture associated with Jesus' words. He breated on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." He did not say, "You will receive the Holy Spirit." In Laney's view (and that of Plumer), this plainly implies that something was bestowed there and then, very likely a provisional provision for the disciples during the fifty days until Pentecost. We are not told why a provisional provision would be necessary, and it could be a difficulty for Trinitarianism if Jesus was unable to bestow a full provision of the Holy Spirit.
Craig S. Keener (*[Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6raEhIMnzl8C&pg=PT1840&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEISzAJ#v=onepage&q=%22john%2020%3A22%22&f=false)*) says some scholars think that Luke and John view the same event but with different theological emphases. This leads Keener to ask whether Luke had invented his version of Pentecost or whether John altered the setting so as to include the Pentecost before his Gospel finishes.
An alternative position is that *John* and *Acts* simply come from two different traditions and each was written without knowledge of the other. They were not different tellings of the same event, simply because the narratives and imagery are so different. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | John 20:22 and Acts 2:1-4 are in tension, so that New Testament commentators seek to harmonise the two accounts within the framework of their faith. The following three examples are different ways of harmonising the two accounts:
* [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/john/20.htm) says this was a symbolical
conveyance to them of the Spirit, so they did not actually receive
anything tangible.
* [Matthew Poole](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/john/20.htm) says they before this had received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, and had received a power to work miracles, but Jesus here assures them of the presence of the Holy Spirit with them, in their more ordinary ministry, in instructing and governing the church. For Poole, this was again an exterior sign or symbol.
* [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/john/20.htm) resolves the issue by saying there was a Paschal as distinct from a Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, the one preparatory to the other. We are not told in what way a Paschal Holy Spirit differs from a Pentecostal Holy Spirit.
J. Carl L. Laney (*[John- Moody Gospel Commentary](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HMZtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT422&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=john%2020%3A22%20commentary&f=false)*) says those who take John 20:22 as a promise of the Spirit's coming fail to appreciate the full significance of the symbolic gesture associated with Jesus' words. He breated on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." He did not say, "You will receive the Holy Spirit." In Laney's view (and that of Plumer), this plainly implies that something was bestowed there and then, very likely a provisional provision for the disciples during the fifty days until Pentecost. We are not told why a provisional provision would be necessary, and it could be a difficulty for Trinitarianism if Jesus was unable to bestow a full provision of the Holy Spirit.
Craig S. Keener (*[Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6raEhIMnzl8C&pg=PT1840&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEISzAJ#v=onepage&q=%22john%2020%3A22%22&f=false)*) says some scholars think that Luke and John view the same event but with different theological emphases. This leads Keener to ask whether Luke had invented his version of Pentecost or whether John altered the setting so as to include the Pentecost before his Gospel finishes.
An alternative position is that *John* and *Acts* simply come from two different traditions and each was written without knowledge of the other. They were not different tellings of the same event, simply because the narratives and imagery are so different. | **Is Jesus giving the Spirit in John 20:22?**
John 20:22 (NASB)
>
> " And when He had said this, He breathed on them and \*said to them,
> “Receive the Holy Spirit."
>
>
>
**No, It was only a symbolic gesture that they will soon receive holy spirit.**
Whilst the apostles were locked in a room, on the day that he was resurrected, Jesus appeared to them,John wrote: 21“Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and \*said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”John 20:21-23( NASB)
From verses 19 to 24 we observe that the disciples mentioned are his faithful apostles and by blowing on them and saying, “Receive Holy Spirit, " symbolically gave them notice that soon they would receive holy spirit, in harmony with this, verse 7: 39 reads: **"But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him *were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."***
The actual event occurred on the day of the Pentecost ,fifty days later , Jesus poured out holy spirit on about 120 disciples and they were inspired. Acts 2:2-4 (NASB) reads:
>
> 2" And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing
> wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And
> there appeared to them tongues as of fire [a]distributing themselves,
> and [b]they [c]rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled
> with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the
> Spirit was giving them [e]utterance."
>
>
>
Before Jesus’ death and resurrection, he spoke of his followers who would receive holy spirit, beginning at Pentecost 33 C.E., saying that out from their innermost parts "rivers of living water will flow." John wrote:
After being exalted to the right hand of God, Jesus, "received from the Father the promise of the holy spirit".(Acts 2:33) Although Jesus was anointed by his Father and in turn he anointed his faithful followers with holy spirit, it is God who invites each person.
Acts 2:33 (NASB)
>
> 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having
> received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured
> forth this which you both see and hear."
>
>
> |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | **Is Jesus giving the Spirit in John 20:22?**
John 20:22 (NASB)
>
> " And when He had said this, He breathed on them and \*said to them,
> “Receive the Holy Spirit."
>
>
>
**No, It was only a symbolic gesture that they will soon receive holy spirit.**
Whilst the apostles were locked in a room, on the day that he was resurrected, Jesus appeared to them,John wrote: 21“Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and \*said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”John 20:21-23( NASB)
From verses 19 to 24 we observe that the disciples mentioned are his faithful apostles and by blowing on them and saying, “Receive Holy Spirit, " symbolically gave them notice that soon they would receive holy spirit, in harmony with this, verse 7: 39 reads: **"But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him *were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."***
The actual event occurred on the day of the Pentecost ,fifty days later , Jesus poured out holy spirit on about 120 disciples and they were inspired. Acts 2:2-4 (NASB) reads:
>
> 2" And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing
> wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And
> there appeared to them tongues as of fire [a]distributing themselves,
> and [b]they [c]rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled
> with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the
> Spirit was giving them [e]utterance."
