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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8,028,509 | I am developing iPhone application which involves the frameworks available from iOS 3.2 (Core Text, etc..) for rapid development, but the client requires deployment target to be iOS 3.0
The dilemma is either drop the comparability requirement together with development cost but narrow the potential user range or to take an significant extra effort to develop application compatible with older iOS.
The dilemma comes from the opinion that the users who do not update their iPhones are the ones who do not use AppStore, do not buy apps, etc... so keeping developing for them does not have marketing sense.
Is this true? Do you know any reliable resource/research regarding the subject? | 2011/11/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8028509",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/229229/"
] | If you are selling such a massive huge number of apps that even a tiny percentage increase in sales can pay the salary of full time programmers and QA testers, and your app is usable without the newer APIs, then maybe it's worth supporting ancient OS versions.
If not, it's most likely **not** worth it, as
1) the smaller feature set allowed by not using the newest APIs, and
2) the longer development and testing time as well, might cost you more new sales than you would get from customers with ancient devices; and
3) people who don't upgrade their OS or their devices don't buy nearly as many apps as people running more up-to-date OS versions. | Definitely don't waste your time. Virtually EVERYONE is on iOS 4+ now, and virtually everyone will be on iOS 5 by early next year.
Also, please use the search function next time, this question has been asked many times before. |
109,534 | This question as been ask before [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89760/how-often-does-data-stackexchange-com-data-synchronize) by Aleadam and answered by Marek. I am sorry I am asking again but the answer is from May.
Should data.stackexchange.com be updated more frequently?
* every week?
* every 2 weeks?
Thank you very much | 2011/10/17 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109534",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/170090/"
] | Unless you're after something specialized, see if the [API](https://stackapps.com/questions/1/api-documentation-and-help) will suit your needs. It allows you to access the current data, albeit with some rate limits.
There's a [help](http://api.stackoverflow.com/1.1/help) document for the SO version that gives more details, and there are versions that can be used for any site except StackExchange.com and Area51. | Why?
The data is **always** out of date - this is simply a consequence of the way the data explorer works (it queries against the data dumps rather than the live database).
Given that its always going to be out of date, what benefit is there to having the data being at most 1 week out of date (for example) as opposed to at most 1 month out of date? |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | I would like put few points from my reading:
1. Who won the battle ? Well as pointed out by others, it is not quite sure who won the battle i.e. "The Battle of Jhelum". Alexander being the great king would have had a victory in that battle. But according to [Battle of the Jhelum](http://www.richeast.org/htwm/greeks/alex/alex.html) analysis which gives valid reasons why Alexander would have lost the battle taking into consideration of his exhausted army which had already fought many battles and had a long journey across the plain. The given website explains them in detail including the geography factor and elephant factor.
Also in my opinion, Puru (Porus) is from Vedic Tribe Pandava dynasty. Not much information is available about his life or about his success or failure in the war against Alexander due to loss of historical texts ! (I see this as the main reason that we lost the history about a king).
2. Another point is the existence of [Nanda dynasty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire) which was very strong across the North India next to "Puru Dynasty" (King Porus). But there is one fact which see very interesting. There was a person named "Chanakya" political theorist and scholar from Taxila. (Remember Taxila was defeated by Alexander before his journey to Punjab !). Chanakya gives a warning message to King Dhana Nanda of Nanda dynasty that Alexander is invading but the King Nanda ignores this warning as he does not see any threat from Alexander ! Because Nanda's army was huge and Alexander had no match to Nanda's army !
So to summarize, from my first point though I mention the reasons to Alexander's "lost" but I want to say that at some point of time the battle was not won by both the army but both kings made some pact or agreement !
From the second point I would say that Alexander could not invade India because India (back then India was called Aryavartha because it had several kingdoms) was not ruled by one king but many. So with the small army it was not possible. | It is only a theory that Alexander moved back encountering elephants (for first time ?).
Having won the most of walk-able world Alexander would have seen different cultures and learnt all techniques. And, I believe, elephants are not so difficult to face in the following context. Wars are wars and they don't happen just after sunrise as we see or visualize. Burning homes, poisoning drinking water, terrorizing civilians, bribing for a win, all that I can remember. So elephants could have been easily poisoned/killed during night/"trained not to walk" with local supporters, etc.
As posted above, manageability must be the issue. He didn't want to settle down in India.
Secondly India had too many small kings and it would have been so easy for Alexander to buy some of them.
So, I believe he left coz he wanted to.
PS- excuse grammar mistakes if any |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | When Alexander built his great empire, what he was essentially doing is taking over the [Achaemenid Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#Fall_of_the_empire) piece by piece, at a point when the empire was weakened by internal fights.
The Kingdom of Pauruva is sometimes claimed to have lain outside the [Achaemenid empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes_River), but earlier Persian rulers seems to have claimed it was a part of the empire. This indicates that perhaps Porus his predecessor had already been paying taxes/tributes to the Persian empire, which doesn't make it surprising at all that Porus would accept a similar agreement after losing a battle.
That then brings us to the question of why Alexander didn't continue? And here we have to speculate a bit: It's probably the same reason that the Persians earlier didn't continue. The kingdoms further east probably were too powerful, so attacking them was not sure to win, at the same time they are too far from the centre of the empire, and so makes hard to extract taxes from.
It's likely that both in the case of Darius and Xerxes as well as Alexander, even though they conquered the Kingdom of Pauruva, it was just too costly and too far away to be worth it, and too hard to keep hold onto, showing that the empire building had come to it's eastern limit. | I like to point out two reasons behind Alexander's return without conquering India which is not identified in this answer till now.
1. From Madison to North-West India, Alexander faced few wars. We may say that his army first faced a war after coming to the Indian Border i.e. the battle with Porous beside the Sindhu. Distance from Madison to India was very big and his soldiers were unwilling to go any more.
2. Modern Bengali were called [Gangaridai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangaridai#In_Greek_mythology) at that time by Greek historians. They were a very strong fighting Indian community. They were very brave and became a greek myth. Porous fought bravely against Greeks. He also had solders from this community. Alexander saw their courage and braveness face to face in the time of war who were in his mythological stories. It forced him to come to the decision not to go any more inside India.
