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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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) | 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) | 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. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The thing about stringbuilder is you're still trying to keep the entire contents in memory. You want to only keep a small portion in memory at a time, and that means using filestreams. Don't read an entire file into memory, open a stream on it and keep reading from the stream.
The problem with xml is that you can't just append them to each other: you'll break the tag nesting. So you need to know something about the structure of your xml files so that you can have an idea of what to do at each file boundry.
If you have something that works in theory with StringBuilder, but only fails in practice because of memory constraints, you should be able to translate the StringBuilder's .Append() and .AppendLine() method calls into .Write() and .WriteLine() calls for a filestream. | Please, define "merge".
If you want just to concatenate the files, then use StreamReader, and read line by line.
If you want actually to produce a new valid xml, then go with XmlTextReader. It does not read the whole file in memory. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Please, define "merge".
If you want just to concatenate the files, then use StreamReader, and read line by line.
If you want actually to produce a new valid xml, then go with XmlTextReader. It does not read the whole file in memory. | It depends what you mean by merge, since you haven't posted any information about the schema.
In the simplest case of homogeneous simple elements in a single collection, you would just merge directly to a new file on disk avoiding much in-memory work, ensuring that the outer containing elements are stripped off and added around the collection. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The thing about stringbuilder is you're still trying to keep the entire contents in memory. You want to only keep a small portion in memory at a time, and that means using filestreams. Don't read an entire file into memory, open a stream on it and keep reading from the stream.
The problem with xml is that you can't just append them to each other: you'll break the tag nesting. So you need to know something about the structure of your xml files so that you can have an idea of what to do at each file boundry.
If you have something that works in theory with StringBuilder, but only fails in practice because of memory constraints, you should be able to translate the StringBuilder's .Append() and .AppendLine() method calls into .Write() and .WriteLine() calls for a filestream. | Merge them within the file system by invoking "copy a.xml + b.xml" command or by invoking the windows filesystem APIs used by the "copy" command. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Please, define "merge".
If you want just to concatenate the files, then use StreamReader, and read line by line.
If you want actually to produce a new valid xml, then go with XmlTextReader. It does not read the whole file in memory. | Merge them within the file system by invoking "copy a.xml + b.xml" command or by invoking the windows filesystem APIs used by the "copy" command. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Personally, when I *have* to deal with XML files (forced by threat of physical violence usually), I do this:
1. Load each file into a .NET DataSet via DataSet.ReadXML()
2. Combine the information (via DataSet queries).
3. Write out the combined DataSet to XML via DataSet.WriteXML()
Then I aggressively delete the orginal XML file and wipe the sectors where it existed on the disk to remove the taint. :-) | Merge them within the file system by invoking "copy a.xml + b.xml" command or by invoking the windows filesystem APIs used by the "copy" command. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The details of what you need to merge are indeed vital. However, to start you off: you're likely to want an XmlReader for each of the input files, and an XmlWriter for the output file. That will let you stream both the input and the output.
Another alternative would be to use XStreamingElement from LINQ to XML. I don't have any experience of this, but it may well be a simpler API to use. (The rest of LINQ to XML is certainly nicer than the DOM API.) | It depends what you mean by merge, since you haven't posted any information about the schema.
In the simplest case of homogeneous simple elements in a single collection, you would just merge directly to a new file on disk avoiding much in-memory work, ensuring that the outer containing elements are stripped off and added around the collection. |
149,233 | I have 7-8 xml files. Each one is approximately 50 MB in size. What is the best way to merge files programmatically in C# without getting System.OutOfMemory Exception? So far I have tried reading each file in a StringBuilder and than putting it in an array of string builder but I still get system.outofmemoery exception. Any help??
Thank you,
-Nimesh | 2008/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/149233",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Personally, when I *have* to deal with XML files (forced by threat of physical violence usually), I do this:
1. Load each file into a .NET DataSet via DataSet.ReadXML()
2. Combine the information (via DataSet queries).
3. Write out the combined DataSet to XML via DataSet.WriteXML()
Then I aggressively delete the orginal XML file and wipe the sectors where it existed on the disk to remove the taint. :-) | Please, define "merge".
If you want just to concatenate the files, then use StreamReader, and read line by line.
If you want actually to produce a new valid xml, then go with XmlTextReader. It does not read the whole file in memory. |
12,273 | I played DnD 3.5 while in the military and due to a shortage of DMs, was constantly flooded by players. Some of my games would include up to 10 or 11. I discovered quickly that balancing for this in 3.5 was neigh impossible: either the enemies would die before they could react, or the players were so over matched they could not hit them at all.
I tried horde style fights, big boss fights, etc, and generally it resulted in either massacre of the opponents, or TPK with nothing really being a satisfactory fight. I even would double or triple the HP of enemies to make it work.
Most game systems have a breaking point. How do you tweak systems to be accommodating for groups that far above the recommended limit?
Note: Simply telling people they can't join, or running two campaigns is simply not an option given the situation. | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/12273",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/2922/"
] | Are you perhaps picking monsters that are of an appropriate CR for the party? With a group of that size that's prone to exactly the problem you're observing.
Instead, pick monsters of a CR appropriate to a normal party of 4 and use more of them. | I've had open fate games that fall into the "wow big group showed up tonight.. OMG there are like 3 more new people standing quietly behind me I didn't see till someone mentioned them!" end of the spectrum at a FLGS that range from a handful of regulars to "yea we are definitely going to move some of the tables!"
In a structured game like 3.5/PF (no experience with 4.0 myself), your in for a hell of a time trying combat with a group that large though & it's tough to let the group split themselves towards different legs of a common goal. With a fate based system like Spirit of the Century or Dresden files RPG where the walls constraining them run away screaming from the shared rules light nature of things in a fun way it's no big deal. when you plan for 3-4 people and like a dozen show up, you can wing it & go from dealing with something minor to some epic big-bad letting everyone scatter into smaller groups finding things like a boat/plane/etc as needed & investigating the few details you were able to think of in the last 5 minutes while letting them help you do so with things like mining what/how they tell you they want to find out first. so you guys think you are giing to need a boat?... how are you going to get it? oh look.. the social butterflies split off on their own across town while the investigator types went digging for clues on their own & roped the techie in with them to do some hacking "in case" (Wooo they just gave you an encounter!)
Ok... the group figured out they need to get into [place], lets say it's a high security office building for simplicity. As a GM you can describe a big high security office building with a guard in the lobby. Let the group flesh out the details for you & play to their skills in the process. "what kind of security do they have?" can bounces back at the group with something like "it looks pretty normal on the surface... but their earlier research indicated that it's probably anything but if you peel back the curtain even a smidge... how are you going to find out?" When the sneaky sneaky guy decides he wants to find weaknesses ion the camera patterns in the lobby & [social butterfly] offers to help, you now have two players split off working together on a tiny fraction of the whole (which may or may not be getting rolled out off the cuff!) everyone works together towards a common goal and there are a couple minor encounters here & there against a couple people that split off to accomplish saomething
Sneakysneaky guys manage to disable the main security so the group can get into stop the bigbigbigbad from doing [whatever]use the environment against them too. Spiffy, they managed to sneak in partway (awesome for you) toss in a random guard just being friendly or some kind of wards/alarmy obstacles that cause a frackish in the middle of the enemy stronghold.... suddenly it's not a 12 on a couple just melting powerful things in one round with focused fire, it's 12players on 15-20+ mooks where fight focused characters get to mow down mooks like they were pro football players up against 6year olds in a game of [smear the queer](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smear%20the%20queer) while the less combat oriented folks get to work together to make a tend in the flood & provide a meaningful impacvt on helping out in the combat beyond "Uhh.. oh it's my turn? I'm going to hit it again... I guess" like with d&d type tactical things where stuff designed to challenge the combat brutes will effortlessly mop the floor with the noncombat types. use this time to figure out what's going to be coming up when they finish.
The rules are easy to explain through "you have this many skillpoints & here is a cheatsheet listing skills & such, what do you want to try and do, I'll explain how to go about trying it & we will figre out how things go down as a group" & characters can be made during play for the most part (wizards & kind of the exception because magic has some extra rules that can be rough to explain off the cuff to someone who knows nothing about the game)
Fate is a beautiful system for letting the GM wing it without a clue where the hell they are going while making it look like they know exactly where they are going & juggling a crazy amount of details. how are the cameras laid out is as simple as giving an aspect like "there are lots of cameras laid out in a relatively secure pattern/sweep". Since it's not a tactical thing (it's zones of things like "lobby, hallway, elevator shaft, research labs, safe room, etc"), the cameras are anywhere that you decide their presence can make things interesting requiring rolls is the same way, require one when it can make things interesting, no need to slow things down with rolling every minute detail.
If you really do get stuck post bigbad, you can always mine your players by throwing out useless crumbs of info & seeing where they go with them while you construct enough shoestrings to get through to the end of the session, or you can just do some city creation type stuff (it's a group thing with some rules & fun once people know the system a bit)
edit: with fate based systems you also have bits that go from d&d style letting folks split off on their own & spend a short time doing their part of the whole. Things like "Your not there shutup", change to "Yea that's a good idea" or "well... maybe not like *that*, probably more..." since they can help fill in details and guide things . Even better if they jelp you guide things in interesting ways you can mine for ideas while you are filling in details behind their back. People will often try to make suggestions that interest the or that they think would be interesting for the group even with structured d&d type games. |
12,273 | I played DnD 3.5 while in the military and due to a shortage of DMs, was constantly flooded by players. Some of my games would include up to 10 or 11. I discovered quickly that balancing for this in 3.5 was neigh impossible: either the enemies would die before they could react, or the players were so over matched they could not hit them at all.
I tried horde style fights, big boss fights, etc, and generally it resulted in either massacre of the opponents, or TPK with nothing really being a satisfactory fight. I even would double or triple the HP of enemies to make it work.
Most game systems have a breaking point. How do you tweak systems to be accommodating for groups that far above the recommended limit?
Note: Simply telling people they can't join, or running two campaigns is simply not an option given the situation. | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/12273",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/2922/"
] | Having run stable 13-player groups (with everyone showing up every week, no less) in several systems, a large group has 4 issues:
1) face time for every player
2) Synergy of group size.
3) Appropriate challenges for the group as a whole
4) GM communications
1 Face Time
===========
Now, my big group for D&D3.X was 9 players, not 13, but finding challenges (especially given the average level was 10th) was minor compared to just making certain every player got some face time twice or more every session. That was handled best by simply having NPC's target different PC's for their interactions; in other words, not leaving it to the players to decide who interacts with a given NPC.
2 Synergy
=========
The synergy effect comes from overlapping skills and the help rules. Which said, the help rules in 3.x are pretty weak, but they do add up. Further, with large groups in 3.X, you'll tend to get more over-the-top combat potential due to players having similar roles.
3 Challenges
============
The challenge issue is an evolution of the synergy issue. Remember - not every monster is intended to be the "ideal party" challenge; many are really balanced for an ideal party but are taken out mostly by one member of said party, often the wizard or the fighter. (Keeping in mind: ideal party is 1 fighter, 1 wizard or sorcerer, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue.) Most are fighter based - and my experience is that large parties tend to be heavy on fighters and wizards, light on rogues and clerics, and having few of anything else. So, often, combats will depend on how competent the targeted players are.
Further, fights with a few large monsters tend to become very one-sided when the first big-bad goes down, as those resources fighting it get diverted to the others. That's normal; it's just more obvious in larger groups.
Some specific cases to remember:
Undead: aimed at clerics, especially the incorporeal ones. Balance the encounter based upon the party being the level of your clerics, and sized at 4x your number of clerics. Simpler undead, like skeletons, who present no conversion issues, can be used to protect the higher level undead from turning, but also can be taken out by fighters and combat wizards easily.
Incorporeal anything: clerics and wizards - the fighters are close to useless. For large groups, always give the fighters something to face that's corporeal.
potent monsters: many monsters are highly potent - some surprisingly so - such as Illithids and Beholders. Don't add more to balance them; add subservient fighters instead. Beholders, for example, should usually be solitary - to buff it up, add enslaved kobolds or orcs, or a couple lucky rounds will be a snowball effect.
4 Communication with the GM
===========================
The solutions vary by group, but mostly break down to turn taking or collating. Usually in some combination. Some additional options
4a Collating Actions
--------------------
By collating, this means a small number of players talk to the GM, but tell the GM what their and several other players' characters are doing; it is a variation on the single "caller" of AD&D rules fame.
The classic solution was to run the game as a minis wargame, with ONE player collecting/collating everyone's actions. It works, but it can be unsatisfying. It is, however, how E. Gary Gygax ran parties of up to 20 players.
4b Turn Taking
--------------
Simply make certain that turn taking isn't just in combat. When it comes time to get actions, go around and pointedly ask each player for what they're doing. Much above 5 players, the traditional popcorning of actions no longer is viable, as the noise it generates becomes considerable, and too much gets missed.
4c Harlequins
-------------
A Harlequin is a player who plays only NPCs. They don't narrate, don't resolve game rules, and don't get special authority. They are a real challenge for some groups, but in larger groups can be spectacularly successful at reducing the GM overload.
This is especially true in certain types of play. For example, in one large (13 player, 25 PC), I had a 14th player who couldn't show regularly. When he did, he got to play NPC's. If he was negotiating with the players, I'd give him a list of what his allowed resources were, and turn him loose with the away team sent to deal with him. Meanwhile, I'd do the GM-needed interactions to solve the overlapping mechanical problem of the week. And when done, he'd note down the final resolved issue.
Further, Harlequins allow the GM to have really GOOD dialogue from multiple NPC's.
The drawbacks are that many can't make the distinction between assistant GM and Harlequin. It can be set onto a continuum, where certain situations the harlequin is allowed to call for certain rolls, and that works, but once they start calling for rolls for anything other than affecting the character they play, they're really into being assistant GM's.
4d Assistant GM's
-----------------
The problem with an assistant GM is trust. You HAVE to trust them not to muck up your adventure. The benefit is that you don't have to run the whole group all the time, and if the party splits, you take one part and they take the other.
Assistant GM's are best made from harlequins, not experienced GM's. Start letting the harlequin players call for rolls, and slowly build them up to being part of the resolution in general.
It's very important not to have the assistant GM's contradict your calls, but likewise, if it's not a rules issue, if they make a call, back it up.
5 Problem Players
=================
Some types of players tend to be problems in certain groups... the classics being Rules Lawyers, Attention Hounds, and Shy Guys.
5A The Rules Lawyer
-------------------
Co-opting the rules lawyer to assistant GM is great in minis-mode, not so good in story mode. Leave him/her as a normal player, but ask them for advice on rules issues. Don't make them officially assistant GM's.
5b The Attention Hound
----------------------
The Attention Hound really works well as a harlequin. It puts him in the center of things, but also keeps him from eating your time as GM.
5c The Shy Guy
--------------
This is the guy who shows up, but doesn't really speak up. The kind who act only when asked, "What's your character doing?"
The shy guy, in a small group, can be coaxed by the GM into playing. In a large group, they often fall by the wayside. The trick is often to have another player prompt them; in some cases, having them be the caller for a small portion of the group can break them out of their hesitance. | Are you perhaps picking monsters that are of an appropriate CR for the party? With a group of that size that's prone to exactly the problem you're observing.
Instead, pick monsters of a CR appropriate to a normal party of 4 and use more of them. |
12,273 | I played DnD 3.5 while in the military and due to a shortage of DMs, was constantly flooded by players. Some of my games would include up to 10 or 11. I discovered quickly that balancing for this in 3.5 was neigh impossible: either the enemies would die before they could react, or the players were so over matched they could not hit them at all.
I tried horde style fights, big boss fights, etc, and generally it resulted in either massacre of the opponents, or TPK with nothing really being a satisfactory fight. I even would double or triple the HP of enemies to make it work.
Most game systems have a breaking point. How do you tweak systems to be accommodating for groups that far above the recommended limit?
Note: Simply telling people they can't join, or running two campaigns is simply not an option given the situation. | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/12273",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/2922/"
] | Are you perhaps picking monsters that are of an appropriate CR for the party? With a group of that size that's prone to exactly the problem you're observing.
Instead, pick monsters of a CR appropriate to a normal party of 4 and use more of them. | **This happens several times a year for me. We plan on people being absent, someone else has a friend they want to bring to fill in, and more people show up - the group goes from 5-6 to 8 or more.** Fortunately, i require a party leader and spell out what i expect. The party leader helps me to ensure each person gets some time to shine. I rarely write any encounters for characters - i write them for roles and let the party decide who fills them when possible. The burden shifts and allows me to run a better encounter than trying to deal with a 'foiled plan'. For strict game balance, again i put the onus more on the party themselves. A good party will work together and a great party leader will help make them super effective. I never try and let them over-represent anything but warrior archetypes. These are typically warriors and **\_*. Its the \_*** that i try and make a role for - not the character themselves. Also, knowledge is a huge part of my games (lores, sciences, languages, etc.) so many times each character has a unique bit of knowledge they can draw on at a critical moment. Lastly, and its been mentioned, have NPC's or effects target specific PC's. But i'll end by emphasizing its better if you have help from the party itself to assist in this - a party leader will delegate tasks ank help make sure everyone gets a chance, leaving GM's to focus more on making the encounter seamless and fun. This also has the effect of making the party feel more like they are in control, rather than you forcing the issue. |
12,273 | I played DnD 3.5 while in the military and due to a shortage of DMs, was constantly flooded by players. Some of my games would include up to 10 or 11. I discovered quickly that balancing for this in 3.5 was neigh impossible: either the enemies would die before they could react, or the players were so over matched they could not hit them at all.
I tried horde style fights, big boss fights, etc, and generally it resulted in either massacre of the opponents, or TPK with nothing really being a satisfactory fight. I even would double or triple the HP of enemies to make it work.
Most game systems have a breaking point. How do you tweak systems to be accommodating for groups that far above the recommended limit?
Note: Simply telling people they can't join, or running two campaigns is simply not an option given the situation. | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/12273",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/2922/"
] | Having run stable 13-player groups (with everyone showing up every week, no less) in several systems, a large group has 4 issues:
1) face time for every player
2) Synergy of group size.
3) Appropriate challenges for the group as a whole
4) GM communications
1 Face Time
===========
Now, my big group for D&D3.X was 9 players, not 13, but finding challenges (especially given the average level was 10th) was minor compared to just making certain every player got some face time twice or more every session. That was handled best by simply having NPC's target different PC's for their interactions; in other words, not leaving it to the players to decide who interacts with a given NPC.
2 Synergy
=========
The synergy effect comes from overlapping skills and the help rules. Which said, the help rules in 3.x are pretty weak, but they do add up. Further, with large groups in 3.X, you'll tend to get more over-the-top combat potential due to players having similar roles.
3 Challenges
============
The challenge issue is an evolution of the synergy issue. Remember - not every monster is intended to be the "ideal party" challenge; many are really balanced for an ideal party but are taken out mostly by one member of said party, often the wizard or the fighter. (Keeping in mind: ideal party is 1 fighter, 1 wizard or sorcerer, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue.) Most are fighter based - and my experience is that large parties tend to be heavy on fighters and wizards, light on rogues and clerics, and having few of anything else. So, often, combats will depend on how competent the targeted players are.
Further, fights with a few large monsters tend to become very one-sided when the first big-bad goes down, as those resources fighting it get diverted to the others. That's normal; it's just more obvious in larger groups.
Some specific cases to remember:
Undead: aimed at clerics, especially the incorporeal ones. Balance the encounter based upon the party being the level of your clerics, and sized at 4x your number of clerics. Simpler undead, like skeletons, who present no conversion issues, can be used to protect the higher level undead from turning, but also can be taken out by fighters and combat wizards easily.
Incorporeal anything: clerics and wizards - the fighters are close to useless. For large groups, always give the fighters something to face that's corporeal.
potent monsters: many monsters are highly potent - some surprisingly so - such as Illithids and Beholders. Don't add more to balance them; add subservient fighters instead. Beholders, for example, should usually be solitary - to buff it up, add enslaved kobolds or orcs, or a couple lucky rounds will be a snowball effect.
4 Communication with the GM
===========================
The solutions vary by group, but mostly break down to turn taking or collating. Usually in some combination. Some additional options
4a Collating Actions
--------------------
By collating, this means a small number of players talk to the GM, but tell the GM what their and several other players' characters are doing; it is a variation on the single "caller" of AD&D rules fame.
The classic solution was to run the game as a minis wargame, with ONE player collecting/collating everyone's actions. It works, but it can be unsatisfying. It is, however, how E. Gary Gygax ran parties of up to 20 players.
4b Turn Taking
--------------
Simply make certain that turn taking isn't just in combat. When it comes time to get actions, go around and pointedly ask each player for what they're doing. Much above 5 players, the traditional popcorning of actions no longer is viable, as the noise it generates becomes considerable, and too much gets missed.
4c Harlequins
-------------
A Harlequin is a player who plays only NPCs. They don't narrate, don't resolve game rules, and don't get special authority. They are a real challenge for some groups, but in larger groups can be spectacularly successful at reducing the GM overload.
This is especially true in certain types of play. For example, in one large (13 player, 25 PC), I had a 14th player who couldn't show regularly. When he did, he got to play NPC's. If he was negotiating with the players, I'd give him a list of what his allowed resources were, and turn him loose with the away team sent to deal with him. Meanwhile, I'd do the GM-needed interactions to solve the overlapping mechanical problem of the week. And when done, he'd note down the final resolved issue.
Further, Harlequins allow the GM to have really GOOD dialogue from multiple NPC's.
The drawbacks are that many can't make the distinction between assistant GM and Harlequin. It can be set onto a continuum, where certain situations the harlequin is allowed to call for certain rolls, and that works, but once they start calling for rolls for anything other than affecting the character they play, they're really into being assistant GM's.
4d Assistant GM's
-----------------
The problem with an assistant GM is trust. You HAVE to trust them not to muck up your adventure. The benefit is that you don't have to run the whole group all the time, and if the party splits, you take one part and they take the other.
Assistant GM's are best made from harlequins, not experienced GM's. Start letting the harlequin players call for rolls, and slowly build them up to being part of the resolution in general.
It's very important not to have the assistant GM's contradict your calls, but likewise, if it's not a rules issue, if they make a call, back it up.
5 Problem Players
=================
Some types of players tend to be problems in certain groups... the classics being Rules Lawyers, Attention Hounds, and Shy Guys.
5A The Rules Lawyer
-------------------
Co-opting the rules lawyer to assistant GM is great in minis-mode, not so good in story mode. Leave him/her as a normal player, but ask them for advice on rules issues. Don't make them officially assistant GM's.
5b The Attention Hound
----------------------
The Attention Hound really works well as a harlequin. It puts him in the center of things, but also keeps him from eating your time as GM.
5c The Shy Guy
--------------
This is the guy who shows up, but doesn't really speak up. The kind who act only when asked, "What's your character doing?"
The shy guy, in a small group, can be coaxed by the GM into playing. In a large group, they often fall by the wayside. The trick is often to have another player prompt them; in some cases, having them be the caller for a small portion of the group can break them out of their hesitance. | I've had open fate games that fall into the "wow big group showed up tonight.. OMG there are like 3 more new people standing quietly behind me I didn't see till someone mentioned them!" end of the spectrum at a FLGS that range from a handful of regulars to "yea we are definitely going to move some of the tables!"
In a structured game like 3.5/PF (no experience with 4.0 myself), your in for a hell of a time trying combat with a group that large though & it's tough to let the group split themselves towards different legs of a common goal. With a fate based system like Spirit of the Century or Dresden files RPG where the walls constraining them run away screaming from the shared rules light nature of things in a fun way it's no big deal. when you plan for 3-4 people and like a dozen show up, you can wing it & go from dealing with something minor to some epic big-bad letting everyone scatter into smaller groups finding things like a boat/plane/etc as needed & investigating the few details you were able to think of in the last 5 minutes while letting them help you do so with things like mining what/how they tell you they want to find out first. so you guys think you are giing to need a boat?... how are you going to get it? oh look.. the social butterflies split off on their own across town while the investigator types went digging for clues on their own & roped the techie in with them to do some hacking "in case" (Wooo they just gave you an encounter!)
Ok... the group figured out they need to get into [place], lets say it's a high security office building for simplicity. As a GM you can describe a big high security office building with a guard in the lobby. Let the group flesh out the details for you & play to their skills in the process. "what kind of security do they have?" can bounces back at the group with something like "it looks pretty normal on the surface... but their earlier research indicated that it's probably anything but if you peel back the curtain even a smidge... how are you going to find out?" When the sneaky sneaky guy decides he wants to find weaknesses ion the camera patterns in the lobby & [social butterfly] offers to help, you now have two players split off working together on a tiny fraction of the whole (which may or may not be getting rolled out off the cuff!) everyone works together towards a common goal and there are a couple minor encounters here & there against a couple people that split off to accomplish saomething
Sneakysneaky guys manage to disable the main security so the group can get into stop the bigbigbigbad from doing [whatever]use the environment against them too. Spiffy, they managed to sneak in partway (awesome for you) toss in a random guard just being friendly or some kind of wards/alarmy obstacles that cause a frackish in the middle of the enemy stronghold.... suddenly it's not a 12 on a couple just melting powerful things in one round with focused fire, it's 12players on 15-20+ mooks where fight focused characters get to mow down mooks like they were pro football players up against 6year olds in a game of [smear the queer](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smear%20the%20queer) while the less combat oriented folks get to work together to make a tend in the flood & provide a meaningful impacvt on helping out in the combat beyond "Uhh.. oh it's my turn? I'm going to hit it again... I guess" like with d&d type tactical things where stuff designed to challenge the combat brutes will effortlessly mop the floor with the noncombat types. use this time to figure out what's going to be coming up when they finish.