>
>
>
Before Jesus’ death and resurrection, he spoke of his followers who would receive holy spirit, beginning at Pentecost 33 C.E., saying that out from their innermost parts "rivers of living water will flow." John wrote:
After being exalted to the right hand of God, Jesus, "received from the Father the promise of the holy spirit".(Acts 2:33) Although Jesus was anointed by his Father and in turn he anointed his faithful followers with holy spirit, it is God who invites each person.
Acts 2:33 (NASB)
>
> 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having
> received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured
> forth this which you both see and hear."
>
>
> | Addendum:
The Ezekiel allusion is good. After he spoke to the bones they came to life but "there was no breath in them" v.8. even though he said he would put breath in them. This tells us that the breath he put in them was expended in giving life to the flesh.
So he commanded the wind, after which they had breath.
Receiving the Holy Spirit was a two-step process. [1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) They were brought to life when Jesus breathed upon them (by the Spirit of Christ)[2] and then they received the breathe at Pentecost.
Jesus expended his breath (life) upon the cross to give us life. The gift of the Holy Spirit came after.
Just as in the Trinity, there are three Spirits which are one(The Spirit of God, The Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). They may be referred to interchangeably in the same manner as the Trinity when referring to God, or distinctively when speaking of one of the persons of the Trinity.
---
**Refs**
[[1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104)]
My answer on [how the bread and the word are related](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) supports the two-stage receiving of the Spirit. Just as man does not live by bread (the cross) alone, we live by every word. The cross is where the Spirit of Christ makes us born again, so that we may see the kingdom of heaven. His spirit is expended in giving us life. The Holy Spirit is given so that we may walk in that new life.
[2]
>
> Php 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your
> prayer, and the supply of the **Spirit of Jesus Christ**,
>
>
> |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | Jesus is not giving the disciples "the Spirit" because "spirit" is a bogus concept. "Spirit" is just a synonym for "breath". He is giving them holy breath. Ever since Genesis 2:7 the idea of God filling people with his own breath has permeated the scriptures. Paul calls this "the principle of the breath of life":
>
> Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit [breath] of life in Christ Jesus
> has set me free from the law of sin and of death.
>
>
>
This principle, that the breath gives life is explicitly stated by Jesus:
>
> John 6:63 [cleaned up] The breath gives life; the flesh is no help
> at all. The words that I have spoken to you are breath and life.
>
>
>
Notice that Jesus relates his words to "the breath of life" in contrast to the "bread of life". First he says that he is the bread of life that he gives and it gives life to the world:
>
> Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any
> man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I
> will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
>
>
>
He speaks about "eating" his flesh, but then he clarifies to say that his flesh is a gospel message and not a meal and that eating it involves faith in the message of his death and resurrection, not literal physical eating:
>
> John 6:63 [cleaned up] The breath gives life; the flesh is no help
> at all. The words that I have spoken to you are breath and life.
>
>
>
The idea of words being "breath" is not a difficult one because breath is the medium of words. In fact, the original Paul did not believe that someone could be impacted by the gospel if it weren't spoken by one filled with the breath of God:
>
> 2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by
> us, written not with ink but with the Spirit [breath] of the living
> God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Co 3:4
> Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 2Co
> 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as
> coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 2Co 3:6 who has
> made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the
> letter but of the Spirit [breath]. For the letter kills, but **the
> Spirit [breath] gives life.**
>
>
> Rom 10:14 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?**
>
>
> Eze 37:5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, **I will
> cause breath to enter you, and you shall live**. Eze 37:6 And I will
> lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover
> you with skin, **and put breath in you, and you shall live**, and you
> shall know that I am the LORD."
> ... Eze 37:8 And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and
> flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. **But there was no
> breath in them**. Eze 37:9 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the
> breath; prophesy, son of man, and **say to the breath, Thus says the
> Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these
> slain, that they may live.**" Eze 37:10 So I prophesied as he
> commanded me, and **the breath came into them, and they lived** and stood
> on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
>
>
>
Later, in 2 Tim a letter purporting to be from Paul suggests that written text also can be life-giving because it is "breathed by God":
>
> ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is **breathed out by God** and
> profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training
> in righteousness,
>
>
>
The disobedient breathe completely different air:
>
> Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world,
> following the prince of the power of **the air of the breath** that is
> now at work in the sons of disobedience—
>
>
>
Contrast this solid intertextuality with the idea of "breathing Spirit". Simply put, one does not breathe "spirit" because "spirit" (as defined by those who embrace Substance Dualism) is immaterial. It has no physicality, no physical properties and thus is an abstraction.
So one can part company from the dualists and embrace the scriptural principle or reject the scriptural princple and embrace dualism but these two are at odds with each other. Only by the knowledge that what Jesus breathed is breath can one make any real sense of the passage.
The exception to this rule is that one can understand "spirit" to be a synonym for "breath". In the original languages, and all relevant languages prior to the KJV when they coined the word "spirit" from the Latin word for "breath", "spiritus", there was only one word. Personally I think the ideal would to only have the word "spirit" and lose the word "breath" because the ancients believed that the breath was a divine force, not just gases. It was conceived to be a type of "intelligent organ" with mystical properties. When it entered the clay statue of Yehovah (Adam) it animated it and made it intelligent.
So Jesus was giving "the breath of life" and if we properly regard "spirit" as a synonym for "breath" then yes, he was giving "the spirit" but not the "spirit of the world":
>
> 1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the breath. For
> the breath searches everything, even the depths of God. 1Co 2:11 For
> who knows a person's thoughts except the breath of that person, which
> is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the
> breath of God. 1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the breath of the
> world, but the breath that is from God, that we might understand the
> things freely given us by God.