The given link will enlighten records available in modern age about Gangaridai and show the relationship of them with Greeks. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | The bulk of India then was not controlled by Porus, but by the Nanda dynasty, centered at Pataliputra. Porus controlled only a small section of India, close to Punjab (now divided between Pakistan as well as India). The Nandas were quite a powerful force, and the Greek troops had become war-weary (whether they actually refused orders is open to debate). So, Alexander reluctantly turned back without confronting the Nandas. | I would like put few points from my reading:
1. Who won the battle ? Well as pointed out by others, it is not quite sure who won the battle i.e. "The Battle of Jhelum". Alexander being the great king would have had a victory in that battle. But according to [Battle of the Jhelum](http://www.richeast.org/htwm/greeks/alex/alex.html) analysis which gives valid reasons why Alexander would have lost the battle taking into consideration of his exhausted army which had already fought many battles and had a long journey across the plain. The given website explains them in detail including the geography factor and elephant factor.
Also in my opinion, Puru (Porus) is from Vedic Tribe Pandava dynasty. Not much information is available about his life or about his success or failure in the war against Alexander due to loss of historical texts ! (I see this as the main reason that we lost the history about a king).
2. Another point is the existence of [Nanda dynasty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire) which was very strong across the North India next to "Puru Dynasty" (King Porus). But there is one fact which see very interesting. There was a person named "Chanakya" political theorist and scholar from Taxila. (Remember Taxila was defeated by Alexander before his journey to Punjab !). Chanakya gives a warning message to King Dhana Nanda of Nanda dynasty that Alexander is invading but the King Nanda ignores this warning as he does not see any threat from Alexander ! Because Nanda's army was huge and Alexander had no match to Nanda's army !
So to summarize, from my first point though I mention the reasons to Alexander's "lost" but I want to say that at some point of time the battle was not won by both the army but both kings made some pact or agreement !
From the second point I would say that Alexander could not invade India because India (back then India was called Aryavartha because it had several kingdoms) was not ruled by one king but many. So with the small army it was not possible. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | The bulk of India then was not controlled by Porus, but by the Nanda dynasty, centered at Pataliputra. Porus controlled only a small section of India, close to Punjab (now divided between Pakistan as well as India). The Nandas were quite a powerful force, and the Greek troops had become war-weary (whether they actually refused orders is open to debate). So, Alexander reluctantly turned back without confronting the Nandas. | Alexander won ONE battle. That does not necessarily mean that he will win the second or third.
By being able to appoint Porus "Satrap," Alexander got the "props" for winning the first battle. By accepting the position from Alexander, Porus got to keep control of his country without risking a second or third battle.
It was a "win-win" (limited victory) situation for both sides. Each got what they most wanted out of the situation without having to risk everything. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | In regards to the battle between Alexander and Porus, both accounts are correct, in their own way.
Alexander won the battle, and received an acknowledgement of such from Porus; Porus won the war, by convincing the Greek army (if perhaps not Alexander himself) that continuing was pointlessly expensive. Both sides saved face through the reappointment of Porus as Satrap by Alexander.
Indian history tells of the glorious war won by Porus against Alexander, and Western history tells of the glorious battle won by Alexander against Porus. Everyone's history glorifies their own exploits, and everyone gets a happy ending. What surprises you of this? *Real politik* was just as real 2500 years ago as it is today, | I like to point out two reasons behind Alexander's return without conquering India which is not identified in this answer till now.
1. From Madison to North-West India, Alexander faced few wars. We may say that his army first faced a war after coming to the Indian Border i.e. the battle with Porous beside the Sindhu. Distance from Madison to India was very big and his soldiers were unwilling to go any more.
2. Modern Bengali were called [Gangaridai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangaridai#In_Greek_mythology) at that time by Greek historians. They were a very strong fighting Indian community. They were very brave and became a greek myth. Porous fought bravely against Greeks. He also had solders from this community. Alexander saw their courage and braveness face to face in the time of war who were in his mythological stories. It forced him to come to the decision not to go any more inside India.
The given link will enlighten records available in modern age about Gangaridai and show the relationship of them with Greeks. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | When Alexander built his great empire, what he was essentially doing is taking over the [Achaemenid Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#Fall_of_the_empire) piece by piece, at a point when the empire was weakened by internal fights.
The Kingdom of Pauruva is sometimes claimed to have lain outside the [Achaemenid empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes_River), but earlier Persian rulers seems to have claimed it was a part of the empire. This indicates that perhaps Porus his predecessor had already been paying taxes/tributes to the Persian empire, which doesn't make it surprising at all that Porus would accept a similar agreement after losing a battle.
That then brings us to the question of why Alexander didn't continue? And here we have to speculate a bit: It's probably the same reason that the Persians earlier didn't continue. The kingdoms further east probably were too powerful, so attacking them was not sure to win, at the same time they are too far from the centre of the empire, and so makes hard to extract taxes from.
It's likely that both in the case of Darius and Xerxes as well as Alexander, even though they conquered the Kingdom of Pauruva, it was just too costly and too far away to be worth it, and too hard to keep hold onto, showing that the empire building had come to it's eastern limit. | I would like put few points from my reading:
1. Who won the battle ? Well as pointed out by others, it is not quite sure who won the battle i.e. "The Battle of Jhelum". Alexander being the great king would have had a victory in that battle. But according to [Battle of the Jhelum](http://www.richeast.org/htwm/greeks/alex/alex.html) analysis which gives valid reasons why Alexander would have lost the battle taking into consideration of his exhausted army which had already fought many battles and had a long journey across the plain. The given website explains them in detail including the geography factor and elephant factor.
Also in my opinion, Puru (Porus) is from Vedic Tribe Pandava dynasty. Not much information is available about his life or about his success or failure in the war against Alexander due to loss of historical texts ! (I see this as the main reason that we lost the history about a king).
2. Another point is the existence of [Nanda dynasty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire) which was very strong across the North India next to "Puru Dynasty" (King Porus). But there is one fact which see very interesting. There was a person named "Chanakya" political theorist and scholar from Taxila. (Remember Taxila was defeated by Alexander before his journey to Punjab !). Chanakya gives a warning message to King Dhana Nanda of Nanda dynasty that Alexander is invading but the King Nanda ignores this warning as he does not see any threat from Alexander ! Because Nanda's army was huge and Alexander had no match to Nanda's army !
So to summarize, from my first point though I mention the reasons to Alexander's "lost" but I want to say that at some point of time the battle was not won by both the army but both kings made some pact or agreement !
From the second point I would say that Alexander could not invade India because India (back then India was called Aryavartha because it had several kingdoms) was not ruled by one king but many. So with the small army it was not possible. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | In regards to the battle between Alexander and Porus, both accounts are correct, in their own way.