The rules are easy to explain through "you have this many skillpoints & here is a cheatsheet listing skills & such, what do you want to try and do, I'll explain how to go about trying it & we will figre out how things go down as a group" & characters can be made during play for the most part (wizards & kind of the exception because magic has some extra rules that can be rough to explain off the cuff to someone who knows nothing about the game)
Fate is a beautiful system for letting the GM wing it without a clue where the hell they are going while making it look like they know exactly where they are going & juggling a crazy amount of details. how are the cameras laid out is as simple as giving an aspect like "there are lots of cameras laid out in a relatively secure pattern/sweep". Since it's not a tactical thing (it's zones of things like "lobby, hallway, elevator shaft, research labs, safe room, etc"), the cameras are anywhere that you decide their presence can make things interesting requiring rolls is the same way, require one when it can make things interesting, no need to slow things down with rolling every minute detail.
If you really do get stuck post bigbad, you can always mine your players by throwing out useless crumbs of info & seeing where they go with them while you construct enough shoestrings to get through to the end of the session, or you can just do some city creation type stuff (it's a group thing with some rules & fun once people know the system a bit)
edit: with fate based systems you also have bits that go from d&d style letting folks split off on their own & spend a short time doing their part of the whole. Things like "Your not there shutup", change to "Yea that's a good idea" or "well... maybe not like *that*, probably more..." since they can help fill in details and guide things . Even better if they jelp you guide things in interesting ways you can mine for ideas while you are filling in details behind their back. People will often try to make suggestions that interest the or that they think would be interesting for the group even with structured d&d type games. |
12,273 | I played DnD 3.5 while in the military and due to a shortage of DMs, was constantly flooded by players. Some of my games would include up to 10 or 11. I discovered quickly that balancing for this in 3.5 was neigh impossible: either the enemies would die before they could react, or the players were so over matched they could not hit them at all.
I tried horde style fights, big boss fights, etc, and generally it resulted in either massacre of the opponents, or TPK with nothing really being a satisfactory fight. I even would double or triple the HP of enemies to make it work.
Most game systems have a breaking point. How do you tweak systems to be accommodating for groups that far above the recommended limit?
Note: Simply telling people they can't join, or running two campaigns is simply not an option given the situation. | 2012/01/31 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/12273",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/2922/"
] | Having run stable 13-player groups (with everyone showing up every week, no less) in several systems, a large group has 4 issues:
1) face time for every player
2) Synergy of group size.
3) Appropriate challenges for the group as a whole
4) GM communications
1 Face Time
===========
Now, my big group for D&D3.X was 9 players, not 13, but finding challenges (especially given the average level was 10th) was minor compared to just making certain every player got some face time twice or more every session. That was handled best by simply having NPC's target different PC's for their interactions; in other words, not leaving it to the players to decide who interacts with a given NPC.
2 Synergy
=========
The synergy effect comes from overlapping skills and the help rules. Which said, the help rules in 3.x are pretty weak, but they do add up. Further, with large groups in 3.X, you'll tend to get more over-the-top combat potential due to players having similar roles.
3 Challenges
============
The challenge issue is an evolution of the synergy issue. Remember - not every monster is intended to be the "ideal party" challenge; many are really balanced for an ideal party but are taken out mostly by one member of said party, often the wizard or the fighter. (Keeping in mind: ideal party is 1 fighter, 1 wizard or sorcerer, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue.) Most are fighter based - and my experience is that large parties tend to be heavy on fighters and wizards, light on rogues and clerics, and having few of anything else. So, often, combats will depend on how competent the targeted players are.
Further, fights with a few large monsters tend to become very one-sided when the first big-bad goes down, as those resources fighting it get diverted to the others. That's normal; it's just more obvious in larger groups.
Some specific cases to remember:
Undead: aimed at clerics, especially the incorporeal ones. Balance the encounter based upon the party being the level of your clerics, and sized at 4x your number of clerics. Simpler undead, like skeletons, who present no conversion issues, can be used to protect the higher level undead from turning, but also can be taken out by fighters and combat wizards easily.
Incorporeal anything: clerics and wizards - the fighters are close to useless. For large groups, always give the fighters something to face that's corporeal.
potent monsters: many monsters are highly potent - some surprisingly so - such as Illithids and Beholders. Don't add more to balance them; add subservient fighters instead. Beholders, for example, should usually be solitary - to buff it up, add enslaved kobolds or orcs, or a couple lucky rounds will be a snowball effect.
4 Communication with the GM
===========================
The solutions vary by group, but mostly break down to turn taking or collating. Usually in some combination. Some additional options
4a Collating Actions
--------------------
By collating, this means a small number of players talk to the GM, but tell the GM what their and several other players' characters are doing; it is a variation on the single "caller" of AD&D rules fame.
The classic solution was to run the game as a minis wargame, with ONE player collecting/collating everyone's actions. It works, but it can be unsatisfying. It is, however, how E. Gary Gygax ran parties of up to 20 players.
4b Turn Taking
--------------
Simply make certain that turn taking isn't just in combat. When it comes time to get actions, go around and pointedly ask each player for what they're doing. Much above 5 players, the traditional popcorning of actions no longer is viable, as the noise it generates becomes considerable, and too much gets missed.
4c Harlequins
-------------
A Harlequin is a player who plays only NPCs. They don't narrate, don't resolve game rules, and don't get special authority. They are a real challenge for some groups, but in larger groups can be spectacularly successful at reducing the GM overload.
This is especially true in certain types of play. For example, in one large (13 player, 25 PC), I had a 14th player who couldn't show regularly. When he did, he got to play NPC's. If he was negotiating with the players, I'd give him a list of what his allowed resources were, and turn him loose with the away team sent to deal with him. Meanwhile, I'd do the GM-needed interactions to solve the overlapping mechanical problem of the week. And when done, he'd note down the final resolved issue.
Further, Harlequins allow the GM to have really GOOD dialogue from multiple NPC's.
The drawbacks are that many can't make the distinction between assistant GM and Harlequin. It can be set onto a continuum, where certain situations the harlequin is allowed to call for certain rolls, and that works, but once they start calling for rolls for anything other than affecting the character they play, they're really into being assistant GM's.
4d Assistant GM's
-----------------
The problem with an assistant GM is trust. You HAVE to trust them not to muck up your adventure. The benefit is that you don't have to run the whole group all the time, and if the party splits, you take one part and they take the other.
Assistant GM's are best made from harlequins, not experienced GM's. Start letting the harlequin players call for rolls, and slowly build them up to being part of the resolution in general.
It's very important not to have the assistant GM's contradict your calls, but likewise, if it's not a rules issue, if they make a call, back it up.
5 Problem Players
=================
Some types of players tend to be problems in certain groups... the classics being Rules Lawyers, Attention Hounds, and Shy Guys.
5A The Rules Lawyer
-------------------
Co-opting the rules lawyer to assistant GM is great in minis-mode, not so good in story mode. Leave him/her as a normal player, but ask them for advice on rules issues. Don't make them officially assistant GM's.
5b The Attention Hound
----------------------
The Attention Hound really works well as a harlequin. It puts him in the center of things, but also keeps him from eating your time as GM.
5c The Shy Guy
--------------
This is the guy who shows up, but doesn't really speak up. The kind who act only when asked, "What's your character doing?"
The shy guy, in a small group, can be coaxed by the GM into playing. In a large group, they often fall by the wayside. The trick is often to have another player prompt them; in some cases, having them be the caller for a small portion of the group can break them out of their hesitance. | **This happens several times a year for me. We plan on people being absent, someone else has a friend they want to bring to fill in, and more people show up - the group goes from 5-6 to 8 or more.** Fortunately, i require a party leader and spell out what i expect. The party leader helps me to ensure each person gets some time to shine. I rarely write any encounters for characters - i write them for roles and let the party decide who fills them when possible. The burden shifts and allows me to run a better encounter than trying to deal with a 'foiled plan'. For strict game balance, again i put the onus more on the party themselves. A good party will work together and a great party leader will help make them super effective. I never try and let them over-represent anything but warrior archetypes. These are typically warriors and **\_*. Its the \_*** that i try and make a role for - not the character themselves. Also, knowledge is a huge part of my games (lores, sciences, languages, etc.) so many times each character has a unique bit of knowledge they can draw on at a critical moment. Lastly, and its been mentioned, have NPC's or effects target specific PC's. But i'll end by emphasizing its better if you have help from the party itself to assist in this - a party leader will delegate tasks ank help make sure everyone gets a chance, leaving GM's to focus more on making the encounter seamless and fun. This also has the effect of making the party feel more like they are in control, rather than you forcing the issue. |
31,790 | I have an AKG WMS40 wireless emitter/receiver combo which I use with a condenser mic that needs phantom power and gets it from the emitter bodypack.
If I use a minijack to mini-XLR adapter cable, can I use this system to transmit any analogue signal, such as the signal coming from a headphone out minijack? Is there a danger of blowing up the device with the headphone out jack? (since the bodypack apparently provides phantom power through its mini-XLR connector).
The AKG WMS40 system also comes with a mono 6.3 mm jack to mini-XLR cable, which is supposed to be used to connect guitars to the emitter bodypack. Guitars don't need phantom power, do they? Yet it's apparently fine to use them with this system. So how does this work? Does this system automatically detect if the device you connect it to needs phantom power or not?
Thanks! | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/31790",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/11403/"
] | According to the service manual (available on the AKG website) the phantom power is 3.9v and is connected to pin 3, so the microphone connector should have pins 2 and 3 shorted. If I understand this correctly, the included cable won't have this short and will only connect pin 1 (ground) and pin 2 (signal) so there shouldn't be any risk. I have used the PT 40 to transmit sound from a tablet and it worked fine.
<http://cloud.akg.com/9784/wms40_service.pdf> | With a condenser microphone the 48-volt DC is applied to both audio lines, so it cancels out because the signal is sent as a difference between those two lines. With a headset jack the signal for each speaker is sent as the offset between a conductor and the ground line -- this is the same circuit as that used for delivering the phantom power. As a result the left and right channels will each be at 48 volts relative to ground, which can fry electronics.
TLDR: This WILL destroy the headset jack's amplifier. |
31,790 | I have an AKG WMS40 wireless emitter/receiver combo which I use with a condenser mic that needs phantom power and gets it from the emitter bodypack.
If I use a minijack to mini-XLR adapter cable, can I use this system to transmit any analogue signal, such as the signal coming from a headphone out minijack? Is there a danger of blowing up the device with the headphone out jack? (since the bodypack apparently provides phantom power through its mini-XLR connector).
The AKG WMS40 system also comes with a mono 6.3 mm jack to mini-XLR cable, which is supposed to be used to connect guitars to the emitter bodypack. Guitars don't need phantom power, do they? Yet it's apparently fine to use them with this system. So how does this work? Does this system automatically detect if the device you connect it to needs phantom power or not?
Thanks! | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/31790",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/11403/"
] | With a condenser microphone the 48-volt DC is applied to both audio lines, so it cancels out because the signal is sent as a difference between those two lines. With a headset jack the signal for each speaker is sent as the offset between a conductor and the ground line -- this is the same circuit as that used for delivering the phantom power. As a result the left and right channels will each be at 48 volts relative to ground, which can fry electronics.
TLDR: This WILL destroy the headset jack's amplifier. | I finally wrote AKG and they confirmed there is no risk using the provided Mini-XLR to 6.3mm Jack cable, because with that cable no phantom power goes to the 6.3mm jack. |
31,790 | I have an AKG WMS40 wireless emitter/receiver combo which I use with a condenser mic that needs phantom power and gets it from the emitter bodypack.
If I use a minijack to mini-XLR adapter cable, can I use this system to transmit any analogue signal, such as the signal coming from a headphone out minijack? Is there a danger of blowing up the device with the headphone out jack? (since the bodypack apparently provides phantom power through its mini-XLR connector).
The AKG WMS40 system also comes with a mono 6.3 mm jack to mini-XLR cable, which is supposed to be used to connect guitars to the emitter bodypack. Guitars don't need phantom power, do they? Yet it's apparently fine to use them with this system. So how does this work? Does this system automatically detect if the device you connect it to needs phantom power or not?
Thanks! | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/31790",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/11403/"
] | According to the service manual (available on the AKG website) the phantom power is 3.9v and is connected to pin 3, so the microphone connector should have pins 2 and 3 shorted. If I understand this correctly, the included cable won't have this short and will only connect pin 1 (ground) and pin 2 (signal) so there shouldn't be any risk. I have used the PT 40 to transmit sound from a tablet and it worked fine.
<http://cloud.akg.com/9784/wms40_service.pdf> | I finally wrote AKG and they confirmed there is no risk using the provided Mini-XLR to 6.3mm Jack cable, because with that cable no phantom power goes to the 6.3mm jack. |
212,419 | I was working with content types yesterday in the content type hub. I was able to publish items. This morning I can't publish things anymore. I get the following error:
>
> Sorry, something went wrong
>
>
> The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application
> proxies: Taxonomy\_+q13bKzN06taIYblFDpgvQ==. Please contact your
> administrator and check the log files for more error details.
>
>
>
This same error occurs whether I am trying to publish a new content type, or if I am trying to republish an existing content type. I haven't changed anything since I published content types yesterday. I tried re-publishing content types in a completely different group and got the same message.
When I looked at the error logs, I noticed the Content Type Subscriber Site field is blank and it seems to be required. I'm not sure if this is an indication of what is wrong, and if so, what I need to do. | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/212419",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/66032/"
] | We can't help you as this is SharePoint Online and a service-related issue. Open a ticket with Microsoft via the Office 365 Admin portal. | I had the same problem yesterday and this morning. I tried again this afternoon and 2 Content Types Published OK. Then I got the error again on the 3rd and 4th etc...
This from the Office 365 Admin's Advisory Panel
SP98120 - Content type publishing issue
Updated: 2017-04-07 21:51 (UTC)
Start time: 2017-04-05 19:14 (UTC)
Status: Restoring service
User impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
Latest message:
Title: Content type publishing issue
User Impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
More info: The error received says: "The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application proxies: Taxonomy\_masR1gLITCWWPDUbODEIOA==. Please contact your administrator and check the log files for more error details...
Correlation ID: 2d75e59d-90d6-3000-f0d6-00d2f9b3649e"
Current status: We've confirmed our suspicion that the cause of impact is a permissions configuration issue. We're not certain how this issue was introduced, but we're working to develop and test a fix that should resolve the underlying cause. We expect the fix to be ready for deployment within the next 2-3 days. In parallel, we're continuing to investigate how this issue was introduced.
Scope of impact: A few customers have reported this issue, and our analysis indicates that this issue may potentially affect any of your users attempting to publish new content types.
Start time: Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 7:14 PM UTC
Preliminary root cause: A critical file within the systems that facilitate publishing of site content types was inaccessible due to mis-configured permissions settings. This resulted in intermittent errors when users attempt to publish new site content types.
Next update by: Monday, April 10, 2017, at 6:00 PM UTC |
212,419 | I was working with content types yesterday in the content type hub. I was able to publish items. This morning I can't publish things anymore. I get the following error:
>
> Sorry, something went wrong
>
>
> The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application
> proxies: Taxonomy\_+q13bKzN06taIYblFDpgvQ==. Please contact your
> administrator and check the log files for more error details.
>
>
>
This same error occurs whether I am trying to publish a new content type, or if I am trying to republish an existing content type. I haven't changed anything since I published content types yesterday. I tried re-publishing content types in a completely different group and got the same message.
When I looked at the error logs, I noticed the Content Type Subscriber Site field is blank and it seems to be required. I'm not sure if this is an indication of what is wrong, and if so, what I need to do. | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/212419",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/66032/"
] | We can't help you as this is SharePoint Online and a service-related issue. Open a ticket with Microsoft via the Office 365 Admin portal. | Just saw this update, hope this helps you out..
Title: Content type publishing issue
User Impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
More info: The error received says: "The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application proxies: Taxonomy\_masR1gLITCWWPDUbODEIOA==. Please contact your administrator and check the log files for more error details...
Correlation ID: 2d75e59d-90d6-3000-f0d6-00d2f9b3649e"
Current status: We've completed the process of developing the fix, and we're building the software that includes the fix for further testing and deployment. Following extensive testing, we expect the deployment to begin within the next two days. Once the deployment begins, it should complete within three to five days.
Scope of impact: A few customers have reported this issue, and our analysis indicates that this issue may potentially affect any of your users attempting to publish new content types.
Start time: Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 7:14 PM UTC
Preliminary root cause: A critical file within the systems that facilitate publishing of site content types was inaccessible due to misconfigured permissions settings. This resulted in intermittent errors when users attempt to publish new site content types.
Next update by: Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 PM UTC |
212,419 | I was working with content types yesterday in the content type hub. I was able to publish items. This morning I can't publish things anymore. I get the following error:
>
> Sorry, something went wrong
>
>
> The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application
> proxies: Taxonomy\_+q13bKzN06taIYblFDpgvQ==. Please contact your
> administrator and check the log files for more error details.
>
>
>
This same error occurs whether I am trying to publish a new content type, or if I am trying to republish an existing content type. I haven't changed anything since I published content types yesterday. I tried re-publishing content types in a completely different group and got the same message.
When I looked at the error logs, I noticed the Content Type Subscriber Site field is blank and it seems to be required. I'm not sure if this is an indication of what is wrong, and if so, what I need to do. | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/212419",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/66032/"
] | You are not alone, I have the same issue on my tenant right now.
I raised a ticket to Microsoft and spoke to them - as of today (7-April-2017), this is an issue in their production system at the moment and is effectively a Service Outage. They are working on identifying the root cause and fix, but could take some time... Given the severity of the issue, I would hope this would be fixed in 24-48 hours, but this is purely a guess.
I will post back here once I have an update from Microsoft. | I had the same problem yesterday and this morning. I tried again this afternoon and 2 Content Types Published OK. Then I got the error again on the 3rd and 4th etc...
This from the Office 365 Admin's Advisory Panel
SP98120 - Content type publishing issue
Updated: 2017-04-07 21:51 (UTC)
Start time: 2017-04-05 19:14 (UTC)
Status: Restoring service
User impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
Latest message:
Title: Content type publishing issue
User Impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
More info: The error received says: "The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application proxies: Taxonomy\_masR1gLITCWWPDUbODEIOA==. Please contact your administrator and check the log files for more error details...
Correlation ID: 2d75e59d-90d6-3000-f0d6-00d2f9b3649e"
Current status: We've confirmed our suspicion that the cause of impact is a permissions configuration issue. We're not certain how this issue was introduced, but we're working to develop and test a fix that should resolve the underlying cause. We expect the fix to be ready for deployment within the next 2-3 days. In parallel, we're continuing to investigate how this issue was introduced.
Scope of impact: A few customers have reported this issue, and our analysis indicates that this issue may potentially affect any of your users attempting to publish new content types.
Start time: Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 7:14 PM UTC
Preliminary root cause: A critical file within the systems that facilitate publishing of site content types was inaccessible due to mis-configured permissions settings. This resulted in intermittent errors when users attempt to publish new site content types.
Next update by: Monday, April 10, 2017, at 6:00 PM UTC |
212,419 | I was working with content types yesterday in the content type hub. I was able to publish items. This morning I can't publish things anymore. I get the following error:
>
> Sorry, something went wrong
>
>
> The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application
> proxies: Taxonomy\_+q13bKzN06taIYblFDpgvQ==. Please contact your
> administrator and check the log files for more error details.
>
>
>
This same error occurs whether I am trying to publish a new content type, or if I am trying to republish an existing content type. I haven't changed anything since I published content types yesterday. I tried re-publishing content types in a completely different group and got the same message.
When I looked at the error logs, I noticed the Content Type Subscriber Site field is blank and it seems to be required. I'm not sure if this is an indication of what is wrong, and if so, what I need to do. | 2017/04/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/212419",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/66032/"
] | You are not alone, I have the same issue on my tenant right now.
I raised a ticket to Microsoft and spoke to them - as of today (7-April-2017), this is an issue in their production system at the moment and is effectively a Service Outage. They are working on identifying the root cause and fix, but could take some time... Given the severity of the issue, I would hope this would be fixed in 24-48 hours, but this is purely a guess.
I will post back here once I have an update from Microsoft. | Just saw this update, hope this helps you out..
Title: Content type publishing issue
User Impact: Users are receiving errors when publishing new site content types from the SharePoint Online content type hub.
More info: The error received says: "The operation failed on one or more Metadata web service application proxies: Taxonomy\_masR1gLITCWWPDUbODEIOA==. Please contact your administrator and check the log files for more error details...
Correlation ID: 2d75e59d-90d6-3000-f0d6-00d2f9b3649e"
Current status: We've completed the process of developing the fix, and we're building the software that includes the fix for further testing and deployment. Following extensive testing, we expect the deployment to begin within the next two days. Once the deployment begins, it should complete within three to five days.
Scope of impact: A few customers have reported this issue, and our analysis indicates that this issue may potentially affect any of your users attempting to publish new content types.
Start time: Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 7:14 PM UTC
Preliminary root cause: A critical file within the systems that facilitate publishing of site content types was inaccessible due to misconfigured permissions settings. This resulted in intermittent errors when users attempt to publish new site content types.
Next update by: Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 PM UTC |
250,357 | I am creating a form in sharepoint where a person can request service for one or more people. Sometime the request will be for just one person and sometime it will be for multiple person. Is there any way I can add a button say if a user needs to add another person on his form then creates another set of (Fname, LName, phone and email)? | 2018/10/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/250357",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/78994/"
] | I don't think you can do that out of the box in SPOnline and Designer. If it is enabled you could easily achieve that InfoPath (or maybe PowerApps but I don't have enough production experience on the latter to be sure) | Seems similar requirement as [this thread](https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/b18056f2-5ce4-418b-98a3-cea9e5d60f82/jquery-clone-repeater-parentchild-association-issues-to-save-sp-list?forum=sharepointdevelopment#f2b5e49c-6890-4d8d-8456-72f8479d107e), if so, you could create custom form and save data to list by JavaScript&jQuery with JSOM. |
250,357 | I am creating a form in sharepoint where a person can request service for one or more people. Sometime the request will be for just one person and sometime it will be for multiple person. Is there any way I can add a button say if a user needs to add another person on his form then creates another set of (Fname, LName, phone and email)? | 2018/10/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/250357",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/78994/"
] | This isn't as easy as it might sound as you really need to know how many possible items (rows) the user potentially would want to add. Think of excel, you can add a huge amount of rows to the table, but eventually you will reach the limit.
When I face this kind of requirement from clients I try to split the data into a parent and a child table linking them together using a lookup column.
This way I can have the parent item with the static information and I'm able to add an (almost) infinite amount of child items (or rows if you will) to the parent item. It does require a bit of tinkering to get it really userfriendly, but the end result if often a lot better than adding say 10 options just to be sure, the form contains enough fields for the user. | Seems similar requirement as [this thread](https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/b18056f2-5ce4-418b-98a3-cea9e5d60f82/jquery-clone-repeater-parentchild-association-issues-to-save-sp-list?forum=sharepointdevelopment#f2b5e49c-6890-4d8d-8456-72f8479d107e), if so, you could create custom form and save data to list by JavaScript&jQuery with JSOM. |
50,369 | So I understand Rudy wanted Dexter to feel the need to connect with him on their mutual urge to killing people in the altercation happening in the final episode of Dexter Season 1. But since Dexter was hesitant towards this, Rudy could have very well threatened Dexter by letting Debra know the true nature of Dexter instead of going one-on-one with him? | 2016/03/18 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/50369",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/20827/"
] | Force abilities and sensitivities are not, *Skywalker family aside*, inherited. You don't have to have force-capable parents or grandparents or ancestors to be able to use the force. As the Prequel Trilogy shows, force abilities are just a subset of having a high count of midichlorians. Jedi's normally went around, looking for kids that have this tendency, to train them. Their parents typically don't have Force capabilities. Anakin's mother did not either. In ***The Force Awakens***, we learn that Luke had a bunch of (now presumed dead) students to train in the Force. Students who likely did not have any connection to Luke or any Jedi, as the Jedi all died decades before the movie takes place.
We also don't know who Finn's parents are, so we can't even say 100% for certain that his parents were not Force users.
All we know is that Finn is Force ***sensitive***. The full extent of his Force powers are not known. As the movie shows, he did not do anything close to the feats of Rey, Kylo, Luke, Leia, or any other known force user.
***As to how he could use the Lightsaber***, there is conflicting info on if you have to be a trained Force-User to be able to. Some aspects of it do require the Force, like deflecting blaster shots blindfolded (As Ben taught Luke to do). Some say that you have to use the Force to ***proficiently*** use a Lightsaber in battle. Finn fought a Stormtrooper, and a badly injured Kylo Ren. Not really a duel between expert lightsaber duelists. | We don't know. He was, afterall, a stormtrooper. The reason he might have Force sensitivity is that in the movie, it is revealed that stormtroopers are not clones anymore, but are stolen as children. So Finn was taken from his parents at birth, and we don't know who they are, so in that respect there's just not enough information to say for sure.
Yes, he does use a lightsaber to some level of proficiency, but honestly, he doesn't use it very well. In the movie, he would have died twice had there not been outside help. In fact, he does almost die anyway. He got through his fights with nothing but dumb luck and outside help. Also, a lightsaber is just a sword, albeit a very nice, powerful, sword, but a sword nonetheless. It does not take any extra skill to wield a lightsaber than a normal sword. The skill is in creating a lightsaber, which is a Jedi Knight's last test.
All in all, we just don't know enough about Finn's backstory to say yet, although I'm sure that in the episode VIII there will be a reveal if he is at all sensitive to The Force. |
174,990 | I'm writing a script which involves the comparison of two objects. I keep finding myself referring to this sort of test as an "identicality" check. From my preliminary research, "identicality" does not seem to qualify as a word. Also, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. A single object should not be able to posses the quality of "identicality", since it requires that a second object exists for comparison, yet makes no reference to said object.
