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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
779,562 | What would be the possible causes for the below exception on resin server restart?
500 Servlet Exception
conf/resin.conf:168: java.lang.StackOverflowError
---
Resin Professional 3.0.21 (built Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:17:46 PDT) | 2009/04/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/779562",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/79676/"
] | There's a technique called [photon mapping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_mapping) that is actually quite similar to ray tracing, but provides various advantages in complex scenes. In fact, it's the only method (at least of which I know) that provides truly realistic (i.e. all the laws of optics are obeyed) rendering if done properly. It's a technique that's used sparingly as far as I know, since it's performance is hugely worse than even ray tracing (given that it effectively does the opposite and simulates the paths taken by photons from the light sources to the camera) - yet this is it's only disadvantage. It's certainly an interesting algorithm, though you're not going to see it in widescale use until well after ray tracing (if ever). | The Rendering article on Wikipedia covers various [techniques](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28computer_graphics%29#Techniques).
Intro paragraph:
>
> Many rendering algorithms have been
> researched, and software used for
> rendering may employ a number of
> different techniques to obtain a final
> image.
>
>
> Tracing every ray of light in a scene
> is impractical and would take an
> enormous amount of time. Even tracing
> a portion large enough to produce an
> image takes an inordinate amount of
> time if the sampling is not
> intelligently restricted.
>
>
> Therefore, four loose families of
> more-efficient light transport
> modelling techniques have emerged:
> **rasterisation**, including scanline
> rendering, geometrically projects
> objects in the scene to an image
> plane, without advanced optical
> effects; **ray casting** considers the
> scene as observed from a specific
> point-of-view, calculating the
> observed image based only on geometry
> and very basic optical laws of
> reflection intensity, and perhaps
> using Monte Carlo techniques to reduce
> artifacts; **radiosity** uses finite
> element mathematics to simulate
> diffuse spreading of light from
> surfaces; and **ray tracing** is similar
> to ray casting, but employs more
> advanced optical simulation, and
> usually uses Monte Carlo techniques to
> obtain more realistic results at a
> speed that is often orders of
> magnitude slower.
>
>
> Most advanced software combines two or
> more of the techniques to obtain
> good-enough results at reasonable
> cost.
>
>
> Another distinction is between image
> order algorithms, which iterate over
> pixels of the image plane, and object
> order algorithms, which iterate over
> objects in the scene. Generally object
> order is more efficient, as there are
> usually fewer objects in a scene than
> pixels.
>
>
>
From those descriptions, only [radiosity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity) seems different in concept to me. |
779,562 | What would be the possible causes for the below exception on resin server restart?
500 Servlet Exception
conf/resin.conf:168: java.lang.StackOverflowError
---
Resin Professional 3.0.21 (built Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:17:46 PDT) | 2009/04/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/779562",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/79676/"
] | Aagh! These answers are very uninformed!
Of course, it doesn't help that the question is imprecise.
OK, "rendering" is a really wide topic. One issue within rendering is camera visibility or "hidden surface algorithms" -- figuring out what objects are seen in each pixel. There are various categorizations of visibility algorithms. That's **probably** what the poster was asking about (given that they thought of it as a dichotomy between "rasterization" and "ray tracing").
A classic (though now somewhat dated) categorization reference is Sutherland et al "A Characterization of Ten Hidden-Surface Algorithms", ACM Computer Surveys 1974. It's very outdated, but it's still excellent for providing a framework for thinking about how to categorize such algorithms.
One class of hidden surface algorithms involves "ray casting", which is computing the intersection of the line from the camera through each pixel with objects (which can have various representations, including triangles, algebraic surfaces, NURBS, etc.).
Other classes of hidden surface algorithms include "z-buffer", "scanline techniques", "list priority algorithms", and so on. They were pretty darned creative with algorithms back in the days when there weren't many compute cycles and not enough memory to store a z-buffer.
These days, both compute and memory are cheap, and so three techniques have pretty much won out: (1) dicing everything into triangles and using a z-buffer; (2) ray casting; (3) Reyes-like algorithms that uses an extended z-buffer to handle transparency and the like. Modern graphics cards do #1; high-end software rendering usually does #2 or #3 or a combination. Though various ray tracing hardware has been proposed, and sometimes built, but never caught on, and also modern GPUs are now programmable enough to actually ray trace, though at a severe speed disadvantage to their hard-coded rasterization techniques. Other more exotic algorithms have mostly fallen by the wayside over the years. (Although various sorting/splatting algorithms can be used for volume rendering or other special purposes.)
"Rasterizing" really just means "figuring out which pixels an object lies on." Convention dictates that it excludes ray tracing, but this is shaky. I suppose you could justify that rasterization answers "which pixels does this shape overlap" whereas ray tracing answers "which object is behind this pixel", if you see the difference.
Now then, hidden surface removal is not the only problem to be solved in the field of "rendering." Knowing what object is visible in each pixel is only a start; you also need to know what color it is, which means having some method of computing how light propagates around the scene. There are a whole bunch of techniques, usually broken down into dealing with shadows, reflections, and "global illumination" (that which bounces between objects, as opposed to coming directly from lights).
"Ray tracing" means applying the ray casting technique to also determine visibility for shadows, reflections, global illumination, etc. It's possible to use ray tracing for everything, or to use various rasterization methods for camera visibility and ray tracing for shadows, reflections, and GI. "Photon mapping" and "path tracing" are techniques for calculating certain kinds of light propagation (using ray tracing, so it's just wrong to say they are somehow fundamentally a different rendering technique). There are also global illumination techniques that don't use ray tracing, such as "radiosity" methods (which is a finite element approach to solving global light propagation, but in most parts of the field have fallen out of favor lately). But using radiosity or photon mapping for light propagation STILL requires you to make a final picture somehow, generally with one of the standard techniques (ray casting, z buffer/rasterization, etc.).
People who mention specific shape representations (NURBS, volumes, triangles) are also a little confused. This is an orthogonal problem to ray trace vs rasterization. For example, you can ray trace nurbs directly, or you can dice the nurbs into triangles and trace them. You can directly rasterize triangles into a z-buffer, but you can also directly rasterize high-order parametric surfaces in scanline order (c.f. Lane/Carpenter/etc CACM 1980). | The Rendering article on Wikipedia covers various [techniques](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28computer_graphics%29#Techniques).
Intro paragraph:
>
> Many rendering algorithms have been
> researched, and software used for
> rendering may employ a number of
> different techniques to obtain a final
> image.
>
>
> Tracing every ray of light in a scene
> is impractical and would take an
> enormous amount of time. Even tracing
> a portion large enough to produce an
> image takes an inordinate amount of
> time if the sampling is not
> intelligently restricted.
>
>
> Therefore, four loose families of
> more-efficient light transport
> modelling techniques have emerged:
> **rasterisation**, including scanline
> rendering, geometrically projects
> objects in the scene to an image
> plane, without advanced optical
> effects; **ray casting** considers the
> scene as observed from a specific
> point-of-view, calculating the
> observed image based only on geometry
> and very basic optical laws of
> reflection intensity, and perhaps
> using Monte Carlo techniques to reduce
> artifacts; **radiosity** uses finite
> element mathematics to simulate
> diffuse spreading of light from
> surfaces; and **ray tracing** is similar
> to ray casting, but employs more
> advanced optical simulation, and
> usually uses Monte Carlo techniques to
> obtain more realistic results at a
> speed that is often orders of
> magnitude slower.
>
>
> Most advanced software combines two or
> more of the techniques to obtain
> good-enough results at reasonable
> cost.
>
>
> Another distinction is between image
> order algorithms, which iterate over
> pixels of the image plane, and object
> order algorithms, which iterate over
> objects in the scene. Generally object
> order is more efficient, as there are
> usually fewer objects in a scene than
> pixels.
>
>
>
From those descriptions, only [radiosity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity) seems different in concept to me. |
779,562 | What would be the possible causes for the below exception on resin server restart?
500 Servlet Exception
conf/resin.conf:168: java.lang.StackOverflowError
---
Resin Professional 3.0.21 (built Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:17:46 PDT) | 2009/04/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/779562",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/79676/"
] | Aagh! These answers are very uninformed!
Of course, it doesn't help that the question is imprecise.
OK, "rendering" is a really wide topic. One issue within rendering is camera visibility or "hidden surface algorithms" -- figuring out what objects are seen in each pixel. There are various categorizations of visibility algorithms. That's **probably** what the poster was asking about (given that they thought of it as a dichotomy between "rasterization" and "ray tracing").
A classic (though now somewhat dated) categorization reference is Sutherland et al "A Characterization of Ten Hidden-Surface Algorithms", ACM Computer Surveys 1974. It's very outdated, but it's still excellent for providing a framework for thinking about how to categorize such algorithms.
One class of hidden surface algorithms involves "ray casting", which is computing the intersection of the line from the camera through each pixel with objects (which can have various representations, including triangles, algebraic surfaces, NURBS, etc.).
Other classes of hidden surface algorithms include "z-buffer", "scanline techniques", "list priority algorithms", and so on. They were pretty darned creative with algorithms back in the days when there weren't many compute cycles and not enough memory to store a z-buffer.
These days, both compute and memory are cheap, and so three techniques have pretty much won out: (1) dicing everything into triangles and using a z-buffer; (2) ray casting; (3) Reyes-like algorithms that uses an extended z-buffer to handle transparency and the like. Modern graphics cards do #1; high-end software rendering usually does #2 or #3 or a combination. Though various ray tracing hardware has been proposed, and sometimes built, but never caught on, and also modern GPUs are now programmable enough to actually ray trace, though at a severe speed disadvantage to their hard-coded rasterization techniques. Other more exotic algorithms have mostly fallen by the wayside over the years. (Although various sorting/splatting algorithms can be used for volume rendering or other special purposes.)
"Rasterizing" really just means "figuring out which pixels an object lies on." Convention dictates that it excludes ray tracing, but this is shaky. I suppose you could justify that rasterization answers "which pixels does this shape overlap" whereas ray tracing answers "which object is behind this pixel", if you see the difference.
Now then, hidden surface removal is not the only problem to be solved in the field of "rendering." Knowing what object is visible in each pixel is only a start; you also need to know what color it is, which means having some method of computing how light propagates around the scene. There are a whole bunch of techniques, usually broken down into dealing with shadows, reflections, and "global illumination" (that which bounces between objects, as opposed to coming directly from lights).
"Ray tracing" means applying the ray casting technique to also determine visibility for shadows, reflections, global illumination, etc. It's possible to use ray tracing for everything, or to use various rasterization methods for camera visibility and ray tracing for shadows, reflections, and GI. "Photon mapping" and "path tracing" are techniques for calculating certain kinds of light propagation (using ray tracing, so it's just wrong to say they are somehow fundamentally a different rendering technique). There are also global illumination techniques that don't use ray tracing, such as "radiosity" methods (which is a finite element approach to solving global light propagation, but in most parts of the field have fallen out of favor lately). But using radiosity or photon mapping for light propagation STILL requires you to make a final picture somehow, generally with one of the standard techniques (ray casting, z buffer/rasterization, etc.).
People who mention specific shape representations (NURBS, volumes, triangles) are also a little confused. This is an orthogonal problem to ray trace vs rasterization. For example, you can ray trace nurbs directly, or you can dice the nurbs into triangles and trace them. You can directly rasterize triangles into a z-buffer, but you can also directly rasterize high-order parametric surfaces in scanline order (c.f. Lane/Carpenter/etc CACM 1980). | There's a technique called [photon mapping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_mapping) that is actually quite similar to ray tracing, but provides various advantages in complex scenes. In fact, it's the only method (at least of which I know) that provides truly realistic (i.e. all the laws of optics are obeyed) rendering if done properly. It's a technique that's used sparingly as far as I know, since it's performance is hugely worse than even ray tracing (given that it effectively does the opposite and simulates the paths taken by photons from the light sources to the camera) - yet this is it's only disadvantage. It's certainly an interesting algorithm, though you're not going to see it in widescale use until well after ray tracing (if ever). |
21,349 | Do Muslims believe that a person's religion influences their behaviour?
I've heard people say, when Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y. The people saying that are usually atheists or pretty close to atheistic in their thinking, and probably think religion is meaningless. I can sometimes see the logic in such statements, but it makes me wonder.
Surely some, if not all, actions done by Muslims are influenced by their religion. If none of the actions done by Muslims are influenced by their religion, then what's the point of being religious?
From the perspective of Muslims, does a person's religion influence their behaviour? | 2015/01/08 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/21349",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y:
In some cases Islam and its ambiguities or the correct or wrong interpretation of it is to blame. For example, if a Muslim read the qa'ran and interpreted the teaching (as an extreme) 'strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up Shia muslims in the market place' or 'insisting your wife is not allowed to drive a car' Then we must say that Islam is to blame because that is how in their interpretation of it is written in the book.
In the same vain, if a Muslim does good things, then his/her religion has guided them to do good things. For example give earnings to charity or help the poor.
Inherently, Muslims are not bad as no-one is born bad. But the interpretation of Islam can cause Muslims to do good or bad, therefore through this logic people are influenced by their religion. | Here is my view on the matter:
==============================
>
> I've heard people say, when Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y.
>
>
>
The reality is Islam is not to blame for the action of that said person. Let me explain, for instance one can call themselves a Muslim, and not hold to the faith strictly.
Example: A Muslim drinks alcohol, and becomes intoxicated, then proceeds to get into a car crash.
The Muslim did commit a bad action, and Islam is not to blame. This is because Islam strictly motions that alcohol is prohibited for a Muslim, the blame lays only upon him, not his religion as his religion clearly is not tied to the bad action.
---
>
> From the perspective of Muslims, does a person's religion influence their behaviour?
>
>
>
For me my religion does shape who I am, it limits me from my primal urges, without limitation I would assume that my behaviour would be radically different without my religion, as there would be no reason to limit my urge so that certain thing. Islam is also a constant reminder to me that enforces certain behaviours as well, such as that I have patience with others; do good, pray five times a day, and many other things.
### On other things:
>
> I've heard people say, when Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y. The people saying that are usually atheists or pretty close to atheistic in their thinking, and probably think religion is meaningless. I can sometimes see the logic in such statements, but it makes me wonder.
>
>
>
While I addressed some points above I want to go in extent to why many Muslims say this, and why their response is valid. Recall the phrase in statistical analysis, "correlation does not imply causation" classically expressed in logic as: (P & Q) ≠ (P → Q) ٧ (Q → P). While sometimes it looks like there is a correlation, we have to understand that even with a correlation (which there may or may not be) that causation should not be implied. If one wants to say Islam is the cause to the supposed correlation, they should support their view, otherwise it may be dismissed as ill speculation, especially when there is plenty of statistics, and data that argue against them. |
21,349 | Do Muslims believe that a person's religion influences their behaviour?
I've heard people say, when Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y. The people saying that are usually atheists or pretty close to atheistic in their thinking, and probably think religion is meaningless. I can sometimes see the logic in such statements, but it makes me wonder.
Surely some, if not all, actions done by Muslims are influenced by their religion. If none of the actions done by Muslims are influenced by their religion, then what's the point of being religious?
From the perspective of Muslims, does a person's religion influence their behaviour? | 2015/01/08 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/21349",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/301/"
] | Muslim X does bad action Y, that Islam isn't to blame for Y:
In some cases Islam and its ambiguities or the correct or wrong interpretation of it is to blame. For example, if a Muslim read the qa'ran and interpreted the teaching (as an extreme) 'strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up Shia muslims in the market place' or 'insisting your wife is not allowed to drive a car' Then we must say that Islam is to blame because that is how in their interpretation of it is written in the book.
In the same vain, if a Muslim does good things, then his/her religion has guided them to do good things. For example give earnings to charity or help the poor.
Inherently, Muslims are not bad as no-one is born bad. But the interpretation of Islam can cause Muslims to do good or bad, therefore through this logic people are influenced by their religion. | I personally believe that religion does influence a person's behavior. It influences morals, and someone who strongly believes in a religion will generally try to exhibit what their religion defines as good behavior and stay way from what their religion defines as bad behavior. Most Muslims I know avoid drinking alcohol. A lot of religious people try to keep some distance- both physical and emotional- with members of the opposite sex that they aren't related to.
However, unless someone is a perfect embodiment of a religion, you cannot link all their actions back to their religion. I believe in Islam, but that doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. Most people are normal human beings who's behavior is not only influenced by religion. This can be applied to anyone who has moral standards that they try to live by. Someone could get angry by loved one's unintentional mistake, but they might regret their temper later.
In regards to cases where a Muslim exhibits bad behavior because they believe it to be Islam, from my perspective as a Muslim, their religion is influencing behavior. However, I don't believe that they are following the same religion as me. We may be using the same words when we recite what we believe, such as "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad [PBUH] is His Messenger," but if, for instance, they believe that enacting terrorism is a good deed, they obviously have very different beliefs about God and the Prophet (PBUH) from me, who believes that the Prophet (PBUH) would very strongly disapprove of such actions. My definition of Islam would be different. So I would say that Islam isn't to blame for those bad actions, because condoning such actions isn't in my definition of Islam. I would still say that their religion influenced their behavior, but I would not consider such a person as being a Muslim and following Islam's true teachings. |
31,540,868 | Why doesn't the edit Text in the MySQL table text show in the Article page?
You can only see it if you edit the Article, then the you see the in mySQL edited text.
Does exist an second table with the article text? | 2015/07/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31540868",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5139389/"
] | You should never ever edit a revision's text directly in the database to avoid any data corruption and to have a revision of every page version/edit. The [`text` table](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Text_table) itself holds only the wikitext of a specific revision/page, not the parsed text. If you request a page, MediaWiki parses the wikitext to html and saves the result in the parser cache (parsing is an expensive task, so it would be very bad for performance to parse every page on every page view). If you request the page a second time, the content will be requested from parser cache, instead of reparsing the wikitext from the text table.
That's why you have to clear the parser cache, if you change the wikitext on another way as the MediaWiki interface (if you edit a page in the interface, MediaWiki itself triggers a reparse of the page ;)). You could do that with the URL parameter "action=purge" next time :) | I solved it, the data is in the table objectcache saved, you only have to delete the content and it works. |
23,838 | For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt? | 2017/11/12 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23838",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12429/"
] | These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear. | **Abhidhamma** is the answer for doubting person (vicikicchā-mind-factor just arise with pure **moha-mind**).
*Commentary said that in 3 pitaka:*
1. Vinaya-pitaka is for alobha-meditation.
2. Sutta-pitaka is for adosa-meditation.
3. **Abhidhamma-pitaka** is for **amoha-meditation**.
*Why?*
One must leaves every lay's asset, lobha's object, for observing vinaya in vinaya-pitaka. So, vinaya-pitaka is for alobha-development (ordinate to observe monk's sīla).
One must leaves every kāma-loka's senses by **jhāna**, for living like bhrahmma-deva, like anāgami done. Kāma-loka's senses are causes of dosa, too. Therefore anagāmi, who abadoned paṭiga-anusaya (dosa), abandoned next life in kāma-loka, too. And sutta is very less description, very short, and very less question, when compare with abhidhamma, because buddha taught sutta for the listeners who had experiences in **upacāra-jhāna, appanā-jhāna, or upacāra-jhāna-like (ditthi-caritta [uggaṭitaññu & vipacitaññu])**. Samahitam cittam yathabhutam pajanati (**Good concentrating practitioner will see the truth**). So, suttanta-pitaka is for adosa-development (concentration-meditation).
Buddha taught abhidhamma to sāriputta very long description and sāriputta taught paṭisambhidāmagga & niddesa very long description, too. Also, there are millions questions in those canons. Because buddha and sāriputta taught abhidhamma-pitaka for the listeners **who have a ton of questions, low concentrating in meditation object, and too much doubts.** So, abhidhamma-pitaka is for amoha-development (wisdom/understand-meditation).
**So, if you want the answers for every doubts, full-course abhidhamma-study is required by your doubt. Everything in abhidhamma must can analysis their own reasons (causes and effects). So, your doubts can not doubt anymore, after you understand throughout abhidhamma.** |
23,838 | For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt? | 2017/11/12 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23838",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12429/"
] | These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear. | I was born into a vietnamese family, so buddhism was a natural part of my life. Maybe it's due to karma I was reborn into my situation, meaning I maybe believed in my past life, so was reborn into a situation where the belief was present?
As for you, I don't know. I am a Theravada Buddhist these past years (different from the Mahayana Buddhism upbringing of mine). You could try visiting buddhist temples of non-Theravadan lineage -- like Vietnamese Mahayanist temples -- just to experience it, and maybe even learn meditation from them (I suggest learning breathing meditation from them). The experience in the Mahayana temples may make you happy, maybe give you faith in Buddhism in general; and if you learn breathing meditation -- in your lower abdomen -- from them, that may give you great happiness...
The differences in the teachings between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism can then be worked out. This was what happened to me. It wasn't planned. I went with Theravada Buddhism later. All I've said is one way it could be done, but don't know if it would turn out good enough in the end -- like for me it did. But note again: it was not planned; but what I'm doing is giving you a "plan" based on my life.
Okay, that was just a "plan". Let's get right to Theravada Buddhism. Here is a good book on Theravada Buddhism to maybe help you sort out your doubts:
'Good Question, Good Answer' by Bhante Dhammika
<https://www.bhantedhammika.net/good-question-good-answer> |
23,838 | For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt? | 2017/11/12 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23838",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12429/"
] | These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear. | It seems like you are afflicted with one of [The Five Hindrances](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html) called [Doubt](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html#doubt).
From Gil Fronsdal, we find a description of doubt below, quoted from [here](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/the-five-hindrances-handouts/doubting-doubt-practicing-with-the-final-hindrance/), and he differentiates between "hindering doubt" and "questioning doubt".
>
> Doubt as a hindrance is a mental preoccupation involving indecision,
> uncertainty, and lack of confidence. It causes a person to hesitate,
> vacillate, and not settle into meditation practice. Its simplest
> manifestation can be a lack of clarity about the meditation
> instruction, which may be settled quickly with further instruction.
> More dramatically, doubt can involve deep, fiery inner conflicts and
> fears stirred up by the practice. All along the spectrum, doubt can
> keep the mind agitated, perhaps simmering in discursive thought and
> feelings of inadequacy. Alternatively it can deflate the mind, robbing
> it of interest and energy.
>
>
> “Hindering doubt” is not the same as “questioning doubt.” Doubt as a
> hindrance leads to inaction and giving up. Questioning doubt inspires
> action and the impulse to understand. It can, in fact, be helpful for
> mindfulness practice. A questioning attitude encourages deeper
> investigation. It is a healthy doubt that can overcome complacency and
> loosen preconceived ideas.
>
>
> Hindering doubt takes many forms. It can be doubt in the practice, in
> the teachings, in one’s teachers, and, most dangerously, in oneself.
> Doubt may not appear until one is actually beginning to practice. A
> person may spend months happily anticipating a meditation retreat
> only, upon arrival, to doubt whether it is the right place, time, or
> retreat to be on.
>
>
> Doubt is often accompanied by discursive thinking. Sometimes thoughts
> can appear reasonable and convincing enough to mask the underlying
> doubt prompting them. But regardless of whether it is reasonable or
> not, the discursive thinking can interfere with the meditation
> practice and so confirm doubts that the practice is not working. In
> other words, doubt can be self-fulfilling.
>
>
>
If you have questioning doubt regarding the teachings, then you should start investigating deeply.
If you have hindering doubt regarding the teachings, read below and further on the website.
>
> Once hindering doubt is recognized, there are various ways of working
> with it. Occasionally a period of careful contemplation may resolve
> the doubt. When doubt involves uncertainty about the practice or the
> teachings, it is helpful to study, learn and reflect on the Dharma
> itself. Asking a teacher or having a talk with a dharma friend may
> also help in this regard. Having a clear understanding of the Buddha’s
> teachings on what is skillful and what is unskillful can go a long way
> toward overcoming doubt.
>
>
> *(snipped)*
>
>
> Finally, it can be helpful to remember something that inspires you in
> the practice, such as a teaching, a person, or some experience you
> have had in the practice. Bringing this to mind may remind you of why
> you are doing the practice and how much you value it. It may gladden
> the heart enough to clear away the clouds of doubt. It may even
> encourage you to rededicate your efforts to transform everything into
> your path to freedom, including the hindrances.
>
>
> |
23,838 | For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt? | 2017/11/12 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23838",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12429/"
] | These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear. | Doubts mean that you are looking at the same problem in different angles... isn't' that so. For example,
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DuJto.png)
There can be no right or wrong answers to most of the questions you have and you really have to keep making mistakes and follow the path your heart chooses. Same with the things in Buddhism... |
23,838 | For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt? | 2017/11/12 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23838",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/12429/"
] | These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear. | I was and probably still am a skeptical person. A couple of tips: Don't force yourself to believe in anything (especially far reaching goals like enlightenment and rebirt etc because you cannot prove them to yourself). Rather, test the teaching out step by step and do not digest to much teachings at once. Practise certain meditations like loving kindness in a step by step manner and see if you feel better. Read for example the first five or so paragraphs by the dhammapada and look if they make sense and stay there for a couple days or weeks to gain confidence.. make much of them.. cultivate it (bhavana). If doubt arises talk to yourself and remind yourself that everything can be criticised and to seek for the ultimate truth is a waste of time.. if you judge a person is that ultimate truth? No? Is science ultimate truth? No, also constantly changing. And keep in mind that whenever someone criticises something or you do it by yourself you should only allow or regard it if it's 1. constructive and 2. your have a good replacement at hand, otherwise it's a waste of precious time and mentally draining. You could ask yourself for example: What are reall the disadvantages of loving kindness? Almost none. What are the disadvantages (both long and short term) of not meditating, being kind, chasing worldly things.. Isn't the mind causing most suffering? Have an internal dialogue and do so repeatedly. This comes from my own experience. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | We do contribute back to open source in the one situation where it would be pure insanity not to. When we fix bugs, we always ensure that they are pushed upstream.