Alexander won the battle, and received an acknowledgement of such from Porus; Porus won the war, by convincing the Greek army (if perhaps not Alexander himself) that continuing was pointlessly expensive. Both sides saved face through the reappointment of Porus as Satrap by Alexander.
Indian history tells of the glorious war won by Porus against Alexander, and Western history tells of the glorious battle won by Alexander against Porus. Everyone's history glorifies their own exploits, and everyone gets a happy ending. What surprises you of this? *Real politik* was just as real 2500 years ago as it is today, | actually the greek force was fearful of the great Nand king that was ruling the vast empire of Magadh from its capital patliputra(modern patna and gaya area).he was tyrant but had a huge army under his command including elephants expert in war.had alexender moved to eastern part of punjab there was chance of direct confrontation with nand king .hence was compelled to retreat. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | I would like put few points from my reading:
1. Who won the battle ? Well as pointed out by others, it is not quite sure who won the battle i.e. "The Battle of Jhelum". Alexander being the great king would have had a victory in that battle. But according to [Battle of the Jhelum](http://www.richeast.org/htwm/greeks/alex/alex.html) analysis which gives valid reasons why Alexander would have lost the battle taking into consideration of his exhausted army which had already fought many battles and had a long journey across the plain. The given website explains them in detail including the geography factor and elephant factor.
Also in my opinion, Puru (Porus) is from Vedic Tribe Pandava dynasty. Not much information is available about his life or about his success or failure in the war against Alexander due to loss of historical texts ! (I see this as the main reason that we lost the history about a king).
2. Another point is the existence of [Nanda dynasty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanda_Empire) which was very strong across the North India next to "Puru Dynasty" (King Porus). But there is one fact which see very interesting. There was a person named "Chanakya" political theorist and scholar from Taxila. (Remember Taxila was defeated by Alexander before his journey to Punjab !). Chanakya gives a warning message to King Dhana Nanda of Nanda dynasty that Alexander is invading but the King Nanda ignores this warning as he does not see any threat from Alexander ! Because Nanda's army was huge and Alexander had no match to Nanda's army !
So to summarize, from my first point though I mention the reasons to Alexander's "lost" but I want to say that at some point of time the battle was not won by both the army but both kings made some pact or agreement !
From the second point I would say that Alexander could not invade India because India (back then India was called Aryavartha because it had several kingdoms) was not ruled by one king but many. So with the small army it was not possible. | I like to point out two reasons behind Alexander's return without conquering India which is not identified in this answer till now.
1. From Madison to North-West India, Alexander faced few wars. We may say that his army first faced a war after coming to the Indian Border i.e. the battle with Porous beside the Sindhu. Distance from Madison to India was very big and his soldiers were unwilling to go any more.
2. Modern Bengali were called [Gangaridai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangaridai#In_Greek_mythology) at that time by Greek historians. They were a very strong fighting Indian community. They were very brave and became a greek myth. Porous fought bravely against Greeks. He also had solders from this community. Alexander saw their courage and braveness face to face in the time of war who were in his mythological stories. It forced him to come to the decision not to go any more inside India.
The given link will enlighten records available in modern age about Gangaridai and show the relationship of them with Greeks. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | In regards to the battle between Alexander and Porus, both accounts are correct, in their own way.
Alexander won the battle, and received an acknowledgement of such from Porus; Porus won the war, by convincing the Greek army (if perhaps not Alexander himself) that continuing was pointlessly expensive. Both sides saved face through the reappointment of Porus as Satrap by Alexander.
Indian history tells of the glorious war won by Porus against Alexander, and Western history tells of the glorious battle won by Alexander against Porus. Everyone's history glorifies their own exploits, and everyone gets a happy ending. What surprises you of this? *Real politik* was just as real 2500 years ago as it is today, | When Alexander built his great empire, what he was essentially doing is taking over the [Achaemenid Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#Fall_of_the_empire) piece by piece, at a point when the empire was weakened by internal fights.
The Kingdom of Pauruva is sometimes claimed to have lain outside the [Achaemenid empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes_River), but earlier Persian rulers seems to have claimed it was a part of the empire. This indicates that perhaps Porus his predecessor had already been paying taxes/tributes to the Persian empire, which doesn't make it surprising at all that Porus would accept a similar agreement after losing a battle.
That then brings us to the question of why Alexander didn't continue? And here we have to speculate a bit: It's probably the same reason that the Persians earlier didn't continue. The kingdoms further east probably were too powerful, so attacking them was not sure to win, at the same time they are too far from the centre of the empire, and so makes hard to extract taxes from.
It's likely that both in the case of Darius and Xerxes as well as Alexander, even though they conquered the Kingdom of Pauruva, it was just too costly and too far away to be worth it, and too hard to keep hold onto, showing that the empire building had come to it's eastern limit. |
10,104 | Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus.
This link from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_conquests_in_India) says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". ***This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.***
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." ***Did that mutiny actually occur?***
**After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?**
**Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?** | 2013/09/07 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10104",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/2750/"
] | The bulk of India then was not controlled by Porus, but by the Nanda dynasty, centered at Pataliputra. Porus controlled only a small section of India, close to Punjab (now divided between Pakistan as well as India). The Nandas were quite a powerful force, and the Greek troops had become war-weary (whether they actually refused orders is open to debate). So, Alexander reluctantly turned back without confronting the Nandas. | It is only a theory that Alexander moved back encountering elephants (for first time ?).
Having won the most of walk-able world Alexander would have seen different cultures and learnt all techniques. And, I believe, elephants are not so difficult to face in the following context. Wars are wars and they don't happen just after sunrise as we see or visualize. Burning homes, poisoning drinking water, terrorizing civilians, bribing for a win, all that I can remember. So elephants could have been easily poisoned/killed during night/"trained not to walk" with local supporters, etc.
As posted above, manageability must be the issue. He didn't want to settle down in India.
Secondly India had too many small kings and it would have been so easy for Alexander to buy some of them.
So, I believe he left coz he wanted to.
PS- excuse grammar mistakes if any |
64,189 | I was thinking of making the characters use racial slurs, because there's no way that in a fantasy setting people are progressive and respect people of every group, but I wasn't sure what would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable given the current culture of wide acceptance and zero tolerance for racism.
In Skyrim, humans refer to Orcs as "Pig men", Khajiits as "Cats", and I think those are fine, but I am not sure what to make out of "darkies" when referring to a dark elf for example. It seems to close to comfort to real racial slurs used in our world, and I feel like it's probably not something most authors would use today. | 2023/01/13 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64189",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49648/"
] | I note that on Earth races are subgroups of humans, and that all humans are members of one species, *Homo sapiens*.