Does it make any sense to refer to the "identicality" of two objects? Should it instead be "identicalness", if that makes any more sense?
I'm not sure if "identicality", or even "identicalness" is etymologically sound either, or if it is just my mind kludging things together. | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/174990",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/78274/"
] | It makes sense to refer to the "identity" of two or more objects.
Of course, outside maths, this sense is usually obscured by the 'distinguishing character or personality of an individual : individuality' [Merriam-Webster] sense.
I had to search quite a way on the internet for:
>
> A human gene that shows identity with the gene encoding the
> angiotensin receptor is located on chromosome 11 ...
>
>
>
As Peter Shor points out, choosing the lesser of two evils makes sense (if one can sort out which it is). [ODO](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/identicality) lists
>
> identicality N = identicalness.
>
>
> Origin Late 19th century.
>
>
>
It makes more sense to use this unambiguous word (it *must* refer to multiple objects) until it becomes more common than the 6th-most-common sense of 'identity' Webster's lists. And to
continue to do so. | **Identicalness** *is* a word and I think it's the right word for your situation.
**Identity** could be used too, but is liable to be confusing due to its more common meaning of "being the same thing" as opposed to "being alike in every way". |
10,235,499 | I am a novice at making websites but i need some help concerning my project. I have done some research and also some analysis on how to create websites but i have a problem. I want to create a social photo sharing website in which users can upload photos from their iphones unto the website via an app. I am considering using a database engine which can be used for both app and the website or should i just use different databases for both sites.I need suggestions how to go about this problem.
Tolu | 2012/04/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10235499",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1344227/"
] | You don't need a separate database. Your website should just be a frontend to something like a LAMP server (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP). You're going to need to develop your own private database API to insert and retrieve items.
In your app you'll probably be making use of NSURLConnection to send asynchronus requests to your PHP api. You should look into some of the open JSON frameworks to encode and decode responses.
Your question is very broad in scope and it should be broken down into several. Hope this gets you on the right track. | What @Justin Amberson said is true. You may check out this tutorial to give you an idea how to build it for your app. I hope that helps you. <http://www.raywenderlich.com/2941/how-to-write-a-simple-phpmysql-web-service-for-an-ios-app> |
10,780,547 | I am new to **OpenCV**. I would like to know if we can compare two images (one of the images made by *photoshop* i.e source image and the otherone will be taken from the camera) and find if they are same or not.
I tried to compare the images using template matching. It does not work. Can you tell me what are the other procedures which we can use for this kind of comparison? | 2012/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10780547",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1421108/"
] | Comparison of images can be done in different ways depending on which purpose you have in mind:
* if you just want to compare whether two images are approximately equal (with a few
luminance differences), but with the same perspective and camera view, you can simply
compute a pixel-to-pixel squared difference, per color band. If the sum of squares over
the two images is smaller than a threshold the images match, otherwise not.
* If one image is a black-white variant of the other, conversion of the color images is
needed (see e.g. <http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/08/24/algorithms-convert-color-grayscale>). Afterwarts simply perform the step above.
* If one image is a subimage of the other, you need to perform registration of the two
images. This means determining the scale, possible rotation and XY-translation that is
necessary to lay the subimage on the larger image (for methods to register images, see:
Pluim, J.P.W., Maintz, J.B.A., Viergever, M.A. , Mutual-information-based registration of
medical images: a survey, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2003, Volume 22, Issue 8,
pp. 986 – 1004)
* If you have perspective differences, you need an algorithm for deskewing one image to
match the other as well as possible. For ways of doing deskewing look for example in
<http://javaanpr.sourceforge.net/anpr.pdf> from page 15 and onwards.
Good luck! | You should try SIFT. You apply SIFT to your marker (image saved in memory) and you get some descriptors (points robust to be recognized). Then you can use FAST algorithm with the camera frames in order to find the coprrespondent keypoints of the marker in the camera image.
You have many threads about this topic:
[How to get a rectangle around the target object using the features extracted by SIFT in OpenCV](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8896771/how-to-get-a-rectangle-around-the-target-object-using-the-features-extracted-by)
[How to search the image for an object with SIFT and OpenCV?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4658390/how-to-search-the-image-for-an-object-with-sift-and-opencv)
[OpenCV - Object matching using SURF descriptors and BruteForceMatcher](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7296915/opencv-object-matching-using-surf-descriptors-and-bruteforcematcher)
Good luck |
220,223 | I came across this [website](https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst152124_doing-something-vs-by-doing-something.aspx). One member says this:
"*If it (present participle) comes after the main phrase, that is what he did afterwards.* " And gives example:
>
> a- Tom took off his hat, ***putting*** it on the table.
>
>
>
---
As far as I know, using the present participle after the main clause could indicate what happened as a result. For example:
>
> b- The bomb exploded, ***destroying*** the building. (As a result, the building destroyed.)
>
>
>
---
Is that member right? Can we use "present participle" right after the main clause to indicate "what happened next" even though "what happened next" wasn't the result of the main action as in sentence a?
I think these versions are better than sentence a:
>
> c- Tom took off his hat, ***then putting*** it on the table.
>
>
> d- Tom took off his hat ***and then put*** it on the table.
>
>
> | 2019/08/03 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/220223",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/79626/"
] | **Yes, the present participle after a main clause can indicate what happened next, especially when the actions are closely related.**
Generally, the present participle after the main clause gives us information about some aspects of the main clause: **purpose** (why the action was taken), **method** (how the action was taken), **result** (what effect the action had), or **time/sequence** (when the action was taken).
>
> The bomb exploded, destroying the building.
>
>
>
This example shows us the way the functions of the participle clause overlap. Yes, it indicates what happened as a result, but it also indicates sequence--first the bomb exploded, then it destroyed things.
When a present participle clause describes sequential action, we can replace it with "and [past tense]" and get a sentence that means the same thing:
>
> "The bomb exploded and destroyed the building."
>
>
>
When a present participle clause describes simultaneous action, replacing it with "and [past tense]" either doesn't make sense or changes the meaning.
e.g. "The man crossed the street, looking out for traffic" has a different implication than "The man crossed the street and looked out for traffic."
**Present participle clauses describe simultaneous action more frequently than they describe sequential action, but both are valid and grammatical.**
To deal with specifics:
In your example, **d) is a valid rephrasing** that preserves the meaning and sequence of the actions. **c) is not grammatical** because the verbs are not parallel. | The Question is, **" even though "what happened next" wasn't the result of the main action as in sentence A?**
>
> a- **Tom took off his hat, putting it on the table**.
>
>
>
Although this sounds wrong as it stands, this is **because it is not complete** [Note 1] if we add more to the sentence it begins to sound O.K.
Tom took off his hat, putting it on the table next to the newspaper. His wife's picture stared back at him, nestled between the T.V. Guide and the sports results.
In the second of your examples, it is obvious that the building has been destroyed. However what is happening in the sentence is that the writer is emphasising that point. **In the first example** which is not complete the **emphasis is** \*\* not needed\*\*. In my example it now becomes clearer that an indication (emphasis) is needed. The act of putting his hat on the table is pivotal as it brings the picture to his attention.
>
> b- The bomb exploded, destroying the building. (As a result, the building destroyed.)
>
>
>
To answer your question **Yes we can use "present participle" right after the main clause to indicate "what happened next.**
I will not refer to your items C & D as they have no relevance.
**Note 1** When I refer to not complete my meaning is not complete as a piece of writing, it has no reason to exists on it's own in this form. However used in a fuller (different) context it can have meaning. |
28,366,901 | Will this anti cheat technique work for a multiplayer game using private servers (publicly unknown executable):
When the client starts the game it will auto update itself daily (using a launcher). The Servers will update themselves, too.
Unless there is a real patch, the update only consists of changes in the gameobjects memory layout, netcode, and shaders.
This is done using an automated system that auto generates and randomizes (C++) classes.
Maybe it could also add fake objects to the hierarchy to make identifiyng objects harder.
This way I hope to update the game faster than a cracker can and will reverse engineer, update and publish/update a new cheat.
Will this work or can hackers somehow work around this mechanism?
Will they do this work daily or can they automate it at some point?
What can I do to improve this system?
It seems randomizing memory layout does not help in the long term because the layout can more or less easily be extracted by following function calls in the executable and extracting pointer offsets from that code.
So to efficiently prevent this, the structure of calls and the code itself needs to be randomized also.
Are there good ways to do that? Is that working at all against automated cracking? | 2015/02/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28366901",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1879285/"
] | Client-side technological arms race is a completely wrong way to do this. You will *never* be better or faster than a bunch of kids that have too much time to spare. You cannot compete with a horde of attackers that have no costs (other than not doing their homework) while your actions cost you both time and money. This is a race you will lose, both on the way financially and in the end result as well.
There is two ways people can *cheat*:
1. Gaining information others do not have (for example looking through walls)
2. Automating gameplay that others have to do manually ("farming")
There are exactly two ways you can keep people from doing this:
1. Stop giving that information to the client. Keep it on the server.
2. Stop having parts of your game that are not fun. People only automate the parts that are boring, they don't play a game to be bored. Make it fun and nobody will waste his time trying to automate it. If automation of your game pops up, think hard how you can improve your game instead of battling bots technologically.
Remember the old saying: **"The client is in the hands of the enemy."** | I don't know whether such a system would be successful at avoiding cheating, but I would have concerns regarding producing and maintaining such system. For example, you say
>
> This is done using an automated system that auto generates and
> randomizes (C++) classes. Maybe it could also add fake objects to the
> hierarchy to make identifiyng objects harder.
>
>
>
* What do you mean by randomizing a class ? This is far from trivial.
* Fake objects will eventually be spotted (dead code)
Anyway, I doubt that you will be able to perform some kind of efficient obfuscation on the critial portions of your code without serious drawbacks, such as degraded performances or completely wrong computations (eg. float calculus). If you have two different mechanisms for calculating the same value, you will *eventually* have different results for the same set of inputs. |
455,705 | I'm developing a web app and I need to be able to get incoming traffic from 3rd party services I use. This is a classic webhooks situation: I send a request with a return address and receive the response (via HTTP) some time later to the given address.
The simple solution would be to provide my external IP address and forward the incoming traffic from the router to my machine. However, I'm working in a large office and I cannot control the router configuration. I'm looking for a different way to achieve that.
I do have servers online. I can have a daemon running on one of those servers, which will handle the incoming traffic. I can run a parallel daemon on my machine, which will keep an open connection with the remote daemon (over ssh preferred) and when an inbound traffic is received by the remote, it will send it to the local, which will send it to the correct port on my machine, as if it was received in the natural way.
Is there any ready-made solution for that?
PS. I'm on OS X and my server is Ubuntu.
Thanks,
zvikico | 2012/12/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/455705",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/8084/"
] | You're better off just retrieving the messages in one connection, not making an outbound that will cause the foreign system to initiate an inbound connection. Adding a third server for the daemon you mentioned simply increases the complexity and makes it more likely to break. | If you have control over the machine in your local network and some remote machine you could use [stunnel](https://www.stunnel.org/index.html) |
455,705 | I'm developing a web app and I need to be able to get incoming traffic from 3rd party services I use. This is a classic webhooks situation: I send a request with a return address and receive the response (via HTTP) some time later to the given address.
The simple solution would be to provide my external IP address and forward the incoming traffic from the router to my machine. However, I'm working in a large office and I cannot control the router configuration. I'm looking for a different way to achieve that.
I do have servers online. I can have a daemon running on one of those servers, which will handle the incoming traffic. I can run a parallel daemon on my machine, which will keep an open connection with the remote daemon (over ssh preferred) and when an inbound traffic is received by the remote, it will send it to the local, which will send it to the correct port on my machine, as if it was received in the natural way.
Is there any ready-made solution for that?
PS. I'm on OS X and my server is Ubuntu.
Thanks,
zvikico | 2012/12/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/455705",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/8084/"
] | Finally found what I was looking for! There's a cool project called [localtunnel](http://progrium.com/localtunnel/) which does just that: expose your local web server through a mediator server using an SSH tunnel. | If you have control over the machine in your local network and some remote machine you could use [stunnel](https://www.stunnel.org/index.html) |
8,616 | As I discuss in [this question](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/3193/36), by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school, which bases its tenets on the doctrines laid out in the Brahma Sutras, a work by the sage Vyasa which summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. You can read the Brahma Sutras [here](http://www.advaita.it/library/brahmasutras2.htm). In any case, Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 of the Brahma Sutras describes the Brahma Vidyas, 32 lessons found in the various Upanishads which can each lead you to Brahman if you meditate upon them. You can see the full list of 32 Vidyas [here](http://ramanuja.org/sri/Web/BrahmaVidya).
Now as I discuss in [this question](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7729/36), one of these 32 Brahma Vidyas is known as the Madhu Vidya, or "honey wisdom". It's found in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, it was taught by the sage Dadhichi to the two Ashwini Kumaras while Dadhichi had a horse head in the place of his human head. In any case, in [this chapter](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15062.htm) of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, four Vedic verses are given which allude to the Madhu Vidya and/or the story of how it was taught:
>
> 16. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey (the madhu-vidyâ) to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 116, 12): 'O ye two heroes (Asvins), I make manifest that fearful deed of yours (which you performed) for the sake of gain, like as thunder makes manifest the rain. The honey (madhu-vidyâ) which Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed to you through the head of a horse,'
> 17. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 117, 22): 'O Asvins, you fixed a horse's head on Âtharvana Dadhyak, and he, wishing to be true (to his promise), proclaimed to you the honey, both that of Tvashtri and that which is to be your secret, O ye strong ones.'
> 18. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said: **'He (the Lord) made bodies with two feet, he made bodies with four feet. Having first become a bird, he entered the bodies as purusha (as the person).'** This very purusha is in all bodies the purisaya, i.e. he who lies in the body (and is therefore called purusha). There is nothing that is not covered by him, nothing that is not filled by him.
> 19. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. VI, 47, 18): 'He (the Lord) became like unto every form, and this is meant to reveal the (true) form of him (the Âtman). Indra (the Lord) appears multiform through the Mâyâs (appearances), for his horses (senses) are yoked, hundreds and ten.'
>
>
>
The quotes in verses 16, 17, and 19 are all cited by the translators as verses from the Rig Veda. But the quote in verse 18 is not given a citation: "He (the Lord) made bodies with two feet, he made bodies with four feet. Having first become a bird, he entered the bodies as purusha (as the person)." So my question is, where in the Vedas is this quote found?
If it helps, [here](http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/brinew-proofed.itx) is the verse in Sanskrit:
>
> puraścakre dvipadaḥ puraścakre catuṣpadaḥ ।
>
>
> puraḥ sa pakṣī bhūtvā puraḥ puruṣa āviśaditi ।
>
>
>
Is this verse from the Rig Veda just like the other three verses, or is it from somewhere else? | 2015/09/17 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/8616",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/36/"
] | **Pakshi** in this context is **not bird**, but **Sukshma Sariram**. **Swami Paramarthananda Saraswati**, a direct disciple of **Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam** has taught Brihadaranyaka Upanishad with Sankaracharya Bhashya. The transcript of his classes on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad can be found [here](http://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/brihadaranyaka-upanisad-swami-paramarthananda/) and audio form can be found [here](http://hinduonline.co/AudioLibrary/Discources/CommentaryonBrhadharanyakaUpanishadParamarthananda.html). As far as the expanation of 18th mantra is considered, it is the 10 audio file named "05-19-07\_67 Mantra2" in [this link](https://archive.org/details/BrhadharanyakaUpanishadPart05). The below is the transcript of his talk. There might be some spelling mistakes, so I suggest you listen to his lecture also.
>
> Thus in the 16 and 17th mantra the context is mentioned. Then in the
> 18th and 19th mantra we get a summary of the teaching Madhu vidya. The
> essence of the teaching is the sarvatma bhavah. Thus Maitreyi
> brahmanam and Madhu brahmanam are complementary to each other; both
> together reveal the Idam sarvam edayam Atma sarvatma bhava. Atma alone
> is in the form the entire universe. And this sarvatma bhava is
> revealed in the mantra 18, which we took up in the last class.
>
>
> The meaning of this mantra is purusah eva sarvam chakre. The word
> chakre means it is verbal form ‘He created’. The paramatma or the
> purusah created everything out of ‘Himself’. How is the creation
> bahusyam? I will create not out of some other raw material but I will
> create everything out of ‘Myself’. When you say creating out of
> ‘Paramatma itself’, it means paramatma ‘Itself’ became the creation.
> And that is the meaning of chakre. Thus purusah himself became the
> two-legged beings.
>
>
> Here the word puraha means the physical bodies; so purusah paramatma
> became all the two legged physical bodies like that of human beings
> and catuspada puraha chakre the very same paramatma created the
> four-legged physical bodies. In short paramatma ‘became’ all the
> sthoola sarirams of all the physical bodies; ‘became’ should be
> inverted commas for paramatma never undergo any change to become
> physical bodies and we have to supply the words ‘as though’ to
> indicate that he entered all the physical bodies.
>
>
> It is vivartha upadana karanam not parinami upadana karanam. By saying
> that what is the corollary that we get is that when I say paramatma
> became the physical bodies ‘as though’ it means paramatma is of the
> higher order of reality and physical bodies are of the lower order of
> reality and paramatma is paramarthika sathyam and jivatma sarirams are
> related to vyavaharika sathyam.
>
>
> Having become all the physical bodies what did the paramatma do? I
> told you in the last class word paksi in this context is sukshma
> sariram. Having become the sukshma sarirams, he became ‘as though’ as
> many sthoola sarirams are there so many sukshma sarirams are also
> there and ‘He’ become manifold sukshma sarirams ‘as though’. Whatever
> paramatma does is ot be taken ‘as though’.
>
>
> Then the paramatma in the form of sukshma sariram entered all the
> sthoola sarirams. Thereafter wards all the transactions begin because
> paramatma by itself is not available for any transactions. Here there
> is sthoola sukshma sariram complex and there are so many sthoola
> sukshma sariram complexes and therefore there is a teaching going on
> and the teacher being paramatma and students also being paramatma.
>
>
> Both guru and sisya are paramatma only it is stated here. Then the
> upanisad explains the mantra. Because of this job, paramatma gets a
> special title purusah. And the upanisad defines the word purusah in
> this portion and two types of derivations are given for the word. The
> first definition of purusah is ‘puri sayanad’ purusah because
> paramatma resides in the physical body it is called purusah. And puri
> means sthoola sarire sayanad saha means residing and sukshma sarira
> rupena sayanad. This is the first derivation. The second derivation is
> purayati sarvam iti purusah. One who pervades everything; one who
> fills up everything; one who inheres everything is called purusah.
> Both these derivations are given in the brahmana portion. Sava ayam
> purusah means that this Atma is sarvasu poorsu bhavati the Atma is
> present in all the sthoola sarirams.
>
>
> Atma is in the form of sukshma sarira rupena paksi rupena bhavati.
> Then purisayah iti pursaha. This means in the body dwells Atma; since
> it is the body dwelling therefore it is called purusah. Paksi rupena
> here means the sukshma sariram. This is the first derivation.
>
>
> Now the second derivation comes. The upanisad wants to point out atma
> pervades everything but instead of putting in a positive language the
> upanisad puts it in double negative language to give emphasis to the
> statement. Upanisad says ‘nothing is not pervaded by purusah’. Then na
> enena kinchana na anavrutam. In fact, asamvrutam is the same as
> anavrutam. Adhi Sankaracharya makes a subtle difference. He says
> paramatma is in and through all the body. Everything is inhered by
> paramatma. Instead of everything is inhered the upanisad says nothing
> is not inhered by paramatma.
>
>
> To put it in simple language paramatma is inherent in all and
> paramatma is the immanent principle in all. It is like as the clay is
> inherent in all pots; just water is inherent in all waves; just rope
> is inherent in imaginary snake; just waker is inherent in every dream
> objects similarly paramatma is inherent in all. In fact paramatma is
> the content of all, therefore paramatma fills up all, and therefore
> paramatma is purusah. With this the first summary is over. Summary is
> paramatma is every thing. Remember sarvatma bhava.
>
>
>
Hope this helps you. | Sankara makes no reference to the *Rig Veda* in his comments to these verses, however, both Swami Nikhilananda's and Swami Madhavananda's separate translations footnotes the three *Rig Veda* verses you mentioned, but no footnote on verse 18.
Both Swamis Madhavananda and Nikhilananda in their separate translations reference that verses 16 and 17 refer to the Pravargya rite from the *Satapatha Brahmnana* (XIV. i. 1. 6-10.) and also the *Taittiriya Aranyaka* (V. i. 3-6.)
They both have a slightly different translation to verse 18 which I think are clearer translations. Nikhilananda's and Madhavananda's translations are essentially the same. Madhavananda's translation says:
>
> ..."He (the Lord) made bodies with two feet; he made bodies with four feet. Having first become a bird (the subtle body), He, the Supreme Person, entered all bodies. On account of His dwelling in all bodies (*pur*), He is called the Person (*Purusha*). There is nothing not covered by Him, nothing that is not pervaded by Him."
>
>
> |
39,862,122 | I have no idea what is the issue with it, today I've used it and it was working just fine, now I am trying to open it but it simply cannot open. There are no errors or such. I've searched everything everywhere no solution so far. The only thing I found was to add enviromental variable and so I did. But the same thing again. Reinstalled it, reinstalled java jdk. No result. Anyone with ideas ? | 2016/10/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39862122",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Try "C:\Users\userX.AndroidStudio2.3"
open "studio64.exe.vmoptions" with notepad and delete vm options (make this file empty)
This worked for me. | Though the question was raised long back but posting the answer to help someone stuck in the recent days,
as I was able to resolve the same issue by refer to the solution provided in Android Developer Portal,
[Studio doesn't start after upgrade](https://developer.android.com/studio/known-issues#studio-config-directories)
If Studio doesn't start after an upgrade, the problem may be due to an invalid Android Studio configuration imported from a previous version of Android Studio or an incompatible plugin. As a workaround, try deleting (or renaming, for backup purposes) the directory below, depending on the Android Studio version and operating system, and start Android Studio again. This will reset Android Studio to its default state, with all third-party plugins removed.
For Android Studio 4.1 and later:
Windows: %APPDATA%\Google\AndroidStudio Example: C:\Users\your\_user\_name\AppData\Roaming\Google\AndroidStudio4.1
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Google/AndroidStudio Example: ~/Library/Application Support/Google/AndroidStudio4.1
Linux: ~/.config/Google/AndroidStudio and ~/.local/share/Google/AndroidStudio Example: ~/.config/Google/AndroidStudio4.1 and ~/.local/share/Google/AndroidStudio4.1
For Android Studio 4.0 and earlier:
Windows: %HOMEPATH%.AndroidStudio\config
Example: C:\Users\your\_user\_name.AndroidStudio3.6\config
macOS: ~/Library/Preferences/AndroidStudio
Example: ~/Library/Preferences/AndroidStudio3.6
Linux: ~/.AndroidStudio/config
Example: ~/.AndroidStudio3.6/config |
353,777 | Internet Explorer 8 freezes on me a lot and I'm tired of reloading the ten tabs I have open instead of just closing and re-opening the one tab that froze. I can't use Task Manager because it closes every page open. WinPatrol doesn't help either.
Is there a program or something I could use to **force**-close one tab while leaving the other tabs untouched? | 2011/11/04 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/353777",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/94953/"
] | No. The reason the tab is frozen is that it is unable to perform operations, including cleaning up such that the tab can be closed without harming the other objects in the same container. | You can upgrade to IE 9 which will kill individual tabs that hang.
[Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20151121060942/http://blogs.msdn.com:80/b/ie/archive/2011/04/19/hang-resistance-in-ie9.aspx) |
397,708 | Trying to connect to the PostGIS DB for RiverGIS fails with
Couldn't connect to river database: var@localhost
Please, check you database connection settings!
This happens despite the DB being connected to/loaded (see screenshot below) and already having loaded a layer from the DB into the currently open project which I can edit without problem.
What am I missing respective what steps can I take to debug this?
Edit: Having tried answer 1, adjusting the the user & db-name to be same as in the documentation does not solve the problem.
System: Win10 / QGIS OsGEO4W / 3.18.3
I'm aware of [QGIS - error connection of database in RiverGIS](https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/394820/qgis-error-connection-of-database-in-rivergis) but there the DB doesn't seem to have been connected to...
Edit: Adjusted screenshots, having tried answer 1:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/esPYB.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p7Lwu.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/smcQf.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iWbNb.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi2Kp.jpg) | 2021/05/25 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/397708",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/184083/"
] | According to these documentations - <http://rivergis.com/requirements.html> - the database name should be rivergis. Your settings have localhost as the server, var as the database and rivergis as the user. Try switching database to rivergis, and using postgres as a username if you're still having issues. | I faced the same issue and solved it by editing the connection configuration:
* from menu Layer > Add layer > Add PostGIS layers
* select the connection (rivergis in this case), fill the highlighted panel in the
picture below and click on "Convert to configuration".
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MNOjZ.png)
That should work. |
34,700 | I’ve seen a few “behind the scenes” clips in which you can hear a lot of background noise not pertinent with the shooting. Recently on many sites there’s a clip of a sex scene; you can hear the director talking, giving instructions, while (quite distorted) music is played. I’m involved in audio production and I’m wondering how you can cancel all that stuff. I can understand the (high quality) music is added in post production, but what about the acting? Are the actors going to do a complete dubbing? | 2015/05/24 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/34700",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/20927/"
] | Many shots where there is no specific dialogue will be shot "[MOS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_%28filmmaking%29)" - without sound running.