As I say, it would be really insane to not do that, and have the alternative of maintaining a fork. | In my opinion the biggest problem is that most companies are doing development for projects. If a project develops something that is worthwhile to be published as open source the commitment for maintenance can only be given till the project is finished. After that no more resources are available for further developments, support of the community, bug fixes etc. This usually means a slow death for the open source "product".
Also, some companies are very eager to look at the PR for things they publish, and this usually means to go through all the processes for publications. This is something which in general overwhelms engineers and programmers. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | In my opinion the biggest problem is that most companies are doing development for projects. If a project develops something that is worthwhile to be published as open source the commitment for maintenance can only be given till the project is finished. After that no more resources are available for further developments, support of the community, bug fixes etc. This usually means a slow death for the open source "product".
Also, some companies are very eager to look at the PR for things they publish, and this usually means to go through all the processes for publications. This is something which in general overwhelms engineers and programmers. | Business logic.
If I start building a project where I use the **source code** for a FLOSS project rather than just a library then I need to develop with an awareness of two factors: the changes to the code to make it do what I want **and** those aspects that I would be allowed to release to the world.
Generally it's not that difficult to do this, but if deadlines are tight then I'm not going to '*waste*' time stripping out our proprietary extensions. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | Getting it through legal. Seriously, even as a huge contributer to open source software, as a large company the bureaucracy is a killer. (Hope Legal don't read this:) | We do contribute and are very proud of it !
<http://hg.nuxeo.org/opensocial> is all about our contribution to Nuxeo from Leroy Merlin.
Ok, i doesn't generate a cent of revenue, but it doesn't really costs more. And when people will contribute to our code (patches, bug fixes, extension), this will be code that will cost us nothing.
Moreover, our contribution is now included in the core feature of Nuxeo, so now we will benefit of a vendor certified integration of our code. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | In our case, we produce extremely customized software for the specific circumstances of a state office. Because of that, our software has no utility for anyone else. Being a state office, we aren't at liberty to "donate" time or money, either.
In theory, we could open-source some of our documentation, but again a lack of demand would make it nothing more than an empty gesture. | Even though we do give back to open source as code patches, and releasing open source software I can understand why other companies don't. Because "it doesn't make any profit" :) |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | Our management doesn't understand open source. I'm not sure that our boss understands that we are using OSS for development.
In the last time, our boss wanted to release some stuff as open source, but the package should be bundled with a support-contract, so I don't believe he really knows what Open-Source means.
So in one sentence: we don't give back to open source because our management doesn't understand the concept behind open source.
**Update:** Now we have an OS-product, but our management do not understand it until today. Actually we did it, because some of our customers talked about open-source (and really meant *for free*). | Business logic.
If I start building a project where I use the **source code** for a FLOSS project rather than just a library then I need to develop with an awareness of two factors: the changes to the code to make it do what I want **and** those aspects that I would be allowed to release to the world.
Generally it's not that difficult to do this, but if deadlines are tight then I'm not going to '*waste*' time stripping out our proprietary extensions. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | Getting it through legal. Seriously, even as a huge contributer to open source software, as a large company the bureaucracy is a killer. (Hope Legal don't read this:) | Programmers cost us money, but contributing to open source doesn't generate a cent of revenue. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | We do contribute back to open source in the one situation where it would be pure insanity not to. When we fix bugs, we always ensure that they are pushed upstream.
As I say, it would be really insane to not do that, and have the alternative of maintaining a fork. | We do contribute and are very proud of it !
<http://hg.nuxeo.org/opensocial> is all about our contribution to Nuxeo from Leroy Merlin.
Ok, i doesn't generate a cent of revenue, but it doesn't really costs more. And when people will contribute to our code (patches, bug fixes, extension), this will be code that will cost us nothing.
Moreover, our contribution is now included in the core feature of Nuxeo, so now we will benefit of a vendor certified integration of our code. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | Developers cost us money. Open source does not cost us money. Hence, if we start giving developers time to work on open source software then open source loses its competitive advantage and we may as well give MS a call since at least we can define how much money they cost us upfront. | We do contribute and are very proud of it !
<http://hg.nuxeo.org/opensocial> is all about our contribution to Nuxeo from Leroy Merlin.
Ok, i doesn't generate a cent of revenue, but it doesn't really costs more. And when people will contribute to our code (patches, bug fixes, extension), this will be code that will cost us nothing.
Moreover, our contribution is now included in the core feature of Nuxeo, so now we will benefit of a vendor certified integration of our code. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | The company I work for produces software that is proprietary and our software is highly specialized and is our major competitive advantage over all the other companies in our industry. Can't imagine why Open Source isn't something we encourage. | I am not sure contributing with money is the best way to help OpenSource software. When Jeff Atwood gave some $5000 to an OpenSource project the lead of the project was grateful... but if I recall correctly he was not too sure about what to do with it.
Developers who contribute to OpenSource projects are not paid to do so. They do it because they like it, want to prove something to themselves, etc... but money is never the cause since they know that they won't probably earn a dime. At best, they might attract attention which may then generate revenues (think new employer, more traffic to their blog, etc...)
Now, I don't say that one should not contribute, but I think that monetary contributions are not as efficient as one might think, companies have a tendency to think that their model (capitalist) naturally extend to everything around them :/
In my opinion, an OpenSource project benefit more from patches/bug reports than from direct monetary contribution, exceptions being hosting the website / repository of the project or financing meetings for the top contributors so that they can discuss face to face when the need arise, but though this cost money, this is not directly giving money. |
317,046 | Contributing to open source can have many forms: working with issue trackers, patches, further development, documenting, funding, etc. Assuming your company uses open source projects, what is the single most important reason why you're not contributing back to the community? | 2008/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/317046",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/23691/"
] | In my opinion the biggest problem is that most companies are doing development for projects. If a project develops something that is worthwhile to be published as open source the commitment for maintenance can only be given till the project is finished. After that no more resources are available for further developments, support of the community, bug fixes etc. This usually means a slow death for the open source "product".
Also, some companies are very eager to look at the PR for things they publish, and this usually means to go through all the processes for publications. This is something which in general overwhelms engineers and programmers. | I am not sure contributing with money is the best way to help OpenSource software. When Jeff Atwood gave some $5000 to an OpenSource project the lead of the project was grateful... but if I recall correctly he was not too sure about what to do with it.
Developers who contribute to OpenSource projects are not paid to do so. They do it because they like it, want to prove something to themselves, etc... but money is never the cause since they know that they won't probably earn a dime. At best, they might attract attention which may then generate revenues (think new employer, more traffic to their blog, etc...)
Now, I don't say that one should not contribute, but I think that monetary contributions are not as efficient as one might think, companies have a tendency to think that their model (capitalist) naturally extend to everything around them :/
In my opinion, an OpenSource project benefit more from patches/bug reports than from direct monetary contribution, exceptions being hosting the website / repository of the project or financing meetings for the top contributors so that they can discuss face to face when the need arise, but though this cost money, this is not directly giving money. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | For C++ you have two choices, Native or Managed.
For native development, my team (at Microsoft, in Windows) uses the [Windows Template Library](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library). It works very well for us.
You should learn the basics of Win32 and how Windowing works. The canonical tome is [Programming Windows®](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/157231995X)
For Managed development you can use C++ with [Windows Forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms). However, windows forms has been supplanted by [Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation).
* [Here is a good site](http://windowsclient.net/) that can get you up to speed.
* [This tutorial is useful](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733747(VS.60).aspx)
* You can use V[isual C++ 2008 Express Edition](http://www.microsoft.com/Express/vc/) for your tools (they are free). | Most windowing libraries and technologies use similar idioms. Pick one and learn it.
The [Windows Template Library](http://wtl.sourceforge.net/ "Windows Template Library") is a very nice veneer for Microsoft Windows while sticking with C++.
For cross platform C++ windowing toolkits (they work on Microsoft Windows as well as other platforms) you can try [QT](http://qt.nokia.com/ "QT") or [wxWidgets](http://www.wxwidgets.org/ "wxWidgets"). |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | Well, for the Windows GUI, get used to referencing the MSDN a lot, assuming you want to deal with the API directly.
My favorite resource for learning the basics was [theForger's tutorial](http://www.winprog.org/tutorial/), but there are hundreds of books and other sites out there. | The first question is that do you want to develop Free, Open Source, for personal use or Commercial applications in C++?
1. If you want to develop for personal use! Then you can go with some good C++ Toolkit, Framework or API.
2. If you want to develop an GUI application that will be open source or free. Then you can go with C++ Toolkits, Frameworks or API's that have the GPL or any open source license that fits your needs.
3. Even you can develop Commercial applications with open source toolkits, frameworks or API's that have LGPL license.
The second question is that do you want to develop for the Windows, Mac, Unix or Linux? or these all, even for the mobile platform?
1. If you have a Windows user, as I am, and want to develop only for the Windows, I mean not for the cross platform, you can go with Win32 API, although, learning Win32 API is harder but it gives you the complete control over the machine. Believe me that no other tool would you provide the complete control over the machine. If you dislike Win32 API, for any reason, you can go with MFC, which is another technology from Microsoft, but is not free, old and has less attention now a days. If you decide to develop with .NET platform, you have C++/CLI, an extension to C++ language for developing .NET applications. .NET gives you the type safety, OOP and a built in garbage collector, provides you the all API's related to Windows and x86 or x64 machine in one package.
.NET has its own world! Microsoft has decided to port .NET to other operating systems too, Mono project is an example... You can develop nearly all kinds of applications using .NET.
2. If you want to develop C++ GUI applications for the cross platform, then Qt, WxWidgets and U++ are available for your help. You can write once and deploy anywhere with these libraries. Many open source IDE's and compliers are also available to develop C++ applications with ease. Note that if you do not want to develop for the cross platform, any cross platform library would be overhead and unavoidable increase in size of the executables.
Is your C++ knowledge is good enough to program software systems?
In fact, if your knowledge of C++ is not enough deep and you do not understand programming methods like OOP, Encupsolation, Classes, Interfaces, Types, Programming Patterns and so on, you can not use any toolkit with full potencial.
Do not forget that every Toolkit, Framework or API is implemented in some programming language. If you do understand the language very well, you can use the toolkit very well. I think, you would understand my point. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | For C++ you have two choices, Native or Managed.
For native development, my team (at Microsoft, in Windows) uses the [Windows Template Library](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library). It works very well for us.
You should learn the basics of Win32 and how Windowing works. The canonical tome is [Programming Windows®](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/157231995X)
For Managed development you can use C++ with [Windows Forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms). However, windows forms has been supplanted by [Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation).
* [Here is a good site](http://windowsclient.net/) that can get you up to speed.
* [This tutorial is useful](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733747(VS.60).aspx)
* You can use V[isual C++ 2008 Express Edition](http://www.microsoft.com/Express/vc/) for your tools (they are free). | The first question is that do you want to develop Free, Open Source, for personal use or Commercial applications in C++?
1. If you want to develop for personal use! Then you can go with some good C++ Toolkit, Framework or API.
2. If you want to develop an GUI application that will be open source or free. Then you can go with C++ Toolkits, Frameworks or API's that have the GPL or any open source license that fits your needs.
3. Even you can develop Commercial applications with open source toolkits, frameworks or API's that have LGPL license.
The second question is that do you want to develop for the Windows, Mac, Unix or Linux? or these all, even for the mobile platform?
1. If you have a Windows user, as I am, and want to develop only for the Windows, I mean not for the cross platform, you can go with Win32 API, although, learning Win32 API is harder but it gives you the complete control over the machine. Believe me that no other tool would you provide the complete control over the machine. If you dislike Win32 API, for any reason, you can go with MFC, which is another technology from Microsoft, but is not free, old and has less attention now a days. If you decide to develop with .NET platform, you have C++/CLI, an extension to C++ language for developing .NET applications. .NET gives you the type safety, OOP and a built in garbage collector, provides you the all API's related to Windows and x86 or x64 machine in one package.
.NET has its own world! Microsoft has decided to port .NET to other operating systems too, Mono project is an example... You can develop nearly all kinds of applications using .NET.
2. If you want to develop C++ GUI applications for the cross platform, then Qt, WxWidgets and U++ are available for your help. You can write once and deploy anywhere with these libraries. Many open source IDE's and compliers are also available to develop C++ applications with ease. Note that if you do not want to develop for the cross platform, any cross platform library would be overhead and unavoidable increase in size of the executables.
Is your C++ knowledge is good enough to program software systems?
In fact, if your knowledge of C++ is not enough deep and you do not understand programming methods like OOP, Encupsolation, Classes, Interfaces, Types, Programming Patterns and so on, you can not use any toolkit with full potencial.
Do not forget that every Toolkit, Framework or API is implemented in some programming language. If you do understand the language very well, you can use the toolkit very well. I think, you would understand my point. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | For C++ you have two choices, Native or Managed.
For native development, my team (at Microsoft, in Windows) uses the [Windows Template Library](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library). It works very well for us.
You should learn the basics of Win32 and how Windowing works. The canonical tome is [Programming Windows®](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/157231995X)
For Managed development you can use C++ with [Windows Forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms). However, windows forms has been supplanted by [Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation).
* [Here is a good site](http://windowsclient.net/) that can get you up to speed.
* [This tutorial is useful](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733747(VS.60).aspx)
* You can use V[isual C++ 2008 Express Edition](http://www.microsoft.com/Express/vc/) for your tools (they are free). | My best advice for Windows C++ GUI programming is don't do Windows C++ GUI programming.
I realize that is an extremely uninformative/smartass response if it's not qualified, so I'll note that you don't state that you *need* to do C++ Windows GUI programming, but that you "Would like to get into Windows GUI apps." If that is the case, and you don't have a very specific reason to use C++ (i.e. gigantic existing legacy codebase written in MFC or a bunch of C++ code that you want to build a front-end for but would be a pain to expose to .NET code), then it is going to be a lot easier and more productive to go the .NET route and start learning Windows Forms or better yet WPF using C# or another .NET language of your choice.
If you do need to go C++, then I would second the recommendations for 3rd party toolkits like Qt or wxWidgets, as the state of C/C++ GUI programming tools from Microsoft is now abysmal. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | Well, for the Windows GUI, get used to referencing the MSDN a lot, assuming you want to deal with the API directly.
My favorite resource for learning the basics was [theForger's tutorial](http://www.winprog.org/tutorial/), but there are hundreds of books and other sites out there. | It has been so long since I worked with C++ on Windows GUI, my word is always avoid C++ in Windows GUI unless you have a very good reason, I mean a good darn reason, if you need some performance C# is more than enough for 90% of the cases, and if you need more power write your performance critical thing in a C++ dll, and call it from a Windows Forms or WPF application.
It will save you hell of a lot time.
Still my opinion, if you have another I totally respect that |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | It has been so long since I worked with C++ on Windows GUI, my word is always avoid C++ in Windows GUI unless you have a very good reason, I mean a good darn reason, if you need some performance C# is more than enough for 90% of the cases, and if you need more power write your performance critical thing in a C++ dll, and call it from a Windows Forms or WPF application.
It will save you hell of a lot time.
Still my opinion, if you have another I totally respect that | We are in 2020 but the question is still pertinent. I agree with Qt users, it's a great framework.
However, there is also [C++Builder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2BBuilder) that offers you design GUI visually at design-time. C++Builder application can be built on both VCL (Windows only) and FireMonkey (cross-platorm) frameworks. Clang compiler can produce both 32 and 64-bits native executables. Community edition of C++Builder is free. Delphi integration is seamless: C++Builder project can include Delphi files directly and use any existing Delphi component packages and libraries. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | Most windowing libraries and technologies use similar idioms. Pick one and learn it.
The [Windows Template Library](http://wtl.sourceforge.net/ "Windows Template Library") is a very nice veneer for Microsoft Windows while sticking with C++.
For cross platform C++ windowing toolkits (they work on Microsoft Windows as well as other platforms) you can try [QT](http://qt.nokia.com/ "QT") or [wxWidgets](http://www.wxwidgets.org/ "wxWidgets"). | +1 for Qt. I would put documentation at the top of my list of requirements for a GUI system. Qt has great docs and there's a huge community behind it. Also there are several books about it. Good docs are extremely important if you are working alone with no other team members to rely on. Alternatives are wxWidgets, MFC, WTL, FLTK and many more. They all have pros and cons. Eg FLTK is small and only provides GUI whereas Qt and wxWidgets also include networking, database access etc. Qt seems to have the most momentum at the moment after the Nokia buyout eg the release of Qt Creator which enables you to develop apps outside of Visual Studio. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | For C++ you have two choices, Native or Managed.
For native development, my team (at Microsoft, in Windows) uses the [Windows Template Library](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library). It works very well for us.
You should learn the basics of Win32 and how Windowing works. The canonical tome is [Programming Windows®](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/157231995X)
For Managed development you can use C++ with [Windows Forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms). However, windows forms has been supplanted by [Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation).
* [Here is a good site](http://windowsclient.net/) that can get you up to speed.
* [This tutorial is useful](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733747(VS.60).aspx)
* You can use V[isual C++ 2008 Express Edition](http://www.microsoft.com/Express/vc/) for your tools (they are free). | +1 for Qt. I would put documentation at the top of my list of requirements for a GUI system. Qt has great docs and there's a huge community behind it. Also there are several books about it. Good docs are extremely important if you are working alone with no other team members to rely on. Alternatives are wxWidgets, MFC, WTL, FLTK and many more. They all have pros and cons. Eg FLTK is small and only provides GUI whereas Qt and wxWidgets also include networking, database access etc. Qt seems to have the most momentum at the moment after the Nokia buyout eg the release of Qt Creator which enables you to develop apps outside of Visual Studio. |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | Well, for the Windows GUI, get used to referencing the MSDN a lot, assuming you want to deal with the API directly.
My favorite resource for learning the basics was [theForger's tutorial](http://www.winprog.org/tutorial/), but there are hundreds of books and other sites out there. | Put aside WPF or VC++ or Qt, You can also try out several libraries such as :
- OpenFrameworks
- **Processing**- ...
there's an active project for developing Gui with Openframeworks here:
<http://www.syedrezaali.com/blog/?p=2172> |
875,686 | I have been writing C++ Console/CMD-line applications for about a year now and would like to get into windows GUI apps. For those of you who have taken this road before, what advice/tips can you give me. Ex: good readings, tutorials, approach tactics, etc...
I know this is a really broad question, but i really don't know how/where to start, thus not knowing how to ask this question properly. | 2009/05/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/875686",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/98204/"
] | For C++ you have two choices, Native or Managed.
For native development, my team (at Microsoft, in Windows) uses the [Windows Template Library](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library). It works very well for us.
You should learn the basics of Win32 and how Windowing works. The canonical tome is [Programming Windows®](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/157231995X)
For Managed development you can use C++ with [Windows Forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms). However, windows forms has been supplanted by [Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation).
* [Here is a good site](http://windowsclient.net/) that can get you up to speed.
* [This tutorial is useful](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733747(VS.60).aspx)
* You can use V[isual C++ 2008 Express Edition](http://www.microsoft.com/Express/vc/) for your tools (they are free). | We are in 2020 but the question is still pertinent. I agree with Qt users, it's a great framework.
However, there is also [C++Builder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2BBuilder) that offers you design GUI visually at design-time. C++Builder application can be built on both VCL (Windows only) and FireMonkey (cross-platorm) frameworks. Clang compiler can produce both 32 and 64-bits native executables. Community edition of C++Builder is free. Delphi integration is seamless: C++Builder project can include Delphi files directly and use any existing Delphi component packages and libraries. |
100,698 | I'm creating an e-commerce website using Facebook as an alternative to create account/login process. Since it's an e-commerce website it's important for us to have users' e-mail to send updates about orders, payments, etc...
However, Facebook login flow, allows users to deny e-mail access, and this is where I'm kind of stuck, because I have no idea on how to deal with this situation. This is what I was thinking:
### Model 1
* User connects with Facebook;
* Denies e-mail access;
* The website shows an alert box telling user why the e-mail is important and asks to use his e-mail, or just continue;
* If user wants to use e-mail, the Facebook login box will show up again;
This method has big cons on mobile: transitioning between multiple screens and dialog boxes which could be very annoying.
---
### Model 2
* User connects with Facebook;
* Denies e-mail access;
* Can't proceed with any shop until insert an e-mail (using the Facebook to get his e-mail);
---
I'm really struggling with this situation because it's an important information, without user's e-mail, there is no clear way to send notifications, but on the other hand, to deny an e-mail access can't be done by 'accident', users need to do it very deliberating.
I'm also thinking about just showing an alert message on his account page, telling the cons about not having an e-mail associated with his account and let him decide what to do. | 2016/10/22 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/100698",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/76435/"
] | While your proposed flow is sound and pretty common, you're leaving out of the table a very important fact: **many people used an email just to sign with Facebook and they never check it out.** This is done by a variety of reasons, specially on younger demographics. So even if you get a valid email address, your notifications will reach a "void": nobody will see them.
However, in your question you mention another approach:
>
> I'm also thinking about just showing an alert message on his account
> page, telling the cons about not having an e-mail associated with his
> account and let him decide what to do.
>
>
>
**Bingo.**
Now [**your user is in control**](http://www.uxbooth.com/articles/the-perception-of-control/), they will know [**they will lose something**](https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/loss-aversion/) if they don't fill the email field, and therefore, you'll have real mails that you know will be checked from time to time.
But **let's not stop there**. In mobile age, you have **more accurate ways to contact your users**. WhatsApp and SMS are more reliable contact methods than Facebook for mobile. Android users will need to have a Gmail account, iOS asks for a mail account to associate your info (probably a gMail one), Twitter will require a Microsoft account. So, as you can see, you're limiting yourself to a method when it isn't even the safest way and your users will have other contact methods
Just in case: **do NOT confuse [Facebook's domination in the social login market share](https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/facebook-dominates-social-logins/) with ways to contact people**. Again: your users may log with FB and never check the mail *(disclaimer: I never do. Same for anyone in my family)*, or signup with a phone number. However, most of them will check their WhatsApp, or SMS, or a mail that they provided for this purpose | From Facebooks docs:
>
> Note, even if you request the email permission it is not guaranteed you will get an email address. For example, if someone signed up for Facebook with a phone number instead of an email address, the email field may be empty.
>
>
>
So even if you get the permission you will still need to check and maybe request and email down the road.
As a user I take exactly the opposite view from yours:
**It is not important for you to have my email address unless :**
1. I explicitly give it to you and know beforehand what you are sending.
2. You absolutely need it to conduct business, receipts, notices etc.
So it would go something like this:
* Sign up with Facebook, decline email permissions...Nothing happens.
* Do something that requires email... Check Facebook/existing email, prompt confirm/correct information > go ahead or not.
* For other communications I would explicitly request the user signup and specify rate and nature. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The US and others have, in the past, given security guarantees against a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, as well as a nuclear-armed China and North Korea. Security guarantees are **not** a mechanism to assure that an attack will not happen - they are a political promise that if there were to be an attack, there would be significant consequences.
For instance, the US has given security guarantees to much of Europe through NATO:
* First there is Article 5 of the NATO treaty. The US has signed it, and failing to follow through would be a severe blow to their diplomatic [credibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_(international_relations)). Is that enough?
* Next there is joint military planning and training for the defense of the European NATO members. The US does not just *say* it will defend them, it spends time and money *rehearsing* that. Is that enough?
* Then there are actual military deployments. During the Cold War, care was taken to screen West German corps on the inner-German border with a thin line of US units, so that the Soviets would have to attack Americans *first.* In some sectors, there were entire US corps. Is that enough?
* There was still some doubt that [extended deterrence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory) would hold, that the Americans would risk New York to avenge Paris or London. So the French and British got their own nuclear forces, at great expense relative to their budgets.
So what people would be looking for now is something that is:
* **sufficiently reassuring for Ukraine**,
* **sufficiently non-provocative for Russia**, *and*
* **something the guarantee powers are prepared to sign**.
Given the history of the last eight years, and of the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) before that, I doubt that Ukraine would be reassured by hollow words, or a military alliance with India, or something like that. They are looking for solid guarantees from the US and the other NATO powers.
Russia, on the other hand, claims that NATO and the US in particular are planning to break Russia by fomenting [colour revolutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution), etc. Their political messaging made a big point of claiming that Ukraine was controlled by Washington. So Russia is unlikely to accept any meaningful NATO guarantees.
The US and NATO have made clear that they support Ukraine only by means short of going to war with Russia. NATO would be unlikely to deploy tripwire forces as part of a peace deal unless that peace deal looks stable, and NATO tripwire forces defending what Russia considers to be Russian soil would be unacceptable to the Russian government.