In fantasy stories Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Giants, Trolls, etc. are members of different species which coexist with human characters. And I find annoying that people write about different fantasy races when they are actually different fantasy species. Thus fantasy characters often exhibit prejudice against members of other species which should be classified as speciesism and not racism.
I note that in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the seven races of the Dwarves are mentioned, and thus Dwarves include members of seven different races, which makes the difference between Dwarves and Hobbits and Elves bigger than the differences between human races.
Similarly in science fiction people from different planets in different star systems are usually members of different species, often drastically different in appearance. In fact all the lifeforms on planet A may be related to each other, but they should be totally unrelated to all the lifeforms on planet B. So the people of planet A are not just a different species from the people of planet B, but a different genus, a different family, a different order, a different class, a different phylum, a different kingdom, etc.
Thus a fantasy or science fiction writer could have a character think about how much he despised Globnork's entire species, showing that Globnork and the other character belong to different species and not just different races.
And maybe someone could point out that a character had no racism against other members of his species, but had prejudice against members of some other species. Obviously knowledge of other species of people might make many people more tolerant of other races, but their evil urges to oppress different people might be channeled against people of other species, instead of being fought against.
And maybe a character could be bullied by racist members of other races of his species, and also bullied by speciesist members of other species. | First, the assumption of lack of tolerance among people of different ethnicities was surprisingly varied depending on cultures and historical periods. For example, the Romans were quite tolerant of other religions and didn't care if those they conquered didn't worship the same gods they did (largely because they were already worshipping the Greek gods). Shakespeare's play *Othello: The Moore of Venice* made sure that the only people who brought Othello's African Heritage up were clearly using it against him, and the motives of the villainous Iago's hatred of Othello was Othello got a promotion to the head of the Venetian Military over Iago. Iago was trying to ruin Othello's relationship, and when he found that people respected Othello regardless of skin color, he moved to other means to sabotage him. In another of the Bard's works, The Merchant of Venice, the character of Shylock is given several anti-Semitic characterizations, but Shylock also is given credit that some of his behavior is his own quest for justice, and makes a memorable argument that even if he is Jewish, he is still human and deserves the dignity as such, which was progressive for the period of history. And while Shylock was ultimately forced to convert to Christianity, at the time, this was considered a happy ending for Shylock.
In the U.S., real life 19th century cowboys were incredibly diverse, and about a quarter of those who occupied the role were of African, Hispanic, or Native American descent and they were equally respected by their white co-workers, largely due to the dangerous nature of the work precluded racial differences from getting in the way of safety. You don't see this often because most popular depictions of Cowboys were developed for audiences that wouldn't want to see the real integration.
Now, that's not to say slurs didn't exists, but they didn't always have the inappropriate connotation they have today. Nor should it be ignored that yes, there was greater societal tolerance of intolerant practices and that doesn't make them any less wrong. Even shows set in the optimistic future, slurs emerged for fictional races of people. Star Trek had many prominent races given slurs by humans, who had stopped racial hatred of their own kinds. Klingons were called Klinks, Cardassians were Spoonheads, Humans were called "Pink Skins" (which was mocked because many aliens had near human appearances) Bajorans were Wrinkle-Noses, etc. Several episodes did deal with this. The character of Miles O'Brian was shown to have some very problematic history with Cardassians, largely due to the fact that he served on the front lines in a war with them preceding the TNG era, and as with many real wars, un-personing the enemy is often used to get soldiers over the fact that they have to kill a man and will be praised by it. He didn't kill a Cardassian. He killed a Spoon. And the attitude is not easy to correct once peace comes and on several occasions Miles is shown to be very uncomfortable being around Cardassians, even those who were not even born when the war was on.
That said, if you do want to use fantasy slurs to address racism in your story, there are plenty of ways to do, but the slurs should be something that has no cross overs with real world slurs (your dark elves one is used in real life and mostly to offend non-white people. To say nothing of the fact that there has been a lot of controversy around the deception of drow/dark-elves coding for stereotypes of African American peoples. I would recommend going with a different word like "bats" since Dark Elves are often cave dwelling). I would make damn sure it is known that this behavior is not acceptable and avoid the heroes doing it at all unless there is significant purpose to it (like the story being about them overcoming their own bigotry). |
64,189 | I was thinking of making the characters use racial slurs, because there's no way that in a fantasy setting people are progressive and respect people of every group, but I wasn't sure what would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable given the current culture of wide acceptance and zero tolerance for racism.
In Skyrim, humans refer to Orcs as "Pig men", Khajiits as "Cats", and I think those are fine, but I am not sure what to make out of "darkies" when referring to a dark elf for example. It seems to close to comfort to real racial slurs used in our world, and I feel like it's probably not something most authors would use today. | 2023/01/13 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64189",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49648/"
] | First, the assumption of lack of tolerance among people of different ethnicities was surprisingly varied depending on cultures and historical periods. For example, the Romans were quite tolerant of other religions and didn't care if those they conquered didn't worship the same gods they did (largely because they were already worshipping the Greek gods). Shakespeare's play *Othello: The Moore of Venice* made sure that the only people who brought Othello's African Heritage up were clearly using it against him, and the motives of the villainous Iago's hatred of Othello was Othello got a promotion to the head of the Venetian Military over Iago. Iago was trying to ruin Othello's relationship, and when he found that people respected Othello regardless of skin color, he moved to other means to sabotage him. In another of the Bard's works, The Merchant of Venice, the character of Shylock is given several anti-Semitic characterizations, but Shylock also is given credit that some of his behavior is his own quest for justice, and makes a memorable argument that even if he is Jewish, he is still human and deserves the dignity as such, which was progressive for the period of history. And while Shylock was ultimately forced to convert to Christianity, at the time, this was considered a happy ending for Shylock.
In the U.S., real life 19th century cowboys were incredibly diverse, and about a quarter of those who occupied the role were of African, Hispanic, or Native American descent and they were equally respected by their white co-workers, largely due to the dangerous nature of the work precluded racial differences from getting in the way of safety. You don't see this often because most popular depictions of Cowboys were developed for audiences that wouldn't want to see the real integration.