>
> MOS is a standard filmmaking jargon abbreviation, used in production reports to indicate an associated film segment has no synchronous audio track. It stands for "motor only sync" or "motor only shot".
>
>
> Omitting sound recording from a particular shot can save time and relieve the film crew of certain requirements, such as remaining silent during a take, and thus MOS takes are common on film shoots, most obviously when the subjects of the take are not speaking or otherwise generating useful sound.
>
>
>
If it's a sex scene, mouths are not likely on camera (if any dialogue is even occurring), so they will often do the dialogue in post or "[ADR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubbing_%28filmmaking%29#ADR.2Fpost-sync)".
>
> Automated dialogue replacement (ADR) is the process of re-recording dialogue by the original actor after the filming process to improve audio quality or reflect dialogue changes (also known as "looping" or a "looping session").[6][7] ADR is also used to change original lines recorded on set to clarify context, improve diction or timing, or to replace an accented vocal performance. In the UK, it is also called "post-synchronisation" or "post-sync".
>
>
>
It's also possible that the specific shots being captured that you saw were close-ups, details, or other shots that are more about the framing of the shot and the action in it.
If they were recording sound, I'd bet the director wasn't talking at the same time as dialogue was being said. A sound designer will be able to remove the part of the scene where the director is talking (assuming there's not too much other stuff like music in the background) and replace that with "[room tone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presence_%28sound_recording%29)", which is generally 1 minute of "silence" recorded by the sound recorder so that the sound designer can use it as a base noise for the space.
>
> In filmmaking and television production presence (or room tone) is the "silence" recorded at a location or space when no dialogue is spoken. This term is often confused with ambiance.
>
>
> Every location has a distinct presence created by the position of the microphone in relation to the space boundaries. A microphone placed in two different locations of the same room will produce two different presences. This is because of the unique spatial relationship between the microphone and boundaries such as walls, ceiling, floor and other objects in the room.
>
>
> Presence is recorded during the production stage of filmmaking. It is used to help create the film sound track, where presence may be intercut with dialogue to smooth out any sound edit points. The sound track "going dead" would be perceived by the audience not as silence, but as a failure of the sound system.
>
>
> | For interior sets some effort will be made to exclude extraneous background noise and sound recording equipment will be set of to focus on dialogue, for example by using boom mics just out of shot.
Even then most of the incidental sounds on the actual movie soundtrack will be added in post production by [foley artists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_(filmmaking)) or samples. Indeed a huge amount of ingenuity goes into producing authentic sound effects. In modern production this may also include a huge amount of digital processing to layer and modify effects.
On exterior location this may not be possible and in some cases whole scenes may be redubbed with ADR which may even involve changing lines. For obvious reasons this is easier with long shot than close ups.
It is also possible to remove or mask any unwanted background noise with sound effects, score or digital/analogue filtering. |
34,700 | I’ve seen a few “behind the scenes” clips in which you can hear a lot of background noise not pertinent with the shooting. Recently on many sites there’s a clip of a sex scene; you can hear the director talking, giving instructions, while (quite distorted) music is played. I’m involved in audio production and I’m wondering how you can cancel all that stuff. I can understand the (high quality) music is added in post production, but what about the acting? Are the actors going to do a complete dubbing? | 2015/05/24 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/34700",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/20927/"
] | I agree with @Catija: ADR is very common with action, drama, and musicals because it is far easier (and less expensive) to rerecord the dialog in a recording booth than it is to get dozens to hundreds of people, who are near the shot, to be absolutely silent or to remove the sound in post production.
The only genre which avoids ADR is comedies because the timing is very important and hard to reproduce in ADR.
In a sound booth it is far easier for an actor to nail the vocal cadences to sell an emotional state or reaction and can be done in fewer takes which cost less. On a sound stage, there are layer upon layer of distractions and acoustic compromises starting with all the people watching, and ending with the set being too warm or too cold. | For interior sets some effort will be made to exclude extraneous background noise and sound recording equipment will be set of to focus on dialogue, for example by using boom mics just out of shot.
Even then most of the incidental sounds on the actual movie soundtrack will be added in post production by [foley artists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_(filmmaking)) or samples. Indeed a huge amount of ingenuity goes into producing authentic sound effects. In modern production this may also include a huge amount of digital processing to layer and modify effects.
On exterior location this may not be possible and in some cases whole scenes may be redubbed with ADR which may even involve changing lines. For obvious reasons this is easier with long shot than close ups.
It is also possible to remove or mask any unwanted background noise with sound effects, score or digital/analogue filtering. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | I do not confirm most of the answers!
1. They ignore morale
2. They ignore the fact that Stalingrad might not have been happened
To 1:
Nazigermany was build on a broken nation. The people had big problems and Hitler gave them very effective solutions. (Not to say he was a hero, don't get me wrong. But he did right in the right time, to receive the peoples trust).
The 3.Reich was build on many symbolic values just as the first step of the war had been.
The strike against Poland had the aim to get back old Prussian terretories due their symbolic value of "This is part of our fatherland, get it back!", just like some other regions.
The invasion of France was pure revenge.
See [Dolchstoßlegende](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) and [Treaty of Versailles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles)
Treaty of Versailles (not only the content but it's way of creation) was a huge shame for the Volk and the victory take the shame off germany.
Afrikakorps had no real strategic value but gave an big advantage in moral.
Germans wanted to be a big nation like GB, Netherlands or Russia, but they weren't able to conquer that many nor so valuable collonies. To conquer these big landmass in exotic africa gave them the feeling that they are at eye level with the other big nations.
Ever thought about the symbolic effect of the Hakenkreuz?
These and many other examples show how important glory and symbolic has been for the germans.
This make me think that the conquest of moscow had changed a lot.
A frenchmen(Napoleon), that bitter old enemy which is the pure evil, once captured Moscow but failed to hold it.
That the germans where not able to capture what the france had done was a shame again. But if it had been done, to conquer the capital of this big, old and mighty nation, had been another huge symbolic improvement in morale.
Sure, the strategic situation had not altered that far at this point, but do not underestimate symbolic.
To 2:
If Stalingrad had never happened, over 800.000 (!) men had not been lost at this time.
Battle of Stalingrad was grinding. Even the fact that german propaganda was super effective, the Volk did noticed how long it took and that so many men must have been died during this battle. This was a big problem. All strikes so far, have been working very well. No one seemed to stop the Blitzkrieg until this point.
Stalingrad was the turning point of the Ostfront and without that, Wehrmachts next stop probably had been the Ural (which for sure can not be crossed in winter).
This again means, that the german troops had the chance to set up havy defence lines like the [Atlantikwall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall), which shows that they do such things very well. Think of all the heavy losses USA took while invading the Normandy.
Did you know that Hitler assumed the USA would invade somewhere else?
Maybe the USA had not have any chance when the defense had been at full strenght.
So I assume that the capture of moscow had changed everything.
At this time Hitler had not done any big mistakes. Later he had done plenty mistakes wich finally had leaden to lose. | I like the answer by Royal Canadian Bandit. But there is also yet another twist that somehow nobody considered. If Moscow had been taken, it's (almost ?) given that Hitler would have come to visit it (and specifically the Kremlin) - it'd be a big milestone, and even without other reasons, the propaganda machine must have used it to the max and show the head of the state in the conquered capital of the enemy.
Given the practice of mining the abandoned cities and leaving special forces and organized guerrilla units behind when leaving the cities, and also the system of secret bunkers, shelters, underground tunnels existing in Moscow for government use (see [example](http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2013/12/26/underground_soviet_shelters_and_the_secret_metro-2_32967.html)), it's not unthinkable to imagine that the Hitler assassination attempt performed in Moscow would be successful. Again, nothing unprecedented: [example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid), [another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
Now, that would significantly change the course of the war and history. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | Moscow wouldn't have made much difference. Remember that Napoleon 'captured' Moscow, and it didn't do him any good at all. Moscow was just a symbol. It was a potent symbol, but it was just a symbol.
What Germany needed from Russia was the natural resources further south, especially oil from the Caucasus. In the end, Hitler made a lot of strategic mistakes in overextending Germany. | I like the answer by Royal Canadian Bandit. But there is also yet another twist that somehow nobody considered. If Moscow had been taken, it's (almost ?) given that Hitler would have come to visit it (and specifically the Kremlin) - it'd be a big milestone, and even without other reasons, the propaganda machine must have used it to the max and show the head of the state in the conquered capital of the enemy.
Given the practice of mining the abandoned cities and leaving special forces and organized guerrilla units behind when leaving the cities, and also the system of secret bunkers, shelters, underground tunnels existing in Moscow for government use (see [example](http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2013/12/26/underground_soviet_shelters_and_the_secret_metro-2_32967.html)), it's not unthinkable to imagine that the Hitler assassination attempt performed in Moscow would be successful. Again, nothing unprecedented: [example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid), [another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
Now, that would significantly change the course of the war and history. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | Moscow wouldn't have made much difference. Remember that Napoleon 'captured' Moscow, and it didn't do him any good at all. Moscow was just a symbol. It was a potent symbol, but it was just a symbol.
What Germany needed from Russia was the natural resources further south, especially oil from the Caucasus. In the end, Hitler made a lot of strategic mistakes in overextending Germany. | Surely, capturing Moscow would have made little difference. At this point, the soviets knew what Hitler was about. Why would you surrender, knowing that the future would be bleak for you at this point - if you even had one, let alone the worry of what would become of your family? Why would you surrender then, just because of the collapse of a city? If you have no choice and the government was still in power and waging you to fight on, why would you collapse just because one city has fallen when you still have thousands of miles of unoccupied land, it's just ridiculous. The fighting would have continued beyond the capture of Moscow, however, the war finally ended. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | Capturing Moscow would not have helped the German army much. The Soviets would have fought to death like they did at Stalingrad. They were under heavy pressure by their own state. The Soviets were not allowed to flee the battle. This is something we see a lot in wars but discipline was very strict at the moment of the war, especially if it's in order to keep the most important city.
The Germans were able to take Stalingrad but they payed a heavy price. Several weeks could be required to take full control of Moscow. They would have to deal with street warfare and guerrillas. These are very costly even with a numerical advantage and they slow the advance of the army. By that time, the army would also suffer from attrition and other Soviet troops can reinforce their reserve to organize a counter offensive.
Even without Moscow, the USSR would still be able to fight, defensively at least. German troops were busy fighting elsewhere and the tide had already started to turn before the battle of Stalingrad.
My point is that taking and holding Moscow would be costly and would yield only little benefits. If operation Barbarossa had not been delayed by several weeks, the Germans would have been able to start the siege before winter and maybe they could have won, avoiding many causalities. But that is another story.
**Why soldiers will fight to the end?**
* (I will find the exact passage tomorrow)
In the Art of War by Sun Tzu, there is a passage where the author tells the story of a siege. The city is at the bottom of a cliff, facing the sea. A similar configuration as the beaches of Normandy during the D day operation. The general is the besieger and needs to win the fight. The army came with boats. The army get off on the beach and as soon as the left the ships, the general order to put all the fleet on fire. They army is trapped. The only possibility is to win the siege, otherwise, everyone dies. | I like the answer by Royal Canadian Bandit. But there is also yet another twist that somehow nobody considered. If Moscow had been taken, it's (almost ?) given that Hitler would have come to visit it (and specifically the Kremlin) - it'd be a big milestone, and even without other reasons, the propaganda machine must have used it to the max and show the head of the state in the conquered capital of the enemy.
Given the practice of mining the abandoned cities and leaving special forces and organized guerrilla units behind when leaving the cities, and also the system of secret bunkers, shelters, underground tunnels existing in Moscow for government use (see [example](http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2013/12/26/underground_soviet_shelters_and_the_secret_metro-2_32967.html)), it's not unthinkable to imagine that the Hitler assassination attempt performed in Moscow would be successful. Again, nothing unprecedented: [example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid), [another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
Now, that would significantly change the course of the war and history. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | The military and strategic benefit to Germany would probably be minimal. If anything, it might have hastened Germany's defeat.
* The USSR had contingency plans to evacuate Moscow. In fact, most military and civilian officials [evacuated the city](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=37) between 14-28 October 1941.
* In all likelihood the defenders would have fought to the death, through a combination of patriotism, fear of German atrocities, and fear of reprisals from their own government. This is what happened at [Stalingrad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) in Aug 1942 - Feb 1943. Germany failed to take Stalingrad after months of brutal house-to-house fighting, which left the city in ruins.
* If Germany captured Moscow, it would pay a very high price in casualties and materiel for doing so.
* Hitler was obsessed by symbols. Having captured the Soviet capital, he would have refused to allow a retreat under any circumstances. This would allow the USSR to encircle and destroy the German army in Moscow (similarly to what happened at Stalingrad).
* About 130 years earlier, Napoleon [did capture Moscow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia) but Russia continued to fight and eventually won.
Given all this, **what might have changed**?
* With all German resources committed to Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad probably never happens. It is possible that Germany begins its retreat from the USSR a year earlier.
* In our reality, the Normandy landings (by the UK/USA/Canada) took place in June 1944, and Germany surrendered in May 1945. If Germany collapsed a year earlier, then the USSR could end up occupying all of Germany (not just the eastern part) and part or all of France as well. This would have extensive consequences for the postwar settlement.
* Stalin was determined to remain in Moscow [as long as possible](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=37). If he mistimed his retreat, it is possible he would be killed or captured, with far-reaching consequences. Possibly Krushchev or another figure becomes leader in his place.
* The most likely scenario is that the USSR fights on and Germany is defeated as above; but there is always the chance that the fall of Moscow and/or death of Stalin causes a collapse in Soviet morale and prolongs the war or even brings about a German victory, we don't really know. | Moscow wouldn't have made much difference. Remember that Napoleon 'captured' Moscow, and it didn't do him any good at all. Moscow was just a symbol. It was a potent symbol, but it was just a symbol.
What Germany needed from Russia was the natural resources further south, especially oil from the Caucasus. In the end, Hitler made a lot of strategic mistakes in overextending Germany. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | The military and strategic benefit to Germany would probably be minimal. If anything, it might have hastened Germany's defeat.
* The USSR had contingency plans to evacuate Moscow. In fact, most military and civilian officials [evacuated the city](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=37) between 14-28 October 1941.
* In all likelihood the defenders would have fought to the death, through a combination of patriotism, fear of German atrocities, and fear of reprisals from their own government. This is what happened at [Stalingrad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) in Aug 1942 - Feb 1943. Germany failed to take Stalingrad after months of brutal house-to-house fighting, which left the city in ruins.
* If Germany captured Moscow, it would pay a very high price in casualties and materiel for doing so.
* Hitler was obsessed by symbols. Having captured the Soviet capital, he would have refused to allow a retreat under any circumstances. This would allow the USSR to encircle and destroy the German army in Moscow (similarly to what happened at Stalingrad).
* About 130 years earlier, Napoleon [did capture Moscow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia) but Russia continued to fight and eventually won.
Given all this, **what might have changed**?
* With all German resources committed to Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad probably never happens. It is possible that Germany begins its retreat from the USSR a year earlier.
* In our reality, the Normandy landings (by the UK/USA/Canada) took place in June 1944, and Germany surrendered in May 1945. If Germany collapsed a year earlier, then the USSR could end up occupying all of Germany (not just the eastern part) and part or all of France as well. This would have extensive consequences for the postwar settlement.
* Stalin was determined to remain in Moscow [as long as possible](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=37). If he mistimed his retreat, it is possible he would be killed or captured, with far-reaching consequences. Possibly Krushchev or another figure becomes leader in his place.
* The most likely scenario is that the USSR fights on and Germany is defeated as above; but there is always the chance that the fall of Moscow and/or death of Stalin causes a collapse in Soviet morale and prolongs the war or even brings about a German victory, we don't really know. | It's uncertain what would have happened.
On the one hand, Moscow was (and still is) effectively the hub of the Soviet transportation system: the vast majority of road and rail routes pass through it. Capturing Moscow, or even besieging it, would greatly hamper the Soviet ability to move troops and supplies. Having soldiers willing to fight to the death doesn't help if they don't have weapons to fight with or food to eat.
On the other hand, the Soviets were highly skilled at relocating anything movable in response to German advances. The transportation hub would be the *only* thing the Germans would capture with Moscow -- no factories, no administrative facilities, etc.
It also depends on *how* the Germans captured it. A smart commander would understand that urban combat completely negates the German advantage in maneuver warfare. He'd surround the city, leave a beseiging force to contain it, and move on to confront the Soviets elsewhere. More likely, though, would be for Hitler to make one of his strategically inept decrees that Moscow *must* be captured at any cost, resulting in German armies grinding themselves to pieces in house-to-house combat.
Depending on the details of what happens, the result of capturing Moscow could be anything from victory over the Soviet Union, to wearing themselves out to the point that the Soviets could defeat them in 1943 (which has its own consequences). |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | It's uncertain what would have happened.
On the one hand, Moscow was (and still is) effectively the hub of the Soviet transportation system: the vast majority of road and rail routes pass through it. Capturing Moscow, or even besieging it, would greatly hamper the Soviet ability to move troops and supplies. Having soldiers willing to fight to the death doesn't help if they don't have weapons to fight with or food to eat.
On the other hand, the Soviets were highly skilled at relocating anything movable in response to German advances. The transportation hub would be the *only* thing the Germans would capture with Moscow -- no factories, no administrative facilities, etc.
It also depends on *how* the Germans captured it. A smart commander would understand that urban combat completely negates the German advantage in maneuver warfare. He'd surround the city, leave a beseiging force to contain it, and move on to confront the Soviets elsewhere. More likely, though, would be for Hitler to make one of his strategically inept decrees that Moscow *must* be captured at any cost, resulting in German armies grinding themselves to pieces in house-to-house combat.
Depending on the details of what happens, the result of capturing Moscow could be anything from victory over the Soviet Union, to wearing themselves out to the point that the Soviets could defeat them in 1943 (which has its own consequences). | I do not confirm most of the answers!
1. They ignore morale
2. They ignore the fact that Stalingrad might not have been happened
To 1:
Nazigermany was build on a broken nation. The people had big problems and Hitler gave them very effective solutions. (Not to say he was a hero, don't get me wrong. But he did right in the right time, to receive the peoples trust).
The 3.Reich was build on many symbolic values just as the first step of the war had been.
The strike against Poland had the aim to get back old Prussian terretories due their symbolic value of "This is part of our fatherland, get it back!", just like some other regions.
The invasion of France was pure revenge.
See [Dolchstoßlegende](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) and [Treaty of Versailles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles)
Treaty of Versailles (not only the content but it's way of creation) was a huge shame for the Volk and the victory take the shame off germany.
Afrikakorps had no real strategic value but gave an big advantage in moral.
Germans wanted to be a big nation like GB, Netherlands or Russia, but they weren't able to conquer that many nor so valuable collonies. To conquer these big landmass in exotic africa gave them the feeling that they are at eye level with the other big nations.
Ever thought about the symbolic effect of the Hakenkreuz?
These and many other examples show how important glory and symbolic has been for the germans.
This make me think that the conquest of moscow had changed a lot.
A frenchmen(Napoleon), that bitter old enemy which is the pure evil, once captured Moscow but failed to hold it.
That the germans where not able to capture what the france had done was a shame again. But if it had been done, to conquer the capital of this big, old and mighty nation, had been another huge symbolic improvement in morale.
Sure, the strategic situation had not altered that far at this point, but do not underestimate symbolic.
To 2:
If Stalingrad had never happened, over 800.000 (!) men had not been lost at this time.
Battle of Stalingrad was grinding. Even the fact that german propaganda was super effective, the Volk did noticed how long it took and that so many men must have been died during this battle. This was a big problem. All strikes so far, have been working very well. No one seemed to stop the Blitzkrieg until this point.
Stalingrad was the turning point of the Ostfront and without that, Wehrmachts next stop probably had been the Ural (which for sure can not be crossed in winter).
This again means, that the german troops had the chance to set up havy defence lines like the [Atlantikwall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall), which shows that they do such things very well. Think of all the heavy losses USA took while invading the Normandy.
Did you know that Hitler assumed the USA would invade somewhere else?
Maybe the USA had not have any chance when the defense had been at full strenght.
So I assume that the capture of moscow had changed everything.
At this time Hitler had not done any big mistakes. Later he had done plenty mistakes wich finally had leaden to lose. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | Capturing Moscow would not have helped the German army much. The Soviets would have fought to death like they did at Stalingrad. They were under heavy pressure by their own state. The Soviets were not allowed to flee the battle. This is something we see a lot in wars but discipline was very strict at the moment of the war, especially if it's in order to keep the most important city.
The Germans were able to take Stalingrad but they payed a heavy price. Several weeks could be required to take full control of Moscow. They would have to deal with street warfare and guerrillas. These are very costly even with a numerical advantage and they slow the advance of the army. By that time, the army would also suffer from attrition and other Soviet troops can reinforce their reserve to organize a counter offensive.
Even without Moscow, the USSR would still be able to fight, defensively at least. German troops were busy fighting elsewhere and the tide had already started to turn before the battle of Stalingrad.
My point is that taking and holding Moscow would be costly and would yield only little benefits. If operation Barbarossa had not been delayed by several weeks, the Germans would have been able to start the siege before winter and maybe they could have won, avoiding many causalities. But that is another story.
**Why soldiers will fight to the end?**
* (I will find the exact passage tomorrow)
In the Art of War by Sun Tzu, there is a passage where the author tells the story of a siege. The city is at the bottom of a cliff, facing the sea. A similar configuration as the beaches of Normandy during the D day operation. The general is the besieger and needs to win the fight. The army came with boats. The army get off on the beach and as soon as the left the ships, the general order to put all the fleet on fire. They army is trapped. The only possibility is to win the siege, otherwise, everyone dies. | Surely, capturing Moscow would have made little difference. At this point, the soviets knew what Hitler was about. Why would you surrender, knowing that the future would be bleak for you at this point - if you even had one, let alone the worry of what would become of your family? Why would you surrender then, just because of the collapse of a city? If you have no choice and the government was still in power and waging you to fight on, why would you collapse just because one city has fallen when you still have thousands of miles of unoccupied land, it's just ridiculous. The fighting would have continued beyond the capture of Moscow, however, the war finally ended. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | It's uncertain what would have happened.
On the one hand, Moscow was (and still is) effectively the hub of the Soviet transportation system: the vast majority of road and rail routes pass through it. Capturing Moscow, or even besieging it, would greatly hamper the Soviet ability to move troops and supplies. Having soldiers willing to fight to the death doesn't help if they don't have weapons to fight with or food to eat.
On the other hand, the Soviets were highly skilled at relocating anything movable in response to German advances. The transportation hub would be the *only* thing the Germans would capture with Moscow -- no factories, no administrative facilities, etc.
It also depends on *how* the Germans captured it. A smart commander would understand that urban combat completely negates the German advantage in maneuver warfare. He'd surround the city, leave a beseiging force to contain it, and move on to confront the Soviets elsewhere. More likely, though, would be for Hitler to make one of his strategically inept decrees that Moscow *must* be captured at any cost, resulting in German armies grinding themselves to pieces in house-to-house combat.
Depending on the details of what happens, the result of capturing Moscow could be anything from victory over the Soviet Union, to wearing themselves out to the point that the Soviets could defeat them in 1943 (which has its own consequences). | I like the answer by Royal Canadian Bandit. But there is also yet another twist that somehow nobody considered. If Moscow had been taken, it's (almost ?) given that Hitler would have come to visit it (and specifically the Kremlin) - it'd be a big milestone, and even without other reasons, the propaganda machine must have used it to the max and show the head of the state in the conquered capital of the enemy.
Given the practice of mining the abandoned cities and leaving special forces and organized guerrilla units behind when leaving the cities, and also the system of secret bunkers, shelters, underground tunnels existing in Moscow for government use (see [example](http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2013/12/26/underground_soviet_shelters_and_the_secret_metro-2_32967.html)), it's not unthinkable to imagine that the Hitler assassination attempt performed in Moscow would be successful. Again, nothing unprecedented: [example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid), [another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
Now, that would significantly change the course of the war and history. |
3,753 | During [Operation Barbarossa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), the Germans came dangerously close to capturing Moscow - in fact they were [within 20km of the city](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow), and some could even see its buildings. The failure to take Moscow is often considered a clear indication of the failure of the entire operation.
What if the Germans had succeeded in capturing and holding Moscow? Most say that the Soviet Union would still have fought on, given they still had a significant industrial base east of the Urals and plenty of forces from Siberia, but how would this have affected the course of the war? Would this have delayed Germany's defeat, or maybe even hastened it? | 2014/11/07 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3753",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/77/"
] | It's uncertain what would have happened.
On the one hand, Moscow was (and still is) effectively the hub of the Soviet transportation system: the vast majority of road and rail routes pass through it. Capturing Moscow, or even besieging it, would greatly hamper the Soviet ability to move troops and supplies. Having soldiers willing to fight to the death doesn't help if they don't have weapons to fight with or food to eat.
On the other hand, the Soviets were highly skilled at relocating anything movable in response to German advances. The transportation hub would be the *only* thing the Germans would capture with Moscow -- no factories, no administrative facilities, etc.
It also depends on *how* the Germans captured it. A smart commander would understand that urban combat completely negates the German advantage in maneuver warfare. He'd surround the city, leave a beseiging force to contain it, and move on to confront the Soviets elsewhere. More likely, though, would be for Hitler to make one of his strategically inept decrees that Moscow *must* be captured at any cost, resulting in German armies grinding themselves to pieces in house-to-house combat.