A possible compromise might be Ukrainian EU membership, EU tripwire forces, and some understanding between EU and NATO that NATO fully backs the sole remaining nuclear power in the EU (France). But there are big hurdles to that. The NATO treaties would have to be expanded, with the possibility of spoiling by the usual suspects, and Ukraine would have to be admitted to the EU. (Being attacked by Russia did not make the corruption go away, and they are far from being a *stable* democracy. The EU has learned from admitting unready candidates in a rush of enthusiasm.)
**In summary,** I'm afraid that there will be more war before the positions of the two sides come close enough that a compromise can bridge them. | The only mechanism that is likely to be employed in the near future is to help Ukraine arm itself to the point where Russian leadership considers any military action towards Ukraine pointless.
Given the nature of the Russian decision-making, the required level may actually be to make the possible military actions not only to look pointless, but to be actually pointless.
Previous implementations of this idea [do exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) and work acceptably well, given the existing limitations.
Applied to Ukraine, this looks rather expensive, but pretty much doable and in a sense already started.
Ideas involving some form of collective security (NATO membership, the proposed EU security framework or involving other remote countries) are possible in the future, but suffer from a common problem.
These other parties will percieve very big liability to benefit ratio and will be reluctant to step in, at least for a while.
The other possible strategy is to disarm Russia, e.g. by depleting it economically. Looks promising, but works at even longer timescale. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The only mechanism that is likely to be employed in the near future is to help Ukraine arm itself to the point where Russian leadership considers any military action towards Ukraine pointless.
Given the nature of the Russian decision-making, the required level may actually be to make the possible military actions not only to look pointless, but to be actually pointless.
Previous implementations of this idea [do exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) and work acceptably well, given the existing limitations.
Applied to Ukraine, this looks rather expensive, but pretty much doable and in a sense already started.
Ideas involving some form of collective security (NATO membership, the proposed EU security framework or involving other remote countries) are possible in the future, but suffer from a common problem.
These other parties will percieve very big liability to benefit ratio and will be reluctant to step in, at least for a while.
The other possible strategy is to disarm Russia, e.g. by depleting it economically. Looks promising, but works at even longer timescale. | These guarantees are described in the [Presidential site of Ukraine](https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/andrij-yermak-ta-anders-fog-rasmussen-prezentuyut-rekomendac-77729) and can be summarized well enough by the following citation:
>
> We must make sure that the slogan “We can repeat” causes panic
> attacks and bad memories among Russians, that they answer only "Never
> again!" to it. For this, we need a military power strong enough. Security guarantees are aimed at helping us create such a power, by Andriy Yermak.
>
>
>
With such a guarantees implemented, President of France already suggests that Russia should be offered [some security guarantees](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/world/europe/macron-security-guarantees-russia.html?unlocked_article_code=fPkCbt2oEcVKBAVvdeV3TrG5n0YXIgEjYuF37gKxHqonA5PeMMA5P2OxNVsLJoATeznCrL1MKc_J7hc6PRoeEncaDGF0C6pb-ytwUFoEoxcf2w9bBwU6vLkfGZoEBKz_JU4PJFZ0gq_69mNDfdOKN9hJ56PSCuMbBCqOwPTa12GTVVqtiKeic6dmf77dwX3IILKOeVhWteEZ07dZ2GxtYBAu6ocRG6--oXN8aFxkxMvEbYJOyTVgxL3Ibd_7EdpkQ_agYEvRiNxc0RFmzMCjIcuMhfn3lFgL0Mde_hT7IlSJGd99Cl0FssMoh_wUw4LzGsBvbWJgrt3xX2RpGgZERJUU6iWCeWWRR8Rjxs4oqZeI&smid=share-url) as well:
>
> (there) is the fear that (...) the deployment of weapons that could
> threaten Russia, by Emanuel Macron
>
>
>
There is no obvious reason why it would not, even it is not clear from the talk how does he propose to address this need.
Ukraine does not longer believe in just signed papers, something must actually be done. Ukrainians already received such documents in exchange to the thirds largest world nuclear power, these finally did not provide the expected security for them.
From the historical perspective, looks like the best security guarantees would be economically successful, really democratic and western oriented Russia, but for that likely the government needs to change first. For Germany after WWII there were two plans to ensure the further stability of the Europe: the [Marshall Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) to help with economy revival and the [Morgenthau Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan) to demolish systematically all the industry, degrading Germany into agrarian country of the third world. While initially opting for the Morgenthau, the Marshall Plan has been finally selected as the better security guarantee. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The only mechanism that is likely to be employed in the near future is to help Ukraine arm itself to the point where Russian leadership considers any military action towards Ukraine pointless.
Given the nature of the Russian decision-making, the required level may actually be to make the possible military actions not only to look pointless, but to be actually pointless.
Previous implementations of this idea [do exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) and work acceptably well, given the existing limitations.
Applied to Ukraine, this looks rather expensive, but pretty much doable and in a sense already started.
Ideas involving some form of collective security (NATO membership, the proposed EU security framework or involving other remote countries) are possible in the future, but suffer from a common problem.
These other parties will percieve very big liability to benefit ratio and will be reluctant to step in, at least for a while.
The other possible strategy is to disarm Russia, e.g. by depleting it economically. Looks promising, but works at even longer timescale. | Ukraine may become a member of NATO after the war ends. NATO membership will serve as a security guarantee for Ukraine. Note that Russia invaded, attacked or has substantial troops present *only* in countries that are not NATO members (e.g., Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine). Russia has not invaded any of the NATO countries, despite consistent statements on Russian state-controlled TV threatening attacks on the NATO countries.
The fact that Russia is currently opposing Ukraine joining NATO is largely irrelevant, just as Russian opposition was irrelevant when other Eastern European countries joined NATO. NATO has consistently expanded from 1990s to the present in response to the constant threat of Russian aggression.
**REFERENCES:**
>
> At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision
> taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member
> of the Alliance with the NATO MAP as an integral part of the process
> and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy
> course without outside interference. Secretary-General Stoltenberg
> also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession
> to NATO, as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when
> large countries decide what smaller ones should do:
>
>
>
> >
> > Each country chooses its own path, and this also applies to joining
> > NATO. It is up to Ukraine and the 30 NATO members to decide whether it
> > aspires to be a member of the Alliance. Russia has no say in whether
> > Ukraine should be a member of the Alliance. They cannot veto the
> > decisions of their neighbors. We will not return to the era of spheres
> > of interest, when large countries decide what to do with smaller ones.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
*Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations>*
---
>
> NATO returns on Tuesday to the scene of one of its most controversial
> decisions, intent on repeating its vow that Ukraine — now suffering
> through the 10th month of a war against Russia — will join the world’s
> biggest military alliance one day.
>
>
> NATO foreign ministers will gather for two days at the Palace of the
> Parliament in the Romanian capital Bucharest. It was there in April
> 2008 that U.S. President George W. Bush persuaded his allies to open
> NATO’s door to Ukraine and Georgia, over vehement Russian objections.
>
>
> “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for
> membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become
> members of NATO,” the leaders said in a statement. Russian President
> Vladimir Putin, who was at the summit, described this as “a direct
> threat” to Russia’s security.
>
>
>
*Lorne Cook and Stephen McGrath, "14 years later, NATO is set to renew its vow to Ukraine", AP, November 28, 2022: <https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-nato-europe-bucharest-1b3564af002c8e879c304a6a85bf1f97>*
---
>
> By August 1993, Polish President Lech Wałęsa was actively campaigning
> for his country to join NATO, at which time Yeltsin reportedly told
> him that Russia did not perceive its membership in NATO as a threat to
> his country. Yeltsin however retracted this informal declaration the
> following month,[27] writing that expansion "would violate the spirit
> of the treaty on the final settlement" which "precludes the option of
> expanding the NATO zone into the East."[28][29] [...]
>
>
> In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed the
> Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European
> Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with
> NATO standards. [...] That year, Russian leaders like Foreign Minister
> Andrei Kozyrev indicated their country's opposition to NATO
> enlargement.[40] While Russian President Boris Yeltsin did sign an
> agreement with NATO in May 1997 that included text referring to new
> membership, he clearly described NATO expansion as "unacceptable" and
> a threat to Russian security in his December 1997 National Security
> Blueprint.[41] [...]
>
>
> At the 1999 Washington summit NATO issued new guidelines for
> membership with individualized "Membership Action Plans" for Albania,
> Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Romania,
> Slovakia, and Slovenia in order to standardize the process for new
> members.[51] [...] Russia was particularly upset with the addition of
> the three Baltic states, the first countries that were part of the
> Soviet Union to join NATO.[54][52] Russian troops had been stationed
> in Baltic states as late as 1995,[55] but the goals of European
> integration and NATO membership were very attractive for the Baltic
> states.[56] [...]
>
>
> On 25 February [2022], a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
> threatened Finland and Sweden with "military and political
> consequences" if they attempted to join NATO.
>
>
>
*Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO>*
---
Examples of statements on Russian state-controlled TV threatening attacks on the NATO countries:
Julia Davis, Russian Media Monitor:
* Twitter: <https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews>
* YouTube (videos with English subtitles): <https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor/videos> |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | These guarantees are described in the [Presidential site of Ukraine](https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/andrij-yermak-ta-anders-fog-rasmussen-prezentuyut-rekomendac-77729) and can be summarized well enough by the following citation:
>
> We must make sure that the slogan “We can repeat” causes panic
> attacks and bad memories among Russians, that they answer only "Never
> again!" to it. For this, we need a military power strong enough. Security guarantees are aimed at helping us create such a power, by Andriy Yermak.
>
>
>
With such a guarantees implemented, President of France already suggests that Russia should be offered [some security guarantees](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/world/europe/macron-security-guarantees-russia.html?unlocked_article_code=fPkCbt2oEcVKBAVvdeV3TrG5n0YXIgEjYuF37gKxHqonA5PeMMA5P2OxNVsLJoATeznCrL1MKc_J7hc6PRoeEncaDGF0C6pb-ytwUFoEoxcf2w9bBwU6vLkfGZoEBKz_JU4PJFZ0gq_69mNDfdOKN9hJ56PSCuMbBCqOwPTa12GTVVqtiKeic6dmf77dwX3IILKOeVhWteEZ07dZ2GxtYBAu6ocRG6--oXN8aFxkxMvEbYJOyTVgxL3Ibd_7EdpkQ_agYEvRiNxc0RFmzMCjIcuMhfn3lFgL0Mde_hT7IlSJGd99Cl0FssMoh_wUw4LzGsBvbWJgrt3xX2RpGgZERJUU6iWCeWWRR8Rjxs4oqZeI&smid=share-url) as well:
>
> (there) is the fear that (...) the deployment of weapons that could
> threaten Russia, by Emanuel Macron
>
>
>
There is no obvious reason why it would not, even it is not clear from the talk how does he propose to address this need.
Ukraine does not longer believe in just signed papers, something must actually be done. Ukrainians already received such documents in exchange to the thirds largest world nuclear power, these finally did not provide the expected security for them.
From the historical perspective, looks like the best security guarantees would be economically successful, really democratic and western oriented Russia, but for that likely the government needs to change first. For Germany after WWII there were two plans to ensure the further stability of the Europe: the [Marshall Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) to help with economy revival and the [Morgenthau Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan) to demolish systematically all the industry, degrading Germany into agrarian country of the third world. While initially opting for the Morgenthau, the Marshall Plan has been finally selected as the better security guarantee. | Referring to Budapest Memorandum is nearly pointless since [it was not ratified by any party](https://www.quora.com/Is-Russias-annexation-of-Crimea-a-violation-of-the-Budapest-Memorandum-If-so-should-Russia-be-expelled-from-the-G8) and barely has any legal meaning.
The most adequate scenario would be for Ukraine to be neutral. Russia has to repay the damages it caused if agreement will be achieved.
Alternatives like joining NATO will lead to further escalations: 1) Russia regardless of which president it will have will not tolerate that, 2) Given the nature of NATO as an [offensive alliance](https://www.royalgazette.com/letters-to-the-editor/opinion/article/20220129/is-nato-really-a-defensive-alliance/) it will lead to higher instability in Eurasia (e.g. threatening Russia would mean a danger for China and Iran too)
Last but not least I highly doubt the Russians will again trust the West and NATO considering how badly it went with Russian assets (e.g., blocking Russian assets in the EU without any adequate reasons), but making a fair agreement which will be ratified by all parties still makes sense. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The US and others have, in the past, given security guarantees against a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, as well as a nuclear-armed China and North Korea. Security guarantees are **not** a mechanism to assure that an attack will not happen - they are a political promise that if there were to be an attack, there would be significant consequences.
For instance, the US has given security guarantees to much of Europe through NATO:
* First there is Article 5 of the NATO treaty. The US has signed it, and failing to follow through would be a severe blow to their diplomatic [credibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_(international_relations)). Is that enough?
* Next there is joint military planning and training for the defense of the European NATO members. The US does not just *say* it will defend them, it spends time and money *rehearsing* that. Is that enough?
* Then there are actual military deployments. During the Cold War, care was taken to screen West German corps on the inner-German border with a thin line of US units, so that the Soviets would have to attack Americans *first.* In some sectors, there were entire US corps. Is that enough?
* There was still some doubt that [extended deterrence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory) would hold, that the Americans would risk New York to avenge Paris or London. So the French and British got their own nuclear forces, at great expense relative to their budgets.
So what people would be looking for now is something that is:
* **sufficiently reassuring for Ukraine**,
* **sufficiently non-provocative for Russia**, *and*
* **something the guarantee powers are prepared to sign**.
Given the history of the last eight years, and of the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) before that, I doubt that Ukraine would be reassured by hollow words, or a military alliance with India, or something like that. They are looking for solid guarantees from the US and the other NATO powers.
Russia, on the other hand, claims that NATO and the US in particular are planning to break Russia by fomenting [colour revolutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution), etc. Their political messaging made a big point of claiming that Ukraine was controlled by Washington. So Russia is unlikely to accept any meaningful NATO guarantees.
The US and NATO have made clear that they support Ukraine only by means short of going to war with Russia. NATO would be unlikely to deploy tripwire forces as part of a peace deal unless that peace deal looks stable, and NATO tripwire forces defending what Russia considers to be Russian soil would be unacceptable to the Russian government.
A possible compromise might be Ukrainian EU membership, EU tripwire forces, and some understanding between EU and NATO that NATO fully backs the sole remaining nuclear power in the EU (France). But there are big hurdles to that. The NATO treaties would have to be expanded, with the possibility of spoiling by the usual suspects, and Ukraine would have to be admitted to the EU. (Being attacked by Russia did not make the corruption go away, and they are far from being a *stable* democracy. The EU has learned from admitting unready candidates in a rush of enthusiasm.)
**In summary,** I'm afraid that there will be more war before the positions of the two sides come close enough that a compromise can bridge them. | The only mechanism that could *actually* guarantee safety for Ukraine would be to provide them with nuclear warheads, ICBMs, nuclear submarines and other technology used by nuclear nations to secure their own safety. Ukraine had such technology until [1994](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion) when they gave them up in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum, which in the end turned out to be a massive mistake. If Ukraine was capable of annihilating Moscow, St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg on short notice following a Russian invasion, it would've been extremely unlikely for Russia to try and capture Crimea.
In other words, Ukraine can only assure their security via [nuclear detterence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory). It worked well for 70 years to prevent direct war between Russia/Soviets and the US, so we could be quite confident it would also work for the Ukrainians. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | Ukraine may become a member of NATO after the war ends. NATO membership will serve as a security guarantee for Ukraine. Note that Russia invaded, attacked or has substantial troops present *only* in countries that are not NATO members (e.g., Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine). Russia has not invaded any of the NATO countries, despite consistent statements on Russian state-controlled TV threatening attacks on the NATO countries.
The fact that Russia is currently opposing Ukraine joining NATO is largely irrelevant, just as Russian opposition was irrelevant when other Eastern European countries joined NATO. NATO has consistently expanded from 1990s to the present in response to the constant threat of Russian aggression.
**REFERENCES:**
>
> At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision
> taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member
> of the Alliance with the NATO MAP as an integral part of the process
> and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy
> course without outside interference. Secretary-General Stoltenberg
> also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession
> to NATO, as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when
> large countries decide what smaller ones should do:
>
>
>
> >
> > Each country chooses its own path, and this also applies to joining
> > NATO. It is up to Ukraine and the 30 NATO members to decide whether it
> > aspires to be a member of the Alliance. Russia has no say in whether
> > Ukraine should be a member of the Alliance. They cannot veto the
> > decisions of their neighbors. We will not return to the era of spheres
> > of interest, when large countries decide what to do with smaller ones.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
*Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations>*
---
>
> NATO returns on Tuesday to the scene of one of its most controversial
> decisions, intent on repeating its vow that Ukraine — now suffering
> through the 10th month of a war against Russia — will join the world’s
> biggest military alliance one day.
>
>
> NATO foreign ministers will gather for two days at the Palace of the
> Parliament in the Romanian capital Bucharest. It was there in April
> 2008 that U.S. President George W. Bush persuaded his allies to open
> NATO’s door to Ukraine and Georgia, over vehement Russian objections.
>
>
> “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for
> membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become
> members of NATO,” the leaders said in a statement. Russian President
> Vladimir Putin, who was at the summit, described this as “a direct
> threat” to Russia’s security.
>
>
>
*Lorne Cook and Stephen McGrath, "14 years later, NATO is set to renew its vow to Ukraine", AP, November 28, 2022: <https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-nato-europe-bucharest-1b3564af002c8e879c304a6a85bf1f97>*
---
>
> By August 1993, Polish President Lech Wałęsa was actively campaigning
> for his country to join NATO, at which time Yeltsin reportedly told
> him that Russia did not perceive its membership in NATO as a threat to
> his country. Yeltsin however retracted this informal declaration the
> following month,[27] writing that expansion "would violate the spirit
> of the treaty on the final settlement" which "precludes the option of
> expanding the NATO zone into the East."[28][29] [...]
>
>
> In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed the
> Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European
> Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with
> NATO standards. [...] That year, Russian leaders like Foreign Minister
> Andrei Kozyrev indicated their country's opposition to NATO
> enlargement.[40] While Russian President Boris Yeltsin did sign an
> agreement with NATO in May 1997 that included text referring to new
> membership, he clearly described NATO expansion as "unacceptable" and
> a threat to Russian security in his December 1997 National Security
> Blueprint.[41] [...]
>
>
> At the 1999 Washington summit NATO issued new guidelines for
> membership with individualized "Membership Action Plans" for Albania,
> Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Romania,
> Slovakia, and Slovenia in order to standardize the process for new
> members.[51] [...] Russia was particularly upset with the addition of
> the three Baltic states, the first countries that were part of the
> Soviet Union to join NATO.[54][52] Russian troops had been stationed
> in Baltic states as late as 1995,[55] but the goals of European
> integration and NATO membership were very attractive for the Baltic
> states.[56] [...]
>
>
> On 25 February [2022], a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
> threatened Finland and Sweden with "military and political
> consequences" if they attempted to join NATO.
>
>
>
*Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO>*
---
Examples of statements on Russian state-controlled TV threatening attacks on the NATO countries:
Julia Davis, Russian Media Monitor:
* Twitter: <https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews>
* YouTube (videos with English subtitles): <https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor/videos> | The only mechanism that could *actually* guarantee safety for Ukraine would be to provide them with nuclear warheads, ICBMs, nuclear submarines and other technology used by nuclear nations to secure their own safety. Ukraine had such technology until [1994](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion) when they gave them up in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum, which in the end turned out to be a massive mistake. If Ukraine was capable of annihilating Moscow, St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg on short notice following a Russian invasion, it would've been extremely unlikely for Russia to try and capture Crimea.
In other words, Ukraine can only assure their security via [nuclear detterence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory). It worked well for 70 years to prevent direct war between Russia/Soviets and the US, so we could be quite confident it would also work for the Ukrainians. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The US and others have, in the past, given security guarantees against a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, as well as a nuclear-armed China and North Korea. Security guarantees are **not** a mechanism to assure that an attack will not happen - they are a political promise that if there were to be an attack, there would be significant consequences.
For instance, the US has given security guarantees to much of Europe through NATO:
* First there is Article 5 of the NATO treaty. The US has signed it, and failing to follow through would be a severe blow to their diplomatic [credibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_(international_relations)). Is that enough?
* Next there is joint military planning and training for the defense of the European NATO members. The US does not just *say* it will defend them, it spends time and money *rehearsing* that. Is that enough?
* Then there are actual military deployments. During the Cold War, care was taken to screen West German corps on the inner-German border with a thin line of US units, so that the Soviets would have to attack Americans *first.* In some sectors, there were entire US corps. Is that enough?
* There was still some doubt that [extended deterrence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory) would hold, that the Americans would risk New York to avenge Paris or London. So the French and British got their own nuclear forces, at great expense relative to their budgets.
So what people would be looking for now is something that is:
* **sufficiently reassuring for Ukraine**,
* **sufficiently non-provocative for Russia**, *and*
* **something the guarantee powers are prepared to sign**.
Given the history of the last eight years, and of the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) before that, I doubt that Ukraine would be reassured by hollow words, or a military alliance with India, or something like that. They are looking for solid guarantees from the US and the other NATO powers.
Russia, on the other hand, claims that NATO and the US in particular are planning to break Russia by fomenting [colour revolutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution), etc. Their political messaging made a big point of claiming that Ukraine was controlled by Washington. So Russia is unlikely to accept any meaningful NATO guarantees.
The US and NATO have made clear that they support Ukraine only by means short of going to war with Russia. NATO would be unlikely to deploy tripwire forces as part of a peace deal unless that peace deal looks stable, and NATO tripwire forces defending what Russia considers to be Russian soil would be unacceptable to the Russian government.
A possible compromise might be Ukrainian EU membership, EU tripwire forces, and some understanding between EU and NATO that NATO fully backs the sole remaining nuclear power in the EU (France). But there are big hurdles to that. The NATO treaties would have to be expanded, with the possibility of spoiling by the usual suspects, and Ukraine would have to be admitted to the EU. (Being attacked by Russia did not make the corruption go away, and they are far from being a *stable* democracy. The EU has learned from admitting unready candidates in a rush of enthusiasm.)
**In summary,** I'm afraid that there will be more war before the positions of the two sides come close enough that a compromise can bridge them. | Referring to Budapest Memorandum is nearly pointless since [it was not ratified by any party](https://www.quora.com/Is-Russias-annexation-of-Crimea-a-violation-of-the-Budapest-Memorandum-If-so-should-Russia-be-expelled-from-the-G8) and barely has any legal meaning.
The most adequate scenario would be for Ukraine to be neutral. Russia has to repay the damages it caused if agreement will be achieved.
Alternatives like joining NATO will lead to further escalations: 1) Russia regardless of which president it will have will not tolerate that, 2) Given the nature of NATO as an [offensive alliance](https://www.royalgazette.com/letters-to-the-editor/opinion/article/20220129/is-nato-really-a-defensive-alliance/) it will lead to higher instability in Eurasia (e.g. threatening Russia would mean a danger for China and Iran too)
Last but not least I highly doubt the Russians will again trust the West and NATO considering how badly it went with Russian assets (e.g., blocking Russian assets in the EU without any adequate reasons), but making a fair agreement which will be ratified by all parties still makes sense. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | These guarantees are described in the [Presidential site of Ukraine](https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/andrij-yermak-ta-anders-fog-rasmussen-prezentuyut-rekomendac-77729) and can be summarized well enough by the following citation:
>
> We must make sure that the slogan “We can repeat” causes panic
> attacks and bad memories among Russians, that they answer only "Never
> again!" to it. For this, we need a military power strong enough. Security guarantees are aimed at helping us create such a power, by Andriy Yermak.
>
>
>
With such a guarantees implemented, President of France already suggests that Russia should be offered [some security guarantees](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/world/europe/macron-security-guarantees-russia.html?unlocked_article_code=fPkCbt2oEcVKBAVvdeV3TrG5n0YXIgEjYuF37gKxHqonA5PeMMA5P2OxNVsLJoATeznCrL1MKc_J7hc6PRoeEncaDGF0C6pb-ytwUFoEoxcf2w9bBwU6vLkfGZoEBKz_JU4PJFZ0gq_69mNDfdOKN9hJ56PSCuMbBCqOwPTa12GTVVqtiKeic6dmf77dwX3IILKOeVhWteEZ07dZ2GxtYBAu6ocRG6--oXN8aFxkxMvEbYJOyTVgxL3Ibd_7EdpkQ_agYEvRiNxc0RFmzMCjIcuMhfn3lFgL0Mde_hT7IlSJGd99Cl0FssMoh_wUw4LzGsBvbWJgrt3xX2RpGgZERJUU6iWCeWWRR8Rjxs4oqZeI&smid=share-url) as well:
>
> (there) is the fear that (...) the deployment of weapons that could
> threaten Russia, by Emanuel Macron
>
>
>
There is no obvious reason why it would not, even it is not clear from the talk how does he propose to address this need.
Ukraine does not longer believe in just signed papers, something must actually be done. Ukrainians already received such documents in exchange to the thirds largest world nuclear power, these finally did not provide the expected security for them.