Now, that's not to say slurs didn't exists, but they didn't always have the inappropriate connotation they have today. Nor should it be ignored that yes, there was greater societal tolerance of intolerant practices and that doesn't make them any less wrong. Even shows set in the optimistic future, slurs emerged for fictional races of people. Star Trek had many prominent races given slurs by humans, who had stopped racial hatred of their own kinds. Klingons were called Klinks, Cardassians were Spoonheads, Humans were called "Pink Skins" (which was mocked because many aliens had near human appearances) Bajorans were Wrinkle-Noses, etc. Several episodes did deal with this. The character of Miles O'Brian was shown to have some very problematic history with Cardassians, largely due to the fact that he served on the front lines in a war with them preceding the TNG era, and as with many real wars, un-personing the enemy is often used to get soldiers over the fact that they have to kill a man and will be praised by it. He didn't kill a Cardassian. He killed a Spoon. And the attitude is not easy to correct once peace comes and on several occasions Miles is shown to be very uncomfortable being around Cardassians, even those who were not even born when the war was on.
That said, if you do want to use fantasy slurs to address racism in your story, there are plenty of ways to do, but the slurs should be something that has no cross overs with real world slurs (your dark elves one is used in real life and mostly to offend non-white people. To say nothing of the fact that there has been a lot of controversy around the deception of drow/dark-elves coding for stereotypes of African American peoples. I would recommend going with a different word like "bats" since Dark Elves are often cave dwelling). I would make damn sure it is known that this behavior is not acceptable and avoid the heroes doing it at all unless there is significant purpose to it (like the story being about them overcoming their own bigotry). | Depends on if you want a watered-down, bland, and easily forgettable story, or if you want one that is actually good. When you write, whether it is set in a realistic setting or fantasy, you have to allow the characters to be authentic. If your character is a racist, then they should use racist speech.
I'm currently writing a story that has several wildly different cultures. One character comes from a warrior culture with a prison-like mentality and she sees nothing wrong with rape or murder. To her, these things are just a part of life. If she wants a mate, she takes him for herself. If he has a wife and/or children, she sees nothing wrong with killing them.
It's not my personal opinions or attitudes about such subjects, but then again, I'm not writing a story about myself. I'm writing a story about someone else who was raised with a completely different set of morals and values than I have.
When I write such characters, I don't care about what I, or even my reader, thinks about them. I just try to get inside the character's head and think about what would be authentic to the character I'm writing. |
64,189 | I was thinking of making the characters use racial slurs, because there's no way that in a fantasy setting people are progressive and respect people of every group, but I wasn't sure what would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable given the current culture of wide acceptance and zero tolerance for racism.
In Skyrim, humans refer to Orcs as "Pig men", Khajiits as "Cats", and I think those are fine, but I am not sure what to make out of "darkies" when referring to a dark elf for example. It seems to close to comfort to real racial slurs used in our world, and I feel like it's probably not something most authors would use today. | 2023/01/13 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64189",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49648/"
] | I note that on Earth races are subgroups of humans, and that all humans are members of one species, *Homo sapiens*.
In fantasy stories Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Giants, Trolls, etc. are members of different species which coexist with human characters. And I find annoying that people write about different fantasy races when they are actually different fantasy species. Thus fantasy characters often exhibit prejudice against members of other species which should be classified as speciesism and not racism.
I note that in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the seven races of the Dwarves are mentioned, and thus Dwarves include members of seven different races, which makes the difference between Dwarves and Hobbits and Elves bigger than the differences between human races.
Similarly in science fiction people from different planets in different star systems are usually members of different species, often drastically different in appearance. In fact all the lifeforms on planet A may be related to each other, but they should be totally unrelated to all the lifeforms on planet B. So the people of planet A are not just a different species from the people of planet B, but a different genus, a different family, a different order, a different class, a different phylum, a different kingdom, etc.
Thus a fantasy or science fiction writer could have a character think about how much he despised Globnork's entire species, showing that Globnork and the other character belong to different species and not just different races.
And maybe someone could point out that a character had no racism against other members of his species, but had prejudice against members of some other species. Obviously knowledge of other species of people might make many people more tolerant of other races, but their evil urges to oppress different people might be channeled against people of other species, instead of being fought against.
And maybe a character could be bullied by racist members of other races of his species, and also bullied by speciesist members of other species. | Depends on if you want a watered-down, bland, and easily forgettable story, or if you want one that is actually good. When you write, whether it is set in a realistic setting or fantasy, you have to allow the characters to be authentic. If your character is a racist, then they should use racist speech.
I'm currently writing a story that has several wildly different cultures. One character comes from a warrior culture with a prison-like mentality and she sees nothing wrong with rape or murder. To her, these things are just a part of life. If she wants a mate, she takes him for herself. If he has a wife and/or children, she sees nothing wrong with killing them.
It's not my personal opinions or attitudes about such subjects, but then again, I'm not writing a story about myself. I'm writing a story about someone else who was raised with a completely different set of morals and values than I have.
When I write such characters, I don't care about what I, or even my reader, thinks about them. I just try to get inside the character's head and think about what would be authentic to the character I'm writing. |
57,002,045 | Actually, I have a doubt regarding SharedPreferences in android.
I have started learning Android a few days back and I am creating a SignUp Page for now, for that, I have searched the internet and got some ideas and now I am using multiple shared preferences in my code which I am thinking it would be a bad practice. So, I just wanna know, what happens to the Application if we create multiple shared preferences in the code. | 2019/07/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/57002045",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11701174/"
] | This will just result in multiple SharedPrefenrences files (XML) in the data folder of your app. This is neither a problem nor a bad practice. If you have larger sets of structured data, consider using a database (e.g. SQLite/Room). | It is not bad practice at all. There is always a default shared preference.
we can get default shared pref filename using **.getDefaultSharedPreferences()** method.
you can get back up of any single shared pref file which is efficient. |
57,002,045 | Actually, I have a doubt regarding SharedPreferences in android.
I have started learning Android a few days back and I am creating a SignUp Page for now, for that, I have searched the internet and got some ideas and now I am using multiple shared preferences in my code which I am thinking it would be a bad practice. So, I just wanna know, what happens to the Application if we create multiple shared preferences in the code. | 2019/07/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/57002045",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11701174/"
] | This will just result in multiple SharedPrefenrences files (XML) in the data folder of your app. This is neither a problem nor a bad practice. If you have larger sets of structured data, consider using a database (e.g. SQLite/Room). | With the concept of consuming more memory we shouldn't use SharedPreference to store large amounts of data, Alwayas use SQL DB in android for that. Multiple sharedpreference is good because , you can store data seperate for different sections within the app if it doesn't need to be shared. Shared preference is just a xml file with key value pair. So if you store only simple key value pairs, its okay to have multiple shared preferences. But be logical in your decision, dont just do that because you can |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | 1. As the comments point out, the main landing gear is too forward. Delta wings (and blended) typically land (and takeoff) with a high nose-up, should be an easy fix.