Depending on the details of what happens, the result of capturing Moscow could be anything from victory over the Soviet Union, to wearing themselves out to the point that the Soviets could defeat them in 1943 (which has its own consequences). | Surely, capturing Moscow would have made little difference. At this point, the soviets knew what Hitler was about. Why would you surrender, knowing that the future would be bleak for you at this point - if you even had one, let alone the worry of what would become of your family? Why would you surrender then, just because of the collapse of a city? If you have no choice and the government was still in power and waging you to fight on, why would you collapse just because one city has fallen when you still have thousands of miles of unoccupied land, it's just ridiculous. The fighting would have continued beyond the capture of Moscow, however, the war finally ended. |
269,872 | What programming language introduced the word "field" to describe what we might call a member variable in C++? What modern programming languages carry on this usage as the preferred term?
I've seen this word used in both a C and C++ context but it always feels a bit foreign. I don't have a copy of the C standard, but the C++ standard uses the phrase "member variable". (It does use the word "field" in the phrase "bit-field".) Whenever I hear this I can't help but wonder where the speaker got that word from. | 2015/01/13 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/269872",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/128967/"
] | *Field* is used in Eiffel, Java, C#, and VB.NET. In Smalltalk and some of its descendants and languages inspired by it (e.g. Ruby), it is called *instance variable*, in Self and languages inspired by it (Newspeak, Io, Korz), it is called *slot*. Simula and Python call it *attribute* (which means something else in C# and something yet different in Ruby), ECMAScript calls it *property* (which is of course something else in C#), C++ calls it *member variable*.
So, the term "field" does not come from one of the OO pioneer languages (Simula or Smalltalk). Eiffel predates Java and C#, so at least of all the languages that I am personally familiar with, Eiffel is the one which is most likely to be the origin of the term.
However, it does seem to be a rather obvious term, in analogy to fields on a form. | The concept / use of field, a logical part of any data, has been with us since at least punched cards/tape. These fields were typically fixed length.
All of the first languages probably used the term since they were processing punched cards / tape. I say 'probably' because I used 'All' and did not program using them all. In the late 60's when I started programming the term 'field' was used in all of the languages I programmed in.
My guess would be that the first use of 'field' in a programming language would be an early IBM assembler, perhaps SPS. |
1,050,473 | Does anyone know of an ASP.NET guide to implementing OpenID and what information can be returned by the OpenID provider? I understand you can get the email address but if someone logs in with their Google OpenID can you get access to their addresses? | 2009/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1050473",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/103504/"
] | Yes, OpenID Providers can and often do offer 'claims' or 'attributes' about the people logging in if the OpenID relying party requests them and the user consents to these data being shared.
If you use [DotNetOpenAuth](http://www.dotnetopenauth.net) for your ASP.NET OpenID library, it has built-in support for several ways of getting these attributes but keeps it simple on your side to get at them regardless of which way the Provider offers them. If you download the library it comes with a sample of how to do this.
As far as work address, and some other attributes specific to certain domains (domains of data--not Internet domains) very few Providers offer them. The best you can do is get "full address" and ask the user if that's the one they want to use. | This should help: <http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/4b3c7c9b-fe80-4e6e-a34e-0e9efed5c575/integrate-openid-authenti.aspx>
Or a "simpler" one: <http://madskristensen.net/post/OpenID-implementation-in-Csharp-and-ASPNET.aspx> |
1,050,473 | Does anyone know of an ASP.NET guide to implementing OpenID and what information can be returned by the OpenID provider? I understand you can get the email address but if someone logs in with their Google OpenID can you get access to their addresses? | 2009/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1050473",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/103504/"
] | Yes, OpenID Providers can and often do offer 'claims' or 'attributes' about the people logging in if the OpenID relying party requests them and the user consents to these data being shared.
If you use [DotNetOpenAuth](http://www.dotnetopenauth.net) for your ASP.NET OpenID library, it has built-in support for several ways of getting these attributes but keeps it simple on your side to get at them regardless of which way the Provider offers them. If you download the library it comes with a sample of how to do this.
As far as work address, and some other attributes specific to certain domains (domains of data--not Internet domains) very few Providers offer them. The best you can do is get "full address" and ask the user if that's the one they want to use. | [Document describes](http://code.google.com/apis/accounts/docs/OpenID.html) how to implement Google login into your web application
and Third-party web sites and let you aware how OpenID authentication works.
[Here](http://www.fryan0911.com/2010/09/use-google-openid-authentication-in.html) is the step-by-step process to implement OpenID on your ASP.NET application using DotNetOpenOAuth libraray.
[Tutorial](http://danhounshell.com/blog/adding-openid-to-your-web-site-in-conjunction-with-asp-net-membership/) demonstrates how to add OpenID support to an existing site that already has traditional membership without breaking anything in AspDotNetMVC. |
1,050,473 | Does anyone know of an ASP.NET guide to implementing OpenID and what information can be returned by the OpenID provider? I understand you can get the email address but if someone logs in with their Google OpenID can you get access to their addresses? | 2009/06/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1050473",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/103504/"
] | Yes, OpenID Providers can and often do offer 'claims' or 'attributes' about the people logging in if the OpenID relying party requests them and the user consents to these data being shared.
If you use [DotNetOpenAuth](http://www.dotnetopenauth.net) for your ASP.NET OpenID library, it has built-in support for several ways of getting these attributes but keeps it simple on your side to get at them regardless of which way the Provider offers them. If you download the library it comes with a sample of how to do this.
As far as work address, and some other attributes specific to certain domains (domains of data--not Internet domains) very few Providers offer them. The best you can do is get "full address" and ask the user if that's the one they want to use. | I just blogged about this here. this shows how you can get extra information from these providers
<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webdev/archive/2012/08/22/extra-information-from-oauth-openid-provider.aspx> |
24,509 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [How come 32.5 = 31.5?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/287/how-come-32-5-31-5)
>
>
>
 | 2011/03/01 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/24509",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | Eye trick! Look at the angles formed where the red and green triangle meet. | It isn't true. See the [Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_square_puzzle) about this puzzle. |
24,509 | >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [How come 32.5 = 31.5?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/287/how-come-32-5-31-5)
>
>
>
 | 2011/03/01 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/24509",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | Eye trick! Look at the angles formed where the red and green triangle meet. | Take your credit card, driver's license, or some other readily available straightedge and put it against the hypotenuse. You'll find the composite shape is not a triangle, but a cleverly disguised irregular quadrilateral. The better, more mathy answers made sense once I got my brain away from the idea that there were triangles involved.
Nothing but a cheap trick designed to confound. |
27,576,935 | I am going through a list of algorithm that I found and try to implement them for learning purpose. Right now I am coding K mean and is confused in the following.
1. How do you know how many cluster there is in the original data set
2. Is there any particular format that I have follow in choosing the initial cluster centroid besides all centroid have to be different? For example does the algorithm converge if I choose cluster centroids that are different but close together?
Any advice would be appreciated
Thanks | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/27576935",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4379891/"
] | With k-means you are minimizing a sum of squared distances. One approach is to try all plausible values of k. As k increases the sum of squared distances should decrease, but if you plot the result you may see that the sum of squared distances decreases quite sharply up to some value of k, and then much more slowly after that. The last value that gave you a sharp decrease is then the most plausible value of k.
k-means isn't guaranteed to find the best possible answer each run, and it is sensitive to the starting values you give it. One way to reduce problems from this is to start it many times, with different starting values, and pick the best answer. It looks a bit odd if an answer for larger k is actually larger than an answer for smaller k. One way to avoid this is to use the best answer found for k clusters as the basis (with slight modifications) for one of the starting points for k+1 clusters. | In the standard K-Means the K value is chosen by you, sometimes based on the problem itself ( when you know how many classes exists OR how many classes you want to exists) other times a "more or less" random value. Typically the first iteration consists of randomly selecting K points from the dataset to serve as centroids. In the following iterations the centroids are adjusted.
After check the K-Means algorithm, I suggest you also see the K-means++, which is an improvement of the first version, as it tries to find the best K for each problem, avoiding the sometimes poor clusterings found by the standard k-means algorithm.
If you need more specific details on implementation of some machine learning algorithm, please let me know. |
11,749 | I wonder why Arduino doesn't run at 20 MHz, the frequency the AVR is specified for. Now, running at 16 MHz, we're wasting 20% performance for nothing.
I don't think there are *any* implications when you replace the 16 MHz resonator with a 20 MHz type, with probably the sole exception for the baudrate in the bootloader. Or is there?
Does anybody know why the Arduino designers chose 16 MHz? | 2015/05/12 | [
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/11749",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/users/6834/"
] | There's no hardware reason (as far as I'm aware) that you couldn't run a suitable Arduino at 20 MHz. You'd run into minor timing inaccuracies in software though, as the standard Arduino configuration apparently works best if the clock speed is either 8 or 16MHz.
I suspect this is largely for historical reasons. Early Arduino boards were based on chips which only went up to 16 MHz, such as the `ATmega8`. Using the same configuration for all chips just keeps everything a bit simpler and more consistent.
There is more information here about the timing issues: <http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=158223.0#msg_1186708> | You can, and I do.
It's not technically an Arduino anymore, I guess. I made my own board, replacing a resonator on a board will require some fine soldering, but it is definitely possible.
There are some gotchas: Anything time-related (e.g. millis() ) will be run faster than is should - 25% more millis() per second. Also, the bootloader expects 16mhz, so you won't be able to reprogram it at this speed. I purchased a USBASP programmer - it hooks into the 2x3 pin grid on one side of the board, and lets you reprogram it without the bootloader (this is how the bootloader is put on in the first place!). You will need at least 4.5 volts at 20mhz to avoid problems, compared to 3.78 volts for 16mhz - this means batteries will drain somewhat quicker (3x1.5v batteries will run down pretty quick), and if you have any motors or other draw on the batteries, 3 1.5v batteries will probably not work even if they are fresh.
Alternatively, going in the exact opposite direction, the lower the clock speed, the less voltage is required - for some projects, you might not need the clock speed - you can go down to 1.8v running at 4mhz. |
35,185 | Does the dedication "To my beloved John" need a comma after "beloved"? | 2011/07/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35185",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7758/"
] | It depends on how you want the dedication to read. There are two main options:
>
> To my beloved, John
>
>
>
Here, *beloved* is a noun. This says that John is equivalent to your beloved. A fine point to this is that this implies that you have only one "beloved". If you happen to have multiple beloveds (or multiple Johns -- thank you, Kit), you can use *beloved* as an adjective by saying:
>
> To my beloved John
>
>
>
This second option used *beloved* as a modifier of John. If you have multiple Johns, this can help differentiate between them. Maybe you have a "beloved John", "tall John", and "carpenter John".
Either option is equally correct; the choice depends on how you feel about John. | The answer would be clearer with a complete sentence, but it is an introductory clause, and therefore needs a comma after 'John', but not after 'beloved'. Here, 'beloved' is an adjective, not a noun synonomous with 'John'. |
35,185 | Does the dedication "To my beloved John" need a comma after "beloved"? | 2011/07/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35185",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7758/"
] | The answer would be clearer with a complete sentence, but it is an introductory clause, and therefore needs a comma after 'John', but not after 'beloved'. Here, 'beloved' is an adjective, not a noun synonomous with 'John'. | Yeah it depends on the usage. But, frankly, in a book dedication, if you REALLLLY wanted to say John was your beloved, you would be more likely to say To John, my beloved, rather than To my beloved, John. I mean in the subtle ectoplasm of linguistic nuance, in the second instance, John is almost an afterthought. Like, to my beloved. Oh yeah, his name is John. I broke up with Bob. In any case, when beloved is a noun, that is a much bigger deal, like John is your one and only, as opposed to when it's an adjective. I mean we generally have only one beloved (noun) unless you're really a poser, whereas we can have zillions of beloved (insert noun or proper name here). My beloved cat, my beloved laptop, the list goes on and on. But beloved as noun, that's going to be one person. (Anybody else reminded of Toni Morrison's creepy but awesome book?) And just to sum up, if you're torn between two solutions, try to avoid using a comma in a dedication that short. It's not elegant. |
35,185 | Does the dedication "To my beloved John" need a comma after "beloved"? | 2011/07/22 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35185",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7758/"
] | It depends on how you want the dedication to read. There are two main options:
>
> To my beloved, John
>
>
>
Here, *beloved* is a noun. This says that John is equivalent to your beloved. A fine point to this is that this implies that you have only one "beloved". If you happen to have multiple beloveds (or multiple Johns -- thank you, Kit), you can use *beloved* as an adjective by saying:
>
> To my beloved John
>
>
>
This second option used *beloved* as a modifier of John. If you have multiple Johns, this can help differentiate between them. Maybe you have a "beloved John", "tall John", and "carpenter John".
Either option is equally correct; the choice depends on how you feel about John. | Yeah it depends on the usage. But, frankly, in a book dedication, if you REALLLLY wanted to say John was your beloved, you would be more likely to say To John, my beloved, rather than To my beloved, John. I mean in the subtle ectoplasm of linguistic nuance, in the second instance, John is almost an afterthought. Like, to my beloved. Oh yeah, his name is John. I broke up with Bob. In any case, when beloved is a noun, that is a much bigger deal, like John is your one and only, as opposed to when it's an adjective. I mean we generally have only one beloved (noun) unless you're really a poser, whereas we can have zillions of beloved (insert noun or proper name here). My beloved cat, my beloved laptop, the list goes on and on. But beloved as noun, that's going to be one person. (Anybody else reminded of Toni Morrison's creepy but awesome book?) And just to sum up, if you're torn between two solutions, try to avoid using a comma in a dedication that short. It's not elegant. |
176,829 | My site resolves and loads much faster when I type www.mydomain.com in my browser compared to when I just type mydomain.com. To be clear, the site loads without typing the www prefix, it is just several seconds longer before the page begins to load when I do that.
What might cause this slowness resolving the url without a www prefix? | 2010/08/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/176829",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | You should definitely check your .htaccess file. There may be a rule that could be the culprit. Would you mind listing it here? | This should not happen.
1. Are you sure it is slower?
2. Have you logged non-cached times in Firebug?
3. Are you using any rewriting rules? |
176,829 | My site resolves and loads much faster when I type www.mydomain.com in my browser compared to when I just type mydomain.com. To be clear, the site loads without typing the www prefix, it is just several seconds longer before the page begins to load when I do that.
What might cause this slowness resolving the url without a www prefix? | 2010/08/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/176829",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | You should definitely check your .htaccess file. There may be a rule that could be the culprit. Would you mind listing it here? | This turned out to be a difference in my DNS internal versus external network config. I realized this when I saw that outside name resolution for the missing www was much faster than internal.
Thanks all! |
34,186 | Most people seem to focus solely on one vs. the other, but I'd imagine many people want both. Can you train for both of them adequately? For example, train to get bigger and maximize muscle size; but also train to get stronger and be able to lift more weight and have more overall power too.
I follow my own routines which work for me, but I can't comment on how "efficient" they are for anyone else -- and I can't say they're positively the best method for me either. Basically, here's what I do:
I set aside one "brutal" day -- that is, a day where the muscles are worked very, VERY hard. I combine higher reps with lower weights, and higher weight with lower reps -- and often go to failure or beyond. I do not limit reps and go anywhere from 1 to sometimes 50+. I basically combine elements of power, strength, endurance, and hypertrophy in to one workout as feasibly as I possibly can.
I notice results, but they're not very fast -- but that could be just the way my body is. No workout is "perfect" -- people often have to find what's the best their body can do. I believe my body can't do much better, so I generally stick to what years of experience and reasonably acceptable results gets me. So, back to the point, can you have the best of both or "all" worlds, or am I going at it the tougher way? I don't care personally -- I just want to know if doing both is more efficient or not. I know I can make heads or tails either way since I'm dedicated and motivated enough to accomplish anything. | 2017/05/27 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/34186",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Muscle size **weakly** correlates to muscle strength. See [this](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-097X.1985.tb00590.x/full) study that compares size to strength in leg muscles and [this](http://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/Abstract/2003/01000/Role_of_Body_Size_in_the_Relation_Between_Muscle.3.aspx) study.
There is no perfect way to build size and strength at the same time, but it is certainly possible to do it efficiently.
Remember that heavy weights and sets with low repetitions(less than 5) build muscle strength. Sets with 8-12 repetitions maximize hypertrophy.
Two options come to mind:
* Have days that focus on building strength, and separate days that focus on building size
* Perform heavy, compound movements in the beginning of your workout, and lighter, accessory movements in the later part of your workout.
I prefer the former. In my experience, it is a great way to train for both size and strength.
Focusing on either strength or size, not both, will yield the most progress. | Muscle mass corresponds to muscle strength. This is they way it is and has always been.
Now, are they are equivalent? No.
You want to hit the sweet spot, between muscle strength and hypertrophy?
Conventional wisdom tells us, it is doing 3/4 sets of 5-8 repetitions, to failure.
Have you reached 7-8 repetitions in an exercise? Then increase the load! Eat plenty of good carbs and protein, and the muscle will both get stronger AND bigger.
Many of the gym goers seem to forget the whole mantra behind weight lifting:
It's progressive overload.
Don't let yourself plateau. Just don't, push it! Every week should be a rep or two more, or a 5% increase in the weight you are lifting! |
34,186 | Most people seem to focus solely on one vs. the other, but I'd imagine many people want both. Can you train for both of them adequately? For example, train to get bigger and maximize muscle size; but also train to get stronger and be able to lift more weight and have more overall power too.
I follow my own routines which work for me, but I can't comment on how "efficient" they are for anyone else -- and I can't say they're positively the best method for me either. Basically, here's what I do:
I set aside one "brutal" day -- that is, a day where the muscles are worked very, VERY hard. I combine higher reps with lower weights, and higher weight with lower reps -- and often go to failure or beyond. I do not limit reps and go anywhere from 1 to sometimes 50+. I basically combine elements of power, strength, endurance, and hypertrophy in to one workout as feasibly as I possibly can.
I notice results, but they're not very fast -- but that could be just the way my body is. No workout is "perfect" -- people often have to find what's the best their body can do. I believe my body can't do much better, so I generally stick to what years of experience and reasonably acceptable results gets me. So, back to the point, can you have the best of both or "all" worlds, or am I going at it the tougher way? I don't care personally -- I just want to know if doing both is more efficient or not. I know I can make heads or tails either way since I'm dedicated and motivated enough to accomplish anything. | 2017/05/27 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/34186",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Size comes with having strength in the hypertrophy rep range. Focus on building strength using very heavy weight compound lifts with 10 sets of 2-4 reps, and sometimes singles to get maximum strength, so that when you workout for size, you will be able to lift much heavier weight, in the 6-10 rep range.
Anyone that can squat over 320lbs for ten reps, or bench 275 for 10 reps, will more than likely be pretty darn big.
So you need strength workouts, and size workouts, just split them up, but never together in the same workout. If anything go two weeks for strength, then one using a little lighter weight, but not to light. If your going for 8 reps, make that last rep very hard to get.
This is how I gained size naturally over the past 30+ years, and still going strong. | Muscle mass corresponds to muscle strength. This is they way it is and has always been.
Now, are they are equivalent? No.
You want to hit the sweet spot, between muscle strength and hypertrophy?
Conventional wisdom tells us, it is doing 3/4 sets of 5-8 repetitions, to failure.
Have you reached 7-8 repetitions in an exercise? Then increase the load! Eat plenty of good carbs and protein, and the muscle will both get stronger AND bigger.
Many of the gym goers seem to forget the whole mantra behind weight lifting:
It's progressive overload.
Don't let yourself plateau. Just don't, push it! Every week should be a rep or two more, or a 5% increase in the weight you are lifting! |
34,186 | Most people seem to focus solely on one vs. the other, but I'd imagine many people want both. Can you train for both of them adequately? For example, train to get bigger and maximize muscle size; but also train to get stronger and be able to lift more weight and have more overall power too.
I follow my own routines which work for me, but I can't comment on how "efficient" they are for anyone else -- and I can't say they're positively the best method for me either. Basically, here's what I do:
I set aside one "brutal" day -- that is, a day where the muscles are worked very, VERY hard. I combine higher reps with lower weights, and higher weight with lower reps -- and often go to failure or beyond. I do not limit reps and go anywhere from 1 to sometimes 50+. I basically combine elements of power, strength, endurance, and hypertrophy in to one workout as feasibly as I possibly can.
I notice results, but they're not very fast -- but that could be just the way my body is. No workout is "perfect" -- people often have to find what's the best their body can do. I believe my body can't do much better, so I generally stick to what years of experience and reasonably acceptable results gets me. So, back to the point, can you have the best of both or "all" worlds, or am I going at it the tougher way? I don't care personally -- I just want to know if doing both is more efficient or not. I know I can make heads or tails either way since I'm dedicated and motivated enough to accomplish anything. | 2017/05/27 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/34186",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Muscle size **weakly** correlates to muscle strength. See [this](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-097X.1985.tb00590.x/full) study that compares size to strength in leg muscles and [this](http://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/Abstract/2003/01000/Role_of_Body_Size_in_the_Relation_Between_Muscle.3.aspx) study.
There is no perfect way to build size and strength at the same time, but it is certainly possible to do it efficiently.
Remember that heavy weights and sets with low repetitions(less than 5) build muscle strength. Sets with 8-12 repetitions maximize hypertrophy.
Two options come to mind:
* Have days that focus on building strength, and separate days that focus on building size
* Perform heavy, compound movements in the beginning of your workout, and lighter, accessory movements in the later part of your workout.
I prefer the former. In my experience, it is a great way to train for both size and strength.
Focusing on either strength or size, not both, will yield the most progress. | Size comes with having strength in the hypertrophy rep range. Focus on building strength using very heavy weight compound lifts with 10 sets of 2-4 reps, and sometimes singles to get maximum strength, so that when you workout for size, you will be able to lift much heavier weight, in the 6-10 rep range.
Anyone that can squat over 320lbs for ten reps, or bench 275 for 10 reps, will more than likely be pretty darn big.
So you need strength workouts, and size workouts, just split them up, but never together in the same workout. If anything go two weeks for strength, then one using a little lighter weight, but not to light. If your going for 8 reps, make that last rep very hard to get.
This is how I gained size naturally over the past 30+ years, and still going strong. |
68,875,892 | Context: while compiling some C code compilers may show high RAM consumption. Preliminary investigation shows that (at least some) C compilers do not immediately free "further unused" memories: despite that such (previously allocated) memories are not used anymore, they are still kept in the RAM. The C compiler continues processing the C code, allocating more memories in the RAM, until it reaches OOM (out of memory).
The core question: should C compilers immediately free "further unused" memories?
Rationale:
1. Efficient RAM utilization: no need of mem\_X anymore => free mem\_X to let other processes (itself including) to use mem\_X.
2. Ability to compile the "RAM demanding" C code.
---
UPD20210825. I've memory-profiled some C compiler and have found that it keeps in RAM "C preprocessor data", in particular:
* macro table (memory pool for macros);
* scanner token objects (memory pool for tokens and for lists).
At certain point X in the middle-end (after the IR is built) these objects seem not needed anymore and, hence, can be freed. (However, now these objects are kept in RAM until a point X+1.) The benefit is seen on "preprocessor-heavy" C programs. Example: "preprocessor-heavy" C program using "ad hoc polymorphism" implemented via C preprocessor (by using a set of macros it progressively implements all the needed "machinery" to support a common interface for an arbitrary (and supported) set of individually specified types). The number of "polymorphic" entries is ~50k \* 12 = ~600k (yes, it does not say anything). Results:
* before fix: at point X C compiler keeps in RAM ~1.5GB of unused "C preprocessor data";
* after fix: at point X C compiler frees from RAM ~1.5GB of unused "C preprocessor data", hence, letting OS processes (itself including) to use these ~1.5GB. | 2021/08/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/68875892",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1778275/"
] | I don't know where you get your analysis from. Most parts like the abstract syntax tree is kept because it is used in all different passes.
It might be that some, especially simple compilers don't free stuff because it's not considered necessary for a C compiler. It's a one shot compilation unit operation and than the process ends.
Of course if you build a compiler library like tinycc did you need to free everything, but even this might happen within a final custom heap clearance at the end of the compilation run.
I have not seen this ever be a problem in real world. But i don't do embedded stuff where a lack of resources can be something to worry. | >
> allocating more memories in the RAM, until it reaches OOM (out of
> memory).
>
>
>
None of the compilers I use ever run out of memory. Please give an example of such behaviour.
If you are an Arduino user and think about the code which will not fit into the memory - it is not the problem of the compiler, only the programmer. |
34,997 | I summon [World Breaker](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bWorld%20Breaker%5d) and want to destroy my opponent's land.
But my opponent thinks I should exile one of my own lands, as cost to summon a World Breaker.
Whose lands am I allowed or required to exile in this case? | 2017/04/22 | [
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/34997",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/14669/"
] | Worldbreaker's cast trigger says:
>
> When you cast World Breaker, exile target artifact, enchantment, or land.
>
>
>
So, when you cast World Breaker, you pick a target. It doesn't have to be one of your artifacts, enchantments or lands.
However, for the return ability:
>
> {2}{C}, Sacrifice a land: Return World Breaker from your graveyard to your hand.
>
>
>
Using that ability would require you to sacrifice one of your own lands (which means putting that land into the graveyard; it won't get exiled). You can't sacrifice something you don't control (although if you somehow came to control an opponent's land, you could sacrifice it even though you don't own it). | If any effect/ability states "target (insert card type here)", it can be any permanent of that type. |
2,473,374 | When navigating to previous calls/events during debugging with IntelliTrace, I can't see a snapshot of the value of locally-defined variables. When hovering with the mouse I get the message "Intellitrace data has not been collected". Does anyone know why? | 2010/03/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2473374",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/171134/"
] | The Intellitrace team covered this a bit in one of their blog entries. Here is the link (it's in the comment section)
* <http://blogs.msdn.com/ianhu/archive/2009/11/16/intellitrace-itrace-files.aspx>
The short version though is that collecting all local variables was too much of a performance hit. Instead they only selectively capture locals. That is they will collect locals which
* Are evaluated in the debugger during the debugging session
* Values which have trace points defined against them
* Local variables which are specifically configured to be captured (didn't go into detail on how to do that other than setting up a trace point). | Note that a later blog post from the same blogger - <http://blogs.msdn.com/ianhu/archive/2010/03/16/intellitrace-what-we-collect.aspx> - expanded quite on the limitations and how you can get around them somewhat. |
304,980 | I've been running some tests on USB charges from different manufacturers checking voltagem and current.