From the historical perspective, looks like the best security guarantees would be economically successful, really democratic and western oriented Russia, but for that likely the government needs to change first. For Germany after WWII there were two plans to ensure the further stability of the Europe: the [Marshall Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) to help with economy revival and the [Morgenthau Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan) to demolish systematically all the industry, degrading Germany into agrarian country of the third world. While initially opting for the Morgenthau, the Marshall Plan has been finally selected as the better security guarantee. | The only mechanism that could *actually* guarantee safety for Ukraine would be to provide them with nuclear warheads, ICBMs, nuclear submarines and other technology used by nuclear nations to secure their own safety. Ukraine had such technology until [1994](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion) when they gave them up in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum, which in the end turned out to be a massive mistake. If Ukraine was capable of annihilating Moscow, St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg on short notice following a Russian invasion, it would've been extremely unlikely for Russia to try and capture Crimea.
In other words, Ukraine can only assure their security via [nuclear detterence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory). It worked well for 70 years to prevent direct war between Russia/Soviets and the US, so we could be quite confident it would also work for the Ukrainians. |
77,348 | My question is based on [this post by Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-security-council-removal/32193776.html).
In a nutshell, there was a peace plan suggested that includes *security guarantees for Ukraine*. What are some reasonable mechanisms for such guarantees taking into account that Russia is a nuclear state and a permanent member of the UN security council?
### Detailed question
Here's the specific part of the Radio Free post that inspired my question:
>
> In comments released on December 25 on Russian state television, Putin
> said he was open to negotiations to end the war in Ukraine but
> suggested that the Ukrainians were the ones refusing to take that
> step.
>
>
> Zelenskiy said earlier in December that Ukraine planned to initiate a
> summit to implement a peace formula in 2023. Zelenskiy presented the
> formula in November to a Group of Twenty summit.
>
>
> The 10-point formula includes the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial
> integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all
> prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and
> security guarantees for Ukraine.
>
>
>
To highlight my own efforts and to facilitate further discussion, here are the options that I came up with and why I don't find them reasonable (thus asking for ideas).
1. NATO. But [back in 2021 Russia demanded](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato) not only a ban on Ukraine joining NATO but also the return of NATO troops to the 1997 positions.
2. UN Security Council. But Russia has a veto there. [There is some discussion](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-to-call-for-veto-wielding-russias-removal-from-un-security-council/) about removing Russia from the council, but that's not the case at the moment.
3. Non-NATO nuclear states. But those are China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea which either sideline with Russia (North Korea specifically) or maintain some form of neutrality. If any of those states were ready to provide guarantees, they'd probably have highlighted that somehow, which they didn't, unless I missed some important news.
### A note on a related question
[This question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72428/what-did-zelensky-mean-when-he-says-ukraine-should-have-security-guarantee) asks about what Ukraine expects and how that's different from a Budapest memorandum that didn't quite work as we can see. While I'm asking for an overview of possible mechanisms (or a conclusion that those don't exist). So, I don't think that mine is a duplicate. | 2022/12/27 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/77348",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/44975/"
] | The only mechanism that is likely to be employed in the near future is to help Ukraine arm itself to the point where Russian leadership considers any military action towards Ukraine pointless.
Given the nature of the Russian decision-making, the required level may actually be to make the possible military actions not only to look pointless, but to be actually pointless.
Previous implementations of this idea [do exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) and work acceptably well, given the existing limitations.
Applied to Ukraine, this looks rather expensive, but pretty much doable and in a sense already started.
Ideas involving some form of collective security (NATO membership, the proposed EU security framework or involving other remote countries) are possible in the future, but suffer from a common problem.
These other parties will percieve very big liability to benefit ratio and will be reluctant to step in, at least for a while.
The other possible strategy is to disarm Russia, e.g. by depleting it economically. Looks promising, but works at even longer timescale. | The main pragmatic source of security guarantees in the peace time is just that starting wars is quite hard and costly, so there is an overall tendency of not starting a war. Continuing a war which is already happening is much easier than starting a new one.
The fact that there is a signed peace treaty, or at least a ceasefire, is a significant deterrent which is obviously not absolute, but may be good enough to have a peace half-life of at least a decade, and then the situation may improve further.
On the other hand, it means that Russia may be expected to want some guarantees: Since starting a new war is obviously very costly, whatever interests Russia sees as its own (be it status of Russian language speakers in Ukraine, or oil/gas transit, etc) should not just be *promised* but there is some mechanism of enforcement - otherwise, Ukraine may immediately ignore these issues, as it did with Minsk agreements, on the rationale that Russia will not go to the next war immediately over these issues, so why bother observing them. This assumes Russia is in any position to make demands.
At this point, the "10-points formula" sounds like a list of presents that Ukraine expects from Santa for Christmas rather than a negotiable position, since it's totally not clear what's Russia's benefit in the proposed formula: μολὼν λαβέ. |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Badges, by and large, pat you as a user on the back for using a specific site feature. Bronze badges are more intended as introductory and are there to show you the new features, whereas silver and gold are more of the actual getting-involved-in-the-community kind of badges.
As a user, it's impossible *not* to gain badges unless you're simply not active on the site. Also, the gold badges you mention are tag badges, which are a bit special unto themselves; they're the only badge that can be *lost* due to point fluctuations in that tag.
I wouldn't think there's an "advantage" to having a lot of badges; if you do have them, then that means you participate quite heavily on the site. Reputation and past activity in moderator-like activities factor heavier into whether or not a user would make a suitable diamond moderator or not, at least in my opinion. | Makoto's answer summed up the high-level explanation perfectly. I wanted to add some color to:
>
> Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis?
>
>
>
It's an anecdote with a sample size of 1, so take it with a grain of salt, but I absolutely have increased my participation on the site in the past to gain specific badges. Even though I know it's a gamification trick, it still works on me. :) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Badges, by and large, pat you as a user on the back for using a specific site feature. Bronze badges are more intended as introductory and are there to show you the new features, whereas silver and gold are more of the actual getting-involved-in-the-community kind of badges.
As a user, it's impossible *not* to gain badges unless you're simply not active on the site. Also, the gold badges you mention are tag badges, which are a bit special unto themselves; they're the only badge that can be *lost* due to point fluctuations in that tag.
I wouldn't think there's an "advantage" to having a lot of badges; if you do have them, then that means you participate quite heavily on the site. Reputation and past activity in moderator-like activities factor heavier into whether or not a user would make a suitable diamond moderator or not, at least in my opinion. | Stack Overflow's badge system follows the well known trend of [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification), defined as "the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts".
**In Short:** People like earning achievements because it provides a clear set of goals to aim for, then gives positive feedback when those goals are accomplished. If you look at [Stack Overflow's badge list](https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges), you can see that many of them serve as reasonable goals for new users to reach.
It's a positive feedback loop. A user earns a badge for good behavior, encouraging them to continue that behavior, which leads to earning more badges, which hopefully leads to more good behavior.
---
### Further reading:
* Psychology of Games: [Why Do Achievements, Trophies, and Badges Work?](http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/)
* Extra Credits: [Gamification - How the Principles of Play Apply to Real Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dLK9MW-9sY)
* Wikipedia: [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Badges, by and large, pat you as a user on the back for using a specific site feature. Bronze badges are more intended as introductory and are there to show you the new features, whereas silver and gold are more of the actual getting-involved-in-the-community kind of badges.
As a user, it's impossible *not* to gain badges unless you're simply not active on the site. Also, the gold badges you mention are tag badges, which are a bit special unto themselves; they're the only badge that can be *lost* due to point fluctuations in that tag.
I wouldn't think there's an "advantage" to having a lot of badges; if you do have them, then that means you participate quite heavily on the site. Reputation and past activity in moderator-like activities factor heavier into whether or not a user would make a suitable diamond moderator or not, at least in my opinion. | Definitely gamification, but maybe also a kind of filter for head hunters or a way to pimp your resume :) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Badges, by and large, pat you as a user on the back for using a specific site feature. Bronze badges are more intended as introductory and are there to show you the new features, whereas silver and gold are more of the actual getting-involved-in-the-community kind of badges.
As a user, it's impossible *not* to gain badges unless you're simply not active on the site. Also, the gold badges you mention are tag badges, which are a bit special unto themselves; they're the only badge that can be *lost* due to point fluctuations in that tag.
I wouldn't think there's an "advantage" to having a lot of badges; if you do have them, then that means you participate quite heavily on the site. Reputation and past activity in moderator-like activities factor heavier into whether or not a user would make a suitable diamond moderator or not, at least in my opinion. | The purpose of badges is similar to [scout badges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_badge):
1. to encourage positive behaviors on the site. Not everything can be rewarded by reputation alone.
2. to identify proficiency: some badges are really hard to get and having them is meaningful for potential moderator candidates.
3. to grant extra powers: a gold badge in a tag makes your duplicate close votes effective directly, without the need for more votes for example. |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Makoto's answer summed up the high-level explanation perfectly. I wanted to add some color to:
>
> Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis?
>
>
>
It's an anecdote with a sample size of 1, so take it with a grain of salt, but I absolutely have increased my participation on the site in the past to gain specific badges. Even though I know it's a gamification trick, it still works on me. :) | Stack Overflow's badge system follows the well known trend of [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification), defined as "the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts".
**In Short:** People like earning achievements because it provides a clear set of goals to aim for, then gives positive feedback when those goals are accomplished. If you look at [Stack Overflow's badge list](https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges), you can see that many of them serve as reasonable goals for new users to reach.
It's a positive feedback loop. A user earns a badge for good behavior, encouraging them to continue that behavior, which leads to earning more badges, which hopefully leads to more good behavior.
---
### Further reading:
* Psychology of Games: [Why Do Achievements, Trophies, and Badges Work?](http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/)
* Extra Credits: [Gamification - How the Principles of Play Apply to Real Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dLK9MW-9sY)
* Wikipedia: [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Makoto's answer summed up the high-level explanation perfectly. I wanted to add some color to:
>
> Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis?
>
>
>
It's an anecdote with a sample size of 1, so take it with a grain of salt, but I absolutely have increased my participation on the site in the past to gain specific badges. Even though I know it's a gamification trick, it still works on me. :) | Definitely gamification, but maybe also a kind of filter for head hunters or a way to pimp your resume :) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Makoto's answer summed up the high-level explanation perfectly. I wanted to add some color to:
>
> Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis?
>
>
>
It's an anecdote with a sample size of 1, so take it with a grain of salt, but I absolutely have increased my participation on the site in the past to gain specific badges. Even though I know it's a gamification trick, it still works on me. :) | The purpose of badges is similar to [scout badges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_badge):
1. to encourage positive behaviors on the site. Not everything can be rewarded by reputation alone.
2. to identify proficiency: some badges are really hard to get and having them is meaningful for potential moderator candidates.
3. to grant extra powers: a gold badge in a tag makes your duplicate close votes effective directly, without the need for more votes for example. |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | Stack Overflow's badge system follows the well known trend of [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification), defined as "the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts".
**In Short:** People like earning achievements because it provides a clear set of goals to aim for, then gives positive feedback when those goals are accomplished. If you look at [Stack Overflow's badge list](https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges), you can see that many of them serve as reasonable goals for new users to reach.
It's a positive feedback loop. A user earns a badge for good behavior, encouraging them to continue that behavior, which leads to earning more badges, which hopefully leads to more good behavior.
---
### Further reading:
* Psychology of Games: [Why Do Achievements, Trophies, and Badges Work?](http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/)
* Extra Credits: [Gamification - How the Principles of Play Apply to Real Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dLK9MW-9sY)
* Wikipedia: [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification) | Definitely gamification, but maybe also a kind of filter for head hunters or a way to pimp your resume :) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | The purpose of badges is similar to [scout badges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_badge):
1. to encourage positive behaviors on the site. Not everything can be rewarded by reputation alone.
2. to identify proficiency: some badges are really hard to get and having them is meaningful for potential moderator candidates.
3. to grant extra powers: a gold badge in a tag makes your duplicate close votes effective directly, without the need for more votes for example. | Stack Overflow's badge system follows the well known trend of [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification), defined as "the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts".
**In Short:** People like earning achievements because it provides a clear set of goals to aim for, then gives positive feedback when those goals are accomplished. If you look at [Stack Overflow's badge list](https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges), you can see that many of them serve as reasonable goals for new users to reach.
It's a positive feedback loop. A user earns a badge for good behavior, encouraging them to continue that behavior, which leads to earning more badges, which hopefully leads to more good behavior.
---
### Further reading:
* Psychology of Games: [Why Do Achievements, Trophies, and Badges Work?](http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/)
* Extra Credits: [Gamification - How the Principles of Play Apply to Real Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dLK9MW-9sY)
* Wikipedia: [Gamification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification) |
344,316 | There's a fair amount of information available on badges (what they are, how to earn them, etc.), but actually surprisingly little information about what the actual point of having badges is in the first place.
I am aware that, if you run for moderator, you're expected/required to have certain badges. Also, gold badges for specific tags can give you dupe-marking privileges. Other than that, are there concrete advantages to having badges? Or are they mostly ways to measure "good citizenship" in a way that's analogous to how reputation measures the quality of your posts?
Also, I've heard the argument that they encourage participation in the site because people try to earn badges. Is this true (i.e. Do people actually consciously try to earn badges)? Is there any evidence for or against that hypothesis? | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/344316",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/4032703/"
] | The purpose of badges is similar to [scout badges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_badge):
1. to encourage positive behaviors on the site. Not everything can be rewarded by reputation alone.
2. to identify proficiency: some badges are really hard to get and having them is meaningful for potential moderator candidates.
3. to grant extra powers: a gold badge in a tag makes your duplicate close votes effective directly, without the need for more votes for example. | Definitely gamification, but maybe also a kind of filter for head hunters or a way to pimp your resume :) |
13,731 | Recently i was wondering about Love and these thoughts came to my mind, i want to know if they are correct or not.
---
As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment".
And the is no such thing called a person.
So essentially the "Love" we fall in can be explained as...
---
>
> Example :-
>
>
>
Part 01 :- Sam saw Jenny and he fell for her the second he saw her.
(Sam's eyes saw light which was recognized by his brain+mind as a woman. His mind remembers that Sam is straight so it immediately start to examine Jenny's body. There is an understanding in Sam's mind about his taste and it sees Jenny is a perfect fit. As Sam hast lust+attachments for such a body,mind starts a stream of thoughts signaling that there is a hot girl nearby.)
Part 02 :- They date for sometime and go to a serious relationship.
(Sam and Jenny both find their attachments in real life and decide to hold onto it.)
Part 03 :- Sam and Jenny are married now and its been 9 years.
(They both did not wanted to loose what they found because of the strong attachment they built in their own minds. The attachment and fear of loosing+fear of not finding a substitute kept them together for nine years.)
---
What i see is that there are two minds at work trying to find attachments in real life. And then two minds find those in the image of two bodies. Then the attachments grow and the minds get more attached to each other's bodies as it works as the Identity.
---
>
> Is this correct according to the teaching or is it wrong?
>
>
> If there are wrong details what are the correct forms of them?
>
>
> | 2016/01/18 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13731",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/7141/"
] | There 3 things interplay here:
* Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
* Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
* Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body
So when you see a person the following can happen:
* Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on
+ Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
+ Perception of looks of the person
- Relative to one's looks
- As an object of desire
So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.
Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.
Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.
Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the [4 Noble Truths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths) contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations. | There may be other bases for (i.e. causes of or types of) 'love': for example, compassion or *[mudita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudita)*.
You might find this difficult to practice without attachment and/or lust, even so your description of love seemed to me one-sided, only describing negatives (defilements).
See also, [Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7488/254)
Plus, there are other topics tagged [marriage](/questions/tagged/marriage "show questions tagged 'marriage'") and/or [relationship](/questions/tagged/relationship "show questions tagged 'relationship'"). |
13,731 | Recently i was wondering about Love and these thoughts came to my mind, i want to know if they are correct or not.
---
As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment".
And the is no such thing called a person.
So essentially the "Love" we fall in can be explained as...
---
>
> Example :-
>
>
>
Part 01 :- Sam saw Jenny and he fell for her the second he saw her.
(Sam's eyes saw light which was recognized by his brain+mind as a woman. His mind remembers that Sam is straight so it immediately start to examine Jenny's body. There is an understanding in Sam's mind about his taste and it sees Jenny is a perfect fit. As Sam hast lust+attachments for such a body,mind starts a stream of thoughts signaling that there is a hot girl nearby.)
Part 02 :- They date for sometime and go to a serious relationship.
(Sam and Jenny both find their attachments in real life and decide to hold onto it.)
Part 03 :- Sam and Jenny are married now and its been 9 years.
(They both did not wanted to loose what they found because of the strong attachment they built in their own minds. The attachment and fear of loosing+fear of not finding a substitute kept them together for nine years.)
---
What i see is that there are two minds at work trying to find attachments in real life. And then two minds find those in the image of two bodies. Then the attachments grow and the minds get more attached to each other's bodies as it works as the Identity.
---
>
> Is this correct according to the teaching or is it wrong?
>
>
> If there are wrong details what are the correct forms of them?
>
>
> | 2016/01/18 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13731",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/7141/"
] | >
> "That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow,
> lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear,
> come springing from one who is dear."
>
>
>
...
>
> "That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
> it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
> from one who is dear."
>
>
>
...
>
> So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."
>
>
>
[Piyajatika Sutta: From One Who Is Dear](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.087.than_en.html)
*(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)* | There may be other bases for (i.e. causes of or types of) 'love': for example, compassion or *[mudita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudita)*.
You might find this difficult to practice without attachment and/or lust, even so your description of love seemed to me one-sided, only describing negatives (defilements).
See also, [Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7488/254)
Plus, there are other topics tagged [marriage](/questions/tagged/marriage "show questions tagged 'marriage'") and/or [relationship](/questions/tagged/relationship "show questions tagged 'relationship'"). |
4,205,531 | How can I create a ListBox control on my Winforms application that has images in an orderly fashion, just like it holds text?
I'd like the images to appear like this:
Maybe I don't even need to use a ListBox. Maybe there's a better control out there for this purpose? Thanks! | 2010/11/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4205531",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | You possibly want an owner-draw list box. There's an example on the MSDN page for the [`DrawItem` event](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.listbox.drawitem.aspx). | 1. Load all your images into an imagelist, using a unique key for each image, such as a filename. Make sure you set the imagelist imagesize to the size of the images.
2. Set the listview LargeImageList property to the imagelist you loaded.
3. Assign the imagekey property of each listview item to the key that matches its image in the imagelist.
4. Set the listview view style to view.largeicon.
5. Profit. |
102,409 | With only a limited knowledge of [general relativity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), I usually explain space-time curvature (to myself and others) thus:
*"If you throw a ball, it will move along a parabola. Initially its vertical speed will be high, then it will slow down, and then speed up again as it approaches the ground.*
*"In reality, the ball in moving in a straight line at constant velocity, but the space-time curvature created by the Earth's gravitation makes it appear as if the ball is moving in a curved line at varying velocity. Thus the curvature of space-time is very much visible."*
Is this an accurate description, or is it complete nonsense? | 2014/03/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102409",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/42036/"
] | I'll raise some issues. Firstly you say
>
> In *reality*...
>
>
>
Do you contrast something against something else here? It implies you say there the preceding sentence
>
> If you throw a ball, it will move along a parabola. Initially its vertical speed will be high, then it will slow down, and then speed up again...
>
>
>
wasn't right, but that sentence seems pretty resonable. The problem is that there are many perspectives/frame to describe the world and all are valid. In particularly you then say
>
> In reality, the ball in moving in a straight line *at constant velocity*
>
>
>
but that's of course just as relative. If that's true, how is the above sentence not true? In curved spacetime, you can't pic a global inertial spacetime, so I'd not refer to right and wrong velocities in the elaborations.
Now in general relativity, and that's what Danus answer is in particular about, you use another language to specify what straightness is, the mathematical language of Riemannian geometry, and the expressive power of the formulas doesn't really fit into two englisch sentences. The
>
> straight line
>
>
>
sections of your explanation is problematic. Because, of course, if you already know Riemannian geometry, you read "straight line" as "solution of the Geodesic equation", but the people who you explain relativity to will not. It's a little like if you don't catch sarcasm. While hearing it, you might understand the words perfectly well but when you come back to think about, what has been said doesn't quite add up.
>
> ...but the space-time curvature created by the Earth's gravitation...
>
>
>
Do you have a working definition of "Earth's gravitation"? Because to me it's the space-time curvature around it.
>
> ...makes it appear as if the ball is moving in a curved line at varying velocity.
>
>
>
Same velocity-problem as above. Keep in mind that there are frames where your left eyeball is rotating around your nose, and there are frames where your nose is rotating around your mouth. | >
> Is this an accurate description, or is it complete nonsense?
> *"If you throw a ball, it will move along a parabola. Initially its vertical speed will be high, then it will slow down, and then speed up again as it approaches the ground.*
>
>
>
More accurately:
The ground (as well as anything rigidly "connected to *the ground*") would move along a parabola wrt. the "*thrown ball*", or rather: wrt. the entire "freely moving inertial system" (such as a ["falling ruler"](https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=982&bih=839&q=%22falling+ruler%22&oq=%22falling+ruler%22)) of which the ball is one member.
The difference is that the members of a (suitable) inertial system are (at least to some approximation) at rest to each other; accordingly they are capable of determining distances as well as simultaneity relations between each other, and in these terms they may describe the trajectories of other participants who the met in passing (such as elements of "*the ground*", or for instance the hands/fingers which are typically shown in the pictures alongside the "falling rulers", moving along parabolas).
In contrast, the geometric relations of elements of "*the ground*" and other participants (especially: "above" or "below") are more complicated; they are (at best) rigid to each other, i.e. their mutual relations are not characterized by distances but by [quasi-distances](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29#Quasimetrics), and they fail at determining simultaneity of their indications. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to say that they could determine and express the trajectories of those participants who they met in passing (such as a "*thrown ball*", or the ends of a "falling ruler") as a definite parabola.
>
> *"In reality, the ball in moving in a straight line at constant velocity,*
>
>
>
The "*thrown ball*" is at rest wrt. suitable other participants;
* either exactly, in a flat region,
* or at least to some accuracy (and: "the closer, the more accurate") otherwise. |
102,409 | With only a limited knowledge of [general relativity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), I usually explain space-time curvature (to myself and others) thus:
*"If you throw a ball, it will move along a parabola. Initially its vertical speed will be high, then it will slow down, and then speed up again as it approaches the ground.*
*"In reality, the ball in moving in a straight line at constant velocity, but the space-time curvature created by the Earth's gravitation makes it appear as if the ball is moving in a curved line at varying velocity. Thus the curvature of space-time is very much visible."*
Is this an accurate description, or is it complete nonsense? | 2014/03/07 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102409",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/42036/"
] | You have the right basic idea. But it gets simpler to visualize if you just drop the ball, or throw it vertically. Then there is just one spatial dimension to consider, and you can directly compare the paths in space and in space-time, like shown here:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4>
But note that this doesn't involve any *intrinsic* space-time curvature. Such curvature is related to tidal effects (geodesic deviation), which are negligible over small distances (like the height of an apple tree or a ball throw). However, over larger distances *intrinsic* curvature is inevitable, as shown in the last link of the video description:
<http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/gravitation.swf> | >
> Is this an accurate description, or is it complete nonsense?
> *"If you throw a ball, it will move along a parabola. Initially its vertical speed will be high, then it will slow down, and then speed up again as it approaches the ground.*
>
>
>
More accurately:
The ground (as well as anything rigidly "connected to *the ground*") would move along a parabola wrt. the "*thrown ball*", or rather: wrt. the entire "freely moving inertial system" (such as a ["falling ruler"](https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=982&bih=839&q=%22falling+ruler%22&oq=%22falling+ruler%22)) of which the ball is one member.
The difference is that the members of a (suitable) inertial system are (at least to some approximation) at rest to each other; accordingly they are capable of determining distances as well as simultaneity relations between each other, and in these terms they may describe the trajectories of other participants who the met in passing (such as elements of "*the ground*", or for instance the hands/fingers which are typically shown in the pictures alongside the "falling rulers", moving along parabolas).
In contrast, the geometric relations of elements of "*the ground*" and other participants (especially: "above" or "below") are more complicated; they are (at best) rigid to each other, i.e. their mutual relations are not characterized by distances but by [quasi-distances](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29#Quasimetrics), and they fail at determining simultaneity of their indications. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to say that they could determine and express the trajectories of those participants who they met in passing (such as a "*thrown ball*", or the ends of a "falling ruler") as a definite parabola.
>
> *"In reality, the ball in moving in a straight line at constant velocity,*
>
>
>
The "*thrown ball*" is at rest wrt. suitable other participants;
* either exactly, in a flat region,
* or at least to some accuracy (and: "the closer, the more accurate") otherwise. |
102,752 | My current UK employment contract, which has a 90 day probation period, has the following notice periods:
* Within 90 day probation: company can give me 1 week, I must give 1 month
* Outside 90 day probation: company can give me 1 month, I must give 3 months
This is only for a junior/mid-level web developer role. Is this an unreasonable notice period?
I ask this because I handed in my notice 2 days after my probation period ended (92nd day), and my employer is saying I must work the full 3 month probation period, despite requesting a reduction to a 2 month period.
Although within the bounds of the contract, I feel this is totally unreasonable as I did not know my probation period had ended (no formal review etc). Ideally I want to know if I have a leg to stand on if I breached the contract. | 2017/11/16 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/102752",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/79702/"
] | [This site suggests they can.](http://www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/can-an-employer-require-its-employees-to-give-more-notice-to-terminate-their-contracts-than-it-is-required-to-give/89121/)
It is not the norm though. Normally, notice periods for both parties are identical. You should read your next employment contract carefully before signing, such terms can usually be changed upon request, or be a warning sign of a bad employer. *(To my knowledge, in Germany this would even be unlawful, an employer needs to give notice the same or longer than the employee)*
You could try to convince you employer to let you off earlier. Making somebody serve for months against their will is known to be quite harmful to the employer. Motivation and quality of work are usually quite low and sick times tend to be quite high in such a case.