2. Left wing is longer, again easy fix.
3. Outboard control surfaces (normally would be [elevons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevon)) are both pointing down on approach ([or is it climbing](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/34586/14897)?), tail heavy?
4. For a blended wing body, the airline still chose a tail-fin logo (backwards mind you)!
5. Natural pitch stability is required for certification, but the way it looks this design is unstable in pitch. Note that all trailing flaps are deflected down, something which will generate strong pitch instability. There is no obvious means by which a counteracting pitch response could be generated.
6. It looks as if payload is held mostly in the forward part. While it could be balanced when empty, with any sensible amount of payload it will be hopelessly nose-heavy.
---
Related: [Why is there really only one basic design for passenger airplanes?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/8649/14897) | Passenger evacuation for one. Right now, you can open some doors on the side of the tube and add more doors if needs be. That's a lot more of a challenge here.
Also, distributing passengers to a wider area inside the body can lead to greater instances of motion sickness.
Passengers will generally prefer having windows, which is also a challenge for this type of aircraft.
Main gear should be far enough forward that most of the weight is on it, but far enough aft that the nose isn't unloaded in aft CG conditions. It might be right where it needs to be. You'd have to know the CG location. You also need to account for an empty airplane with minimal fuel or it could tip up onto the tail. [Tip up.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLWxD0gY__A)
A large lifting area should at least mean slower landings, but gear should be long enough or far enough aft to flare a bit. You want the mains to touch first so you don't bounce or damage the nose gear.
It's not so much that it can't be done, but there are challenges. |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | 1. As the comments point out, the main landing gear is too forward. Delta wings (and blended) typically land (and takeoff) with a high nose-up, should be an easy fix.
2. Left wing is longer, again easy fix.
3. Outboard control surfaces (normally would be [elevons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevon)) are both pointing down on approach ([or is it climbing](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/34586/14897)?), tail heavy?
4. For a blended wing body, the airline still chose a tail-fin logo (backwards mind you)!
5. Natural pitch stability is required for certification, but the way it looks this design is unstable in pitch. Note that all trailing flaps are deflected down, something which will generate strong pitch instability. There is no obvious means by which a counteracting pitch response could be generated.
6. It looks as if payload is held mostly in the forward part. While it could be balanced when empty, with any sensible amount of payload it will be hopelessly nose-heavy.
---
Related: [Why is there really only one basic design for passenger airplanes?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/8649/14897) | I believe the challenges to using BWB as a people mover are the motion sickness and evacuation issues. Soluble, but challenges nonetheless. Of course, airport and runway suitability are possible issues as well. Military airlift is a probable first application for BWB. |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | 1. As the comments point out, the main landing gear is too forward. Delta wings (and blended) typically land (and takeoff) with a high nose-up, should be an easy fix.
2. Left wing is longer, again easy fix.
3. Outboard control surfaces (normally would be [elevons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevon)) are both pointing down on approach ([or is it climbing](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/34586/14897)?), tail heavy?
4. For a blended wing body, the airline still chose a tail-fin logo (backwards mind you)!
5. Natural pitch stability is required for certification, but the way it looks this design is unstable in pitch. Note that all trailing flaps are deflected down, something which will generate strong pitch instability. There is no obvious means by which a counteracting pitch response could be generated.
6. It looks as if payload is held mostly in the forward part. While it could be balanced when empty, with any sensible amount of payload it will be hopelessly nose-heavy.
---
Related: [Why is there really only one basic design for passenger airplanes?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/8649/14897) | That picture appears to be a photoshop assembly of real aircraft bits from common landing/take-off shots, made to fit the shape of a NASA X48, an unmanned flying test aircraft about the size of an ultralight. Whoever did the photoshop job even slavishly copied the undercarriage position (but not the relative undercart length/height) of an extremely lightly built, largely empty, model aircraft.
It certainly can fly.
<https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bwb_main.html> |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | Passenger evacuation for one. Right now, you can open some doors on the side of the tube and add more doors if needs be. That's a lot more of a challenge here.
Also, distributing passengers to a wider area inside the body can lead to greater instances of motion sickness.
Passengers will generally prefer having windows, which is also a challenge for this type of aircraft.
Main gear should be far enough forward that most of the weight is on it, but far enough aft that the nose isn't unloaded in aft CG conditions. It might be right where it needs to be. You'd have to know the CG location. You also need to account for an empty airplane with minimal fuel or it could tip up onto the tail. [Tip up.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLWxD0gY__A)
A large lifting area should at least mean slower landings, but gear should be long enough or far enough aft to flare a bit. You want the mains to touch first so you don't bounce or damage the nose gear.
It's not so much that it can't be done, but there are challenges. | I believe the challenges to using BWB as a people mover are the motion sickness and evacuation issues. Soluble, but challenges nonetheless. Of course, airport and runway suitability are possible issues as well. Military airlift is a probable first application for BWB. |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | That picture appears to be a photoshop assembly of real aircraft bits from common landing/take-off shots, made to fit the shape of a NASA X48, an unmanned flying test aircraft about the size of an ultralight. Whoever did the photoshop job even slavishly copied the undercarriage position (but not the relative undercart length/height) of an extremely lightly built, largely empty, model aircraft.
It certainly can fly.
<https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bwb_main.html> | Passenger evacuation for one. Right now, you can open some doors on the side of the tube and add more doors if needs be. That's a lot more of a challenge here.
Also, distributing passengers to a wider area inside the body can lead to greater instances of motion sickness.
Passengers will generally prefer having windows, which is also a challenge for this type of aircraft.
Main gear should be far enough forward that most of the weight is on it, but far enough aft that the nose isn't unloaded in aft CG conditions. It might be right where it needs to be. You'd have to know the CG location. You also need to account for an empty airplane with minimal fuel or it could tip up onto the tail. [Tip up.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLWxD0gY__A)
A large lifting area should at least mean slower landings, but gear should be long enough or far enough aft to flare a bit. You want the mains to touch first so you don't bounce or damage the nose gear.
It's not so much that it can't be done, but there are challenges. |
42,477 | I was told in [this other question](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/42445/3201) this aircraft was not real, and that it could not fly in this design.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OSJJf.jpg)
I'm now interested in knowing what would prevent it to fly, from an engineering point of view. It looks great... why is it so obvious this cannot work? | 2017/07/30 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42477",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/18354/"
] | That picture appears to be a photoshop assembly of real aircraft bits from common landing/take-off shots, made to fit the shape of a NASA X48, an unmanned flying test aircraft about the size of an ultralight. Whoever did the photoshop job even slavishly copied the undercarriage position (but not the relative undercart length/height) of an extremely lightly built, largely empty, model aircraft.