>
>
>
Once you shed Substance Dualism and see that "the principle of the breath of life" begins in Genesis and runs through Revelation then the scriptures open up. Talk of "spirit" just muddies the waters and makes every verse a meaningless enigma. | Addendum:
The Ezekiel allusion is good. After he spoke to the bones they came to life but "there was no breath in them" v.8. even though he said he would put breath in them. This tells us that the breath he put in them was expended in giving life to the flesh.
So he commanded the wind, after which they had breath.
Receiving the Holy Spirit was a two-step process. [1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) They were brought to life when Jesus breathed upon them (by the Spirit of Christ)[2] and then they received the breathe at Pentecost.
Jesus expended his breath (life) upon the cross to give us life. The gift of the Holy Spirit came after.
Just as in the Trinity, there are three Spirits which are one(The Spirit of God, The Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). They may be referred to interchangeably in the same manner as the Trinity when referring to God, or distinctively when speaking of one of the persons of the Trinity.
---
**Refs**
[[1](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104)]
My answer on [how the bread and the word are related](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/according-to-scripture-how-should-we-interpret-scripture/2104#2104) supports the two-stage receiving of the Spirit. Just as man does not live by bread (the cross) alone, we live by every word. The cross is where the Spirit of Christ makes us born again, so that we may see the kingdom of heaven. His spirit is expended in giving us life. The Holy Spirit is given so that we may walk in that new life.
[2]
>
> Php 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your
> prayer, and the supply of the **Spirit of Jesus Christ**,
>
>
> |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | **Short Answer:** There is strong evidence from Scripture that they actually **received the Spirit** at Pentecost, and that what we see in John 20:22 was Jesus giving them a visual illustration and command in preparation for that event.
The Controversy
---------------
For reference, here is the statement in question:
>
> He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." [***-John 20:22***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=NASB)
>
>
>
The question is, ***why*** did Jesus say this? There are two main views:
* **A)** Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" because He was actually **imparting** the Holy Spirit at this time, and wanted them to understand what was happening. The "breathing" was to illustrate the giving of *Spiritual* life, and would be familiar imagery from their knowledge of [Genesis 2:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:7&version=NASB).
* **B)** Jesus blew on them to [illustrate](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5-8,%2020:22,%20Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB)1 to His disciples that [He and the Spirit were one](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:17-18&version=NASB), and that the Spirit would [come forth from Him](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&version=NASB). He then **commanded** them in advance to "Receive the Holy Spirit" because it was almost time for Him to [go to the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB) and for the [Spirit to come](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB), and He wouldn't be with them to explain it when it happened.
1: Note that the Greek word for *Spirit* (πνεῦμα) is the same Greek word for *wind*, and for *breath*.
The Debate
----------
The **A** group would say to the **B** group:
* Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Clearly that means they received the Holy Spirit.
* The Spirit was to be given after Jesus was glorified, and He was glorified through His crucifiction and resurrection
The **B** group would say to the **A** group:
* Jesus did not say they received the Holy Spirit. There is no record in Scripture of them receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of this **command** - only a record of Jesus giving the **command**. It is not "safe" to [apply meaning beyond what was actually said](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:22-23&version=NASB), to [reason from an absence of Scripture](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:30,%2021:25&version=NASB), or to [interpret Jesus' commands as statements of historical record](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:36&version=NASB). Also, this would not be the first time Jesus did something purely for illustration. ([examples](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:41-42,%20John%2013:5-20&version=NASB))
* It is not clear in Scripture that Jesus was glorified at the time of the resurrection, as opposed to the time of His ascension. Regardless, both events (the statement in John 20:22 as well as Pentecost) were after His resurrection, so this is a moot point.
Obviously it is not **clear** from this passage alone *when* the Holy Spirit was given. We need to interpret the unclear passages of Scripture in light of what we know from the more clear passages of Scripture.
The Context of Scripture
------------------------
The event in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB) is referred to in Scripture as [the promise of the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB), [the baptism in the Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:5&version=NASB), [**the Holy Spirit coming upon them**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), receiving the [power to be His witnesses](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), and being [filled with the Holy Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:4&version=NASB).
**1)** Jesus told His disciples:
>
> I am going to Him who sent Me ... it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. [***-John 16:5-7***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB)
>
>
>
This passage indicates (A) that Jesus had to go to the Father in order for the Spirit to come, and (B) that Jesus would "send" the Spirit after He went. Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1:9-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB).
* The **A** group might argue that Jesus could have gone to the Father between His crucifiction and John 20, but [John 20:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:17&version=NASB) seems to say otherwise.
* I suppose the **A** group could try to explain the passage by arguing that the Spirit came according to the Father's foreknowledge that Jesus ***would*** go to the Father, but that would throw a wrench in the entire discussion by invalidating the Biblical chronology altogether!
**The most obvious solution is that Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB), and the Spirit was sent in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB).**
**2)** [John 15:26-27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26-27&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in them being witnesses. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 1:8](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB).)
**3)** [John 16:7-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7-11&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in the conviction of the world. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:14-41](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-41&version=NASB).)
---
See [here](http://www.thegracetabernacle.org/studies/gtsn_john20.html) for a long list of further evidence in support of this interpretation. | John 20:22 and Acts 2:1-4 are in tension, so that New Testament commentators seek to harmonise the two accounts within the framework of their faith. The following three examples are different ways of harmonising the two accounts:
* [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/john/20.htm) says this was a symbolical
conveyance to them of the Spirit, so they did not actually receive
anything tangible.