Offer to give them your full support and a clean handover if they agree to a one-month period. After only 90 days of work this should suffice. | 3 months is unusual (and IMO excessive) for a Junior-Mid level developer role. Generally I only see ones that long for very senior or critical dev roles or more often management. So yes it's pretty unreasonable, as is the asymmetry of it.
Unfortunately such periods, even asymmetrical ones aren't illegal and ultimately you agreed to the conditions when you signed the contract. About all you can do is ask for them to be flexible and see if there is a compromise which you've already tried and they refused. |
222,417 | I'm optimizing a site by using lighttpd for the static media. I've found that a recommended solution is to use Apache Proxy to point to the lighttpd server. But, does that use up an Apache thread/process per request?
In my setup, I've noticed that all my processes are used up, even though they aren't doing anything, CPU wise. To free up apache processes, I've configured lighttpd and the amount of processes needed is lowered significantly, Munin shows.
However, I've set it up to connect directly to lighty, to prevent apache workers from being occupied by serving static media. My question is: when using Apache Proxy, does that also use up a process/worker per request? | 2011/01/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/222417",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/31475/"
] | Generally you do this because apache processes take as much memory as the largest script that has run in them. So with lots of connections you have a lot of memory taken up unnecesarily, limiting the number of simultaneous connections that you can deal with. Even if you were to use a seperate apache instance for static files you would see the benefit.
it is not so much about scripts blocking processes but making best use of resources. | I don't buy it. There would be some advantage in this configuration for serving [memory-hungry php scripts](http://php.atemyram.com/), but properly-tuned Apache can serve static files very efficiently. Adding even a lightweight web server is just adding overhead.
The exception might be if you are large enough that the static files are actually coming from a whole different machine — then a proxy frontend delegating requests is sensible. (Although at that point you might want to use [Varnish](http://www.varnish-cache.org/about).) |
47,244 | If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.
However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they *do* share, which is brotherhood in Christ.
My first thought is that [a house divided against itself cannot stand](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A22-28&version=NKJV). Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion? | 2016/02/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47244",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/3961/"
] | Verses regarding unity of doctrine are not as common as the less specific verses regarding unity as a body. Two verses that I have most commonly heard referenced regarding avoiding doctrinal division are:
>
> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:9 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. - 2 Timothy 2:23 ESV
>
>
>
But it could be argued that both reference all controversy, and are not limited to church leadership.
One the other hand, Paul addresses this very issue of church doctrinal unity in his first letter to the church in Corinth, and I rarely if ever hear this referenced in that context:
>
> 10 **I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.**
> 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
> 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
> 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
> 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
> 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
> 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
> 17 **For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.** - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 ESV
>
>
>
A few others that may also be useful in this regard:
>
> 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
> 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. - Romans 16:17-18 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 24 But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
> 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
> 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."
> 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:17-19
>
>
>
---
I have edited again to include a verse that I almost literally stumbled upon recently (printed on a floor plaque outside a church):
>
> 1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
> 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. - Philippians 2:1-2 ESV
>
>
> | You have asked a question which is very difficult to answer, even through searching the Bible. Yesterday after reading your question I spent some time researching my study material, and found that as long as we depend on someone’s opinion of what is and is not worthy of disagreement we wind up running around in circles.
So I decided to consult the words of Jesus since he is the ultimate authority, and was surprised at what I found. Before even trying to explain what I found I will give you the Scriptures I used and give you the opportunity to evaluate them yourself, since I too am not qualified to say exactly what Jesus wanted us to learn from his words.
>
> Matthew 16:21 through 23 KJV From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
>
>
> Matthew 6:14 through 16 KJV For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
> 16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
>
>
> Mark 14:3 through 7 KJV And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there
> came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
>
>
> Mark 9:33 through 37 KJV And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
>
>
> Luke 12:13 through 15 KJV And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
>
>
>
There are many more of Jesus teachings which could be used to show how He apparently wanted Christians to react as far as dissention goes and you might even wish to consider more of them. You can use many of the online and downloadable guides in your study.
For now let me explain what I deduced from these Scriptures:
Matthew 16:21 through 23 Jesus rebuked Peter not because Peter loved him, and was willing to protect him from his enemies. What apparently is not moot about this exchange is that the road to Salvation is not something to be reasoned among men. Referring to Peter as Satan appears to indicate that any vocalizations contrary to the will of God are of the will of Satan. In my world that says the idea that Belief in Jesus as our only propitiation for sin is not debatable, therefore; we should not be diverted by those who say there are other ways to get into Heaven and that is worthy of our defense. That being true it is an argument for unity over dividing the Church since such an attitude if allowed would cause division within the Church.
Mark 14:3 through 7 What seems to jump out in this Scripture is that Jesus does not say that selling the oil and giving the proceeds to the poor is wrong, but instead he is pointing out that The Kingdom of God must take precedence over Earthly cares. We must also consider the fact that an omniscient and omnipotent God could have no poor if that were his will. At this point it is incumbent on us to ask why then does God not do away with poor people. If we take along look at how affluence has affected man’s relationship with God, What we find is that an increase in affluence is inversely proportional to godliness. We need only look at the destruction of 9/11 to understand Earthly possessions fade in comparison to man’s feelings of Eternal security. Not only were Church pews filled to overflowing, but there was a sense of oneness against what threatens us. From this it can be deduced that when it comes to the use of assets the works of God versus the use of assets for earthly purposes is not moot.
Mark 9:33 through 37 What we can extract from this exchange is that Jesus is telling his disciples that there is to be no contention as to who has more authority in the Church. This appears to propose that Unity is paramount and dissention is to be avoided. Each part of the Church has its separate and distinct assignment and no one mission is more important than another. Paul wrote extensively about just that thing.
Luke 12:13 through 15 This is the most telling of the Scriptures being considered. Certainly Jesus has the authority to determine how and by whom his creation is distributed; but instead notice that he said **\* Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?\*** Jesus is in saying this taking this out of the realm of God and putting it in the authority of man. Why would Jesus separate this from the authority of God and leave it to the authority of man?
Although Jesus could have injected *Righteous reasoning* into the situation He refused to do so, leaving the situation unresolved.
I find no justification for rejection of unity in favor of avoiding division in Jesus teachings, or that the Church should be ruled by common assent as opposed to inviolable precepts. What I do find is Jesus decreed that we should abandon our desires which conflict with good order and discipline in the Church.
Our first decision on where and how to worship God must be predicated on the fact it is God’s Church and we are only a miniscule component of that Church no matter that each of us is the most valuable component in that Church. Christianity was coined as a way to describe the followers of Christ and literally means little Christ. What that means in short that we must emulate Christ and dissention among Christ and his disciples did not exist, and must not exist in the Church today.
All of this is to emphasize that rather than fomenting division within the Church we must acquiesce in favor of unity, and obedience not only to the laws of God, but to the intent of those laws. No Church should deviate from the true worship of God to avoid division within the Church and even though that is the reason we are divided not only into Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and many other Denominations; it is not sufficient reason for disregarding the precepts of worship.
I don’t know how you feel, but this would really be a good subject for an open chat room from my point of view. One of the more interesting areas of discussion from where I stand would be in the how does Denominational division effect salvation, since many Denominations have expressed the thought that another Denomination cannot go to Heaven. Within itself that is only a contentious subject, but it would be interesting to know how differing Denominations view this. |
47,244 | If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.
However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they *do* share, which is brotherhood in Christ.
My first thought is that [a house divided against itself cannot stand](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A22-28&version=NKJV). Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion? | 2016/02/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47244",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/3961/"
] | Verses regarding unity of doctrine are not as common as the less specific verses regarding unity as a body. Two verses that I have most commonly heard referenced regarding avoiding doctrinal division are:
>
> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:9 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. - 2 Timothy 2:23 ESV
>
>
>
But it could be argued that both reference all controversy, and are not limited to church leadership.
One the other hand, Paul addresses this very issue of church doctrinal unity in his first letter to the church in Corinth, and I rarely if ever hear this referenced in that context:
>
> 10 **I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.**
> 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
> 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
> 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
> 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
> 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
> 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
> 17 **For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.** - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 ESV
>
>
>
A few others that may also be useful in this regard:
>
> 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
> 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. - Romans 16:17-18 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 24 But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
> 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
> 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."
> 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:17-19
>
>
>
---
I have edited again to include a verse that I almost literally stumbled upon recently (printed on a floor plaque outside a church):
>
> 1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
> 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. - Philippians 2:1-2 ESV
>
>
> | You've posed a good question.
Many Protestant, evangelical churches, whether independent (non-denominational) or denominational, tend to do two things which, although not necessarily biblical in the strictest sense of the term (i.e., according to the "chapter and verse" method of proof-texting), tend to draw fairly clear doctrinal lines in the sand.
First, they construct a "What We Believe" statement which generally speaking covers the non-negotiables of the faith. Second, they tend to administer discipline on church members and regular attenders (or even on visitors who sow discord among the assembly) who "proselytize" for doctrines which either clearly contradict their churches' "What We Believe" statement or tend to create disunity through needless controversy.
***Lines Drawn In the Sand***
A typical "What We Believe" statement would say in effect,
>
> If you want to become a member or regular attender of our church [e.g., Main Street Community Church" or "First Presbyterian Church of Anytown"], these are the beliefs which provide and promote unity among us, and we title that list "What We Believe" [or "Doctrinal Statement of Faith," or some such title]
>
>
>
Obviously, each church will likely have a different number of non-negotiables, but I suspect that if you were to compare each and every "What We Believe" statement of all the Protestant, evangelical churches worldwide, you would find remarkable unity in what they consider to be the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.
In part, I suggest, this unity can be traced not only to the clear teaching of the Word (more on that later), but also to the various councils from the distant past which settled such non-negotiables as the deity of Jesus Christ (for example) and are identified by the name of a particular controversy or doctrinal heresy traced to false teachers such as Arius (Arianism), Pelagius (Pelagianism), and Sabellius (Sabellianism), to name but three.
Even though I have not done such a comparative study of the type I've suggested, I *suspect* the top six would include the following (in no particular order):
>
> * The Deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., Jesus Christ was, is, and ever shall be God in the flesh, his deity confirmed by his having been conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary)
> * The Trinity (i.e., God exists in three persons, each of whom is fully divine: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit)
> * Salvation (i.e., the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross provides forgiveness of sins and a full and free salvation to all who believe if they simply by faith call upon the name of the Lord. Furthermore, there is salvation in none other besides Christ)
> * God's Word (i.e., the 66 books of the Bible comprise God's final, complete, Holy-Spirit inspired and authoritative revelation of all that is needed for Christian faith and practice). [While the definition of inspiration may vary somewhat from denomination to denomination, the unifying factor in most Protestant, evangelical churches is that the Bible is authoritative and, rightly interpreted, is an infallible guide for faith and practice]
> * The New Birth (i.e., one's entrance into the kingdom of God is by regeneration only, which the Bible describes as being born again, born from above, or born of the Spirit of God)
> * The Return of Jesus Christ (i.e., Jesus Christ will return to earth to do battle with evil and defeat it once and for all, ushering in a new heaven and a new earth, free forever from sin and death and the corrupting effects of the Fall)
>
>
>
These five "articles of faith" comprise at least *some* of the salient biblical criteria for unity within any given church or denomination within Evangelicalism.
***Three Strikes and Yer Out!***
Second, most Protestant, evangelical churches administer discipline on an ad hoc basis. That is, they wait for a situation to arise in which the unity of the local assembly is being threatened by either blatant sin and/or false teaching. The Scriptures pertaining to blatant sin are plentiful, and I needn't refer to them. As for false teaching: again, a good "Statement of Faith" aids the church leadership in detecting and dealing with false teaching, which always tends to disrupt the unity of a local assembly, if not an entire denomination!
In the church in which I am currently a member (and have been for about 17 years), a brother was stirring things up by attempting to convince some church members that our church's doctrinal stand regarding Divine election was wrong. Our church, by the way, does not take a stand in its Doctrinal Statement on all five points of Calvinism (viz., **T**otal Depravity, **U**nconditional Election, **L**imited Atonement, **I**rresistible Grace, and **P**erseverance of the Saints), though it would certainly agree with most--if not all--of them to *some degree*.
If the gentleman had simply "shared" his point of view with other church members, there would not likely have been an issue. Because he was "proselytizing" for his point of view and insisting that the church leadership was incorrect in their interpretation of Divine election, however, he was brought before the elder board (the "ruling board" of our church, with the Senior Pastor as its titular head), warned, and put under discipline for an unspecified amount of time (meaning: he would continue to be a member in good standing as long as he stopped 1) proselytizing for his point of view, and 2) accusing the church leadership of teaching and preaching false doctrine).
There is not necessarily a single “proof text” which churches use to encourage (and sometimes “enforce”) the unity of the body regarding doctrinal differences; rather, there are many. Safe to say, however, the *tenor* of the teaching of the New Testament regarding unity within the Body of Christ (both Universal and local) can best be summed up, I suggest, in the following saying:
>
> * In essentials, unity
> * In non-essentials, harmony
> * In all things, charity
>
>
>
What are the “essentials” of the faith? Again, that depends on a given church’s “Statement of Faith.” I’m assuming, by the way, that most churches do have one. Whatever their statement comprises, however, the clear teaching of the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, is that unity in essentials is of primary importance, since as you point out, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
What are the *non-essentials* of the faith? Again, that depends on a given church’s “stand” on the kinds of issues the apostle Paul addressed in Romans 14 and 15, and in I Corinthians 12, for example. Usually these types of issues are culturally derived and change from generation to generation. What was once taboo in most Evangelical churches within certain denominations (and sometimes in different geographical regions within a denomination!) at one time in history may no longer be taboo years later.
What unifies Christians regardless of what they consider taboo is the clear teaching of Scripture that Christians are to “abhor what is evil, and cling to what is good” (even though good and evil may be defined, operationally, in *slightly* different ways).
***Conclusion***
In conclusion, rather than list all the Scripture passages I could think of to provide you with biblical bases for defining unity and its opposite, I’ve opted just to outline in perhaps a simplistic way how the tenor of Scripture regarding unity and its opposite is in a sense perhaps more important than a list of specific, chapter-and-verse proof texts.
Perhaps Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17 summarizes uniquely well the kind of unity God expects of His Church, and the primary reason for unity within His Church.
>
> "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me ***through their word***; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me (vv.20-23 NASB, my emphasis).
>
>
>
Based on the tenor of Jesus’ teaching in that prayer, the purpose of unity within the Body of Christ is primarily to attract non-believers to His Church, since God proffers his love, grace, and mercy to all people from every people-group (from Gk. *ta ethne*, the “nations” from Jesus' Great Commission to all believers in Matthew 28:18-20).
Where the world tends to divide people (whether according to color, religion, national origin, sex, socio-economic status, intelligence, culture, language, age, or a host of other criteria or rubrics), the Church of God is to embrace all comers who, regardless of how the world may pigeonhole them, believe in Jesus in accord with the teaching of the apostles (i.e., "through their word,” to which Jesus alluded in his high priestly prayer, above). |
47,244 | If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.
However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they *do* share, which is brotherhood in Christ.
My first thought is that [a house divided against itself cannot stand](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A22-28&version=NKJV). Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion? | 2016/02/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47244",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/3961/"
] | Verses regarding unity of doctrine are not as common as the less specific verses regarding unity as a body. Two verses that I have most commonly heard referenced regarding avoiding doctrinal division are:
>
> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:9 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. - 2 Timothy 2:23 ESV
>
>
>
But it could be argued that both reference all controversy, and are not limited to church leadership.
One the other hand, Paul addresses this very issue of church doctrinal unity in his first letter to the church in Corinth, and I rarely if ever hear this referenced in that context:
>
> 10 **I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.**
> 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
> 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
> 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
> 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
> 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
> 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
> 17 **For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.** - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 ESV
>
>
>
A few others that may also be useful in this regard:
>
> 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
> 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. - Romans 16:17-18 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 24 But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
> 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
> 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26 ESV
>
>
>
And
>
> 17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."
> 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:17-19
>
>
>
---
I have edited again to include a verse that I almost literally stumbled upon recently (printed on a floor plaque outside a church):
>
> 1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
> 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. - Philippians 2:1-2 ESV
>
>
> | To add to the other excellent answers, I have not seen the following verse cited, although it seems to me the most powerful of all:
>
> I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me (John 17:20-21, ESV).
>
>
>
Since the O.P. included the Catholic Church as a denomination that stresses unity over doctrine, I will observe that, the Catholic Church takes a more “ontological” view (for lack of a better term) of Christian unity than most other denominations. (The group that most closely shares this view, aside from the Catholic Church, is the Eastern Orthodox Church.)
In the Catholic view, the Church *is* one, and no action on our part can dismember it. Individuals and groups can, however, be placed at various distances from the one Church to varying degrees, while still participating in some elements of the Church. Vatican II’s [*Lumen gentium*](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) sums this idea up in its famous passage on the unity of the Church:
>
> Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, **subsists in** the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter [i.e., the Roman Pontiff] and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure (No. 8).
>
>
>
An awful lot of ink has been spilled on this passage, but the idea is simple: as a distinct, visible, historical subject, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ *subsists* (a technical philosophical term that means *to exist in the fullest sense*) in the Catholic Church. According to this view, only the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of sanctification and the fullness of truth. The other Christian groups stand in relation to the Catholic Church, in differing degrees of participation.
Hence, the Church does not claim to have the power to expel someone from the Catholic Church. That is why the Church does not “remove” those who obstinately espouse dissident or heretical opinions from its rolls. At most, the Church might excommunicate such persons (keeping in mind that for Catholics, excommunication is not an expulsion, but a censure whose purpose is to bring people to repentance).
This policy is different from, say, that of the Anglican Communion, which has historically “agreed to disagree” on various points of doctrine, some of them very important.
The “ontological” vision of Church unity, in the Catholic Church’s view, is tied to the profound unity of God, as is suggested by the passage from John quoted above. Just as the three Persons of the Trinity are one *substance* (*homoousios*), the Church founded by Jesus Christ *subsists* in a unique historical subject, which (according to Catholics) is the Catholic Church itself. |
47,244 | If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.
However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they *do* share, which is brotherhood in Christ.
My first thought is that [a house divided against itself cannot stand](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A22-28&version=NKJV). Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion? | 2016/02/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47244",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/3961/"
] | You've posed a good question.
Many Protestant, evangelical churches, whether independent (non-denominational) or denominational, tend to do two things which, although not necessarily biblical in the strictest sense of the term (i.e., according to the "chapter and verse" method of proof-texting), tend to draw fairly clear doctrinal lines in the sand.
First, they construct a "What We Believe" statement which generally speaking covers the non-negotiables of the faith. Second, they tend to administer discipline on church members and regular attenders (or even on visitors who sow discord among the assembly) who "proselytize" for doctrines which either clearly contradict their churches' "What We Believe" statement or tend to create disunity through needless controversy.
***Lines Drawn In the Sand***
A typical "What We Believe" statement would say in effect,
>
> If you want to become a member or regular attender of our church [e.g., Main Street Community Church" or "First Presbyterian Church of Anytown"], these are the beliefs which provide and promote unity among us, and we title that list "What We Believe" [or "Doctrinal Statement of Faith," or some such title]
>
>
>
Obviously, each church will likely have a different number of non-negotiables, but I suspect that if you were to compare each and every "What We Believe" statement of all the Protestant, evangelical churches worldwide, you would find remarkable unity in what they consider to be the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.
In part, I suggest, this unity can be traced not only to the clear teaching of the Word (more on that later), but also to the various councils from the distant past which settled such non-negotiables as the deity of Jesus Christ (for example) and are identified by the name of a particular controversy or doctrinal heresy traced to false teachers such as Arius (Arianism), Pelagius (Pelagianism), and Sabellius (Sabellianism), to name but three.
Even though I have not done such a comparative study of the type I've suggested, I *suspect* the top six would include the following (in no particular order):
>
> * The Deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., Jesus Christ was, is, and ever shall be God in the flesh, his deity confirmed by his having been conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary)
> * The Trinity (i.e., God exists in three persons, each of whom is fully divine: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit)
> * Salvation (i.e., the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross provides forgiveness of sins and a full and free salvation to all who believe if they simply by faith call upon the name of the Lord. Furthermore, there is salvation in none other besides Christ)
> * God's Word (i.e., the 66 books of the Bible comprise God's final, complete, Holy-Spirit inspired and authoritative revelation of all that is needed for Christian faith and practice). [While the definition of inspiration may vary somewhat from denomination to denomination, the unifying factor in most Protestant, evangelical churches is that the Bible is authoritative and, rightly interpreted, is an infallible guide for faith and practice]
> * The New Birth (i.e., one's entrance into the kingdom of God is by regeneration only, which the Bible describes as being born again, born from above, or born of the Spirit of God)
> * The Return of Jesus Christ (i.e., Jesus Christ will return to earth to do battle with evil and defeat it once and for all, ushering in a new heaven and a new earth, free forever from sin and death and the corrupting effects of the Fall)
>
>
>
These five "articles of faith" comprise at least *some* of the salient biblical criteria for unity within any given church or denomination within Evangelicalism.
***Three Strikes and Yer Out!***
Second, most Protestant, evangelical churches administer discipline on an ad hoc basis. That is, they wait for a situation to arise in which the unity of the local assembly is being threatened by either blatant sin and/or false teaching. The Scriptures pertaining to blatant sin are plentiful, and I needn't refer to them. As for false teaching: again, a good "Statement of Faith" aids the church leadership in detecting and dealing with false teaching, which always tends to disrupt the unity of a local assembly, if not an entire denomination!
In the church in which I am currently a member (and have been for about 17 years), a brother was stirring things up by attempting to convince some church members that our church's doctrinal stand regarding Divine election was wrong. Our church, by the way, does not take a stand in its Doctrinal Statement on all five points of Calvinism (viz., **T**otal Depravity, **U**nconditional Election, **L**imited Atonement, **I**rresistible Grace, and **P**erseverance of the Saints), though it would certainly agree with most--if not all--of them to *some degree*.
If the gentleman had simply "shared" his point of view with other church members, there would not likely have been an issue. Because he was "proselytizing" for his point of view and insisting that the church leadership was incorrect in their interpretation of Divine election, however, he was brought before the elder board (the "ruling board" of our church, with the Senior Pastor as its titular head), warned, and put under discipline for an unspecified amount of time (meaning: he would continue to be a member in good standing as long as he stopped 1) proselytizing for his point of view, and 2) accusing the church leadership of teaching and preaching false doctrine).
There is not necessarily a single “proof text” which churches use to encourage (and sometimes “enforce”) the unity of the body regarding doctrinal differences; rather, there are many. Safe to say, however, the *tenor* of the teaching of the New Testament regarding unity within the Body of Christ (both Universal and local) can best be summed up, I suggest, in the following saying:
>
> * In essentials, unity
> * In non-essentials, harmony
> * In all things, charity
>
>
>
What are the “essentials” of the faith? Again, that depends on a given church’s “Statement of Faith.” I’m assuming, by the way, that most churches do have one. Whatever their statement comprises, however, the clear teaching of the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, is that unity in essentials is of primary importance, since as you point out, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
What are the *non-essentials* of the faith? Again, that depends on a given church’s “stand” on the kinds of issues the apostle Paul addressed in Romans 14 and 15, and in I Corinthians 12, for example. Usually these types of issues are culturally derived and change from generation to generation. What was once taboo in most Evangelical churches within certain denominations (and sometimes in different geographical regions within a denomination!) at one time in history may no longer be taboo years later.
What unifies Christians regardless of what they consider taboo is the clear teaching of Scripture that Christians are to “abhor what is evil, and cling to what is good” (even though good and evil may be defined, operationally, in *slightly* different ways).
***Conclusion***
In conclusion, rather than list all the Scripture passages I could think of to provide you with biblical bases for defining unity and its opposite, I’ve opted just to outline in perhaps a simplistic way how the tenor of Scripture regarding unity and its opposite is in a sense perhaps more important than a list of specific, chapter-and-verse proof texts.
Perhaps Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17 summarizes uniquely well the kind of unity God expects of His Church, and the primary reason for unity within His Church.
>
> "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me ***through their word***; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me (vv.20-23 NASB, my emphasis).
>
>
>
Based on the tenor of Jesus’ teaching in that prayer, the purpose of unity within the Body of Christ is primarily to attract non-believers to His Church, since God proffers his love, grace, and mercy to all people from every people-group (from Gk. *ta ethne*, the “nations” from Jesus' Great Commission to all believers in Matthew 28:18-20).
Where the world tends to divide people (whether according to color, religion, national origin, sex, socio-economic status, intelligence, culture, language, age, or a host of other criteria or rubrics), the Church of God is to embrace all comers who, regardless of how the world may pigeonhole them, believe in Jesus in accord with the teaching of the apostles (i.e., "through their word,” to which Jesus alluded in his high priestly prayer, above). | You have asked a question which is very difficult to answer, even through searching the Bible. Yesterday after reading your question I spent some time researching my study material, and found that as long as we depend on someone’s opinion of what is and is not worthy of disagreement we wind up running around in circles.