It certainly can fly.
<https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bwb_main.html> | I believe the challenges to using BWB as a people mover are the motion sickness and evacuation issues. Soluble, but challenges nonetheless. Of course, airport and runway suitability are possible issues as well. Military airlift is a probable first application for BWB. |
6,736,708 | Are class that are declared inside and interface automatically declared static? I am aware that variables are automatically declared static final. I'm just unsure as to interfaces. | 2011/07/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6736708",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/480691/"
] | If a Class is declared inside an Interface then it is static. | According to the [JLS](http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/interfaces.html#9.5):
>
> A member type declaration in an interface is implicitly static and
> public
>
>
> |
29,539 | The IAU has different classifications for objects in the solar system orbiting the sun, they can be according to their shape and if they clear their neighborhood of other material around its orbits , planets, dwarf planets or Small Solar System bodies. But for objects in the solar system orbiting a planet or a dwarf planet they are all satellites, no matter if they are rounded or if they have an irregular shape like an asteroid. Is there any known reason why this is so? Why is it needed to differenciate its shape when the object it's orbiting the sun, but it isnt needed when the object it's orbiting a planet? (or dwarf planet)? | 2019/02/10 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29539",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/11562/"
] | History, and recent history at that:
At one time (1980) things seemed clear enough: There were planets (Mercury-Pluto), Asteroids (mostly between Mars and Jupiter) and Satellites. No one care much about whether a body was spherical or not, since it was pretty clear that this was all there was.
.
.
.
Then the Kuiper belt happened, and in particular it became clear that Eris was big enough to be rounded... Now why should not Eris be a planet? Could we have tens of rounded icy objects orbiting beyond Neptune? How many would we expect grade-schoolers to memorise?
The decision was taken to classify solar system bodies into:
* Planets (round and not shareing their orbit with anything comparible in size)
* Dwarf planets (round, but have not cleared their orbit)
* Minor planets (not round)
* Satellites (not orbiting the sun)
This is a matter of convenience for humans. It does not reflect any fundamental reality.
For convenience, there is no need to distinguish between round moons and non-round ones, so no distinction is needed (for humans) | Well, all planets, asteroids, comets and the like are satellites too, satellites of a star: the Sun. The term "moon" is used to define a satellite of a sub-stellar object only. You're right in that moons must have a classification on their own, what kind of satellites (or moons) they are. This is what Dr. Alan Stern, head of the New Horizons Pluto mission, has done: he calls all ellipsoidal moons "planets" too. He calls them satellite planets. The most massive body (e.g. Jupiter) is the main planet while its spherical moons (the Galilean satellites) would be satellite planets according to him. So to Dr. Stern the Moon is a planet too.
I don't agree with Dr. Stern and would prefer to call the known spherical moons "satellite *dwarf* planets" or something and calling "satellite planets" just those that are massive enough. If Titan and Ganymede had twice their mass one might really call them "satellite/moon planets" and Jupiter-Ganymede and Saturn-Titan double planet systems. |
8,037,202 | go here: *[[obscured]](http://#)*
When I click on any filter and then I click to **"all"** filter, the content moves a little bit to the left. Why? | 2011/11/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8037202",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/989288/"
] | Because your scrollbar is appearing. | I think vertical scroll bar display when clicked on the all filter. that's problem. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.
Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there. | What I consider *the* book that can be read without any need of a chessboard is the classic "Logical chess move by move" by Irving Chernev. I's a book designed for players in the 1400-1800 OTB range, so I think it definitely will suit you. Moreover, this book teaches both conceptual and strategical ideas via move by move analysis of full games, so it is an entertaining and profitable read.
On books about tactics, which can be definitely read without a chessboard in front of you, I recommend "Chess Training Pocket Book" by Lev Alburt. This book presents 300 of the (arguably, but not much) most important positions in chess. They all feature some must-known concept or tactic and are analyzed deeply in a few lines. This book is well suited for players around 1700-2100. The book presents the problems on the left page and the answers to them on the right page, so you don't have to swing back and forth the book, and can be used for training at virtually every place you may open a book. It is extremely useful. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | I recommend "Invisible Chess Moves." It focuses on our tendency to miss certain tactics and helps readers correct these tendencies. It also won ChessCafe book of the year. | A nice book for beginners is ***[How To Beat Your Dad At Chess](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/How_to_Beat_Your_Dad_at_Chess.html)***. It lists 50 tactics - mostly checkmating attacks. Each tactic appears on two pages, with a brief explanation and a few diagrams showing examples of the tactic in use. Usually there are no more than two or three moves made between the diagrams, so it is reasonably easy to follow between the diagrams. [The book is also available from Amazon](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1901983056).
Addendum: In spite of the title, this book is not just for kids! While I bought it for my chess playing adolescent, I'm enjoying going through it and learning mating attacks that would probably not occur to me otherwise. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | Soltis' *The Art of Defense* in Chess is great.
You should strive to never use a chessboard when reading books. Use you mind. This isn't real practical when you're working through an Informant, but for normal books, you should be able to do it. It saves a lot of time. | A nice book for beginners is ***[How To Beat Your Dad At Chess](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/How_to_Beat_Your_Dad_at_Chess.html)***. It lists 50 tactics - mostly checkmating attacks. Each tactic appears on two pages, with a brief explanation and a few diagrams showing examples of the tactic in use. Usually there are no more than two or three moves made between the diagrams, so it is reasonably easy to follow between the diagrams. [The book is also available from Amazon](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1901983056).
Addendum: In spite of the title, this book is not just for kids! While I bought it for my chess playing adolescent, I'm enjoying going through it and learning mating attacks that would probably not occur to me otherwise. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.
Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there. | Many tactics books are suitable to read without a board,
[Understanding Chess Tactics](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/9197524425) by Martin Weteschnik is one, where it is specifically designed to be read without a board.
[Forcing Chess Moves](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/9056912437) by Charles Hertan where only a few times you need a board
[1000 checkmate combinations](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1906388709) by Viktor Henkin
[Chess tactics for champions](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/081293671X) by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
Far too many other tactics books to mention, :)
Although keep in mind that you will have to visualize sometimes and keep variations in your head, although this is typical of such books. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | I greatly enjoyed Jonathan Rowson's books *Chess for Zebras* and *The Seven Deadly Chess Sins*. And mark, I read them without a board (many times). Rowson's style is entertaining -even funny at times. And I think these books give you a good understanding of the game beyond tactics and strategy.