* [Matthew Poole](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/john/20.htm) says they before this had received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, and had received a power to work miracles, but Jesus here assures them of the presence of the Holy Spirit with them, in their more ordinary ministry, in instructing and governing the church. For Poole, this was again an exterior sign or symbol.
* [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges](http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/john/20.htm) resolves the issue by saying there was a Paschal as distinct from a Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, the one preparatory to the other. We are not told in what way a Paschal Holy Spirit differs from a Pentecostal Holy Spirit.
J. Carl L. Laney (*[John- Moody Gospel Commentary](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HMZtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT422&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=john%2020%3A22%20commentary&f=false)*) says those who take John 20:22 as a promise of the Spirit's coming fail to appreciate the full significance of the symbolic gesture associated with Jesus' words. He breated on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." He did not say, "You will receive the Holy Spirit." In Laney's view (and that of Plumer), this plainly implies that something was bestowed there and then, very likely a provisional provision for the disciples during the fifty days until Pentecost. We are not told why a provisional provision would be necessary, and it could be a difficulty for Trinitarianism if Jesus was unable to bestow a full provision of the Holy Spirit.
Craig S. Keener (*[Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6raEhIMnzl8C&pg=PT1840&dq=john%2020:22%20commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYytnKtuXNAhVCkJQKHZVsBFsQ6AEISzAJ#v=onepage&q=%22john%2020%3A22%22&f=false)*) says some scholars think that Luke and John view the same event but with different theological emphases. This leads Keener to ask whether Luke had invented his version of Pentecost or whether John altered the setting so as to include the Pentecost before his Gospel finishes.
An alternative position is that *John* and *Acts* simply come from two different traditions and each was written without knowledge of the other. They were not different tellings of the same event, simply because the narratives and imagery are so different. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | **Short Answer:** There is strong evidence from Scripture that they actually **received the Spirit** at Pentecost, and that what we see in John 20:22 was Jesus giving them a visual illustration and command in preparation for that event.
The Controversy
---------------
For reference, here is the statement in question:
>
> He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." [***-John 20:22***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=NASB)
>
>
>
The question is, ***why*** did Jesus say this? There are two main views:
* **A)** Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" because He was actually **imparting** the Holy Spirit at this time, and wanted them to understand what was happening. The "breathing" was to illustrate the giving of *Spiritual* life, and would be familiar imagery from their knowledge of [Genesis 2:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:7&version=NASB).
* **B)** Jesus blew on them to [illustrate](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5-8,%2020:22,%20Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB)1 to His disciples that [He and the Spirit were one](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:17-18&version=NASB), and that the Spirit would [come forth from Him](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&version=NASB). He then **commanded** them in advance to "Receive the Holy Spirit" because it was almost time for Him to [go to the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB) and for the [Spirit to come](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB), and He wouldn't be with them to explain it when it happened.
1: Note that the Greek word for *Spirit* (πνεῦμα) is the same Greek word for *wind*, and for *breath*.
The Debate
----------
The **A** group would say to the **B** group:
* Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Clearly that means they received the Holy Spirit.
* The Spirit was to be given after Jesus was glorified, and He was glorified through His crucifiction and resurrection
The **B** group would say to the **A** group:
* Jesus did not say they received the Holy Spirit. There is no record in Scripture of them receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of this **command** - only a record of Jesus giving the **command**. It is not "safe" to [apply meaning beyond what was actually said](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:22-23&version=NASB), to [reason from an absence of Scripture](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:30,%2021:25&version=NASB), or to [interpret Jesus' commands as statements of historical record](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:36&version=NASB). Also, this would not be the first time Jesus did something purely for illustration. ([examples](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:41-42,%20John%2013:5-20&version=NASB))
* It is not clear in Scripture that Jesus was glorified at the time of the resurrection, as opposed to the time of His ascension. Regardless, both events (the statement in John 20:22 as well as Pentecost) were after His resurrection, so this is a moot point.
Obviously it is not **clear** from this passage alone *when* the Holy Spirit was given. We need to interpret the unclear passages of Scripture in light of what we know from the more clear passages of Scripture.
The Context of Scripture
------------------------
The event in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB) is referred to in Scripture as [the promise of the Father](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB), [the baptism in the Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:5&version=NASB), [**the Holy Spirit coming upon them**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), receiving the [power to be His witnesses](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB), and being [filled with the Holy Spirit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:4&version=NASB).
**1)** Jesus told His disciples:
>
> I am going to Him who sent Me ... it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. [***-John 16:5-7***](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:5-7&version=NASB)
>
>
>
This passage indicates (A) that Jesus had to go to the Father in order for the Spirit to come, and (B) that Jesus would "send" the Spirit after He went. Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1:9-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB).
* The **A** group might argue that Jesus could have gone to the Father between His crucifiction and John 20, but [John 20:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:17&version=NASB) seems to say otherwise.
* I suppose the **A** group could try to explain the passage by arguing that the Spirit came according to the Father's foreknowledge that Jesus ***would*** go to the Father, but that would throw a wrench in the entire discussion by invalidating the Biblical chronology altogether!
**The most obvious solution is that Jesus went to the Father in [Acts 1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:9-11&version=NASB), and the Spirit was sent in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4&version=NASB).**
**2)** [John 15:26-27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26-27&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in them being witnesses. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 1:8](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&version=NASB).)
**3)** [John 16:7-11](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7-11&version=NASB) indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in the conviction of the world. This happened at Pentecost. (See [Acts 1:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:14-41](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-41&version=NASB).)