I noticed that some usb charges do deliver 4.9 to 5.2 volts and from 500mA to 2.4A.
My manufacturer's charger (Apple) delivers 1000mA @ 5.05v to my phone.
My questions are:
* If I use a 600mA @ 4.96v could reduce my battery life?
* if I use a 5v at less current (slow charge) will it prolongue the battery life?
Thanks | 2017/05/12 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/304980",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/148976/"
] | To summarize the question, you want to get a analog signal across isolation. The bandwidth is 1 Hz, and you need about 1 part in 32k accuracy.
This needs to be done digitally. Analog methods good to 15 bits will be hard to find, and expensive if you do.
This low bandwidth is well within the range of delta-sigma A/D converters. Those can easily do 20 bits, with many available better than that. Measuring the input signal and converting it to digital is therefore no problem.
The digital signal can be transmitted across isolation easily. In this case, a single opto-coupler would do. You don't even need a fast one. Let's say you use UART-style serial data at 300 baud, and you transmit 3 bytes per sample. That allows transmitting 10 samples/second, which is enough to carry 1 Hz bandwidth quite comfortably.
Since you have 5 V available on the receiving side, it's no problem to capture the output of the opto-coupler, feed it into a UART, process the bytes from the UART, and drive a D/A accordingly. It would be hard to find a microcontroller that *couldn't* do this rather easily. All you need is one with a built-in UART, which is most of them. There are plenty of 16 bit D/As out there, so that's no problem either.
You might even look at filtered PWM out of the microcontroller instead of a separate D/A. To get the equivalent of 16 bits out, you need 65535 PWM slices in a PWM period. For 10 samples/s, you need a minimum PWM clock of 655,350 Hz. Finding a micro that can do 1 MHz PWM is trivial, but you need to look more carefully for one that can do 16 bit duty cycle. Generally, you'll get that with a "16 bit" micro. Pretty much any PIC 24 or dsPIC can do this task.
Keep in mind that one limit on output accuracy is how accurate the voltage reference is that the D/A (in whatever form) uses. 16 bits is one part in 65536, which is 0.0015%. *That* is actually the toughest requirement of this whole problem. | You should probably post more info about your scenario, to give us more hooks into your issues. You don't even tell us what you need to amplify, so it seems like you need an analog isolator, not an isolation amp, per se. You haven't mentioned specs for accuracy, either.
Isolators that are rail to rail might be problematic. You have a 3V dynamic range, so you *should* be able to come up with a 0V-5V scheme with enough headroom on either side. You might consider something like an [HCNR200](https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/broadcom-limited/HCNR200-000E/516-1522-5-ND/696022), but you might need to put a small offset on your input and subtract it later on the isolated side. There are some creative ways that you can use that chip -- but all of them require at least one op amp on either side as support circuitry.
If you're trying to just sample across an isolation barrier, you can probably just handle the offset after sampling.
Another option might be to sample on one side, and send the signal with a digital isolator.
Hard to be more specific without more info on your scenario. |
304,980 | I've been running some tests on USB charges from different manufacturers checking voltagem and current.
I noticed that some usb charges do deliver 4.9 to 5.2 volts and from 500mA to 2.4A.
My manufacturer's charger (Apple) delivers 1000mA @ 5.05v to my phone.
My questions are:
* If I use a 600mA @ 4.96v could reduce my battery life?
* if I use a 5v at less current (slow charge) will it prolongue the battery life?
Thanks | 2017/05/12 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/304980",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/148976/"
] | You should probably post more info about your scenario, to give us more hooks into your issues. You don't even tell us what you need to amplify, so it seems like you need an analog isolator, not an isolation amp, per se. You haven't mentioned specs for accuracy, either.
Isolators that are rail to rail might be problematic. You have a 3V dynamic range, so you *should* be able to come up with a 0V-5V scheme with enough headroom on either side. You might consider something like an [HCNR200](https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/broadcom-limited/HCNR200-000E/516-1522-5-ND/696022), but you might need to put a small offset on your input and subtract it later on the isolated side. There are some creative ways that you can use that chip -- but all of them require at least one op amp on either side as support circuitry.
If you're trying to just sample across an isolation barrier, you can probably just handle the offset after sampling.
Another option might be to sample on one side, and send the signal with a digital isolator.
Hard to be more specific without more info on your scenario. | Consider using a linearized optocoupler - this is specifically what they're for. Since you're short on space you'll want one of the SMD packages like:
* [LOC112](https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/ixys-integrated-circuits-division/LOC112S/LOC112S-ND/654965) (or 110 or 111)
* [IL300](https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/vishay-semiconductor-opto-division/IL300-F-X009/IL300-F-X009-ND/4072955)
Within those families there are a few different options, but the concept is identical: you need op-amps on both sides for linear output. There's a great [walkthrough](https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/ece5030/labs/s2014/appn50vishay.pdf) better than I can be bothered to write here. |
304,980 | I've been running some tests on USB charges from different manufacturers checking voltagem and current.
I noticed that some usb charges do deliver 4.9 to 5.2 volts and from 500mA to 2.4A.
My manufacturer's charger (Apple) delivers 1000mA @ 5.05v to my phone.
My questions are:
* If I use a 600mA @ 4.96v could reduce my battery life?
* if I use a 5v at less current (slow charge) will it prolongue the battery life?
Thanks | 2017/05/12 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/304980",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/148976/"
] | To summarize the question, you want to get a analog signal across isolation. The bandwidth is 1 Hz, and you need about 1 part in 32k accuracy.
This needs to be done digitally. Analog methods good to 15 bits will be hard to find, and expensive if you do.
This low bandwidth is well within the range of delta-sigma A/D converters. Those can easily do 20 bits, with many available better than that. Measuring the input signal and converting it to digital is therefore no problem.
The digital signal can be transmitted across isolation easily. In this case, a single opto-coupler would do. You don't even need a fast one. Let's say you use UART-style serial data at 300 baud, and you transmit 3 bytes per sample. That allows transmitting 10 samples/second, which is enough to carry 1 Hz bandwidth quite comfortably.
Since you have 5 V available on the receiving side, it's no problem to capture the output of the opto-coupler, feed it into a UART, process the bytes from the UART, and drive a D/A accordingly. It would be hard to find a microcontroller that *couldn't* do this rather easily. All you need is one with a built-in UART, which is most of them. There are plenty of 16 bit D/As out there, so that's no problem either.
You might even look at filtered PWM out of the microcontroller instead of a separate D/A. To get the equivalent of 16 bits out, you need 65535 PWM slices in a PWM period. For 10 samples/s, you need a minimum PWM clock of 655,350 Hz. Finding a micro that can do 1 MHz PWM is trivial, but you need to look more carefully for one that can do 16 bit duty cycle. Generally, you'll get that with a "16 bit" micro. Pretty much any PIC 24 or dsPIC can do this task.
Keep in mind that one limit on output accuracy is how accurate the voltage reference is that the D/A (in whatever form) uses. 16 bits is one part in 65536, which is 0.0015%. *That* is actually the toughest requirement of this whole problem. | Consider using a linearized optocoupler - this is specifically what they're for. Since you're short on space you'll want one of the SMD packages like:
* [LOC112](https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/ixys-integrated-circuits-division/LOC112S/LOC112S-ND/654965) (or 110 or 111)
* [IL300](https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/vishay-semiconductor-opto-division/IL300-F-X009/IL300-F-X009-ND/4072955)
Within those families there are a few different options, but the concept is identical: you need op-amps on both sides for linear output. There's a great [walkthrough](https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/ece5030/labs/s2014/appn50vishay.pdf) better than I can be bothered to write here. |
371,011 | I am trying to understand the functionality of a circuit found in [TIDA-00121](http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDA-00121) (you can download the design file from [here](http://www.ti.com/general/docs/lit/getliterature.tsp?baseLiteratureNumber=tidu220&fileType=pdf))
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nUCZ2.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/L1uOQ.png)
I assume that this has to do with the fact that the PV is not directly tied to ground (reverse current mosfet may be turned off when the solar panel voltage is too low to prevent any reverse current from flowing into the panel)
As for the transfer function (from [source code](http://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/166/0825.PMP7647.zip)), the voltage at the microcontroller side equals to:
V=0.086045Pv-0.14718475V (PV is the panel voltage).
this was extracted from the fact that Vref=2.39,10 bits ADC and the source code equation:
>
> Panel Voltage = 36.83 \* PV - 63
>
>
>
to verify my assumptions, from the source code:
>
> Battery Voltage = BV \* 52.44
>
>
>
which yields to voltage at microcontroller side of the battery voltage divider:
V=0.122BV which is the voltage divider ration (14K/100K network)
The question is:
1. What is the role of the pnp transistor network?
2. How to calculate the transfer function of the voltage at the microcontroller side?
Thank you very much. | 2018/04/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/371011",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/69076/"
] | >
> What is the role of the pnp transistor network?
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1wVL.png)
It's a differential voltage to current converter followed by a load (R34 and R35). The voltage between P+ and P- sets a voltage across R31. This (minus 0.7 volts) sets a voltage across R33 and that causes a current to flow out of the collector (largely irrespective of what load the collector has).
Given the values of R33, R34 and R35, whatever voltage is set across R33 appears across R35 but, reduced by 3:1.
Importantly, this voltage is ground referenced making it suitable for the ADC to make sense of. So there is level shifting involved. | >
> I'm still confused on the purpose of using this circuit. I thought that the connection of the mosfet's internal diode (Q1) is the same as grounding the solar panel(voltage read wille be equal to the panel's voltage minus Q1's diode voltage drop).
>
>
>
That is true when the system is operating, but the system is not aways operating.
---
My attempt to reverse-engineer the system and explain the process that lead to a differential measurement being needed.
This system is clearly designed for high efficiency at high power levels, hence all switching devices in the power path are N channel mosfets, the less efficient diodes and P channel mosfets are avoided.
The block diagram shows a buck converter between the panel and the battery. <http://www.ti.com/diagrams/rd/schematic_tida-00121_20140129112304.jpg> . This buck converter appears to be formed by Q2, Q3 and L1.
The problem is due to the body diode of Q2 the buck converter cannot prevent backfeeding if the panel voltage drops below the battery voltage. This back-feeding needs to be blocked.
One could of course use a diode or P-fet to prevent backfeeding but as I said those are inefficient. One could use a N-Fet on the high side but then one would need a high side driver chip for it. So they decided to block backfeeding through the use of a N-mosfet on the low side (Q1).
Turning off Q1 allows backfeeding to be blocked but it means the panel is no longer grounded. During normal operation P- is at ground but when the system is "turned off" due to lack of light P- may be higher than ground. It is still potentially useful to be able to monitor panel voltage when the system is turned off.
So a differential circuit is used to read the panel voltage by first converting the differential voltage to a current and then converting that current back to a single ended voltage. |
483,301 | The applications in question are:
* nUnit 2.6.1: "NUnit requires .NET 2.0, .NET, 4.0 or Mono to be installed as a prerequisite."
* PowerCommands for VS2008: "Please install .NET framework 3.5"
The versions of .NET I currently have on my system are:
* 3.5.1 (Windows 7 feature)
* Compact framework 2.0 SP2
* Compact framework 3.5
* Framework 4 client/extended
I've tried removing all frameworks and Visual Studio 2008 (via the "Uninstall or change a program" tool) and reinstalling them (first via Windows Update, then installing VS2008). However, I get the same errors.
Can anyone help?
Thanks
(Windows 7 SP1) | 2012/10/04 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/483301",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/89355/"
] | I had the same error installing NUnit 2.6.0 on Windows 7, despite the fact that I have all the .NET Framework versions up to 4.0 installed (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0).
I got past the error message by running the installer with administrator privileges (Right click > Run as admin). | I rather suggest you properly run a windows update to fix the problem. Windows 7 are the best reliable built-in .NET framework 3.5 or even higher. So, try updating your system (if the update really works) and you will see it working. |
483,301 | The applications in question are:
* nUnit 2.6.1: "NUnit requires .NET 2.0, .NET, 4.0 or Mono to be installed as a prerequisite."
* PowerCommands for VS2008: "Please install .NET framework 3.5"
The versions of .NET I currently have on my system are:
* 3.5.1 (Windows 7 feature)
* Compact framework 2.0 SP2
* Compact framework 3.5
* Framework 4 client/extended
I've tried removing all frameworks and Visual Studio 2008 (via the "Uninstall or change a program" tool) and reinstalling them (first via Windows Update, then installing VS2008). However, I get the same errors.
Can anyone help?
Thanks
(Windows 7 SP1) | 2012/10/04 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/483301",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/89355/"
] | I too faced same problem, to solve what I did is
Go to RUN -> CMD -> Open commandPrompt with 'Run As Administrator'
change the directory path to your Nunit location
ex: >D:\softwares
now type the Nuint complete name with extensions
ex: D:\softwares> NUnit-2.6.3.msi , hit ENTER
You will be prompted with similar NUnit Installation window.click Next, Next...
Nunit installed successfully ...
*NOTE:*
This will work only if you are already installed with required .NET frameworks like ( .NET 2.0, .NET, 4.0 or Mono) | I had the same error installing NUnit 2.6.0 on Windows 7, despite the fact that I have all the .NET Framework versions up to 4.0 installed (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0).
I got past the error message by running the installer with administrator privileges (Right click > Run as admin). |
483,301 | The applications in question are:
* nUnit 2.6.1: "NUnit requires .NET 2.0, .NET, 4.0 or Mono to be installed as a prerequisite."
* PowerCommands for VS2008: "Please install .NET framework 3.5"
The versions of .NET I currently have on my system are:
* 3.5.1 (Windows 7 feature)
* Compact framework 2.0 SP2
* Compact framework 3.5
* Framework 4 client/extended
I've tried removing all frameworks and Visual Studio 2008 (via the "Uninstall or change a program" tool) and reinstalling them (first via Windows Update, then installing VS2008). However, I get the same errors.
Can anyone help?
Thanks
(Windows 7 SP1) | 2012/10/04 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/483301",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/89355/"
] | I too faced same problem, to solve what I did is
Go to RUN -> CMD -> Open commandPrompt with 'Run As Administrator'
change the directory path to your Nunit location
ex: >D:\softwares
now type the Nuint complete name with extensions
ex: D:\softwares> NUnit-2.6.3.msi , hit ENTER
You will be prompted with similar NUnit Installation window.click Next, Next...
Nunit installed successfully ...
*NOTE:*
This will work only if you are already installed with required .NET frameworks like ( .NET 2.0, .NET, 4.0 or Mono) | I rather suggest you properly run a windows update to fix the problem. Windows 7 are the best reliable built-in .NET framework 3.5 or even higher. So, try updating your system (if the update really works) and you will see it working. |
119,247 | I'm confused about which one is correct : **well exploit** or **exploit well** and what is the rule ?
I wanted to use it in the following sentence:
>
> the people didn't exploit well the resources
>
>
>
thank you in advance :) | 2017/02/12 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/119247",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/40424/"
] | (A short comment first: I'd use the generic "People" rather than "The people.")
The general rule says that adverbials should come after objects, so a more correct sentence would be:
* People did not exploit the resources **well**.
"well" is quite a light adverb and perhaps a better one should be found for your sentence to sound more idiomatic, as well as semantically richer. It also does not sound nice at the end of the sentence, after a comparatively longer object like "the resources". However, note that the mentioned problem disappears with a pronoun as direct object: "People did not exploit **them** well."
I suggest revising your sentence as follows:
* People did not exploit the resources **effectively / successfully / properly**.
The rule also says that (usually one-word) adverbs of manner **can** also be placed between the subject and the verb and in the middle of verb forms consisting of more than one word, and that they **usually have to** be placed in mid position in the passive voice:
* They **quickly** exploited their advantage. (simple tense)
* The resources were not **well** exploited. (passive voice)
* The architect has **cleverly** exploited new materials. (perfect tense)
* The company is **widely** exploiting its recent discovery. (continuous tense)
Unlike longer, more meaningful adverbs like the ones above, "well" can only be found in mid position in active (non-passive) sentences when it takes an intensifier, e.g. You **very well** know who is to blame.
It also appears as forming part of compound adjectives like "well-known". | I think the sentence should be phrased
>
> the people didn't exploit the resources very well.
>
>
>
since you are trying to describe how much advantage was taken from the resources. The equivalent would be
>
> the resources were not well exploited.
>
>
> |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Questions concerning heterodox schools of thought should be perfectly acceptable. If we are to assume that economics is an objective discipline with methodologies driven towards positive instead of normative truths, then heterodox school questions should be fine. However, I do think someone asking a heterodox school question should be self aware. They should understand that the assumptions that they're making (or the assumptions that they refuse to make) contradict or conflict in some way with mainstream economics.
I believe the way we word questions can radically change the tone in which the community can answer it. Instead of asking, "Why are Keynesians so dumb with their obsession with aggregates?" one can instead ask, "What are the responses to criticisms towards aggregate analysis?" One should not ask, "How can Austrians actually believe that there are no market failures?" A better and more formal question would be, "What is the response to the 'Negative externalities are the results of unresolved property rights' critique?" Remember, economics should be a positive discipline. Every school that treats economics in that sense should be open to discussion. And honestly, if we look at the differences between the different schools it all really boils down to methodology and assumptions. Neoclassicals make more assumptions about rationality than, say, the Austrians do. But that doesn't mean we can't ask about neoclassical rationality. It's a concept, developed and defended by very smart and very well educated people. We should be able to answer a Neoclassical question by stating, "Given X, Y, and Z here is my answer. However, I do not believe X, Y, and Z can be assumed so easily."
For example, I think cost curves are fallacious. If you take a microeconomics course, you learn about subjective value; and then, these *objective* cost curves appear in the following chapter. That doesn't mean I can't answer the question with cost curve analysis. The goal of an answer isn't to show what's right or wrong on any holistic level. The point of answering a question is to answer the question at hand. By having guidelines on good questions and good answers, we can allow for a huge breed of thought to exist without running into errors of meta-arguing. | There's no place for it during the private beta. Such questions are magnets for cranks. The more crank posts we have, the harder it will be to attract experts. And building a community of experts is crucial for the private beta. I want a site for which I can proudly send private beta invitations to my economist colleagues, and know that they'll see the growing body of content and feel at home, and not have to deal with the usual silliness that exists on the average internet economics forum. We're not a forum, and let's have no interest in being average. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Frankly, I think the best argument *against* heterodoxy in the ***private* beta** stage is that questions of that nature will--in all likelihood--simply go *unanswered*, left to rot during a period when high *percentage-answered* and *answers-per-question* stats matter most.
Now, just to clarify things a little, when *I* use the term "heterodoxy" I'm not referring to the Austrian School or the German Historical School or any other economic school of thought which can reasonably be expected to show up in a self-respecting reference work. I'm talking about *fringe*.
Personally, as an ad hoc rule-of-thumb for determining what does and what does not belong on the Economics SE (if only for the *beta* phase), I propose the following guideline:
>
> If it isn't mentioned in [The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics](http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/dictionary) at least *once*, then it doesn't belong on this site and, hence, should be deleted.
>
>
>
Why *The New Palgrave*? Because:
1. It's as authoritative as they come.
2. It's almost 8,000 pages (and, hence, it's not *abridged* in any way).
3. As far as Economics is concerned, *Wikipedia's standards are way too low.*
In other words, it means that **Charles Fourier** \*sigh\* can stay but [Thermoeconomics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics) is gone--simple as that. Got it?
Anyway, this is just something I've been thinking about--please feel free to offer comments below, positive or negative. I'm interested to what you guys think about this... | There's no place for it during the private beta. Such questions are magnets for cranks. The more crank posts we have, the harder it will be to attract experts. And building a community of experts is crucial for the private beta. I want a site for which I can proudly send private beta invitations to my economist colleagues, and know that they'll see the growing body of content and feel at home, and not have to deal with the usual silliness that exists on the average internet economics forum. We're not a forum, and let's have no interest in being average. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | I think we must distinguish between hetrodoxy and crankery. We should be open to all points of view that actually try to understand economic phenomena. We should be strict against conspiracy theories and attempt to misuse this site to propagate sects or carry out sectarian debates instead of asking and answering concrete questions using evidence and logic.
In physics the orthodoxy is much more successful in explaining things that the hetrodoxy. In economics, in my opinion, that is not the case. I think we should respect this state of things. | There's no place for it during the private beta. Such questions are magnets for cranks. The more crank posts we have, the harder it will be to attract experts. And building a community of experts is crucial for the private beta. I want a site for which I can proudly send private beta invitations to my economist colleagues, and know that they'll see the growing body of content and feel at home, and not have to deal with the usual silliness that exists on the average internet economics forum. We're not a forum, and let's have no interest in being average. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | I think all schools should be welcomed, but that does not mean that one can be non scientific, e.g., why wouldn't neoclassical economics accept the such and such theory? That is not an expert question, it should be rephrased in terms not of vacuous group confrontation but either self contained: e.g., how does the theory of wages in such theory differs from this other theory. Or based on some common ground, e.g., what empirical work has contrasted this theory with this other? | There's no place for it during the private beta. Such questions are magnets for cranks. The more crank posts we have, the harder it will be to attract experts. And building a community of experts is crucial for the private beta. I want a site for which I can proudly send private beta invitations to my economist colleagues, and know that they'll see the growing body of content and feel at home, and not have to deal with the usual silliness that exists on the average internet economics forum. We're not a forum, and let's have no interest in being average. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Frankly, I think the best argument *against* heterodoxy in the ***private* beta** stage is that questions of that nature will--in all likelihood--simply go *unanswered*, left to rot during a period when high *percentage-answered* and *answers-per-question* stats matter most.
Now, just to clarify things a little, when *I* use the term "heterodoxy" I'm not referring to the Austrian School or the German Historical School or any other economic school of thought which can reasonably be expected to show up in a self-respecting reference work. I'm talking about *fringe*.
Personally, as an ad hoc rule-of-thumb for determining what does and what does not belong on the Economics SE (if only for the *beta* phase), I propose the following guideline:
>
> If it isn't mentioned in [The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics](http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/dictionary) at least *once*, then it doesn't belong on this site and, hence, should be deleted.
>
>
>
Why *The New Palgrave*? Because:
1. It's as authoritative as they come.
2. It's almost 8,000 pages (and, hence, it's not *abridged* in any way).
3. As far as Economics is concerned, *Wikipedia's standards are way too low.*
In other words, it means that **Charles Fourier** \*sigh\* can stay but [Thermoeconomics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics) is gone--simple as that. Got it?
Anyway, this is just something I've been thinking about--please feel free to offer comments below, positive or negative. I'm interested to what you guys think about this... | Questions concerning heterodox schools of thought should be perfectly acceptable. If we are to assume that economics is an objective discipline with methodologies driven towards positive instead of normative truths, then heterodox school questions should be fine. However, I do think someone asking a heterodox school question should be self aware. They should understand that the assumptions that they're making (or the assumptions that they refuse to make) contradict or conflict in some way with mainstream economics.
I believe the way we word questions can radically change the tone in which the community can answer it. Instead of asking, "Why are Keynesians so dumb with their obsession with aggregates?" one can instead ask, "What are the responses to criticisms towards aggregate analysis?" One should not ask, "How can Austrians actually believe that there are no market failures?" A better and more formal question would be, "What is the response to the 'Negative externalities are the results of unresolved property rights' critique?" Remember, economics should be a positive discipline. Every school that treats economics in that sense should be open to discussion. And honestly, if we look at the differences between the different schools it all really boils down to methodology and assumptions. Neoclassicals make more assumptions about rationality than, say, the Austrians do. But that doesn't mean we can't ask about neoclassical rationality. It's a concept, developed and defended by very smart and very well educated people. We should be able to answer a Neoclassical question by stating, "Given X, Y, and Z here is my answer. However, I do not believe X, Y, and Z can be assumed so easily."
For example, I think cost curves are fallacious. If you take a microeconomics course, you learn about subjective value; and then, these *objective* cost curves appear in the following chapter. That doesn't mean I can't answer the question with cost curve analysis. The goal of an answer isn't to show what's right or wrong on any holistic level. The point of answering a question is to answer the question at hand. By having guidelines on good questions and good answers, we can allow for a huge breed of thought to exist without running into errors of meta-arguing. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Frankly, I think the best argument *against* heterodoxy in the ***private* beta** stage is that questions of that nature will--in all likelihood--simply go *unanswered*, left to rot during a period when high *percentage-answered* and *answers-per-question* stats matter most.
Now, just to clarify things a little, when *I* use the term "heterodoxy" I'm not referring to the Austrian School or the German Historical School or any other economic school of thought which can reasonably be expected to show up in a self-respecting reference work. I'm talking about *fringe*.
Personally, as an ad hoc rule-of-thumb for determining what does and what does not belong on the Economics SE (if only for the *beta* phase), I propose the following guideline:
>
> If it isn't mentioned in [The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics](http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/dictionary) at least *once*, then it doesn't belong on this site and, hence, should be deleted.