So I decided to consult the words of Jesus since he is the ultimate authority, and was surprised at what I found. Before even trying to explain what I found I will give you the Scriptures I used and give you the opportunity to evaluate them yourself, since I too am not qualified to say exactly what Jesus wanted us to learn from his words.
>
> Matthew 16:21 through 23 KJV From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
>
>
> Matthew 6:14 through 16 KJV For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
> 16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
>
>
> Mark 14:3 through 7 KJV And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there
> came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
>
>
> Mark 9:33 through 37 KJV And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
>
>
> Luke 12:13 through 15 KJV And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
>
>
>
There are many more of Jesus teachings which could be used to show how He apparently wanted Christians to react as far as dissention goes and you might even wish to consider more of them. You can use many of the online and downloadable guides in your study.
For now let me explain what I deduced from these Scriptures:
Matthew 16:21 through 23 Jesus rebuked Peter not because Peter loved him, and was willing to protect him from his enemies. What apparently is not moot about this exchange is that the road to Salvation is not something to be reasoned among men. Referring to Peter as Satan appears to indicate that any vocalizations contrary to the will of God are of the will of Satan. In my world that says the idea that Belief in Jesus as our only propitiation for sin is not debatable, therefore; we should not be diverted by those who say there are other ways to get into Heaven and that is worthy of our defense. That being true it is an argument for unity over dividing the Church since such an attitude if allowed would cause division within the Church.
Mark 14:3 through 7 What seems to jump out in this Scripture is that Jesus does not say that selling the oil and giving the proceeds to the poor is wrong, but instead he is pointing out that The Kingdom of God must take precedence over Earthly cares. We must also consider the fact that an omniscient and omnipotent God could have no poor if that were his will. At this point it is incumbent on us to ask why then does God not do away with poor people. If we take along look at how affluence has affected man’s relationship with God, What we find is that an increase in affluence is inversely proportional to godliness. We need only look at the destruction of 9/11 to understand Earthly possessions fade in comparison to man’s feelings of Eternal security. Not only were Church pews filled to overflowing, but there was a sense of oneness against what threatens us. From this it can be deduced that when it comes to the use of assets the works of God versus the use of assets for earthly purposes is not moot.
Mark 9:33 through 37 What we can extract from this exchange is that Jesus is telling his disciples that there is to be no contention as to who has more authority in the Church. This appears to propose that Unity is paramount and dissention is to be avoided. Each part of the Church has its separate and distinct assignment and no one mission is more important than another. Paul wrote extensively about just that thing.
Luke 12:13 through 15 This is the most telling of the Scriptures being considered. Certainly Jesus has the authority to determine how and by whom his creation is distributed; but instead notice that he said **\* Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?\*** Jesus is in saying this taking this out of the realm of God and putting it in the authority of man. Why would Jesus separate this from the authority of God and leave it to the authority of man?
Although Jesus could have injected *Righteous reasoning* into the situation He refused to do so, leaving the situation unresolved.
I find no justification for rejection of unity in favor of avoiding division in Jesus teachings, or that the Church should be ruled by common assent as opposed to inviolable precepts. What I do find is Jesus decreed that we should abandon our desires which conflict with good order and discipline in the Church.
Our first decision on where and how to worship God must be predicated on the fact it is God’s Church and we are only a miniscule component of that Church no matter that each of us is the most valuable component in that Church. Christianity was coined as a way to describe the followers of Christ and literally means little Christ. What that means in short that we must emulate Christ and dissention among Christ and his disciples did not exist, and must not exist in the Church today.
All of this is to emphasize that rather than fomenting division within the Church we must acquiesce in favor of unity, and obedience not only to the laws of God, but to the intent of those laws. No Church should deviate from the true worship of God to avoid division within the Church and even though that is the reason we are divided not only into Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and many other Denominations; it is not sufficient reason for disregarding the precepts of worship.
I don’t know how you feel, but this would really be a good subject for an open chat room from my point of view. One of the more interesting areas of discussion from where I stand would be in the how does Denominational division effect salvation, since many Denominations have expressed the thought that another Denomination cannot go to Heaven. Within itself that is only a contentious subject, but it would be interesting to know how differing Denominations view this. |
47,244 | If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.
However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they *do* share, which is brotherhood in Christ.
My first thought is that [a house divided against itself cannot stand](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A22-28&version=NKJV). Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion? | 2016/02/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47244",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/3961/"
] | To add to the other excellent answers, I have not seen the following verse cited, although it seems to me the most powerful of all:
>
> I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me (John 17:20-21, ESV).
>
>
>
Since the O.P. included the Catholic Church as a denomination that stresses unity over doctrine, I will observe that, the Catholic Church takes a more “ontological” view (for lack of a better term) of Christian unity than most other denominations. (The group that most closely shares this view, aside from the Catholic Church, is the Eastern Orthodox Church.)
In the Catholic view, the Church *is* one, and no action on our part can dismember it. Individuals and groups can, however, be placed at various distances from the one Church to varying degrees, while still participating in some elements of the Church. Vatican II’s [*Lumen gentium*](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) sums this idea up in its famous passage on the unity of the Church:
>
> Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, **subsists in** the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter [i.e., the Roman Pontiff] and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure (No. 8).
>
>
>
An awful lot of ink has been spilled on this passage, but the idea is simple: as a distinct, visible, historical subject, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ *subsists* (a technical philosophical term that means *to exist in the fullest sense*) in the Catholic Church. According to this view, only the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of sanctification and the fullness of truth. The other Christian groups stand in relation to the Catholic Church, in differing degrees of participation.
Hence, the Church does not claim to have the power to expel someone from the Catholic Church. That is why the Church does not “remove” those who obstinately espouse dissident or heretical opinions from its rolls. At most, the Church might excommunicate such persons (keeping in mind that for Catholics, excommunication is not an expulsion, but a censure whose purpose is to bring people to repentance).
This policy is different from, say, that of the Anglican Communion, which has historically “agreed to disagree” on various points of doctrine, some of them very important.
The “ontological” vision of Church unity, in the Catholic Church’s view, is tied to the profound unity of God, as is suggested by the passage from John quoted above. Just as the three Persons of the Trinity are one *substance* (*homoousios*), the Church founded by Jesus Christ *subsists* in a unique historical subject, which (according to Catholics) is the Catholic Church itself. | You have asked a question which is very difficult to answer, even through searching the Bible. Yesterday after reading your question I spent some time researching my study material, and found that as long as we depend on someone’s opinion of what is and is not worthy of disagreement we wind up running around in circles.
So I decided to consult the words of Jesus since he is the ultimate authority, and was surprised at what I found. Before even trying to explain what I found I will give you the Scriptures I used and give you the opportunity to evaluate them yourself, since I too am not qualified to say exactly what Jesus wanted us to learn from his words.
>
> Matthew 16:21 through 23 KJV From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
>
>
> Matthew 6:14 through 16 KJV For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
> 16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
>
>
> Mark 14:3 through 7 KJV And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there
> came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
>
>
> Mark 9:33 through 37 KJV And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
>
>
> Luke 12:13 through 15 KJV And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
>
>
>
There are many more of Jesus teachings which could be used to show how He apparently wanted Christians to react as far as dissention goes and you might even wish to consider more of them. You can use many of the online and downloadable guides in your study.
For now let me explain what I deduced from these Scriptures:
Matthew 16:21 through 23 Jesus rebuked Peter not because Peter loved him, and was willing to protect him from his enemies. What apparently is not moot about this exchange is that the road to Salvation is not something to be reasoned among men. Referring to Peter as Satan appears to indicate that any vocalizations contrary to the will of God are of the will of Satan. In my world that says the idea that Belief in Jesus as our only propitiation for sin is not debatable, therefore; we should not be diverted by those who say there are other ways to get into Heaven and that is worthy of our defense. That being true it is an argument for unity over dividing the Church since such an attitude if allowed would cause division within the Church.
Mark 14:3 through 7 What seems to jump out in this Scripture is that Jesus does not say that selling the oil and giving the proceeds to the poor is wrong, but instead he is pointing out that The Kingdom of God must take precedence over Earthly cares. We must also consider the fact that an omniscient and omnipotent God could have no poor if that were his will. At this point it is incumbent on us to ask why then does God not do away with poor people. If we take along look at how affluence has affected man’s relationship with God, What we find is that an increase in affluence is inversely proportional to godliness. We need only look at the destruction of 9/11 to understand Earthly possessions fade in comparison to man’s feelings of Eternal security. Not only were Church pews filled to overflowing, but there was a sense of oneness against what threatens us. From this it can be deduced that when it comes to the use of assets the works of God versus the use of assets for earthly purposes is not moot.
Mark 9:33 through 37 What we can extract from this exchange is that Jesus is telling his disciples that there is to be no contention as to who has more authority in the Church. This appears to propose that Unity is paramount and dissention is to be avoided. Each part of the Church has its separate and distinct assignment and no one mission is more important than another. Paul wrote extensively about just that thing.
Luke 12:13 through 15 This is the most telling of the Scriptures being considered. Certainly Jesus has the authority to determine how and by whom his creation is distributed; but instead notice that he said **\* Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?\*** Jesus is in saying this taking this out of the realm of God and putting it in the authority of man. Why would Jesus separate this from the authority of God and leave it to the authority of man?
Although Jesus could have injected *Righteous reasoning* into the situation He refused to do so, leaving the situation unresolved.
I find no justification for rejection of unity in favor of avoiding division in Jesus teachings, or that the Church should be ruled by common assent as opposed to inviolable precepts. What I do find is Jesus decreed that we should abandon our desires which conflict with good order and discipline in the Church.
Our first decision on where and how to worship God must be predicated on the fact it is God’s Church and we are only a miniscule component of that Church no matter that each of us is the most valuable component in that Church. Christianity was coined as a way to describe the followers of Christ and literally means little Christ. What that means in short that we must emulate Christ and dissention among Christ and his disciples did not exist, and must not exist in the Church today.
All of this is to emphasize that rather than fomenting division within the Church we must acquiesce in favor of unity, and obedience not only to the laws of God, but to the intent of those laws. No Church should deviate from the true worship of God to avoid division within the Church and even though that is the reason we are divided not only into Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and many other Denominations; it is not sufficient reason for disregarding the precepts of worship.
I don’t know how you feel, but this would really be a good subject for an open chat room from my point of view. One of the more interesting areas of discussion from where I stand would be in the how does Denominational division effect salvation, since many Denominations have expressed the thought that another Denomination cannot go to Heaven. Within itself that is only a contentious subject, but it would be interesting to know how differing Denominations view this. |
189,412 | Looking at the free definitions online, and not including too much history, it seems to me that at one point the Navy was not directly associated as *”military”*. Or rather, that the Navy included not only military ships, but all ships of a nation.
Today the terms at top seem synonymous. Only perhaps that the word *military* carries more weight, and can be used for either a more powerful sentiment, or more pejorative, depending on the context.
Likewise *”armed forces”*, and even more so *”armed services”* seem to be softer representations of otherwise exactly the same thing.
(..not unlike *”dead”* vs. *”deceased”*? [Sorry, couldn't resist.])
Is there any technical difference, or situations today, where these are *NOT* interchangeable? | 2014/08/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189412",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/16812/"
] | According to Wikipedia, the difference between [Armed Forces](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces) and 'military' is the former's inclusion in the former definition of the paramilitary forces:
>
> * The Armed Forces of a country are its government-sponsored defence, fighting forces, and organizations. They exist to further the foreign and domestic policies of their governing body and to defend that body and the nation it represents from external and internal aggressors.
> * *In broad usage, the terms "armed forces" and "military" are often treated synonymously,* although in technical usage, a distinction is sometimes made, in which **a country's armed forces may include both its military and other paramilitary forces.** Armed force is then the use of armed forces to achieve political objectives.
>
>
> + Under the Law of Armed Conflict, *a state may incorporate a paramilitary organisation or armed agency (such as a national police or a private volunteer militia)* into its armed forces. The other parties to a conflict have to be notified thereof.
>
>
>
Source:<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces> | In terms of the United States, there is a distinction, at least in my understanding as a former US Marine.
The United States Armed Forces are the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
The Unites States Senate Committee on Armed Services encompasses Legislative oversight of the Department of Defense (which oversees most of the US Armed Forces), but other areas of military interest or national security.
Therefore, I would suggest that, in terms of moving from more general to more specific, the order of the three phrases would be:
1. Armed Services (all organizations dealing with military interests or national security)
2. Military (all organizations dealing with military interests)
3. Armed Forces (the five organizations: Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard)
So, I was a US Marine, part of the Department of the Navy, and therefore was a member of the Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Forces, I was part of the US military. As a member of the US military, I was also a member of the Armed Services.
From the other direction, a TSA agent could be considered part of the Armed Services of the US, but is not military, and is certainly not a member of the Armed Forces.
Cross-over occurs with the Coast Guard, which is part of the Armed Forces, but not part of the Department of Defense (they are under the Department of Homeland Security, which also oversees TSA).
The word "military" probably gets misused the most, since it also can be an adjective, as in "military action," "military assets," "military interests," and so on. In those usages, it is very generic, so it's not surprising that "military" as a noun also gets used more generically than perhaps it should. |
189,412 | Looking at the free definitions online, and not including too much history, it seems to me that at one point the Navy was not directly associated as *”military”*. Or rather, that the Navy included not only military ships, but all ships of a nation.
Today the terms at top seem synonymous. Only perhaps that the word *military* carries more weight, and can be used for either a more powerful sentiment, or more pejorative, depending on the context.
Likewise *”armed forces”*, and even more so *”armed services”* seem to be softer representations of otherwise exactly the same thing.
(..not unlike *”dead”* vs. *”deceased”*? [Sorry, couldn't resist.])
Is there any technical difference, or situations today, where these are *NOT* interchangeable? | 2014/08/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189412",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/16812/"
] | According to Wikipedia, the difference between [Armed Forces](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces) and 'military' is the former's inclusion in the former definition of the paramilitary forces:
>
> * The Armed Forces of a country are its government-sponsored defence, fighting forces, and organizations. They exist to further the foreign and domestic policies of their governing body and to defend that body and the nation it represents from external and internal aggressors.
> * *In broad usage, the terms "armed forces" and "military" are often treated synonymously,* although in technical usage, a distinction is sometimes made, in which **a country's armed forces may include both its military and other paramilitary forces.** Armed force is then the use of armed forces to achieve political objectives.
>
>
> + Under the Law of Armed Conflict, *a state may incorporate a paramilitary organisation or armed agency (such as a national police or a private volunteer militia)* into its armed forces. The other parties to a conflict have to be notified thereof.
>
>
>
Source:<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces> | [Good answer and examples](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/189485/167396), [Orange](https://english.stackexchange.com/users/87687/orangewombat).
My father was a career Army officer, West Point grad through 3 star General. We ALWAYS referred to the "armed forces" and never said "military", not that there was anything wrong with the latter, it just was not a term in use by those we knew. (Yet West Point is the USMA: United States Military Academy - go figure).
It was not unusual at our house to have the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) and CJCS (Chair thereof) over for cocktails or a BBQ in our yard, but to my limited knowledge (as an "Army brat") various "military" organizations (Guard, Reserves) did not have the recognition, resources, or responsibilities of the five Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). Maybe it was a part-time/full-time or temporary/career distinction, or geographical (local or state, vs federal) difference; I don't really know.
Nobody I knew was ever negative about the Guard, Reserve, or for example, Texas Rangers, though it was unsaid, they just weren't seen as quite "the real thing". So when POTUS 45, who never was part of any of the above, wanted to show our might and stoke his ego with a "Military Parade", he just sounded ignorant. |
189,412 | Looking at the free definitions online, and not including too much history, it seems to me that at one point the Navy was not directly associated as *”military”*. Or rather, that the Navy included not only military ships, but all ships of a nation.
Today the terms at top seem synonymous. Only perhaps that the word *military* carries more weight, and can be used for either a more powerful sentiment, or more pejorative, depending on the context.
Likewise *”armed forces”*, and even more so *”armed services”* seem to be softer representations of otherwise exactly the same thing.
(..not unlike *”dead”* vs. *”deceased”*? [Sorry, couldn't resist.])
Is there any technical difference, or situations today, where these are *NOT* interchangeable? | 2014/08/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/189412",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/16812/"
] | In terms of the United States, there is a distinction, at least in my understanding as a former US Marine.
The United States Armed Forces are the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
The Unites States Senate Committee on Armed Services encompasses Legislative oversight of the Department of Defense (which oversees most of the US Armed Forces), but other areas of military interest or national security.
Therefore, I would suggest that, in terms of moving from more general to more specific, the order of the three phrases would be:
1. Armed Services (all organizations dealing with military interests or national security)
2. Military (all organizations dealing with military interests)
3. Armed Forces (the five organizations: Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard)
So, I was a US Marine, part of the Department of the Navy, and therefore was a member of the Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Forces, I was part of the US military. As a member of the US military, I was also a member of the Armed Services.
From the other direction, a TSA agent could be considered part of the Armed Services of the US, but is not military, and is certainly not a member of the Armed Forces.
Cross-over occurs with the Coast Guard, which is part of the Armed Forces, but not part of the Department of Defense (they are under the Department of Homeland Security, which also oversees TSA).
The word "military" probably gets misused the most, since it also can be an adjective, as in "military action," "military assets," "military interests," and so on. In those usages, it is very generic, so it's not surprising that "military" as a noun also gets used more generically than perhaps it should. | [Good answer and examples](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/189485/167396), [Orange](https://english.stackexchange.com/users/87687/orangewombat).
My father was a career Army officer, West Point grad through 3 star General. We ALWAYS referred to the "armed forces" and never said "military", not that there was anything wrong with the latter, it just was not a term in use by those we knew. (Yet West Point is the USMA: United States Military Academy - go figure).
It was not unusual at our house to have the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) and CJCS (Chair thereof) over for cocktails or a BBQ in our yard, but to my limited knowledge (as an "Army brat") various "military" organizations (Guard, Reserves) did not have the recognition, resources, or responsibilities of the five Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). Maybe it was a part-time/full-time or temporary/career distinction, or geographical (local or state, vs federal) difference; I don't really know.
Nobody I knew was ever negative about the Guard, Reserve, or for example, Texas Rangers, though it was unsaid, they just weren't seen as quite "the real thing". So when POTUS 45, who never was part of any of the above, wanted to show our might and stoke his ego with a "Military Parade", he just sounded ignorant. |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | Some choices:
1. Learn C or C++. How hard could it be? It might be fun.
2. Use [gcj](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gcj). This is the gnu java compiler.
3. Use [RubyScript2Exe](http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/) | For **python** you can use [Freeze](http://wiki.python.org/moin/Freeze).
From the wiki:
>
> Freeze is a "pure Python" utility that
> ships with Python. You can use Freeze
> to compile executables for Unix
> systems.
>
>
> If you want to write Python, but you
> don't know if your clients have Python
> installed, use this!
>
>
> |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | For **python** you can use [Freeze](http://wiki.python.org/moin/Freeze).
From the wiki:
>
> Freeze is a "pure Python" utility that
> ships with Python. You can use Freeze
> to compile executables for Unix
> systems.
>
>
> If you want to write Python, but you
> don't know if your clients have Python
> installed, use this!
>
>
> | If you're willing to give into the dark side, there are some experimental "compilers" (i.e. translate to C) for Perl. I don't know how you feel about that - a lot of Python fanatics (not that all Python users are fanatical) seem to hate it with a passion for no real justifiable reason, but I suppose people must have their religious opinions.
For what it's worth, for most "higher-level" languages out there, any real compiler is basically just going to be bundling your program with a runtime. If you really don't want that, you're going to have to use C (and even C requires a standard library, though no usable system *doesn't* come with one already) or C++ (see previous).
You could try Haskell, which should compile directly to machine code, but might not have mature enough libraries for your tastes, and will probably hurt your brain while you try to learn it. Or maybe Erlang, if you need concurrency badly, though I don't know if it's specifically process spawning or just generally strong support for concurrency. There should also be compilers for various Lisp dialects out there, but once again I don't know how well suited the language/libraries may be for your tasks. |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | For **python** you can use [Freeze](http://wiki.python.org/moin/Freeze).
From the wiki:
>
> Freeze is a "pure Python" utility that
> ships with Python. You can use Freeze
> to compile executables for Unix
> systems.
>
>
> If you want to write Python, but you
> don't know if your clients have Python
> installed, use this!
>
>
> | You might want to consider Perl as it is installed on most UNIX systems by default these days. It isn't much of a higher-level language IMHO but it is a little easier than writing C. I would grab a copy of [Accelerated C++](http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/) and write it in C++. It is probably more than worth your while to learn C++ for tasks like this. Once you get your head around programming with Boost and STL, it can really feel like a higher-level language. |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | Some choices:
1. Learn C or C++. How hard could it be? It might be fun.
2. Use [gcj](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gcj). This is the gnu java compiler.
3. Use [RubyScript2Exe](http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/) | If you're willing to give into the dark side, there are some experimental "compilers" (i.e. translate to C) for Perl. I don't know how you feel about that - a lot of Python fanatics (not that all Python users are fanatical) seem to hate it with a passion for no real justifiable reason, but I suppose people must have their religious opinions.
For what it's worth, for most "higher-level" languages out there, any real compiler is basically just going to be bundling your program with a runtime. If you really don't want that, you're going to have to use C (and even C requires a standard library, though no usable system *doesn't* come with one already) or C++ (see previous).
You could try Haskell, which should compile directly to machine code, but might not have mature enough libraries for your tastes, and will probably hurt your brain while you try to learn it. Or maybe Erlang, if you need concurrency badly, though I don't know if it's specifically process spawning or just generally strong support for concurrency. There should also be compilers for various Lisp dialects out there, but once again I don't know how well suited the language/libraries may be for your tasks. |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | Some choices:
1. Learn C or C++. How hard could it be? It might be fun.
2. Use [gcj](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gcj). This is the gnu java compiler.
3. Use [RubyScript2Exe](http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/) | You might want to consider Perl as it is installed on most UNIX systems by default these days. It isn't much of a higher-level language IMHO but it is a little easier than writing C. I would grab a copy of [Accelerated C++](http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/) and write it in C++. It is probably more than worth your while to learn C++ for tasks like this. Once you get your head around programming with Boost and STL, it can really feel like a higher-level language. |
1,416,339 | I am a programmer with strong background in Java, Ruby, Python and other high level/dynamic languages. I am facing a problem where I need to code a Linux executable (for 64 and possibly 32-bit OSes too) and none of this languages appear to suit this task, because I end up having to distribute a runtime as well.
I really can't write decent C code, so I'd like to ask for advise on a good high level language that supports sockets communications and process spawning that would produce either C intermediate code or standalone Linux executables. | 2009/09/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1416339",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/14540/"
] | If you're willing to give into the dark side, there are some experimental "compilers" (i.e. translate to C) for Perl. I don't know how you feel about that - a lot of Python fanatics (not that all Python users are fanatical) seem to hate it with a passion for no real justifiable reason, but I suppose people must have their religious opinions.
For what it's worth, for most "higher-level" languages out there, any real compiler is basically just going to be bundling your program with a runtime. If you really don't want that, you're going to have to use C (and even C requires a standard library, though no usable system *doesn't* come with one already) or C++ (see previous).
You could try Haskell, which should compile directly to machine code, but might not have mature enough libraries for your tastes, and will probably hurt your brain while you try to learn it. Or maybe Erlang, if you need concurrency badly, though I don't know if it's specifically process spawning or just generally strong support for concurrency. There should also be compilers for various Lisp dialects out there, but once again I don't know how well suited the language/libraries may be for your tasks. | You might want to consider Perl as it is installed on most UNIX systems by default these days. It isn't much of a higher-level language IMHO but it is a little easier than writing C. I would grab a copy of [Accelerated C++](http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/) and write it in C++. It is probably more than worth your while to learn C++ for tasks like this. Once you get your head around programming with Boost and STL, it can really feel like a higher-level language. |
312 | [Recommendation on great Code Comparing Tools](https://salesforce.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/305/recommendation-on-great-code-comparing-tools)
It is my opinion that it doesn't belong on meta, but the point of meta is that everything that doesn't belong on [SFSE](https://salesforce.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/311/sfse-salesforce-stack-exchange) belongs on meta :)
This post has another purpose, which has been raised before, the perception that SFSE is a code only forum. One I would really like to change (although I don't know how) | 2013/03/04 | [
"https://salesforce.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312",
"https://salesforce.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://salesforce.meta.stackexchange.com/users/80/"
] | I agree that this is a 100% appropriate question for the main site, but since it's here I'll answer :)
I'm a mostly Windows user.
I use the Eclipse diff tool for comparing individual files between active projects.
For all pre-deploy diffs and merges, and anything of size, I use [WinMerge](http://winmerge.org/) which I like because it's free, fast, supports good diff options for things like whitespace, and has good keyboard shortcuts for quickly jumping through diffs.
I used to be partial to DiffZilla, part of [SlickEdit](http://www.slickedit.com/), but that was because my employer at the time had a site license to SlickEdit which is a paid product. It's a great diff tool, but since SlickEdit isn't my text editor of choice, it doesn't justify buying something just as a diff tool. | Here are my thoughts on this.
I quick background to my working environment, I use a MacBook Pro (OS 10.8) and am used to the eclipse environment so I am using the eclipse forceIDE stand-alone.