---
See [here](http://www.thegracetabernacle.org/studies/gtsn_john20.html) for a long list of further evidence in support of this interpretation. | As far as I have understood, this is a parallell to the Genesis creation narrative, where God gives Adam life by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2,7). I guess this should be read in the light of the promise in e.g. Ezekiel 11,19 and a response to the prayer in Ps. 51,12.
I don't think this verse should be seen separate from the next, which concerns the power to bind and to loose, and thus is connected with Jesus' word to Peter. I believe that "what happens here" is something different from what happens et pentecost, where everybody receives this spirit: this is something exclusive for Jesus' inner circle, the apostles. |
241 | After the resurrection in John's gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and in [John 20:22](http://esv.to/Jn20.22) he breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." What is happening here? Is Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them?
Edit: Maybe this goes a ways towards answering the question, but one of the reasons I'm questioning what's happening here is that connecting [John 7:39](http://esv.to/Jn7.39), [John 17:5](http://esv.to/Jn17.5), and [John 20:17](http://esv.to/Jn20.17) (and others) it seems like in John that the Spirit's coming is connected with Jesus' ascending to the Father. | 2011/10/12 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/241",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
] | ### Genesis reference
The [W. Hall Harris commentary](http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-20) on the issues says this:
>
> The use of the verb *ejnefuvshsen* to describe the action of Jesus here recalls Gen 2:7 in the LXX, where *“the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”* This time, however, it is Jesus who is breathing the breath/Spirit of eternal life, life from above, into his disciples.
>
>
>
The idea presented in this commentary is not that it's the Holy Spirit, but rather the breath or spirit of **eternal life**. Just like God breathed life into man in [Genesis 2:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:7&version=NIV), so Jesus breathed eternal life into man there in [John 20:22](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=NIV).
### Ezekiel allusion
The Harris commentary goes further, saying that it also evokes the imagery of [Ezekiel 37:1-14](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2037:1-14&version=NIV) and the valley of dry bones. In particular, it seems to evoke this passage:
>
> [Ezekiel 37:9-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2037:9-10&version=NIV)
>
> 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army
>
>
>
### Eternal Life
It's very clear here that Jesus was giving the Holy Spirit:
>
> [John 20:22 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=NIV)
>
> And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
>
>
>
It seems most likely that this breathing was Jesus giving them eternal life in the form of the Holy Spirit. This can be seen in the Genesis parallel as well as the allusion to Ezekiel.
This is further supported by the reference that made earlier in John:
>
> [John 7:38-39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:38-39&version=NIV)Emphasis added
>
> 38 "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. **Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.**
>
>
>
However, at this point in John 20, Jesus had been crucified (ie [glorified (John 12:23)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%20%2012:23&version=NIV)).
So, the Holy spirit was clearly being given here.
### Reconciliation with Pentecost
We can see in [Acts 2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-5&version=NIV) the Holy Spirit giving power to speak in tongues at the day of Pentecost. Many presume that this when the Holy Spirit was given to humans.
The [Harris commentary](http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-20) argues that the *eternal life* of the Holy Spirit was given in John 20 and the *power* of the Holy Spirit was given in Acts 2.
I personally think that John 20 is clear that the Holy Spirit was given at that point. While the manifestation of power was not given until Acts 2, that does not exclude the idea that the Holy Spirit had already been given.
Summary
-------
John 20:22 was the point, post-resurrection (ie post-glorification), when the disicples received the Holy Spirit. This is the point at which they received eternal life through the Holy Spirit. And Acts 2 was the first manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. | As far as I have understood, this is a parallell to the Genesis creation narrative, where God gives Adam life by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2,7). I guess this should be read in the light of the promise in e.g. Ezekiel 11,19 and a response to the prayer in Ps. 51,12.
I don't think this verse should be seen separate from the next, which concerns the power to bind and to loose, and thus is connected with Jesus' word to Peter. I believe that "what happens here" is something different from what happens et pentecost, where everybody receives this spirit: this is something exclusive for Jesus' inner circle, the apostles. |
84,699 | I'm using Beaglebone Black. How much power can I provide over USB to an external device?
I have read the specifications, and the information I found was 2 amps to the board should be good enough to power external device. What I don't know is how much power can be delivered to the external device? I could not find that in my research. | 2013/10/08 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/84699",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/16217/"
] | The BBB uses a TPS2051 USB Power Switch. It limits the USB Host port power to 500mA on the high end. The power is drawn from the same system bus that powers the rest of the 5v parts, the 5v input port.
The BBB needs 1A for normal function + a low current usb device (keyboard, mouse, things that draw little current). Using a Cape or a high current USB device would require a power supply that can meet or exceed that extra current draw. | Unless you know explicitly otherwise, assume the maximum power is 100 mA.
If your external device isn't just using the USB interface for power, and is actually enumerating to the beaglebone properly, it can request up to 500 mA under standard USB.
If the beaglebone supports some of the non-standard USB-2.0 high-current charging profiles, any device that *also* supports the non-standard charging profiles should just work, or fall back to only 500 mA draw automatically.
---
Anything else is **technically** a violation of the USB spec's behaviour.
It should be noted that a LOT of hardware out there just treats USB connections as a dumb 5V power source, which *usually* works (except when the host properly monitors device current draw). Hardly anyone actually implements proper host-based current monitoring, because it would break lots of non-spec hardware, and most users would just go "why doesn't your `device x` work with my (*actually broken*) shitty MP3 player/keyboard fan/stupid USB widget.
In practice, you can *generally* draw 500 mA even without enumerating. Drawing any more current depends entirely on the USB host, and is implementation specific.
---
Fortunately, in this case, the beaglebone's [schematics are available](http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack#Hardware_Files), so you can look and see what the USB current-limiting mechanism is yourself.