>
>
>
Why *The New Palgrave*? Because:
1. It's as authoritative as they come.
2. It's almost 8,000 pages (and, hence, it's not *abridged* in any way).
3. As far as Economics is concerned, *Wikipedia's standards are way too low.*
In other words, it means that **Charles Fourier** \*sigh\* can stay but [Thermoeconomics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics) is gone--simple as that. Got it?
Anyway, this is just something I've been thinking about--please feel free to offer comments below, positive or negative. I'm interested to what you guys think about this... | I think we must distinguish between hetrodoxy and crankery. We should be open to all points of view that actually try to understand economic phenomena. We should be strict against conspiracy theories and attempt to misuse this site to propagate sects or carry out sectarian debates instead of asking and answering concrete questions using evidence and logic.
In physics the orthodoxy is much more successful in explaining things that the hetrodoxy. In economics, in my opinion, that is not the case. I think we should respect this state of things. |
21 | We've already had a couple of questions that are into that grey area where heterodoxy and crankery flow seamlessly into each other.
And while a developed public beta, or better a fully graduated site, can have the resources to deal with heterodoxy productively, the private beta is a different phase, and has a different role. We're attracting experts and building expert content.
I'll also note that even some graduated sites, such as Physics, don't deal with heterodoxy: it's explicitly off-topic there.
Economics is one of those subjects, like physics, that attracts a lot of non-expert heterodoxy.
Specifically, during the private beta, what should we do with question and answers that take a heterodox viewpoint? Note that this can change during public beta, and can change after graduation, so this question is specifically about the private beta. | 2014/11/19 | [
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/44/"
] | Frankly, I think the best argument *against* heterodoxy in the ***private* beta** stage is that questions of that nature will--in all likelihood--simply go *unanswered*, left to rot during a period when high *percentage-answered* and *answers-per-question* stats matter most.
Now, just to clarify things a little, when *I* use the term "heterodoxy" I'm not referring to the Austrian School or the German Historical School or any other economic school of thought which can reasonably be expected to show up in a self-respecting reference work. I'm talking about *fringe*.
Personally, as an ad hoc rule-of-thumb for determining what does and what does not belong on the Economics SE (if only for the *beta* phase), I propose the following guideline:
>
> If it isn't mentioned in [The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics](http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/dictionary) at least *once*, then it doesn't belong on this site and, hence, should be deleted.
>
>
>
Why *The New Palgrave*? Because:
1. It's as authoritative as they come.
2. It's almost 8,000 pages (and, hence, it's not *abridged* in any way).
3. As far as Economics is concerned, *Wikipedia's standards are way too low.*
In other words, it means that **Charles Fourier** \*sigh\* can stay but [Thermoeconomics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics) is gone--simple as that. Got it?
Anyway, this is just something I've been thinking about--please feel free to offer comments below, positive or negative. I'm interested to what you guys think about this... | I think all schools should be welcomed, but that does not mean that one can be non scientific, e.g., why wouldn't neoclassical economics accept the such and such theory? That is not an expert question, it should be rephrased in terms not of vacuous group confrontation but either self contained: e.g., how does the theory of wages in such theory differs from this other theory. Or based on some common ground, e.g., what empirical work has contrasted this theory with this other? |
911,040 | I want to use URL encoder for my C program. I am wondering if there is any freely available URL encoding function implemented in C (on the web)??? I tried searching it, but couldn't get one :( | 2009/05/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/911040",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Use setTimeout to generate the next chunk of the table, by giving up the UI thread for a little bit, it'll display the table parts as they are generated.
By calling the generation code in the bottom of the generated code, you were never relinquishing the thread. | Why would you want 5K rows in a webapp?
I strongly suggest you use paging.
Otherwise, the solution c) seems the best and should work.
Perhaps you just need some small tweaks. Are you calling the next batch of data with an ajax call? What do you see while it's loading the next batch of data? Is the browser stalling? |
911,040 | I want to use URL encoder for my C program. I am wondering if there is any freely available URL encoding function implemented in C (on the web)??? I tried searching it, but couldn't get one :( | 2009/05/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/911040",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | Use setTimeout to generate the next chunk of the table, by giving up the UI thread for a little bit, it'll display the table parts as they are generated.
By calling the generation code in the bottom of the generated code, you were never relinquishing the thread. | paging would be the best solution. there are already a number of good jquery datagrid plugins out on the scene such as [flexigrid](http://code.google.com/p/flexigrid/) and [jqgrid](http://www.trirand.com/blog/). check those out. |
12,639,825 | We try to get the unique stats on Facebook Ads API and we've some difficult to get. Currently, we can only pull the reach (unique\_impressions) and the social reach (social\_unique\_impressions) for one day otherwise when we specify date criteria these fields are returned as zero. We know that unique stats aren't meant to be aggregated. How to retrieve these values? how do you calculate? | 2012/09/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12639825",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/910818/"
] | Ok! I got a response from Facebook team, it isn't possible to get the unique stats via our own date criteria. It's limit! | This is a limitation of Facebook's data and is specifically mentioned in the [Ad Statistics Documentation](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/ads-api/adstatistics/) - the unique stats are only calculated on Facebook's side in 1, 7 or 28 day ranges:
>
> Querying Unique Stats
>
>
> Unique stats are available for time ranges of 1,
> 7 or 28 days exactly.
>
>
> |
14,079 | In India, a land of Hindus, cows are worshiped across the nation. Any significance of it? | 2016/07/14 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/14079",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/577/"
] | >
> **गाव: स्वर्गस्य सोपानं गाव: स्वर्गेपी पूजितः । गाव: कामदुहो
> देव्यो:नांन्यत किंचित परं स्मृतं ।।**
>
>
> Cows are the path to heaven, they are worshipable even in heaven. Cows
> grant a desirable objects, therefore there is nothing superior to the
> cows.
>
>
> (गाव:) = cow
>
>
> **ब्रह्म सूर्यसमं ज्योतिर्ध्य: समुद्र: समं सर:।
> इंद्र: पृथीव्य:वर्षीययाँ गोस्तु मात्रा न विद्यते ।।**
>
>
> Brahma Vidya, (ब्रह्म विद्या) which grants supreme bliss is compared
> to the Sun.Earth to Indra deva but the cow, which does unlimited
> welfare to hunamy, cannot be compared to anything cow is without any
> comparison. Indeed there is no other being like a cow, which does
> welfare to human beings.
>
>
> Yajurved (यजुर्वेद) 23.48
>
>
> **प्रजावतीः सुयवसे रुशन्तीः शुध्द अपः सुप्रपाणे पिबन्तीः। मा वस्तेन ईशत
> माघशंसः परि वो रुद्रस्य हेतिर्वृणक्तु।।
> (अथर्व.-7.75.1)**
>
>
> In Athervaveda (अथर्ववेद) there are verses which states that the cow
> are be protected and. It is considered a sin to kill a cow
>
>
>
.
**In Hinduism We Respect, Honour and Adore the cow and Calf .
In Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma (सनातन धर्म) We see Cow as a Godess and as Mother (माँ). Therefore, the cow is considered a sacred animal**, as she sustains us and our babies , elderly people etc with her milk.
Since from ages Cow dung is used as fuel in our houses as it is high in methane, and can generate heat and electricity. Village houses are plastered with a mud/cow dung mixture, which insulates the walls and floors from extreme hot and cold temperatures.
dung is also rich in minerals, and makes an excellent fertilize in our farms.
The **surabhi cow (सुरभि गाय)** descended from the spiritual worlds and manifested herself in the heavenly spheres from the aroma of celestial nectar for the benefit of all created beings.
**So cow is the most Holy Animal in Sanatan Dharma (सनातन धर्म) Or Hinduism , She contains all 33 Crore Gods in her.** | Cows are the only animals that gives milk to humanity. As a baby takes birth only a mother can feed it. Comparing this two, we can say cow is mother who is sacrificing milk which is prerogative of its own child for humanity.Many medicines are made from the urine of cows.
There is a verse
>
> gavo me vyagrato santu gavo me santu prushtata, gavo me hridaye santu gavam madhye vasamyaham
>
>
>
When Lord Krishna says cows contain all deities in them and in the heart of cow saintly properties reside. Lord Krishna narrates himself as he is Kamdhenu among cows in Goloka.(Land of cows) who fulfills every desire.
Thus cows are considered very important and pious animal when Goddess Gayatri became cow and stood behind Lord Dattatreya and in the same fashion she supported Lord Krishna too. This is the reason why cows are there in the pictures of Lord Dattatreya and Lord Krishna.
Goddess Umiyamata, incarnation of Mother Parvati also has cow as her vehicle. Following cows are placid and calm, they are also great virtuous donors. As per astrology feeding cow is considered virtuous acts that removes any kind of trouble. Pacifying cows also gives peace in life. Therefore, cow is worshiped as a mother. |
37,475 | We had a coin trapped under our front loading washing machine drum (found out after it was removed).
The washing machine engineer got it out by prising the lip of the inside of the drum upwards, pulled out the coin, then bashed the edge of the drum back down with a metal wrench. This has now left the drum dented and the enamel scratched. I am currently in the process of complaining and getting the damage caused rectified.
Was this the only way he could've removed the coin? The scratches are now going to cause rust and potentially rip delicate clothing. It looks horrible too. See picture below.
Secondly, what is the best way to fix the damage that has now been caused? Can it be repaired or is a new drum/machine required? | 2014/01/04 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/37475",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/19007/"
] | In the end, the roofing company had ceased to exist which was why it was difficult to get hold of them.
I got a reputable building company to sort out the cracks in the walls and weatherproof the render - they did an amazing job and they even found a fault in the way the new roof was fitted... and fixed it for free. The fault was that the new roof was just a new covering (although well fitted and looked good to the untrained eye), but it required some lead flashing (like a skirt) to force water run-off from the walls to run onto the roof and towards the drain/drainpipe. Without the flashing the water was allowed to run between the roof covering and the wall itself, hence leaking underneath in particularly wet weather. The issue never returned. | Certainly the roofers should take care of the originating problem if you have a guarantee.
Also, be aware that most any kind of do-it-yourself fixes could be construed as voiding the guarantee.
The OP says you are "trying" to contact the roofers. I don't really get that part. Certainly there must be a way to contact them quickly, as it is in their best interests to respond quickly to prevent further damage that they may be liable for.
The OP says you "think" they might not cover internal issues. The only way to be sure of that is to read the insurance repairs.
Generally, if you took them to court and it was obvious that their installation caused the internal damage, you would have a strong case that it is their responsibility. |
16,200,516 | To my understanding, MVC is a way to implement the separation of presentation tier from business and data tier. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, MVC should separate the business logic completely from presentation, right?
So to me it seems like javascript (or jquery) is somehow violating the MVC design since it takes over some of the logic on the client side, isn't it? Is model = data tier, controller = business tier, view = presentation tier? I think I have misunderstood the whole concept. | 2013/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16200516",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2308038/"
] | You seem to have a decent understanding of MVC. The trouble is that you are looking at two different potential MVC structures as one and the same. On the server, you can have data models, controllers, and views. On the client side, you can ALSO have data models, controllers, and views. If you want to look at your client side JavaScript as MVC, then jQuery is simply a utility that the view controllers can use to manipulate the view (the DOM).
Simply put, the client side doesn't always have to be only the view. If you use a web application client-side framework like Backbone, for example, then you can have models, views, and controllers all on the client side, which communicate with another, SEPARATE MVC structure on your server. | What you describe does actually pose a challenge for a lot of implementations. Frameworks such as the ASP.NET MVC Framework have been making attempts to auto-render JavaScript to the UI based on business logic in the middle tier (validation rules for form fields, primarily). But they're a long way off from having a truly compelling JavaScript user experience which doesn't repeat logic.
Personally, I like to think of the JavaScript as purely a UI concern. The application internally handles all of the logic. The JavaScript, as part of the UI, may duplicate some of that logic... but only for strictly UI purposes. Remember that the application should regress gracefully into a still-working state if the user has JavaScript disabled. That is, it should still use server-side (middle-tier) code to get the job done. All the JavaScript did was add a richer user experience to the UI layer.
JavaScript isn't the only culprit for this, either. Suppose you have a lot of validation logic in your middle tier defining what's valid or invalid for your objects. When you persist those objects to a database (which is on the periphery of the application just like the UI is), doesn't that database also contain duplicate validation logic? Non-nullable fields and such. |
16,200,516 | To my understanding, MVC is a way to implement the separation of presentation tier from business and data tier. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, MVC should separate the business logic completely from presentation, right?
So to me it seems like javascript (or jquery) is somehow violating the MVC design since it takes over some of the logic on the client side, isn't it? Is model = data tier, controller = business tier, view = presentation tier? I think I have misunderstood the whole concept. | 2013/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16200516",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2308038/"
] | You seem to have a decent understanding of MVC. The trouble is that you are looking at two different potential MVC structures as one and the same. On the server, you can have data models, controllers, and views. On the client side, you can ALSO have data models, controllers, and views. If you want to look at your client side JavaScript as MVC, then jQuery is simply a utility that the view controllers can use to manipulate the view (the DOM).
Simply put, the client side doesn't always have to be only the view. If you use a web application client-side framework like Backbone, for example, then you can have models, views, and controllers all on the client side, which communicate with another, SEPARATE MVC structure on your server. | >
> **Congratulations!** Your understanding of MVC is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with n-tier architecture (which is what you seem to be confusing it with).
>
>
>
The core idea of MVC is [separation of concerns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns). This is used by dividing the application it two major layers:
* model layer: contains all of the domain business logic and rules.
* presentation layer: deals it user interface
The presentation then is further split into controllers (for handling the user input) and views (for dealing with response).
When applied to web applications, you either have MVC (or MVC-like) structure only on server-side, or, for larger and more complicated applications, you have separate MVC triads for both frontend and backend.
Also, when working with applications, the **user of MVC is not human being, but the browser.**
In latter case the backend acts like one data source for frontend application. An the whole frontend part of MVC is written in javascript.
>
> **P.S.** In case if you are able to read PHP code, you can find a quite simple explanation of model layer in [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/5864000/727208). And, yes. It is the "simple version" because MVC is a pattern for enforcing a structure in large application, not for making a guesbook.
>
>
> |
16,200,516 | To my understanding, MVC is a way to implement the separation of presentation tier from business and data tier. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, MVC should separate the business logic completely from presentation, right?
So to me it seems like javascript (or jquery) is somehow violating the MVC design since it takes over some of the logic on the client side, isn't it? Is model = data tier, controller = business tier, view = presentation tier? I think I have misunderstood the whole concept. | 2013/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16200516",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2308038/"
] | You seem to have a decent understanding of MVC. The trouble is that you are looking at two different potential MVC structures as one and the same. On the server, you can have data models, controllers, and views. On the client side, you can ALSO have data models, controllers, and views. If you want to look at your client side JavaScript as MVC, then jQuery is simply a utility that the view controllers can use to manipulate the view (the DOM).
Simply put, the client side doesn't always have to be only the view. If you use a web application client-side framework like Backbone, for example, then you can have models, views, and controllers all on the client side, which communicate with another, SEPARATE MVC structure on your server. | You can go to <http://www.asp.net/mvc> site and refer tutorials / samples to learn about MVC using Microsoft technologies. |
16,200,516 | To my understanding, MVC is a way to implement the separation of presentation tier from business and data tier. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, MVC should separate the business logic completely from presentation, right?
So to me it seems like javascript (or jquery) is somehow violating the MVC design since it takes over some of the logic on the client side, isn't it? Is model = data tier, controller = business tier, view = presentation tier? I think I have misunderstood the whole concept. | 2013/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16200516",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2308038/"
] | What you describe does actually pose a challenge for a lot of implementations. Frameworks such as the ASP.NET MVC Framework have been making attempts to auto-render JavaScript to the UI based on business logic in the middle tier (validation rules for form fields, primarily). But they're a long way off from having a truly compelling JavaScript user experience which doesn't repeat logic.
Personally, I like to think of the JavaScript as purely a UI concern. The application internally handles all of the logic. The JavaScript, as part of the UI, may duplicate some of that logic... but only for strictly UI purposes. Remember that the application should regress gracefully into a still-working state if the user has JavaScript disabled. That is, it should still use server-side (middle-tier) code to get the job done. All the JavaScript did was add a richer user experience to the UI layer.
JavaScript isn't the only culprit for this, either. Suppose you have a lot of validation logic in your middle tier defining what's valid or invalid for your objects. When you persist those objects to a database (which is on the periphery of the application just like the UI is), doesn't that database also contain duplicate validation logic? Non-nullable fields and such. | >
> **Congratulations!** Your understanding of MVC is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with n-tier architecture (which is what you seem to be confusing it with).
>
>
>
The core idea of MVC is [separation of concerns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns). This is used by dividing the application it two major layers:
* model layer: contains all of the domain business logic and rules.
* presentation layer: deals it user interface
The presentation then is further split into controllers (for handling the user input) and views (for dealing with response).
When applied to web applications, you either have MVC (or MVC-like) structure only on server-side, or, for larger and more complicated applications, you have separate MVC triads for both frontend and backend.
Also, when working with applications, the **user of MVC is not human being, but the browser.**
In latter case the backend acts like one data source for frontend application. An the whole frontend part of MVC is written in javascript.
>
> **P.S.** In case if you are able to read PHP code, you can find a quite simple explanation of model layer in [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/5864000/727208). And, yes. It is the "simple version" because MVC is a pattern for enforcing a structure in large application, not for making a guesbook.
>
>
> |
16,200,516 | To my understanding, MVC is a way to implement the separation of presentation tier from business and data tier. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, MVC should separate the business logic completely from presentation, right?
So to me it seems like javascript (or jquery) is somehow violating the MVC design since it takes over some of the logic on the client side, isn't it? Is model = data tier, controller = business tier, view = presentation tier? I think I have misunderstood the whole concept. | 2013/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16200516",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2308038/"
] | What you describe does actually pose a challenge for a lot of implementations. Frameworks such as the ASP.NET MVC Framework have been making attempts to auto-render JavaScript to the UI based on business logic in the middle tier (validation rules for form fields, primarily). But they're a long way off from having a truly compelling JavaScript user experience which doesn't repeat logic.
Personally, I like to think of the JavaScript as purely a UI concern. The application internally handles all of the logic. The JavaScript, as part of the UI, may duplicate some of that logic... but only for strictly UI purposes. Remember that the application should regress gracefully into a still-working state if the user has JavaScript disabled. That is, it should still use server-side (middle-tier) code to get the job done. All the JavaScript did was add a richer user experience to the UI layer.
JavaScript isn't the only culprit for this, either. Suppose you have a lot of validation logic in your middle tier defining what's valid or invalid for your objects. When you persist those objects to a database (which is on the periphery of the application just like the UI is), doesn't that database also contain duplicate validation logic? Non-nullable fields and such. | You can go to <http://www.asp.net/mvc> site and refer tutorials / samples to learn about MVC using Microsoft technologies. |
118,309 | I just got the "Daily vote limit reached"-message. I was just about to up-vote a great comment, but now I've got to wait for 10 hours, and that's just plain stupid.
As [this blog entry](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/comments-now-with-flags-and-votes/) shows, a user has got 30 comment-votes and 5 comment-flags per day. In my opinion, this is not enough at all, especially not for active users like myself. There are plenty of abusive comments to be flagged and great comments to be upvoted, and I would very much like to be able to upvote all of them!
Could we up the standard limit to 50 votes and 10 flags for all users, and let users with more than 2000 rep get the double (100 votes and 20 flags)? | 2012/01/08 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/118309",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/146847/"
] | According to [How does comment voting and flagging work?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17364/how-do-comment-voting-and-flagging-work), the number of comment flags you get increases with a combination of higher reputation and flag weight. (Don't know what the cap is, but it's above 50.)
So that's already implemented, and higher than what you suggest.
As for comment votes, well, comments aren't all that important. You need limits in the same way you need limits for normal post (Q&A) votes (see [Why are there voting limits?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28314/why-are-there-voting-limits) for instance). I don't see how adding an extra 20 or 70 comment votes per day would increase the overall quality of the sites – comments already get plenty of votes as it is in my opinion.
Try to focus more on the actual questions and answers, those are the important parts of Stack Exchange. | If a single question/answer can have multiple comments, it would be logical to give higher comment vote limit, for example 80.
As alternative, if you vote on question/answer, you get **1 free vote** on comment/question to that answer. If you're encouraged (at least by downvoting) to leave a comment why you think that question/answer is bad, the vote to comment explaining that has the same effect, therefore you should be allowed to do that for free. |
43,984 | [Here](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/) it is written, about the Overhead Press, that
>
> At the bottom position, you need to be initiating the press in
> something called the scapular plane. Such that at the bottom position
> your elbows are pointed slightly forward, or in other words at roughly
> a 30 degree angle from directly sideways.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iqhvI.png)
**First question:** is the choice of working in the scapular plane made to reduce shoulder impingement (like in lateral raises)? If it is, can you explain me why? Does having a 30 degree angle between the elbows and the frontal plane creates space between the humerous and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9r9xz.png)
Then, always [there](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/), it is written that:
>
> Then only as you press up should you naturally allow your elbows to turn out to the side.
>
>
>
In summary, you should start with your elbows in the scapular plane. But then, gradually during the movement, they will slowly start pointing outwards (first picture below) and will continue pointing outwards at the top (second picture below).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zkh5j.png)
**Second question**: why is this necessary? Why can't we continue the movement with our elbows in the scapular plane?
**Third question**: How can we avoid shoulder impingement? [Here](https://stronglifts.com/overhead-press/) it is written to shrug at the top, since this will create space between the humerus head and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues. That is fine, but what about the rest of the way up (it is written to shrug at the top, not during the way up).
A situation like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fgbas.png)
seems to me quite similar (from the elbows point of view) to this in the bench press
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFsOd.png)
except for the fact that in the overhead press the forearms are rotated backwards compared to the bench press scenario. Is this that avoids shoulder impingement? | 2021/06/19 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/43984",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34413/"
] | I see that you have multiple questions. I can't help you with all of them, but I can help with the main question you have i.e. avoiding shoulder issues when overhead pressing.
I have supraspinatous tendinosis on my right shoulder from strain and bad form. Thanks to this, I can tell when any exercise I'm doing has bad form, because my shoulder pain immediately flares up. When overhead pressing, I've found the most helpful tip is that you should pinch your shoulder blades together before you start (and during the movement) exactly like the scapular pullup (google it). That gets rid of the pain and I wish I'd been doing that earlier. | One suggestion is to remember your forearms must be perpendicular to the ground, no incline either forward or backwards.
About the change in plane on the top. [That's to get full range of movement](https://stronglifts.com/overhead-press/), if you retain the scapular plane you aren't able to get to full extension of the muscles, [which is always what you should aim at](https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/rookie-mistakes-overhead-press/). |
43,984 | [Here](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/) it is written, about the Overhead Press, that
>
> At the bottom position, you need to be initiating the press in
> something called the scapular plane. Such that at the bottom position
> your elbows are pointed slightly forward, or in other words at roughly
> a 30 degree angle from directly sideways.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iqhvI.png)
**First question:** is the choice of working in the scapular plane made to reduce shoulder impingement (like in lateral raises)? If it is, can you explain me why? Does having a 30 degree angle between the elbows and the frontal plane creates space between the humerous and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9r9xz.png)
Then, always [there](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/), it is written that:
>
> Then only as you press up should you naturally allow your elbows to turn out to the side.
>
>
>
In summary, you should start with your elbows in the scapular plane. But then, gradually during the movement, they will slowly start pointing outwards (first picture below) and will continue pointing outwards at the top (second picture below).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zkh5j.png)
**Second question**: why is this necessary? Why can't we continue the movement with our elbows in the scapular plane?
**Third question**: How can we avoid shoulder impingement? [Here](https://stronglifts.com/overhead-press/) it is written to shrug at the top, since this will create space between the humerus head and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues. That is fine, but what about the rest of the way up (it is written to shrug at the top, not during the way up).
A situation like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fgbas.png)
seems to me quite similar (from the elbows point of view) to this in the bench press
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFsOd.png)
except for the fact that in the overhead press the forearms are rotated backwards compared to the bench press scenario. Is this that avoids shoulder impingement? | 2021/06/19 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/43984",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34413/"
] | >
> **First question:** is the choice of working in the scapular plane made to reduce shoulder impingement (like in lateral raises)? If it is, can you explain me why? Does having a 30 degree angle between the elbows and the frontal plane creates space between the humerous and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues?
>
>
>
No, it's nonsense, seemingly made up by the author of the article. They cite two papers in support of this claim, stating that these papers demonstrate that an overhead press which begins with the upper arms in the scapular plane "to not only be a safer and more comfortable position for the shoulder joint to be in... But also more effective for overhead pressing". Neither of these papers actually makes any claims even remotely close to what the author is alleging. I'll summarise these papers below.
Reinold, M. M., Escamilla, R., & Wilk, K. E. (2009). [Current Concepts in the Scientific and Clinical Rationale Behind Exercises for Glenohumeral and Scapulothoracic Musculature.](http://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2009.2835)
* The paper is a literature review, not a study, and consists of biomechanical explanations of the roles of the individual muscles of the shoulder, and recommended exercises for targeting those specific muscles in the context of a rehabilitation program. (Note: The paper is not a systematic review, so does not have any formal process of study inclusion. It's more of an evidence-supported opinion piece.)
* The only mention of any overhead pressing exercise is that the military press is listed among examples of exercises in which certain shoulder muscles are active. (Specifically, the deltoid, subscapularis, serratus anterior, and trapezius.) No recommendations are given for technique.
* The scapular plane is only mentioned as being relevant to the role of some muscles. E.g. The supraspinatus works as a shoulder abductor only during initial abduction (e.g. raising the arm from hanging downwards, up by just 30-60°) when the arm is in the scapular plane. It is never stated that the scapular plane is a specifically safer or more comfortable position for the shoulder.