I have tried out a few code comparing file tools when I programmed in PHP, java, sql and a few other languages so here are my thoughts on the ones I have tried.
Kaleidoscope: <http://www.kaleidoscopeapp.com/>
I am honestly not the biggest fan of the program, it costs 70$, I believe is only on Mac. Kaleidoscope doesn’t do well if the documents are on separate servers (I know this from PHP experience and honestly have not tried it on Apex code). I also found that many times with code, if there were one line change it would highlight everything below it as well, making it unreliable. Its big advantage is that you can view differences between folders, and images.
DiffMerge: <http://www.sourcegear.com/diffmerge/>
Is currently the one I am using. It is a free program and works on most operating systems. I think the program works pretty well, as the edited code shows up nicely and allows for pasting of code from file to file. It also alerts you if a file was just saved with changes and allows you to refresh the pages. Another great feature is the ability to look at multiple files, usually when using multiple sandboxes it is nice to see the changes and be able to change all the files once. The only issue I have that I noticed is that it sometimes becomes glitched and is difficult to move the screen around.
I have only tried using DiffMerge with files that are saved locally to my hard drive, I have no information on how well it works between servers. |
33,837 | From the different renderings of Starship no escape systems can be seen.
What will the different abort modes both during launch and landing be like?
What happens for example if the first stage suffers a catastrophic failure at or soon after liftoff?
How about landing? What is planned in case of single or multiple engine failures? | 2019/01/24 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/33837",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/29073/"
] | There are no published/proposed abort modes for ascent. We can speculate that some incidents can be survived by letting Starship tumble free and light it's own engines to burn to a low orbit or land depending on altitude and velocity, but that capability has not been proposed by SpaceX.
Landing redundancy is provided by carrying 7 deep throttling, sea level capable engines on the current edition - meaning a redundant number of engines can start the landing burn at low throttle levels, increasing throttle if engines drop out.
But even that is speculative based on the current design. SpaceX has not discussed abort modes other than mentioning that airlines do not have escape capsules or parachutes, and stating that they are aiming for that level of reliability.
From the [first IAC presentation,](https://toaster.cc/2016/10/04/IAC_Press-Conf-Transcript/) a vague response from Elon about abort abilities and their impracticality with this platform:
>
> Oh launch abort, the spacecraft itself is capable of aborting from the
> booster, the erm… Launch abort on the spaceship itself is kinda
> pointless, if you’re on Mars you’re taking off or you’re not taking
> off. You know, parachutes don’t work too well and [you can’t have]
> some standard abort system, and just how do you abort 100 people it’s
> just not feasible, the key is to make the spaceship itself extremely
> safe and reliable, and have redundancy in the engines, high safety
> margins and have [it be] well tested. Much like a commercial airliner.
> Like they don’t give you parachutes.
>
>
> | Really this is several questions. Launch abort, and landing abort/recovery questions.
Launch abort, there is not yet a lot of good answers, and may have to wait for future information.
Landing abort we know they intend to land on at least 3 engines, which they changed from 2 to 3 in the various iterations. This is designed to allow engine out on landing. Multiple engine loss on landing and it just going to be a bad day, no matter what. |
71,247 | How can you film someone being directly stabbed through any part of the body (especially the head, as seen in *Game of Thrones*) when the camera has not shifted angle at all? | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/71247",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/43257/"
] | It's done on computers.
Sometimes they also use a prop knife, the kind where the blade pops back in when touched.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uxhke.jpg)
Some Game of Thrones VFX examples here
Of course, older movies didn't have the luxury, so they had to make due with... tricky camera angles, multiple shots, cuts and edits. And practical effects where they build up the shot with multiple prosthetics, in a stop motion type of way. | An old [impalement illusion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvT28xF65v0) used by stage magicians involves wrapping a corset or frame around the body part (such as the neck or torso) which is to be "impaled". The corset contains entry and exit slots on opposite sides of the body part, and an interior pocket or track wrapping around the body through which the sword blade moves.
The sword itself is a flexible prop which is inserted into the slot in the corset, sliding around the victim's body in the pocket as the sword is pushed, until it emerges from the exit slot. The effect is quite convincing, especially when blood and gore effects are added in.
However I couldn't find explicit references to this trick being used in movies. Maybe old Kung Fu or ninja films from the 1970s or 80s?
They used this technique in the movie "Your Highness". This is a link to the gag reel and you can see it at about 1:40 |
71,247 | How can you film someone being directly stabbed through any part of the body (especially the head, as seen in *Game of Thrones*) when the camera has not shifted angle at all? | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/71247",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/43257/"
] | It's done on computers.
Sometimes they also use a prop knife, the kind where the blade pops back in when touched.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uxhke.jpg)
Some Game of Thrones VFX examples here
Of course, older movies didn't have the luxury, so they had to make due with... tricky camera angles, multiple shots, cuts and edits. And practical effects where they build up the shot with multiple prosthetics, in a stop motion type of way. | Depending on the production values and budget, often you are seeing a mixture of practical effects and digital compositing with computer graphics. The technique is also determined by the requirements of the shot and how the action plays within the scene and story. For example, a quick "in out" might be easier to do with cgi. An articulated sawing or turning of a blade might require the combination of more advanced techniques.
[Practical visual effects](http://mentalfloss.com/article/24209/no-cgi-please-special-effects-computers) are not always so easy to unravel. Like magicians guard their secrets, so too do practical visual effects wizards.
In the above video, an example of impalement is deconstructed. It involves not only a fake tip and a doubly retractable impaler on the entry side, but it uses magnetics to achieve the exit wound. It largely relies upon timing, misdirection and a crew of trained performers.
Simple "sword through" magic trick kits are also available to give an idea of how something similar might be achieved:
Note the length of the sword before going in and after coming out. It has bent through the "stock" around the neck. These kinds of [kits are widely available](http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Sword%20thru%20Waist%20Adult%20Stage%20Magic%20Trick%20illusion&_itemId=6603467215&_trksid=p2047675.m4099). Add a magnetic extension to the blade inside the stockade which gets pushed through when the sword is inserted, and voila - movie magic.
Depending on the staging, simple sometimes works just fine. For example, a sword through the chest could be staged so the actors' sides are facing the camera and one "stabs" the other under the armpit. Done with the right lighting and acting, this could look like it was through the heart and the "stabbed" actor could back away from the "stabber" while the sword is held "through" them. Rig up a sword with a small hand activated pressure pump and squirters in the back and you get appropriate blood spray:
---
Filming shots which are to be composited digitally involves some planning. Essentially though, the film crew needs to shoot all the necessary practical elements (as contrasted to the computer generated elements such as 3D and 2.5D rendered effects) which will be composited together. Compositing still shots tends to present fewer challenges, but lots can be done with motion blur and other digital effects to make all the elements appear as a seamless image. The compositing involves scanning the elements, working in layers, using alpha channels to put cut outs into a scene, removing green (or blue) screens, and there are lots of 2.5D and 3D techniques depending on the complexity of the visual effect. Once finished the digitally composited shots need to be matched back into the scene. There is a whole world of artistry and science involved.
A shot of someone getting stabbed through the head might involve the main footage of the actor being stabbed and angled to get their facial reaction. We might also see the hand with the sword. Likely the stabbing actor will have a handle and possibly a soft "green" sword end so they can contact the stabbed actor without hurting them. Possibly, the actors might be filmed with high speed cameras or go through the motions slowly. Based on the angle of the sword blade, an element of the "business end" of the sword can be composited as coming out the back. The actor might have a "blood pack" in their mouth, or squibs in the back of their head, or blood may be added digitally. If the hilt or base of the sword and the pointy end are both in the shot, it's just a matter of working out the illusion adequately so that the sword appears to be whole (using the angle of the entry, judging the depth based on the camera angle and lens width, etc.) |
71,247 | How can you film someone being directly stabbed through any part of the body (especially the head, as seen in *Game of Thrones*) when the camera has not shifted angle at all? | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/71247",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/43257/"
] | An old [impalement illusion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvT28xF65v0) used by stage magicians involves wrapping a corset or frame around the body part (such as the neck or torso) which is to be "impaled". The corset contains entry and exit slots on opposite sides of the body part, and an interior pocket or track wrapping around the body through which the sword blade moves.
The sword itself is a flexible prop which is inserted into the slot in the corset, sliding around the victim's body in the pocket as the sword is pushed, until it emerges from the exit slot. The effect is quite convincing, especially when blood and gore effects are added in.
However I couldn't find explicit references to this trick being used in movies. Maybe old Kung Fu or ninja films from the 1970s or 80s?
They used this technique in the movie "Your Highness". This is a link to the gag reel and you can see it at about 1:40 | Depending on the production values and budget, often you are seeing a mixture of practical effects and digital compositing with computer graphics. The technique is also determined by the requirements of the shot and how the action plays within the scene and story. For example, a quick "in out" might be easier to do with cgi. An articulated sawing or turning of a blade might require the combination of more advanced techniques.
[Practical visual effects](http://mentalfloss.com/article/24209/no-cgi-please-special-effects-computers) are not always so easy to unravel. Like magicians guard their secrets, so too do practical visual effects wizards.
In the above video, an example of impalement is deconstructed. It involves not only a fake tip and a doubly retractable impaler on the entry side, but it uses magnetics to achieve the exit wound. It largely relies upon timing, misdirection and a crew of trained performers.
Simple "sword through" magic trick kits are also available to give an idea of how something similar might be achieved:
Note the length of the sword before going in and after coming out. It has bent through the "stock" around the neck. These kinds of [kits are widely available](http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Sword%20thru%20Waist%20Adult%20Stage%20Magic%20Trick%20illusion&_itemId=6603467215&_trksid=p2047675.m4099). Add a magnetic extension to the blade inside the stockade which gets pushed through when the sword is inserted, and voila - movie magic.
Depending on the staging, simple sometimes works just fine. For example, a sword through the chest could be staged so the actors' sides are facing the camera and one "stabs" the other under the armpit. Done with the right lighting and acting, this could look like it was through the heart and the "stabbed" actor could back away from the "stabber" while the sword is held "through" them. Rig up a sword with a small hand activated pressure pump and squirters in the back and you get appropriate blood spray:
---
Filming shots which are to be composited digitally involves some planning. Essentially though, the film crew needs to shoot all the necessary practical elements (as contrasted to the computer generated elements such as 3D and 2.5D rendered effects) which will be composited together. Compositing still shots tends to present fewer challenges, but lots can be done with motion blur and other digital effects to make all the elements appear as a seamless image. The compositing involves scanning the elements, working in layers, using alpha channels to put cut outs into a scene, removing green (or blue) screens, and there are lots of 2.5D and 3D techniques depending on the complexity of the visual effect. Once finished the digitally composited shots need to be matched back into the scene. There is a whole world of artistry and science involved.
A shot of someone getting stabbed through the head might involve the main footage of the actor being stabbed and angled to get their facial reaction. We might also see the hand with the sword. Likely the stabbing actor will have a handle and possibly a soft "green" sword end so they can contact the stabbed actor without hurting them. Possibly, the actors might be filmed with high speed cameras or go through the motions slowly. Based on the angle of the sword blade, an element of the "business end" of the sword can be composited as coming out the back. The actor might have a "blood pack" in their mouth, or squibs in the back of their head, or blood may be added digitally. If the hilt or base of the sword and the pointy end are both in the shot, it's just a matter of working out the illusion adequately so that the sword appears to be whole (using the angle of the entry, judging the depth based on the camera angle and lens width, etc.) |
12,350,879 | I've tried to search through Mongo documentation, but can't really find any details on whether queries on unique indexes will be faster than queries on non-unique indexes (given the same data)
So I understand that a unique index will have high selectivity and good performance. But, given two fields whose concatenation is unique, would a non-unique compound index perform slower than a unique compound index?
I am assuming that unique indexes can slow down inserts as the uniqueness must be verified. But is the read performance improvement of a unique index, if any, really worth it? | 2012/09/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12350879",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/374420/"
] | A quick grep of the source tree seems to indicate that unique indexes are only used on insert, so there shouldn't be any performance benefit or detriment between a query that returns one document, whether the index is unique or not.
MongoDB indexes are implemented as btrees, so it wouldn't make any logical sense for them to perform any differently whether the index is unique or not. | I did my own small research on that topic. I generated 500,000 records (randomly generated strings) in a collection, and tried a couple of queries with explain() statement. 
Then I ensured a unique index, and tried few other queries again: 
As you can see, after adding index the time consumption decreased from ~276ms to 0ms! So it seems like even if the index is unique, it affects (in a positive way) the find queries. |
89,475 | I am having some confusions about subjectivism. I am a pretty new to this subject. Here is my question:
Subjectivists believe that everything is subjective, including philosophy and morals. So, how does criticizing, or calling some philosophy 'bad' make sense? (in the perspective of a subjectivist). | 2022/02/10 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/89475",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/57831/"
] | It's easy to oversimplify the concept of subjectivism. For instance — on the most superficial level — 'subjectivism' might refer to (using non-standard terminology):
* **Solipsism**: The belief that one's subjective experience is the only truth, and that all other people are manifestations of one's own subjective experience, without subjective experiences of their own. This is one way of interpreting Descartes' '*cogito ergo sum*'.
* **Intersubjectivity (linguistic/symbolic)**: The belief that reality is a composite of the subjective experiences of a community of people, carried primarily in language and symbolic interaction. Thus something like a traffic law has no ontological existence — it only exists within the minds of people — but still has significant 'real' effects in the world.
* **Intersubjectivity (scientific/ontic)**: The belief that reality is a composite of the collective subjective experience of some underlying objective/ontological world. E.g. scientific inference, where subjective experience is collated, abstracted, and formalized into a subjective concept that seems to have objective reach.
Any form of intersubjectivity carries the suggestion that collective knowledge *can be* (not necessarily *is*) superior to individual knowledge on purely pragmatic grounds. Collective knowledge integrates greater quantities of subjective experience, opening the possibility that individual misperceptions and biases can be balanced out by a weight of external experience. Thus as individuals assimilate broader sources of collective knowledge, their own (individual) subjectivity becomes more sophisticated, nuanced, and developed: aka 'better'. Some people assume that there is a 'best' that this bettering aims for; others assume an unfixed, process-oriented system of communal adaptation. The jury is still out on that one... | From E.E. Sleinis' [Nietzsche's Revaluation of Values: A Study in Strategies](https://books.google.gg/books?id=AlCxstLOlDwC&pg=PA59&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false), page 59
>
> [Nietzsche's] position is not that any view is as good as any other
> view either in regard to value judgements or to judgements about the
> world. In considering values, we cannot do better than perspectival
> *truth*, but we can certainly do worse. There are still better perspectives and worse perspectives, and these need to be sorted by
> subjecting them to rational scrutiny. Provided only that one desires
> to maximise value, the ground is set for an inquiry into how such
> desire can be met.
>
>
> |
9,711,267 | im learning the google app engine framework and service and for that i built the tutorial google itself provides under "docs" on their google app engine homepage.
the tutorial is very simple, build a guestbook web app that uses a datastore to save "greetings" from users.
i did everything on the tutorial by hand and everything exacly like they said to. it works just fine when i run it from eclipse, no errors what so ever.
so i deployed it (with no errors, "deploy successful") just to see it running before moving on to more difficult examples but i get an error 500. checking the logs i get a: "java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: guestbook.SignGuestbookServlet" thats the only servlet from the app, and it runs just fine from my machine why not from app engine?
the mapping on the web.xml is right (just like the google one) and appengine-web.xml has the application name. what can it be?
thanks in advance.
EDIT: ok now i feel dumb. apparently i have to build before deploying, i thought the deply procedure would build everything from scratch for me, guess i was wrong. sorry for wasting anyone time and i hope maybe sometime it will help someone with the same problem. | 2012/03/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9711267",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/208153/"
] | I think you will find this post useful
<http://www.andengine.org/forums/post28936.html> | move sprite by path, update body in this.scene.registerUpdateHandler(new IUpdateHandler()
like here
<https://stackoverflow.com/a/16122813/2233069> |
258,827 | I was wondering whether or not the word 'still' could ever have the meaning of 'as well' or 'also'. Translating a sentence into English, I came up with: 'My life has been a lie and my death a lie still.' For some reason it feels good to me, but I need to know if it's grammatically correct, or if it makes any sense at all.
Thank you very much! | 2015/07/12 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/258827",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/128868/"
] | "Still" has adverbial meanings, but "also" is not one of them. I'll let you read [the definitions](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/still?s=t) rather than repeating them all, but "as previously" is probably closest to what you were looking for. For example:
>
> "I've been running a mile every day for the last ten years, and I still am."
>
>
>
While you could interpret the sentence you quote ("My life has been a lie and my death a lie still.") as meaning that I am not really dead, I would take it in a more poetic sense: "I've been lying to people all my life and even in death I am lying to them".
For example, this might be a man who was thought to be a war hero, but in reality was only on the battlefield in order to pick the pockets of dead men. He is killed in what looks like a heroic assault on an enemy position, but the reality is he was just trying to get to where the richest pickings were. he presents a false image in death, just as he did previously ("still") in life. | Still may properly be used, as you are using it, as an adverb. Yes.
However ...your sentence I would like better translated like this:
'My life is a lie and my death a lie still.'
...still *being* alive 'has been a lie' would be improper. |
27,887,719 | I would like to capture TCP packets as well as protocol data such as HTTP and HTTPS in Android, similar to Wireshark in Windows.
How can I do this in Android? | 2015/01/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27887719",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2670689/"
] | Option 1 - Android PCAP
-----------------------
**Limitation**
Android PCAP should work so long as:
Your device runs Android 4.0 or higher (or, in theory, the few devices which run Android 3.2). Earlier versions of Android do not have a USB Host API
Option 2 - TcpDump
------------------
**Limitation**
Phone should be rooted
Option 3 - bitshark (I would prefer this)
-----------------------------------------
**Limitation**
Phone should be rooted
**Reason -** the generated PCAP files can be analyzed in WireShark which helps us in doing the analysis.
Other Options without rooting your phone
----------------------------------------
1. **tPacketCapture**
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.taosoftware.android.packetcapture&hl=en>
**Advantages**
Using tPacketCapture is very easy, captured packet save into a PCAP file that can be easily analyzed by using a network protocol analyzer application such as Wireshark.
2. You can route your android mobile traffic to PC and capture the traffic in the desktop using any network sniffing tool.
<http://lifehacker.com/5369381/turn-your-windows-7-pc-into-a-wireless-hotspot> | It's probably worth mentioning that for http/https some people proxy their browser traffic through Burp/ZAP or another intercepting "attack proxy". A thread that covers options for this on Android devices can be found here:
<https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/32366/which-browser-does-support-proxies> |
87,069 | [Isaiah 56:6-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+56%3A1-8&version=ESV) is God's invitation to the Gentiles to come to the Temple to bring their burnt offerings and their sacrifices to the "house of prayer for all peoples":
>
> 6 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” 8 The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,
> “I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.”
>
>
>
When Jesus cleared the temple quoting Jer 7:11 [accusing the authorities of turning the temple into den of thieves](https://www.gotquestions.org/house-prayer-den-thieves.html), a good interpretation for the anger is that not only the merchants took advantage of the unblemished rule and charged exorbitant markup, but also because the area designated for the gentiles to pray have been filled with merchants, making the area not fit for praying anymore ([see this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/80196/10672)). Therefore, in his time, Jesus clearly meant that Herod's temple is the "house of prayer" referred to by Isaiah 56:6-8.
But after Herod's temple was utterly destroyed by AD 135, which fulfilled Jesus's prophecy (Matt 24:1-2) that [not stone left unturned](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/73954/10672), **where is NOW this house of prayer for all peoples**?
According to Catholicism, how do we interpret it:
1. Can we interpret this to be every single church building where there is a consecrated altar?
2. Or is "house of prayer" now the Tabernacle in heaven (Heb 9:11)?
3. Or is the "house of prayer" inside every believer where the Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16-17)?
4. Or some place else?
After the place is identified, I would hope the answer will also address the NT fulfillment of the following elements from the passage context of Isa 56:1-8 [Salvation for Foreigners](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+56%3A1-8&version=ESV):
* How do we come to pray to God?
* How do we conceive the blessing ([NLT](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+56%3A4&version=NLT)), the memorial and the everlasing name given to us "within the walls of my house" (v. 4-5)?
* In the new covenant what are the offerings and sacrifices we bring and how do we bring them to the "house of prayer" (v. 6-7)?
A related question that can be clarified: in a mass, does Catholicism explicitly associate the offering which the people bring to the priest before the eucharistic prayer with Isa 56:6-7? | 2021/11/20 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/87069",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/10672/"
] | **According to Catholicism what is today's referent of "my house of prayer" in Isaiah 56:6-8?**
>
> 6 And the children of the stranger that adhere to the Lord, to worship him, and to love his name, to be his servants: every one that keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, and that holdeth fast my covenant:
>
>
> 7 I will bring them into my holy mount, and will make them joyful in my house of prayer: their holocausts, and their victims shall please me upon my altar: for my house shall be called the house of prayer, for all nations.
>
>
> 8 The Lord God, who gathereth the scattered of Israel, saith: I will still gather unto him his congregation. - [Isaiah 56: 6-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2056%3A6-8&version=DRA)
>
>
>
According to Catholicism, we interpret this passage in several different ways:
1. It May interpreted as every single church building (cathedrals, parish Churches of chapels) where there is a consecrated altar.
2. It may be interpreted as the eternal Tabernacle in heaven, which will be our dwelling place with the Beatific Vision forever (Heb 9:11).
3. It may equally be interpreted as the soul inside every believer where the Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16-17).
4. A four interpretation is in the second person of the Trinity, the Christ...
5. An finally Holy Places such as Marian Grottos, which like Churches are places of worship and as such are considered sacred spaces and thus *houses of prayer*.
Catholic structures such as cathedrals, churches Chapels and Oratories have been considered sacred space, where the mass is normally celebrated and the sacraments are administered.
The sanctuary is the location of the altar in all churches and of the tabernacle in most. As such, it is considered sacred space and cannot be used in the manner of a simple public space.
The Code of Canon Law states:
>
> In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness the place is forbidden. The ordinary may, however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place (can. 1210).
>
>
>
This is further borne out in the traditional liturgy of the Tridentine Rite within her liturgical vespers, of which the following antiphon attests to:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wICzi.jpg)
[Haec est domus Domini](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rVKWbzlZg)
The ultimate Sacred Place for all Christians is the Beatific Vision which may be referred to as the tabernacle in heaven. It is, God willing our ***house of prayer*** par excellence where the elect will praise and adore the Divine Majesty foe all eternity. Did not Our Lord promise to made a place for us in his Father’s Kingdom. A place reserved as a majestic house of prayer filled with the saints and angels in God’s presence.
>
> 2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. - [John 14: 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014%3A2&version=DRA)
>
>
>
The *”house of prayer”* may equally be the soul of each individual person in particular as well as that of Our Lord.
Did not Our Lord exclaim to the Jews: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.“
>
> 19 Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
>
>
> 20 The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days?
>
>
> 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. -[John 2: 19-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202&version=DRA)
>
>
>
Remember that St. Peter wants us recall that we living stones chosen by God. We make up the Church of God which is a ***”house of prayer”***.
>
> 4 Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen and made honourable by God:
>
>
> 5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
>
>
> 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. - [1Peter 2: 4-6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202&version=DRA)
>
>
>
We must teach others that the Holy Spirit lives within us.
>
> Saint Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17: “Do you not understand that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, lives in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy them, for the temple of God is holy and so you as His temple, are holy.
>
>
> “Do you not know your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives within you, whom you have received as a gift from God? You are not your own. You were bought with a price purchased by Jesus’s blood. Therefore, glorify God in your body and in the Spirit, which belong to God.”
>
>
> As Catholics we recognize that our flesh will one day die, and we will be given a new, resurrected body in Heaven. While on Earth, however, we must honor God by honoring our bodies. [Our Bodies, His Temple](https://occatholic.com/our-bodies-his-temples/)
>
>
>
Finally Holy Places such as Marian Grottos, which like Churches are places of worship and as such are considered sacred spaces and thus *houses of prayer*. All Shrines and Grottos, I have visited have either a church or some other structure which is reserved for prayer, the mass and the administration of the sacraments. These include Lourdes, Fatima, La Salette, Chapel of Our Lady of Graces of the Miraculous Medal (La Rue du Bac, Paris) and [Sacro Speco](https://www.britannica.com/place/Sacro-Speco). | I am generally protestant, but I think **you will find the Catholic designation of the Temple to primarily be Christ himself** as you will find [here](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/586.htm) in the Roman Catholic Catechism.
This is something protestants would concur with Roman Catholics on, for scripture is very clear that Christ is himself the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), which is the purpose and function of the temple, and he calls himself the true site of worship (John 4:23). Furthermore, biblical authors understand Jesus' sayings regarding the destruction of the temple to be a reference to himself (John 2:19-22).
In practice, this means that all prayer directed towards God is in the name of Jesus (John 14:14), and that anyone, regardless of ethnicity or social status may offer prayer to God in the name of Jesus. |
48,961,501 | Error Message:
>
> Configuration doesn't target device.
>
> Your configuration doesn't target a valid iOS device
>
>
>
I want to publish an iPhone app to App Store. So, I tried to perform Archive for Publish an iPhone App by selecting at the top main menu bar:
Build > Archive for Publishing
I have already select a device from the drop down menu at the main top menu bar. But I still receive above error message. What should I do?