The USB interface is on page 4 of the schematic.
Hint: The USB power for the host-port is switched by a [TPS2051B](http://www.ti.com/product/tps2051b) |
10,925,340 | I am using JBoss 4.2 GA and deploy my application there using JNDI naming for my data source.
I tested it on the local server and it works fine but when I put it on the remote server it can't make the database connection and also there is no log in JBoss.
I am using an oracle database.
On the remote server the "abc-ds.xml" has the appropriate connection details.
Please help I have to make it ready till evening. | 2012/06/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10925340",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/536961/"
] | Make sure the remote server can see the db server. Sometimes you have to use fully qualified name of db host. Try with db IP address in xml file possibly. See if you can ping the db server from jboss machine. | It may be you cannot create datasource in your remote server. |
3,522 | I have iTunes (10.0.1) syncing with my iPhone (4.1) with the Voice Memos option enabled.
I created a single voice memo. I synced the phone and the voice memo transferred correctly. I then deleted it on the iPhone and synced again. iTunes still has the voice memo in the "Voice Memos" playlist. Additionally, when I click the iPhone's "Voice Memo" playlist in iTunes, I see the one file there, but it has an exclamation mark near the number.
I have 2 questions:
* What does this exclamation mark mean? There seems to be no way to get more info about it.
* How can I get iTunes to delete the voice memos when I delete the on the phone? | 2010/10/28 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/3522",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/218/"
] | A workaround that I found, is to go to iTunes Music library, find the voice memo, and then manually delete it from there. After you sync, the Voice Memo playlist will be deleted from underneath your iPhone (in iTunes), so you won't see that file that had an exclamation mark anymore. | Right click on the mouse and you should be able to see delete. |
50,440 | I graduated college with a degree in computer science and a GPA of ~3.1, and I'm currently employed full time as a software engineer.
My GPA isn't impressive, but it's not bad either. When I was looking for my first job, I was told by recruiters that a soon-to-be or recent grad should always list their GPA, or risk recruiters assuming a worse GPA than you actually have.
That makes perfect sense to me, but what about someone who has professional experience? Of course the degree should remain on the resume, but at what point is college GPA no longer relevant? | 2015/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/50440",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38589/"
] | This varies from industry to industry. If you were a lawyer, it's quite possible that the school and GPA will still be relevant 5, 10, 20 years on. In your industry, the majority of employers (but yes you will get exceptions), won't care beyond your first job, it is in effect counting as your experience for the role.
If you change jobs frequently in your first couple of years (either by choice or by force), then you may need it, but likely there's a bigger issue changing so frequently so soon anyway.
After a few years of experience, your degree isn't going to mean too much anyway (unless you studied at somewhere like MIT), experience will conquer all (again, yes a few employers WILL still care so YMMV, but in general).
As a hiring manager I don't even tend to look at the details of a degree in an experienced hire, I just do my own due-diligence to ensure they have the required skills. | Your mileage may vary but after one job of multiple years post college, the GPA is just a bit superfluous. |
50,440 | I graduated college with a degree in computer science and a GPA of ~3.1, and I'm currently employed full time as a software engineer.
My GPA isn't impressive, but it's not bad either. When I was looking for my first job, I was told by recruiters that a soon-to-be or recent grad should always list their GPA, or risk recruiters assuming a worse GPA than you actually have.
That makes perfect sense to me, but what about someone who has professional experience? Of course the degree should remain on the resume, but at what point is college GPA no longer relevant? | 2015/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/50440",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38589/"
] | This really depends on how good the GPA was.
At a 3.1, you are probably better off removing it once you get your first job. The higher the GPA though, the better it is to keep on your CV. A good GPA - and by good i mean a GPA that is typically listed as a minimum requirement for jobs, not being american i am unsure, but around a 3.5+? - could be kept on your CV indefinitely.
This isn't to say that a lower GPA should be ashamed or anything, just that a higher GPA can be a better advert for your candidacy.
Keep the GPA by the school you went to, so that it blends in with the overall CV.
As a final note, the recruiters are right - until you get your first job (and your first year working at thst job!) you need to show your GPA. | Your mileage may vary but after one job of multiple years post college, the GPA is just a bit superfluous. |
50,440 | I graduated college with a degree in computer science and a GPA of ~3.1, and I'm currently employed full time as a software engineer.
My GPA isn't impressive, but it's not bad either. When I was looking for my first job, I was told by recruiters that a soon-to-be or recent grad should always list their GPA, or risk recruiters assuming a worse GPA than you actually have.
That makes perfect sense to me, but what about someone who has professional experience? Of course the degree should remain on the resume, but at what point is college GPA no longer relevant? | 2015/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/50440",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38589/"
] | This varies from industry to industry. If you were a lawyer, it's quite possible that the school and GPA will still be relevant 5, 10, 20 years on. In your industry, the majority of employers (but yes you will get exceptions), won't care beyond your first job, it is in effect counting as your experience for the role.
If you change jobs frequently in your first couple of years (either by choice or by force), then you may need it, but likely there's a bigger issue changing so frequently so soon anyway.
After a few years of experience, your degree isn't going to mean too much anyway (unless you studied at somewhere like MIT), experience will conquer all (again, yes a few employers WILL still care so YMMV, but in general).
As a hiring manager I don't even tend to look at the details of a degree in an experienced hire, I just do my own due-diligence to ensure they have the required skills. | Is the job you're at currently a student intern position? If so I think GPA is fairly relevant in those kind of jobs.