Pink, M. M., & Tibone, J. E. (2000). [THE PAINFUL SHOULDER IN THE SWIMMING ATHLETE.](http://doi.org/10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70145-0)
* This paper is also a literature review, focussing on the mechanisms behind and techniques for rehabilitating overuse injuries in swimmers.
* The only mention of any overhead pressing exercise is that a "modified military press" is prescribed as an advanced exercise during the rehabilitation process. This exercise is defined as a seated dumbbell press, performed with the elbows kept out to the sides of the body, and is explicitly described as *not* in the scapular plane.
* The scapular plane is mentioned in a description of initial exercises for swimmers suffering chronic overuse injuries. These are extremely remedial exercises for swimmers with severe chronic shoulder pain - we're talking just unweighted arm raises, which the patient may not even be able to perform without pain.
* The paper does include the following statement: "Exercise should begin in the scapular plane. This plane allows for maximal congruency of the humeral head in the glenoid and the least stress on the capsule and ligaments." However, this is clearly in the context of the aforementioned unweighted rehabilitation exercises, being used only as an initial rehabilitation exercise patients with lax and unstable shoulders, and is definitely not intended as a exercise prescription in any other contexts.
I think that with even the most charitable reading of these papers or the overhead press article's claims, that no one could possibly claim that the author of that overhead press article is likely to have actually read these papers and have attempted to accurately represent them in his article.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the scapular plane is not at a fixed 30° angle from the frontal plane, but rather is defined relative to the scapulae, and so moves when the scapulae retract and protract. During an overhead press, the scapular plane actually goes from being much closer to the frontal plane at the bottom of the lift, to point more forward at the top. This makes attempting to use it to define an overhead press bar path especially futile.
>
> **Second question:** why is [moving the elbows outwards towards the top of the movement] necessary? Why can't we continue the movement with our elbows in the scapular plane?
>
>
>
The scapular plane is a specific path of shoulder abduction, but all (complete) shoulder flexion and abduction has the same start and end point. The arm begins pointing downwards, and finish pointing upwards. The end position is the same regardless of whether you raised you arm to the front, to the side, or in the scapular plane. If you look at the scapular plane image in the question, you can see that the scapular plane, the frontal plane, and the sagittal plane all overlap in a line directly over the shoulder. So in this end position, you are actually in all three planes. It's not that you're moving out of the scapular plane.
>
> **Third question:** How can we avoid shoulder impingement?
>
>
>
Impingement can (but does not necessarily) occur at the extremities of shoulder rotation. This is why exercises like the upright row and guillotine bench press are often maligned - because they put the shoulder into extreme internal rotation as the bar approaches the collarbones. Impingement is also a common diagnosis among baseball pitchers, who wind up by putting their shoulders into incredible external rotation.
A sensible approach to avoiding impingement would just be to stop and reassess any movements that cause you to experience shoulder pain. A more conservative and probably excessive approach would be to just avoid any exercise that pushes the limits of shoulder internal or external rotation.
That said, perhaps the most ridiculous thing about this overhead press article is that the technique he advocates actually does put the shoulders into extreme external rotation. At the bottom of the lift, he doesn't appear to even be able to lower the bar below his throat because his requirement of keeping the elbows in the scapular plane requires increasing amounts of shoulder external rotation as the bar is lowered. If you imagine giving someone a high-five, and they push your hand back in that position as far as it will go, that's the feeling of hitting the end of your range of external rotation. It could be argued that this scapular plane overhead press actually increases the risk of shoulder impingement. | I see that you have multiple questions. I can't help you with all of them, but I can help with the main question you have i.e. avoiding shoulder issues when overhead pressing.
I have supraspinatous tendinosis on my right shoulder from strain and bad form. Thanks to this, I can tell when any exercise I'm doing has bad form, because my shoulder pain immediately flares up. When overhead pressing, I've found the most helpful tip is that you should pinch your shoulder blades together before you start (and during the movement) exactly like the scapular pullup (google it). That gets rid of the pain and I wish I'd been doing that earlier. |
43,984 | [Here](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/) it is written, about the Overhead Press, that
>
> At the bottom position, you need to be initiating the press in
> something called the scapular plane. Such that at the bottom position
> your elbows are pointed slightly forward, or in other words at roughly
> a 30 degree angle from directly sideways.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iqhvI.png)
**First question:** is the choice of working in the scapular plane made to reduce shoulder impingement (like in lateral raises)? If it is, can you explain me why? Does having a 30 degree angle between the elbows and the frontal plane creates space between the humerous and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9r9xz.png)
Then, always [there](https://builtwithscience.com/overhead-press-mistakes/), it is written that:
>
> Then only as you press up should you naturally allow your elbows to turn out to the side.
>
>
>
In summary, you should start with your elbows in the scapular plane. But then, gradually during the movement, they will slowly start pointing outwards (first picture below) and will continue pointing outwards at the top (second picture below).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zkh5j.png)
**Second question**: why is this necessary? Why can't we continue the movement with our elbows in the scapular plane?
**Third question**: How can we avoid shoulder impingement? [Here](https://stronglifts.com/overhead-press/) it is written to shrug at the top, since this will create space between the humerus head and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues. That is fine, but what about the rest of the way up (it is written to shrug at the top, not during the way up).
A situation like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fgbas.png)
seems to me quite similar (from the elbows point of view) to this in the bench press
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SFsOd.png)
except for the fact that in the overhead press the forearms are rotated backwards compared to the bench press scenario. Is this that avoids shoulder impingement? | 2021/06/19 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/43984",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34413/"
] | >
> **First question:** is the choice of working in the scapular plane made to reduce shoulder impingement (like in lateral raises)? If it is, can you explain me why? Does having a 30 degree angle between the elbows and the frontal plane creates space between the humerous and the AC joint for the rotator cuff tissues?
>
>
>
No, it's nonsense, seemingly made up by the author of the article. They cite two papers in support of this claim, stating that these papers demonstrate that an overhead press which begins with the upper arms in the scapular plane "to not only be a safer and more comfortable position for the shoulder joint to be in... But also more effective for overhead pressing". Neither of these papers actually makes any claims even remotely close to what the author is alleging. I'll summarise these papers below.
Reinold, M. M., Escamilla, R., & Wilk, K. E. (2009). [Current Concepts in the Scientific and Clinical Rationale Behind Exercises for Glenohumeral and Scapulothoracic Musculature.](http://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2009.2835)
* The paper is a literature review, not a study, and consists of biomechanical explanations of the roles of the individual muscles of the shoulder, and recommended exercises for targeting those specific muscles in the context of a rehabilitation program. (Note: The paper is not a systematic review, so does not have any formal process of study inclusion. It's more of an evidence-supported opinion piece.)
* The only mention of any overhead pressing exercise is that the military press is listed among examples of exercises in which certain shoulder muscles are active. (Specifically, the deltoid, subscapularis, serratus anterior, and trapezius.) No recommendations are given for technique.
* The scapular plane is only mentioned as being relevant to the role of some muscles. E.g. The supraspinatus works as a shoulder abductor only during initial abduction (e.g. raising the arm from hanging downwards, up by just 30-60°) when the arm is in the scapular plane. It is never stated that the scapular plane is a specifically safer or more comfortable position for the shoulder.
Pink, M. M., & Tibone, J. E. (2000). [THE PAINFUL SHOULDER IN THE SWIMMING ATHLETE.](http://doi.org/10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70145-0)
* This paper is also a literature review, focussing on the mechanisms behind and techniques for rehabilitating overuse injuries in swimmers.
* The only mention of any overhead pressing exercise is that a "modified military press" is prescribed as an advanced exercise during the rehabilitation process. This exercise is defined as a seated dumbbell press, performed with the elbows kept out to the sides of the body, and is explicitly described as *not* in the scapular plane.
* The scapular plane is mentioned in a description of initial exercises for swimmers suffering chronic overuse injuries. These are extremely remedial exercises for swimmers with severe chronic shoulder pain - we're talking just unweighted arm raises, which the patient may not even be able to perform without pain.
* The paper does include the following statement: "Exercise should begin in the scapular plane. This plane allows for maximal congruency of the humeral head in the glenoid and the least stress on the capsule and ligaments." However, this is clearly in the context of the aforementioned unweighted rehabilitation exercises, being used only as an initial rehabilitation exercise patients with lax and unstable shoulders, and is definitely not intended as a exercise prescription in any other contexts.
I think that with even the most charitable reading of these papers or the overhead press article's claims, that no one could possibly claim that the author of that overhead press article is likely to have actually read these papers and have attempted to accurately represent them in his article.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the scapular plane is not at a fixed 30° angle from the frontal plane, but rather is defined relative to the scapulae, and so moves when the scapulae retract and protract. During an overhead press, the scapular plane actually goes from being much closer to the frontal plane at the bottom of the lift, to point more forward at the top. This makes attempting to use it to define an overhead press bar path especially futile.
>
> **Second question:** why is [moving the elbows outwards towards the top of the movement] necessary? Why can't we continue the movement with our elbows in the scapular plane?
>
>
>
The scapular plane is a specific path of shoulder abduction, but all (complete) shoulder flexion and abduction has the same start and end point. The arm begins pointing downwards, and finish pointing upwards. The end position is the same regardless of whether you raised you arm to the front, to the side, or in the scapular plane. If you look at the scapular plane image in the question, you can see that the scapular plane, the frontal plane, and the sagittal plane all overlap in a line directly over the shoulder. So in this end position, you are actually in all three planes. It's not that you're moving out of the scapular plane.
>
> **Third question:** How can we avoid shoulder impingement?
>
>
>
Impingement can (but does not necessarily) occur at the extremities of shoulder rotation. This is why exercises like the upright row and guillotine bench press are often maligned - because they put the shoulder into extreme internal rotation as the bar approaches the collarbones. Impingement is also a common diagnosis among baseball pitchers, who wind up by putting their shoulders into incredible external rotation.
A sensible approach to avoiding impingement would just be to stop and reassess any movements that cause you to experience shoulder pain. A more conservative and probably excessive approach would be to just avoid any exercise that pushes the limits of shoulder internal or external rotation.
That said, perhaps the most ridiculous thing about this overhead press article is that the technique he advocates actually does put the shoulders into extreme external rotation. At the bottom of the lift, he doesn't appear to even be able to lower the bar below his throat because his requirement of keeping the elbows in the scapular plane requires increasing amounts of shoulder external rotation as the bar is lowered. If you imagine giving someone a high-five, and they push your hand back in that position as far as it will go, that's the feeling of hitting the end of your range of external rotation. It could be argued that this scapular plane overhead press actually increases the risk of shoulder impingement. | One suggestion is to remember your forearms must be perpendicular to the ground, no incline either forward or backwards.
About the change in plane on the top. [That's to get full range of movement](https://stronglifts.com/overhead-press/), if you retain the scapular plane you aren't able to get to full extension of the muscles, [which is always what you should aim at](https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/rookie-mistakes-overhead-press/). |
128,492 | Designing a sort of cyper-punkish, futuristic megacity where flying cars have been adopted as opposed to land-based cars to create more space on land and to reduce traffic issues.
It can be assumed that these flying cars work in similar ways to land-based cars (except they fly), so **what kind of safety features would a flying car/vehicle like this need to have to be safe and functional in that kind of situation?**
One idea I had is having a T shaped rear light that is constantly on, and spans the whole width of the vehicle, and down to the bottom, meaning people can see your orientation, how wide the vehicle is and an approximation of the 'danger-zone' around the vehicle.
(I'm not actually able to delete this question, however thank you to those who gave me a few ideas regardless. Due to the massive volume of variables that are involved, I don't think it can really be edited to fit the guidelines.) | 2018/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/128492",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31401/"
] | Barring 100% autopilot, a proper safety feature would be a system that:
* Detects and prevents collisions. System has sensors on the vehicle, and it broadcasts position, speed, and direction to other cars, so they can coordinate.
* Avoids designated areas. Not just White house, but 500 feet above residential areas.
* Keeps doors and windows closed while flying, ensures that windows are intact.
* Detects any technical issues. If any sign of trouble is found, system prevents takeoff, or safely lands the vehicle on autopilot.
* Communicates with police/traffic control to confirm that system is operational, and vehicle is safe to fly. Any vehicle without that signal gets scooped up, by a giant butterfly net (if you just shoot it down, it will fall on innocent people).
**The risks** you have to guard against are:
- Drunk, distracted or inexperienced pilots
- Breakdown in mid-trip
- Pranks, littering and invasion of privacy
- Deliberate terrorism or crime
With land cars, you can prevent it with gates, barriers, and roads. Also the speeds are slower, so driver both driver and potential victims have time to react. Finally, if a car is close enough to hurt you, you can see its license plate.
Flying cars can move in 3 dimensions, so barriers do not work. You will not have time to see and react to a vehicle that is in a free-fall, or out of control. You will not see the any details of a car that dropped a soda bottle on the head of your child.
Current small planes do pose all of these dangers, but they have high cost and licensing requirements that keep irresponsible people from using them. There are also relatively few of them, so you can easily find any mis-behaving pilots. | The trouble with questions of this type is that the answers are open ended lists which isn't appropriate to the format. However there's one critical aspect that makes most of the others redundant.
* Permanent autopilot with no possibility of manual control
and I'm afraid you're not getting your personal flying vehicle until that's how they operate. |
128,492 | Designing a sort of cyper-punkish, futuristic megacity where flying cars have been adopted as opposed to land-based cars to create more space on land and to reduce traffic issues.
It can be assumed that these flying cars work in similar ways to land-based cars (except they fly), so **what kind of safety features would a flying car/vehicle like this need to have to be safe and functional in that kind of situation?**
One idea I had is having a T shaped rear light that is constantly on, and spans the whole width of the vehicle, and down to the bottom, meaning people can see your orientation, how wide the vehicle is and an approximation of the 'danger-zone' around the vehicle.
(I'm not actually able to delete this question, however thank you to those who gave me a few ideas regardless. Due to the massive volume of variables that are involved, I don't think it can really be edited to fit the guidelines.) | 2018/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/128492",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/31401/"
] | Heavily cushioned base with a low centre of gravity; seats with heavy hydraulic dampening; seatbelts; multiple small reinforced windows instead of a large windscreen; height limiters built in; default forced landing in case of emergency, with regularly spaced emergency landing areas; very loud, very annoying fuel, battery, etc., warnings, that won't allow takeoff at less than 30% optimum levels. | The trouble with questions of this type is that the answers are open ended lists which isn't appropriate to the format. However there's one critical aspect that makes most of the others redundant.
* Permanent autopilot with no possibility of manual control
and I'm afraid you're not getting your personal flying vehicle until that's how they operate. |
140,316 | So, I'm in the position of considering where (within a given city/real-estate-market) I and my family want to build our next house (which will also be our first experience as homeowners -- we've lived in houses for some time now, but always as tenants). So far, we know that your typical suburban (new plat/subdivision) lot is *out* for three reasons:
1. Our current market is not exactly saturated with transit service, and most of what exists is constrained to more urban areas by the realities of transit efficiency.
2. I, personally, have no wish to contribute to sprawl by being a unit of demand for suburban real estate.
3. Builder attached lots are of no use to me, nor are HOA'ed lots (an HOA on a SFR has no upside and significant downside for me)
However, I have been doing some research into both appraisal/valuation in general and into valuations in the areas I am looking at, and that raises the spectre of a killer word for many house plans: *overimprovement*. In particular, while I'm not looking to put tiger maple and granite countertops in a 1000sf econobox house or build a 5000sf mansion in a neighborhood of 1000sf econoboxes, I have a different problem.
You see, I have no affinity for ordinary "stick" construction, and am strongly considering higher-end structure and envelope techniques as a result. While one can get some money back on envelope performance improvements (better HERS rating) based on the limited research I've done, it seems much easier to overimprove on the structural side when building a house than it does in commercial work, where structural build classification (ISO/IBC/M&S construction type) is explicitly accounted for in the valuation process.
This is compounded by the factor that I have no need for a supercomplex floor plan with protuberances and funky angles everywhere, nor am I seeking particularly high-end finishes, fixtures, or amenities. In fact, complex floorplanning is a negative to me, *because* I am trying to fit the house to urban lot constraints instead of sprawling out over a low-density suburban lot, and that favors simple massing and intelligent use of vertical space.
As a result, the question of "how much house can I put on a given lot?" is a major constraint for me, so *how can I figure that out* for my real estate market? Furthermore, are there things I can do at this stage to limit the aforementioned overimprovement risk without sacrificing construction? (Say, by being cautious about neighborhood selection, or by facilitating "house hacking" in the design of this house.) | 2021/04/27 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/140316",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/82670/"
] | What you do with proceeds from a rental property are entirely up to you.
As long as you pay any taxes due (and there are [special rules for landlords who let property in the UK but live abroad](https://www.gov.uk/tax-uk-income-live-abroad/rent)), and have a contingency fund available to pay for any issues that come up (e.g. repairs, bills when there are no tenants, decorating, refurbishment, etc), then whatever is left over is your money, to do with as you please.
From a comment:
>
> Is there a certain type of property agent/solicitor/other that I should look to contact for this sort of thing?
>
>
>
I don't know for certain, but lettings agents typically ask for a bank account to pay rent into. It might be possible to nominate an ISA - however, you might just want it to be paid into a normal bank account, so you can keep hold of some of the cash for contingencies. You can then manually move the rest into an ISA. (I'm assuming you'll do all of this online.)
>
> Should I expect to make almost no money at all from the rent or is it actually worth it?
>
>
>
Being a landlord can certainly be a profitable business, so long as you do your homework. There is considerable resource online and elsewhere on the matter.
Note that if you're renting out your own home, and so have a residential mortgage, you will either need permission from your current lender before letting out the property, or you will need to replace the mortgage with a buy-to-let (BTL) mortgage. | >
> I'd like to rent out (let) the house while I'm living abroad and I'd like that rent money to go into a managed investment account. Is this possible in the UK or would I be prevented from re-investing rent money because I'm living away?
>
>
>
It's completely, totally, possible and normal. 10,000s of brits do this. It is not illegal or prevented in any way.
It's completely OK whether you do or don't have a mortgage.
(If you're asking about *tax* implications, you'd have to ask very specific questions.) |
8,441 | **This is NOT [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/901/does-god-have-free-will)**
I've been reading a lot about Arianism and this is an interesting point that they have:
>
> Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right
> and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have
> come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was
> not, and hence He was a finite being,"[37] and was under God the
> Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John
> 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15:
> "Firstborn of all creation."
>
>
>
So then, before being on the cross, did Jesus (being 100% man) have free will to make mistakes? | 2012/07/10 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8441",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It would be the heresy of [monophysitism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism) (or, pushed to an extreme docetism) to deny Jesus' free will.
The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 -
>
> "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
>
>
>
If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning.
Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states:
>
> “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin”
>
>
>
Again, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, this statement makes no sense.
Finally, even Satan realized that Jesus could sin. Otherwise, why would he have even attempted to entice Jesus to break his fast, worship him, or put God to the test, in the wilderness in Luke 4 / Matthew 4? | >
> For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. (NIV Hebrews 4:15)
>
>
> the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me (NIV John14:30)
>
>
>
Jesus had free will, but not the ability to sin, that is considered impossible by many Christian leaders around the world. The fact is **there are two sides to this interesting question.** Both sides agree that Jesus did not sin, so I suppose this debate is only theoretical, but its all about whether theoretically he could have sinned. Those who hold to **“impeccability”** believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to **“peccability”** believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not.
I think when you think about it one must fall for the “impeccability” belief because it alone can maintain the idea of the God-Man. To assert peccability we are basically denying the scripture that says:
>
> Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (NIV Hebrews 13:8)
>
>
>
Jesus would no longer be infinitely unchangeable in his nature if He sinned. The problem is that when God assumed human nature into His own person forever, God could never be separated from the man Jesus. The Christ was both God and Man to separate them would be to destroy both God and Man, which is impossible. Free will does not require absolute freedom to sin, but the divine nature does require absolute inability to sin, even though God has the most free will of all.
The question therefore is almost like saying could God send himself to hell, for that is the theological conclusion of the God-Man sinning. It would mean God sinned himself for Christ was not just man, but God.
**Of course Jesus could have never sinned otherwise He could no longer be said to be God.** Jesus’ human will would have had to be ‘infinitely powerful’ and opposed to God, or opposed to Himself, in its supposed ability to sin for if he had sinned he must suffer eternal hell, but if he was also God than God would also suffer eternal hell. The whole notion is ridiculous.
The cause of the confusion is we often exaggerate how much free will we have as humans. In various was we have very limited free will. The Bible has a different view. In fact it says that although Adam did have a unique aspect of free-will that no other man has ever had, being that He was specifically tested to choose life or death in the garden of Eden as a federal head of humanity, humans are born sinners with no such free will.
A sinner is born a slave to sin without the free will of living holy. This can’t happen until they are born again in Christ and become slaves to righteousness. In fact I heaven we will no longer be free to sin, just as Christ never could because He has become the source of our life and we will not be able to reject our own life, just as Christ was not able to reject His.
>
> But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. (NIV Romans 6:17-18)
>
>
>
Of course we are not fully slaves to righteousness until we enter heaven, but as believers we no longer have the freedom to allow sin to control our lives for our life is Christ who lives in us and who can’t sin.
It is not that difficult to show this belief in **the Impeccability of Christ has been a common belief held by mainstream Protestant leaders**, for example John Owen was one of the leading theologians and academic administrator at the University of Oxford in teh 1600s, he said:
>
> We are tried and tempted by Satan, and the world, and by our own lusts. The aim of all these temptations is sin, to bring us more or less, in one degree or other, to contract the guilt of it. Of times in this condition sin actually ensues, temptation hath its effect in us and upon us; yea, when any temptation is vigorous and pressing, it is seldom but that more or less we are sinfully affected with it. It was quite otherwise with our high priest. Whatever temptation he was exposed unto or exercised withal, as he was with all of all sorts that can come from without, they had none of them in the least degree any effect in him or upon him; he was still in all things absolutely “without sin.” Now, the exception being absolute, I see no reason why it should not be applied unto sin with both the respects unto temptation mentioned. He neither was tempted by sin, such was the holiness of his nature; nor did his temptation produce any sin, such was the perfection of his obedience. (Owens Works Volume 20, P528)
>
>
>
There are various good theologians that reinforce this doctrine, I have not read this article but it seems good from what I could tell. “[The Impeccability of Christ](http://www.berbc.org/Library/Arthur%20Pink%20-%20The%20impecability%20of%20Christ.shtml)” By Arthur W. Pink |
8,441 | **This is NOT [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/901/does-god-have-free-will)**
I've been reading a lot about Arianism and this is an interesting point that they have:
>
> Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right
> and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have
> come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was
> not, and hence He was a finite being,"[37] and was under God the
> Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John
> 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15:
> "Firstborn of all creation."
>
>
>
So then, before being on the cross, did Jesus (being 100% man) have free will to make mistakes? | 2012/07/10 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8441",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It would be the heresy of [monophysitism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism) (or, pushed to an extreme docetism) to deny Jesus' free will.
The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 -
>
> "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
>
>
>
If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning.
Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states:
>
> “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin”
>
>
>
Again, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, this statement makes no sense.
Finally, even Satan realized that Jesus could sin. Otherwise, why would he have even attempted to entice Jesus to break his fast, worship him, or put God to the test, in the wilderness in Luke 4 / Matthew 4? | Arianism introduced the teaching that Christ possessed a "conditional deity" therefore His Deity was conferred or gifted by the only -wise God ( The Father ) so according to Arianism it was absolutely possible for 'The Christ' to sin and loose His 'conditional deity' thus resulting in His eternal annihilation by Ultimate God. The Seventh-day Adventists promulgate this very teaching & appeal to a couple texts that the uneducated understand support their position.
God, according to the Scriptures, knows the end from the beginning & explicitly revealed in the Scriptures what the end would be - the Prophets all did this clearly, God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit all said Salvation would NOT fail - God would come and God would save.
The primary foundation of Arianism is that Christ Incarnated with a "sin nature" and as such Christ yearned or longed to sin but because He trusted in His Father ( understood to be a literal Father ) and through reading the Scriptures and prayer He was able to resist His yearning desire to sin and therefore was able to stand as a proper sacrifice for sins.
Only the Arian groups that exist today teach such things - such as the SDA's, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians - they claim that if Jesus couldn't have sinned and lost His own salvation then His coming was a farce and mockery.
It is absolutely a heretical teaching that must be avoided.
EDIT:
I was asked to add more information so that readers wouldn't think the above was a rant against Adventism [ Arianism ] ( which it's not ). I think we would all agree that people will generally believe what makes them feel good & this is the case with creating a belief system that allows for Jesus to have free will to include His ability to sin - again this is heresy.
1
=
Christ was Eternally the Christ, the Lamb Slain from the Foundations of the world.
See: 1st Peter 1:19 ( it was foreknown INDEED that Christ would provide Salvation )
2
=
That God would come and God would save was stated repeatedly in the Old Covenant Scriptures.
See: Isaiah 14:25 - - Ps 33:11 - - - Job 36:5 - - Zeph 3:5 - - & nearly 100 others
3
=
The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:22 - 32 explictly states that David, being a prophet said that it was "not possible" ( IMPOSSIBLE ) for death to hold Christ because he ( David ) was allowed to see the future, specifically the Resurrection of Christ.
4
=
Jesus said that He "always" ( Eternally ) did the will of the Father.
See: John 6:38 & John 8:29. We as Christians are called observe that even though Christ was God He didn't use that as an excuse to refuse to do the will of the Father, SEE: Phil 2: 5-10
In closing Jesus' free will WAS TO DO the Will of the Father and to please Him always.
I hope this helps. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.