I don't have a physical real iPhone. All I use is the iPhone Simulator. Is it a must to use a real iPhone to sign the App and submit to App Store?
Update
------
A physical iOS (iPhone) device is no more needed to archive and submit app to AppStore. | 2018/02/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48961501",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/520848/"
] | ~~You need to plug in a real physical iPhone into the Mac Laptop.
and target it as target deploy device. Then, this problem will solve.~~
**Update:** A physical iOS (iPhone) device is no more needed to archive and submit app to AppStore.
For build device, select "Any iOS Device (arm64, armv7)" or Generic Device | Dont know if this is still an issue, but I ran into that issue today: the problemn was that in the fourth column it didnt say "remote device". Click on in so it reads: Release, iPhone, APPNAM.ios, Remote device.
Than your good. |
48,961,501 | Error Message:
>
> Configuration doesn't target device.
>
> Your configuration doesn't target a valid iOS device
>
>
>
I want to publish an iPhone app to App Store. So, I tried to perform Archive for Publish an iPhone App by selecting at the top main menu bar:
Build > Archive for Publishing
I have already select a device from the drop down menu at the main top menu bar. But I still receive above error message. What should I do?
I don't have a physical real iPhone. All I use is the iPhone Simulator. Is it a must to use a real iPhone to sign the App and submit to App Store?
Update
------
A physical iOS (iPhone) device is no more needed to archive and submit app to AppStore. | 2018/02/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48961501",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/520848/"
] | The last option in the list of build devices is a Generic Device, under the heading Build Only Devices. This option works fine for those without a physical iPhone. | Dont know if this is still an issue, but I ran into that issue today: the problemn was that in the fourth column it didnt say "remote device". Click on in so it reads: Release, iPhone, APPNAM.ios, Remote device.
Than your good. |
75,816 | Consider the following:
>
> 1. He is too weak that he cannot walk.
> 2. He is so weak that he cannot walk.
> 3. He is too weak to walk.
>
>
>
I feel all the above sentences are correct. But my grammar book suggests, that the first one is wrong and the rest is correct. Why is it so? Any explanation? | 2012/07/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75816",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/23990/"
] | Valid constructions:
* too <adjective> to <verb>
* so <adjective> that <condition/state expressed as a standalone sentence>
There is no such construction "too <adjective> that <condition>". | 2 and 3 are perfectly right, 1 is wrong. The correct formation would be "He is too weak and cannot walk". The formation of such a sentence requires an implied comparison - "He is so weak that he cannot walk" implies a comparison to someone/something that is extremely weak and cannot walk, while "He is too weak that he cannot walk" just says he is too weak - doesn't show the he is as weak as someone/something else that is extremely weak and cannot walk. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In *theory* there is a difference insofar as an extended partition requires two LBAs (the MBR plus the first sector in the extended partition) to be written to once, and to be read subsequently on every mount. A primary partition only requires one LBA (the MBR).
So, strictly speaking, in terms of data security, a primary partition is 50% less likely to fail. In *practice*, 1/1015 and 50% of 1/1015 are pretty much the same. So, do whatever you like. But why not just use a primary partition if there's only one partition on the disk so far! There's no reason not to go with a primary partition, really. Saves you one useless disk seek on mount.
When setting up completely from scratch (which is **not** the case from the wording of your question, since you want to assign drive letter `D:`, so that's not an option), you might consider GPT.
That will only work if you have a reasonably recent computer *and* operating system, but in that case it will have some (minor) advantages. The most important advantage is that you can have partitions larger than 2 TB and you can boot Windows in UEFI mode (presumed all other preconditions hold).
Note that contrary to urban myth, GPT is not necessarily much safer than MBR. While GPT *does* store a second GPT table at the end of the disk which sounds just great, it also requires at least twice as many LBAs to work, which again doubles the rate of unrecoverable read failures. So... at the end of the day, it's pretty much the same. | I myself use 3 drives. 2 are data only, the other is a small drive <120GB. I use that on strictly as my C drive. This way, in case of OS failure, I just restore my BU image of the drive and poof, back up and running. If I lose the C drive itself, I can just replace it and drop the image back on all the while, my data is in tact and unharmed. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In *theory* there is a difference insofar as an extended partition requires two LBAs (the MBR plus the first sector in the extended partition) to be written to once, and to be read subsequently on every mount. A primary partition only requires one LBA (the MBR).
So, strictly speaking, in terms of data security, a primary partition is 50% less likely to fail. In *practice*, 1/1015 and 50% of 1/1015 are pretty much the same. So, do whatever you like. But why not just use a primary partition if there's only one partition on the disk so far! There's no reason not to go with a primary partition, really. Saves you one useless disk seek on mount.
When setting up completely from scratch (which is **not** the case from the wording of your question, since you want to assign drive letter `D:`, so that's not an option), you might consider GPT.
That will only work if you have a reasonably recent computer *and* operating system, but in that case it will have some (minor) advantages. The most important advantage is that you can have partitions larger than 2 TB and you can boot Windows in UEFI mode (presumed all other preconditions hold).
Note that contrary to urban myth, GPT is not necessarily much safer than MBR. While GPT *does* store a second GPT table at the end of the disk which sounds just great, it also requires at least twice as many LBAs to work, which again doubles the rate of unrecoverable read failures. So... at the end of the day, it's pretty much the same. | It doesn't increase security, however it makes it more convenient to reinstall Windows by formatting only C drive, leaving data unharmed.
Just don't forget to copy contents of MyDocuments and Desktop folders.. and favorites from browsers.. and settings and game saves from %AppData% folder... So you can see, newer Windows keeps data all over the place now, making this technique kinda moot. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In terms of data security, whether you have all your data & OS on the same partition or you split a single drive into two partitions makes no difference whatsoever.
If the drive fails, or you get a nasty virus, or you just delete a file & don't notice for a couple of days, then your partitioning didn't improve your chances at all.
For data loss-prevention, your only security is to never keep only one copy of anything.
There's an adage...
>
> **"Any data not stored in at least three distinct locations ought to be considered temporary."**
>
>
>
In short, that means **at minimum** you need one on-site backup & one off-site backup [in case the house burns down.] The on-site backup must at least be a different physical drive, if not a different physical machine.
You must periodically **actually test** you can recover from these backups - otherwise you wasted your time saving them.
Having all your eggs in one basket... it doesn't matter if you have two baskets, if you're carrying them both in the same hand.
Assuming data is 'safe' because it's on a different partition on the same physical drive, no matter how you format it, is 'all eggs in one basket'.
Drop one, you dropped the lot. | In *theory* there is a difference insofar as an extended partition requires two LBAs (the MBR plus the first sector in the extended partition) to be written to once, and to be read subsequently on every mount. A primary partition only requires one LBA (the MBR).
So, strictly speaking, in terms of data security, a primary partition is 50% less likely to fail. In *practice*, 1/1015 and 50% of 1/1015 are pretty much the same. So, do whatever you like. But why not just use a primary partition if there's only one partition on the disk so far! There's no reason not to go with a primary partition, really. Saves you one useless disk seek on mount.
When setting up completely from scratch (which is **not** the case from the wording of your question, since you want to assign drive letter `D:`, so that's not an option), you might consider GPT.
That will only work if you have a reasonably recent computer *and* operating system, but in that case it will have some (minor) advantages. The most important advantage is that you can have partitions larger than 2 TB and you can boot Windows in UEFI mode (presumed all other preconditions hold).
Note that contrary to urban myth, GPT is not necessarily much safer than MBR. While GPT *does* store a second GPT table at the end of the disk which sounds just great, it also requires at least twice as many LBAs to work, which again doubles the rate of unrecoverable read failures. So... at the end of the day, it's pretty much the same. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | If you are using a Logical Partition in an Extended Partition, then you are using the old-fashioned [MBR Partition Table](https://www.disk-partition.com/gpt-mbr/mbr-vs-gpt-1004.html) which is limited to drives of 2TB or less. The current standard for Windows 10 is the [GPT Partition Table](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/mbr-vs-gpt/) which arrived alongside EFI and UEFI Booting. GPT has additional features which [help protect your data better](https://www.minitool.com/partition-disk/mbr-vs-gpt-guide.html), transparantly. Microsoft has provided an [article on conversion](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/disk-management/change-an-mbr-disk-into-a-gpt-disk).
Therefore, storing your data on an MBR partitioned drive is less safe than a GPT partitioned drive, but [Tetsujin](https://superuser.com/users/347380/tetsujin)'s also very right, and I voted for his answer. | In *theory* there is a difference insofar as an extended partition requires two LBAs (the MBR plus the first sector in the extended partition) to be written to once, and to be read subsequently on every mount. A primary partition only requires one LBA (the MBR).
So, strictly speaking, in terms of data security, a primary partition is 50% less likely to fail. In *practice*, 1/1015 and 50% of 1/1015 are pretty much the same. So, do whatever you like. But why not just use a primary partition if there's only one partition on the disk so far! There's no reason not to go with a primary partition, really. Saves you one useless disk seek on mount.
When setting up completely from scratch (which is **not** the case from the wording of your question, since you want to assign drive letter `D:`, so that's not an option), you might consider GPT.
That will only work if you have a reasonably recent computer *and* operating system, but in that case it will have some (minor) advantages. The most important advantage is that you can have partitions larger than 2 TB and you can boot Windows in UEFI mode (presumed all other preconditions hold).
Note that contrary to urban myth, GPT is not necessarily much safer than MBR. While GPT *does* store a second GPT table at the end of the disk which sounds just great, it also requires at least twice as many LBAs to work, which again doubles the rate of unrecoverable read failures. So... at the end of the day, it's pretty much the same. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | When creating a second partition for data storage (i.e., not the boot partition) for an OS, the primary difference here is that it may affect your ability to create more partitions later.
There are four primary partition slots on an MBR-formatted drive. One of these may be used to create/hold an [*extended partition*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_boot_record), which in turn allows additional partitions on the drive that do not use any of the remaining three primary partition slots in the MBR.
If all four primary partition slots are allocated to primary partitions, it's no longer possible to add an extended partition and thus you can add no more partitions to that drive, even if you have free space. Therefore it's standard practice, when creating the first partition for which an extended partition slot can be used, to create it as an extended partition. This ensures that further additions can never run out of partition slots.
Some older or less sophisticated boot programs may not be able to boot from an extended partition but only from a primary one, so it's also good practice not to use a primary slot for a partition you know you will never want to boot, leaving it free in case you later need another bootable partition. | I myself use 3 drives. 2 are data only, the other is a small drive <120GB. I use that on strictly as my C drive. This way, in case of OS failure, I just restore my BU image of the drive and poof, back up and running. If I lose the C drive itself, I can just replace it and drop the image back on all the while, my data is in tact and unharmed. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | If you are using a Logical Partition in an Extended Partition, then you are using the old-fashioned [MBR Partition Table](https://www.disk-partition.com/gpt-mbr/mbr-vs-gpt-1004.html) which is limited to drives of 2TB or less. The current standard for Windows 10 is the [GPT Partition Table](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/mbr-vs-gpt/) which arrived alongside EFI and UEFI Booting. GPT has additional features which [help protect your data better](https://www.minitool.com/partition-disk/mbr-vs-gpt-guide.html), transparantly. Microsoft has provided an [article on conversion](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/disk-management/change-an-mbr-disk-into-a-gpt-disk).
Therefore, storing your data on an MBR partitioned drive is less safe than a GPT partitioned drive, but [Tetsujin](https://superuser.com/users/347380/tetsujin)'s also very right, and I voted for his answer. | I myself use 3 drives. 2 are data only, the other is a small drive <120GB. I use that on strictly as my C drive. This way, in case of OS failure, I just restore my BU image of the drive and poof, back up and running. If I lose the C drive itself, I can just replace it and drop the image back on all the while, my data is in tact and unharmed. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In *theory* there is a difference insofar as an extended partition requires two LBAs (the MBR plus the first sector in the extended partition) to be written to once, and to be read subsequently on every mount. A primary partition only requires one LBA (the MBR).
So, strictly speaking, in terms of data security, a primary partition is 50% less likely to fail. In *practice*, 1/1015 and 50% of 1/1015 are pretty much the same. So, do whatever you like. But why not just use a primary partition if there's only one partition on the disk so far! There's no reason not to go with a primary partition, really. Saves you one useless disk seek on mount.
When setting up completely from scratch (which is **not** the case from the wording of your question, since you want to assign drive letter `D:`, so that's not an option), you might consider GPT.
That will only work if you have a reasonably recent computer *and* operating system, but in that case it will have some (minor) advantages. The most important advantage is that you can have partitions larger than 2 TB and you can boot Windows in UEFI mode (presumed all other preconditions hold).
Note that contrary to urban myth, GPT is not necessarily much safer than MBR. While GPT *does* store a second GPT table at the end of the disk which sounds just great, it also requires at least twice as many LBAs to work, which again doubles the rate of unrecoverable read failures. So... at the end of the day, it's pretty much the same. | When creating a second partition for data storage (i.e., not the boot partition) for an OS, the primary difference here is that it may affect your ability to create more partitions later.
There are four primary partition slots on an MBR-formatted drive. One of these may be used to create/hold an [*extended partition*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_boot_record), which in turn allows additional partitions on the drive that do not use any of the remaining three primary partition slots in the MBR.
If all four primary partition slots are allocated to primary partitions, it's no longer possible to add an extended partition and thus you can add no more partitions to that drive, even if you have free space. Therefore it's standard practice, when creating the first partition for which an extended partition slot can be used, to create it as an extended partition. This ensures that further additions can never run out of partition slots.
Some older or less sophisticated boot programs may not be able to boot from an extended partition but only from a primary one, so it's also good practice not to use a primary slot for a partition you know you will never want to boot, leaving it free in case you later need another bootable partition. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In terms of data security, whether you have all your data & OS on the same partition or you split a single drive into two partitions makes no difference whatsoever.
If the drive fails, or you get a nasty virus, or you just delete a file & don't notice for a couple of days, then your partitioning didn't improve your chances at all.
For data loss-prevention, your only security is to never keep only one copy of anything.
There's an adage...
>
> **"Any data not stored in at least three distinct locations ought to be considered temporary."**
>
>
>
In short, that means **at minimum** you need one on-site backup & one off-site backup [in case the house burns down.] The on-site backup must at least be a different physical drive, if not a different physical machine.
You must periodically **actually test** you can recover from these backups - otherwise you wasted your time saving them.
Having all your eggs in one basket... it doesn't matter if you have two baskets, if you're carrying them both in the same hand.
Assuming data is 'safe' because it's on a different partition on the same physical drive, no matter how you format it, is 'all eggs in one basket'.
Drop one, you dropped the lot. | It doesn't increase security, however it makes it more convenient to reinstall Windows by formatting only C drive, leaving data unharmed.
Just don't forget to copy contents of MyDocuments and Desktop folders.. and favorites from browsers.. and settings and game saves from %AppData% folder... So you can see, newer Windows keeps data all over the place now, making this technique kinda moot. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | In terms of data security, whether you have all your data & OS on the same partition or you split a single drive into two partitions makes no difference whatsoever.
If the drive fails, or you get a nasty virus, or you just delete a file & don't notice for a couple of days, then your partitioning didn't improve your chances at all.
For data loss-prevention, your only security is to never keep only one copy of anything.
There's an adage...
>
> **"Any data not stored in at least three distinct locations ought to be considered temporary."**
>
>
>
In short, that means **at minimum** you need one on-site backup & one off-site backup [in case the house burns down.] The on-site backup must at least be a different physical drive, if not a different physical machine.
You must periodically **actually test** you can recover from these backups - otherwise you wasted your time saving them.
Having all your eggs in one basket... it doesn't matter if you have two baskets, if you're carrying them both in the same hand.
Assuming data is 'safe' because it's on a different partition on the same physical drive, no matter how you format it, is 'all eggs in one basket'.
Drop one, you dropped the lot. | I myself use 3 drives. 2 are data only, the other is a small drive <120GB. I use that on strictly as my C drive. This way, in case of OS failure, I just restore my BU image of the drive and poof, back up and running. If I lose the C drive itself, I can just replace it and drop the image back on all the while, my data is in tact and unharmed. |
1,452,876 | I exported the .onepkg file from onenote 2016 but cannot import into onenote (version Version 16001.11727.20076.0) for windows 10. Tried to move it to onedrive but it was not possible to open it. How do I import it to one note for windows 10? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1452876",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/949200/"
] | It doesn't increase security, however it makes it more convenient to reinstall Windows by formatting only C drive, leaving data unharmed.
Just don't forget to copy contents of MyDocuments and Desktop folders.. and favorites from browsers.. and settings and game saves from %AppData% folder... So you can see, newer Windows keeps data all over the place now, making this technique kinda moot. | I myself use 3 drives. 2 are data only, the other is a small drive <120GB. I use that on strictly as my C drive. This way, in case of OS failure, I just restore my BU image of the drive and poof, back up and running. If I lose the C drive itself, I can just replace it and drop the image back on all the while, my data is in tact and unharmed. |
107,148 | I noticed this while using websites that require login/logout - I get used to accessing the "Logout" button at the bottom of the menu. For example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uxlh1.jpg)
On burger menu, the *logout* option will always be at the bottom, and usually the top row of the menu is mostly "Details" or "Account Info."
Last night, I opened Steam website and I clicked the ">" button to extend the menu. The layout is a bit different, and I accidentally clicked the "Logout" button by reflex, because (by habit) I thought it was a "Details" menu because the link is on the first row. Here's a screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYYbR.png)
So yeah, I'm not used to the "Logout" button/link being at the very top of this kind of menu. It got me wondering, my question is:
What is the base theory for this position of the "Logout" button in menus with rows? Should it always at the 'end' because it shows the exit sign (technically)? And why, for example, does the Steam website place the "Logout" button in the opposite position? Is it something to do with other habits or tendencies?
PS: Pardon my English, I try to articulate my thoughts in limited grammar. | 2017/04/19 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107148",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/100111/"
] | Best user experience: Track clicks and order list's items according to visitors preferences.
Result: Log-out button may come first.
Best corporate experience: Order items according to company's best interest.
Result: Log-out button should be hard to reach. | Placing Logout Button in the right place is context-sensitive. For secured apps, it should be prominent in the header outside hamburger menu. For others, it can be inside the hamburger menu. Probably at the top if the user prefers logging out every time, and at the bottom if it is less used. |
107,148 | I noticed this while using websites that require login/logout - I get used to accessing the "Logout" button at the bottom of the menu. For example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uxlh1.jpg)
On burger menu, the *logout* option will always be at the bottom, and usually the top row of the menu is mostly "Details" or "Account Info."
Last night, I opened Steam website and I clicked the ">" button to extend the menu. The layout is a bit different, and I accidentally clicked the "Logout" button by reflex, because (by habit) I thought it was a "Details" menu because the link is on the first row. Here's a screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYYbR.png)
So yeah, I'm not used to the "Logout" button/link being at the very top of this kind of menu. It got me wondering, my question is:
What is the base theory for this position of the "Logout" button in menus with rows? Should it always at the 'end' because it shows the exit sign (technically)? And why, for example, does the Steam website place the "Logout" button in the opposite position? Is it something to do with other habits or tendencies?
PS: Pardon my English, I try to articulate my thoughts in limited grammar. | 2017/04/19 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107148",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/100111/"
] | I think Steam just haven't noticed this problem.
Here are some reasons to put the logout button at the bottom of the dropdown:
* **Avoid Accidental logouts** - as you pointed out putting the logout at the top of the list could create accidental logouts for users that are used to double clicking on elements.
* **Follow standards** - when browsing the internet users start to have something, like a muscle memory, for the different elements of a webpage. In your case, you've developed expectation (muscle memory) that the logout is residing at the bottom of the user controls list. Because most of the sites have adopted this standard you should follow it so you avoid accidental logouts.
* **The top and the bottom of a list are most visible** - when you have a list, the most visible elements are the top and the bottom ones ([see here](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698902000779)).
* **Meaning** - when a person has logged in it makes sense to list the logout option as a last, because logout is usually the end of a certain task. | Placing Logout Button in the right place is context-sensitive. For secured apps, it should be prominent in the header outside hamburger menu. For others, it can be inside the hamburger menu. Probably at the top if the user prefers logging out every time, and at the bottom if it is less used. |
107,148 | I noticed this while using websites that require login/logout - I get used to accessing the "Logout" button at the bottom of the menu. For example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uxlh1.jpg)
On burger menu, the *logout* option will always be at the bottom, and usually the top row of the menu is mostly "Details" or "Account Info."
Last night, I opened Steam website and I clicked the ">" button to extend the menu. The layout is a bit different, and I accidentally clicked the "Logout" button by reflex, because (by habit) I thought it was a "Details" menu because the link is on the first row. Here's a screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYYbR.png)
So yeah, I'm not used to the "Logout" button/link being at the very top of this kind of menu. It got me wondering, my question is:
What is the base theory for this position of the "Logout" button in menus with rows? Should it always at the 'end' because it shows the exit sign (technically)? And why, for example, does the Steam website place the "Logout" button in the opposite position? Is it something to do with other habits or tendencies?
PS: Pardon my English, I try to articulate my thoughts in limited grammar. | 2017/04/19 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107148",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/100111/"
] | To my understanding, the log out button is the button in the dropdown that has a different action than the rest.
The rest of your menu account details, preferences, view profile etc are navigation elements for the user, but the log out button is an action that would make the user log out from the system.
What is sure is that the Log out and the navigation elements need to be separated, because they have different behavior.
Placing the log out at the button, I would say that is a way to separate them but also a convention since a lot of application use it this way.
I found also this question which is also very interesting:
[Placement of the logout button/link?](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19091/placement-of-the-logout-button-link) which is very well connected to this one [Why would a web site hide the log out button?](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/3603/why-would-a-web-site-hide-the-log-out-button)
>
> By hiding the logout feature, you're more apt to simply close the
> browser or tab, but effectively remaining logged into a service. This
> allows Facebook to openly track your online whereabouts via
> advertising partnerships that all report back to Facebook.
>
>
>
Lastly, I really like the clear separation of the Log out option, comparing to the rest, as for example, Jira does. I think this is much clearer than just displaying it at the bottom of the dropdown.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a3AmQ.png) | It all depends on how important Log out is to your solution and the users goals.
When you have a list of features, you can score them based on their relevance to the tasks the user is performing.
Log out is rarely related to the primary tasks of the solution so this is why the position of Log out is often placed towards the end of the information hierarchy, so if you have a vertical menu you often see it placed at the bottom, and if you have a horizontal menu it often is placed at the end (on the right in western culture).
However, some solutions might view Log out as a special case worthy of placing it in a prominent location, e.g. persists in the top right corner (corners of the screen are prominent locations).
The bottom line is the position will vary depending on how important it is for the user to explicitly log out.
You could argue that Log out is so different to all the other features that it should not be placed in a menu along side other other solution features. |
107,148 | I noticed this while using websites that require login/logout - I get used to accessing the "Logout" button at the bottom of the menu. For example:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uxlh1.jpg)
On burger menu, the *logout* option will always be at the bottom, and usually the top row of the menu is mostly "Details" or "Account Info."
Last night, I opened Steam website and I clicked the ">" button to extend the menu. The layout is a bit different, and I accidentally clicked the "Logout" button by reflex, because (by habit) I thought it was a "Details" menu because the link is on the first row. Here's a screenshot:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYYbR.png)
So yeah, I'm not used to the "Logout" button/link being at the very top of this kind of menu. It got me wondering, my question is:
What is the base theory for this position of the "Logout" button in menus with rows? Should it always at the 'end' because it shows the exit sign (technically)? And why, for example, does the Steam website place the "Logout" button in the opposite position? Is it something to do with other habits or tendencies?
PS: Pardon my English, I try to articulate my thoughts in limited grammar. | 2017/04/19 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/107148",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/100111/"
] | Make it harder to find destructive buttons
==========================================
>
> If you do need to include destructive buttons, you should definitely
> find a way to make them harder to find than the primary action button
> [Best practices for buttons](http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/05/7-basic-best-practices-for-buttons.php)
>
>
>
It's very important for businesses today to keep the users engaged with their products, and **no one wants to give them an easy access to the users to leave their app** or stop using their product.
Here's a perfect example from Pinterest they have really made it harder to find on their website:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5sfnr.png) | To my understanding, the log out button is the button in the dropdown that has a different action than the rest.
The rest of your menu account details, preferences, view profile etc are navigation elements for the user, but the log out button is an action that would make the user log out from the system.
What is sure is that the Log out and the navigation elements need to be separated, because they have different behavior.
Placing the log out at the button, I would say that is a way to separate them but also a convention since a lot of application use it this way.
I found also this question which is also very interesting:
[Placement of the logout button/link?](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19091/placement-of-the-logout-button-link) which is very well connected to this one [Why would a web site hide the log out button?](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/3603/why-would-a-web-site-hide-the-log-out-button)
>
> By hiding the logout feature, you're more apt to simply close the
> browser or tab, but effectively remaining logged into a service. This
> allows Facebook to openly track your online whereabouts via
> advertising partnerships that all report back to Facebook.
>
>
>
Lastly, I really like the clear separation of the Log out option, comparing to the rest, as for example, Jira does. I think this is much clearer than just displaying it at the bottom of the dropdown.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a3AmQ.png) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.