In any event, I think a lot of places are catching on that knowledge is better than pure GPA. My first job out of college this person I worked with graduated the same time. He had a GPA of 2.something but yet he turned out to be the best person at the company implementing many key projects and had vast knowledge. I'm honestly sad I can't ask him questions anymore.
So no, GPA probably won't be looked at but then again probably wouldn't hurt to put it in. I don't think they'll even ask about your GPA much less even care what it is. |
50,440 | I graduated college with a degree in computer science and a GPA of ~3.1, and I'm currently employed full time as a software engineer.
My GPA isn't impressive, but it's not bad either. When I was looking for my first job, I was told by recruiters that a soon-to-be or recent grad should always list their GPA, or risk recruiters assuming a worse GPA than you actually have.
That makes perfect sense to me, but what about someone who has professional experience? Of course the degree should remain on the resume, but at what point is college GPA no longer relevant? | 2015/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/50440",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38589/"
] | This really depends on how good the GPA was.
At a 3.1, you are probably better off removing it once you get your first job. The higher the GPA though, the better it is to keep on your CV. A good GPA - and by good i mean a GPA that is typically listed as a minimum requirement for jobs, not being american i am unsure, but around a 3.5+? - could be kept on your CV indefinitely.
This isn't to say that a lower GPA should be ashamed or anything, just that a higher GPA can be a better advert for your candidacy.
Keep the GPA by the school you went to, so that it blends in with the overall CV.
As a final note, the recruiters are right - until you get your first job (and your first year working at thst job!) you need to show your GPA. | Is the job you're at currently a student intern position? If so I think GPA is fairly relevant in those kind of jobs.
In any event, I think a lot of places are catching on that knowledge is better than pure GPA. My first job out of college this person I worked with graduated the same time. He had a GPA of 2.something but yet he turned out to be the best person at the company implementing many key projects and had vast knowledge. I'm honestly sad I can't ask him questions anymore.
So no, GPA probably won't be looked at but then again probably wouldn't hurt to put it in. I don't think they'll even ask about your GPA much less even care what it is. |
50,440 | I graduated college with a degree in computer science and a GPA of ~3.1, and I'm currently employed full time as a software engineer.
My GPA isn't impressive, but it's not bad either. When I was looking for my first job, I was told by recruiters that a soon-to-be or recent grad should always list their GPA, or risk recruiters assuming a worse GPA than you actually have.
That makes perfect sense to me, but what about someone who has professional experience? Of course the degree should remain on the resume, but at what point is college GPA no longer relevant? | 2015/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/50440",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/38589/"
] | This varies from industry to industry. If you were a lawyer, it's quite possible that the school and GPA will still be relevant 5, 10, 20 years on. In your industry, the majority of employers (but yes you will get exceptions), won't care beyond your first job, it is in effect counting as your experience for the role.
If you change jobs frequently in your first couple of years (either by choice or by force), then you may need it, but likely there's a bigger issue changing so frequently so soon anyway.
After a few years of experience, your degree isn't going to mean too much anyway (unless you studied at somewhere like MIT), experience will conquer all (again, yes a few employers WILL still care so YMMV, but in general).
As a hiring manager I don't even tend to look at the details of a degree in an experienced hire, I just do my own due-diligence to ensure they have the required skills. | This really depends on how good the GPA was.
At a 3.1, you are probably better off removing it once you get your first job. The higher the GPA though, the better it is to keep on your CV. A good GPA - and by good i mean a GPA that is typically listed as a minimum requirement for jobs, not being american i am unsure, but around a 3.5+? - could be kept on your CV indefinitely.
This isn't to say that a lower GPA should be ashamed or anything, just that a higher GPA can be a better advert for your candidacy.
Keep the GPA by the school you went to, so that it blends in with the overall CV.
As a final note, the recruiters are right - until you get your first job (and your first year working at thst job!) you need to show your GPA. |
398,428 | I guess the argument for pre-commit hooks that lint and run unit tests would be that every single commit is clean.
The argument against them is that they take a lot of time to run, which can add up if you commit often.
The same would go for pre-push hooks except they presumably occur less often. Also, if you have continuous integration setup, which runs the same lint and test scripts you basically have to wait twice when the outcome will be the same almost all the time. | 2019/09/15 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/398428",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/274828/"
] | *Yes, and no.*
**Is the action you are putting into the script worth it?**
At work we have issues with git on windows environments. The file system is case-insensitive and leads to all sorts of fun. We using the pre-commit hook to ensure that all branch names are lower case. This is a quick check that saves a lot of hassle.
Our post commit hook checks to see if the branch being targeted is like /stream/xyz. If it is it also sends the commit message to the stream slack channel to notify team members who are not heavily involved with code management, but might like to know about work done (manager) or that some testing might be possible on the next build.
**Is this your process?**
Having a long commit time is a non-issue if that is the expectation on each developer. That they successfully run x, y, and z.
Similarly you could enforce this by checking for results. If the results are clean and date after all the files in your project, then its pretty self-evident that they were run and are good.
Then again this could be a waste of time and resources. Perhaps a dedicated CI box is better.
---
But all of this is hand-waving without a process you desire to implement. Only then can you determine if these scripting hooks are appropriate. | This depends a lot on your teams branch/merge and working model, on the quality of the linter rules, the quality of the unit tests and the actual running time of both.
When developers mainly commit to their local branch, or commit or push to an isolated feature branch, the influences of a non-clean commit on other team members are quite low, so they are usually tolerable. But assume a changeset is merged directly into a common dev branch, or into a shared feature branch, and the next dev pulls the unclean changes into his/her local working copy. Now when he/she notices failing unit tests, for example, then this will make the process quite ineffective, since it may not be clear any more whether the root cause were his/her own local changes, or the former merge.
If that is what you experiencing in your team, then a pre-push hook might be a useful solution. However, if the running time of those validations makes pushing a hassle, you should try to optimize. Maybe you can split the automated tests into a "slow" part which runs usually exclusively on the CI server, and a quick part which behave like "good" unit tests should behave - I mean, they should run very quick. That may help to streamline the process. |
40,680 | I have signed assignment of inventions with my employer. The exact wordings is not available to me - however I remember vaguely that it dealt with all inventions by employees being company's property.
My question is if I invent a system or develop a product in my spare time (outside office hours) and using my own personal resources (laptop, devices, personal time and effort etc...) will that still be in danger of being attacked by assignment of inventions? Can I safely assume that such property will fully be mine?
(I am asking because I remember reading in a reputed book - Business Law for Entrepreneurs) that any invention/developed product can be claimed by employer even if it is produced outside normal hours of employment with personal resources - Since it is done during the term period of employment.
I would love see someone shed light on this aspect since the above sounds too draconian. | 2019/05/03 | [
"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/40680",
"https://law.stackexchange.com",
"https://law.stackexchange.com/users/25082/"
] | The answer will depend upon the state law that is applicable, assuming you are in the U.S. Patent law is federal law but patents and patent applications are considered personal property, like a car, and the ownership and transfer of that property is governed by state law. The terms you imagine are in your agreement *are* too draconian in California, for example. Please get a copy of what you signed and edit your question to include key points and indicate your state. | If you signed a contract saying that what you invent is the property of your employer, it is the theirs because you agreed to it.
However, absent the agreement what you make on your own time is yours, unless you were hired to invent the thing. <https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/who-owns-employee-inventions-the-employer-or-the-employee.html> |
80,592 | If Banana costs 45 cents and
If Apple costs 30 cents and
If Pineapple costs 60 cents
How much would a Mango cost.
Give an explantion | 2019/03/12 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/80592",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/57837/"
] | It would cost
>
> 30 cents
>
>
>
Because the cost appears to be
>
> 15 cents per vowel in their name. Since Mango has 2 vowels, 30 cents total.
>
>
> | >
> 45 cent. Each run of a consonant counts 15 cent.
>
>
> |
295,092 | I only have 61 reputation and the bounty feature is available at 75 rep. So should I repost my question to get more views? | 2015/05/23 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/295092",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4543451/"
] | No.
To get more attention for your question you should:
1. Edit it to include any new information you may have discovered since you posted the question.
2. Use the share link to post in other forums, Facebook, Google+, etc. to see if you can get some new eyes on the post.
3. Post a bounty when you do reach the 75 rep threshold. | In general case, no.
But:
1. Sometimes it is possible, that you found the same question, but in a significantly differing context. If there is no answer for the original question, maybe an indirect solution could exist in your specific situation.
2. The way to the solution (answer) could have multiple steps. Part the problem into smaller, more specific fragments, and ask the first.
*In best case, if you get an answer to the partial problem, adding your own research, maybe you can even answer the original question, too.*
Simple reformulation is not okay, your question will be closed as duplicate. When you ask a question, you can see a popup with its possible duplicates. This popup is also visible for the reviewers deciding if it is a duplicate, or not. |
5,494,279 | I am using my HTC Desire to send NMEA - $GPRMC data to my Laptop(server)!
A file named gpsdata.nmea gets created in the server and is getting updated every second with new data. I can view my path if I open the file in Google Earth! However I want to view my path dynamically as it changes.....in Google Earth!!! Is this possible? Or are there any other software that allows this?? Please help me! | 2011/03/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5494279",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/651068/"
] | A table should have at least one key but there's no reason to create another one if you aren't going to need it. | One possible case is when you have records coming in from another database/system which has it's own GUIDs. |
5,494,279 | I am using my HTC Desire to send NMEA - $GPRMC data to my Laptop(server)!
A file named gpsdata.nmea gets created in the server and is getting updated every second with new data. I can view my path if I open the file in Google Earth! However I want to view my path dynamically as it changes.....in Google Earth!!! Is this possible? Or are there any other software that allows this?? Please help me! | 2011/03/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5494279",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/651068/"
] | Whether you also need a surrogate key depends on your particular needs. GUIDS can be slower for joining, but only you can know if they will affect the performance of your system enough to warrant adding an int key. There are also issues with GUIDS and how the data is physically stored on the disk and the performance issues that causes. Additonally, since PKs are in all other indexes, using a GUID for a PK can greatly increase the size of your index. Before commmitting to use GUIDs, you need to do some reading on the performance implications (which may be differnt from database to database).
GUIDS are not user friendly. If you don't have a good natural key in a table (sucha as person table where names are not unique and thus are not able to be a natural key) then users may need to have some other value to query on (such as person\_id). THe average employee is going to be happier researching customer 1234 than customer '6214304C-2C56-E011-BACB-00265582C0F2' Nor do I see customers as wanting to call up customer service to ask for help with order number '6E14304C-2C56-E011-BACB-00265582C0F2'. This is not an unimportant consideration.
I'm not saying you can't use the GUID (you certainly can), but you need to know before you commit to the path exactly what kinds of issues you might have with using the GUID. Databasesa re not easy to change after there are millions of records, espcially with something as critical to the design as the PK. Many of the problems with GUIDs aren't particularly noticable until you have lots of records. If the database is one that will never have that level of records, you may never run into the issue, but you need to think about the implications in terms of your own expected database use before you decide. | One possible case is when you have records coming in from another database/system which has it's own GUIDs. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.