Given your question "[Does black really have a disadvantage?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6416/does-black-really-have-a-disadvantage)", *Chess for Zebras* might particularly interest you. In it Rowson deals with this question among other things, such as which is the advantage when playing with white, which is the good side of playing with black, etc. | A nice book for beginners is ***[How To Beat Your Dad At Chess](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/How_to_Beat_Your_Dad_at_Chess.html)***. It lists 50 tactics - mostly checkmating attacks. Each tactic appears on two pages, with a brief explanation and a few diagrams showing examples of the tactic in use. Usually there are no more than two or three moves made between the diagrams, so it is reasonably easy to follow between the diagrams. [The book is also available from Amazon](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1901983056).
Addendum: In spite of the title, this book is not just for kids! While I bought it for my chess playing adolescent, I'm enjoying going through it and learning mating attacks that would probably not occur to me otherwise. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | "Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games" is a wonderful book written by Laszlo Polgár. It is a very large book covering 1104 pages, but worth every page.. | A nice book for beginners is ***[How To Beat Your Dad At Chess](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/How_to_Beat_Your_Dad_at_Chess.html)***. It lists 50 tactics - mostly checkmating attacks. Each tactic appears on two pages, with a brief explanation and a few diagrams showing examples of the tactic in use. Usually there are no more than two or three moves made between the diagrams, so it is reasonably easy to follow between the diagrams. [The book is also available from Amazon](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1901983056).
Addendum: In spite of the title, this book is not just for kids! While I bought it for my chess playing adolescent, I'm enjoying going through it and learning mating attacks that would probably not occur to me otherwise. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.
Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there. | I greatly enjoyed Jonathan Rowson's books *Chess for Zebras* and *The Seven Deadly Chess Sins*. And mark, I read them without a board (many times). Rowson's style is entertaining -even funny at times. And I think these books give you a good understanding of the game beyond tactics and strategy.
Given your question "[Does black really have a disadvantage?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6416/does-black-really-have-a-disadvantage)", *Chess for Zebras* might particularly interest you. In it Rowson deals with this question among other things, such as which is the advantage when playing with white, which is the good side of playing with black, etc. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | I greatly enjoyed Jonathan Rowson's books *Chess for Zebras* and *The Seven Deadly Chess Sins*. And mark, I read them without a board (many times). Rowson's style is entertaining -even funny at times. And I think these books give you a good understanding of the game beyond tactics and strategy.
Given your question "[Does black really have a disadvantage?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6416/does-black-really-have-a-disadvantage)", *Chess for Zebras* might particularly interest you. In it Rowson deals with this question among other things, such as which is the advantage when playing with white, which is the good side of playing with black, etc. | Wildhagen's series of books is easy to read without a board, albeit there is no text. The name of the series is Weltgeschichte Des Schachs, and while it is typically biographical game collections (with volumes for Tal, Spassky, Lasker, Capablanca, et al.) there are some volumes centered on multiple players.
If you're wanting to read specific lessons, they're not a good choice, but if you want to play over classic games of chess and do the work of analysis yourself, these are excellent. Every game of the player covered is presented, with a diagram every 5 moves to help you "resync" your mental image of the board with reality.
Aside from the games being worth thinking about, I've found them a great help in improving my own ability to visualize the board. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.
Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there. | Wildhagen's series of books is easy to read without a board, albeit there is no text. The name of the series is Weltgeschichte Des Schachs, and while it is typically biographical game collections (with volumes for Tal, Spassky, Lasker, Capablanca, et al.) there are some volumes centered on multiple players.
If you're wanting to read specific lessons, they're not a good choice, but if you want to play over classic games of chess and do the work of analysis yourself, these are excellent. Every game of the player covered is presented, with a diagram every 5 moves to help you "resync" your mental image of the board with reality.
Aside from the games being worth thinking about, I've found them a great help in improving my own ability to visualize the board. |
6,483 | I am looking for books that can help me improve without a physical/digital chessboard. I have a kindle, and I have many places in school where I can read, but not many where I can open a chessboard without people coming from all 4 corners to see what I am doing.
EDIT: To help for further reference, I am rated 1750 in correspondence chess on chess.com | 2014/09/30 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6483",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/3405/"
] | One book that can mostly be read without a chess board is Willy Hendriks' "Move First Think Later", one of my favourite chess books. It mostly contains puzzles and some interesting musings from the author.
Also, even though you are not looking for a digital solution, I have to add that I find DroidFish (available on Android) to be a nice compact way to read chess books on my daily commute while still having the power of a GM level analyst right there. | I recommend "Invisible Chess Moves." It focuses on our tendency to miss certain tactics and helps readers correct these tendencies. It also won ChessCafe book of the year. |
72,457 | My journey is from Bangalore, India (BLR) to New York, USA (JFK) via Dubai in Emirates (Economy Flex). I have an *American Tourister* bag and the model is same as this [[Link](http://www.snapdeal.com/product/american-tourister-26r068003-grey-82cm/329893256)]. The Length + Width + Height is 164 cm. But when I checked Emirates itinerary, it clearly mentions 150 cm (or 59 inch) [[Link](http://www.emirates.com/in/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/baggage_calculator_result.aspx?departure=blr&arrival=jfk&class=yf&tier=sn&h=778bbf135dc692beeda051b39a61b84f0b9e0ae)] as allowed limit for check-in baggage.
Can any frequent flyer comment if this is safe to travel or Emirates will be very particular about the dimensions? | 2016/06/29 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/72457",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/39939/"
] | Emirates has the following to say about this, on their [website](http://www.emirates.com/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/checked-baggage.aspx):
>
> If your journey includes any destinations in Canada, North America or
> South America, different baggage rules apply.
>
>
> The total dimensions (length + width + height) of each piece must not
> exceed 150cm (59 inches). You’ll be charged an additional fee for any
> individual items exceeding dimensions of 150cm (59 inches), up to a
> maximum of 300cm (118 inches). If an individual item has total
> dimensions greater than 300cm (118 inches), it can’t be checked in as
> baggage and will need to be sent as cargo or freight.
>
>
> If you check in two pieces of luggage (in any of our three classes),
> the total combined dimensions of both pieces should not exceed 300cm
> (118 inches).
>
>
> For travel to and from Canada and North America, you can check in two
> bags of up to 23kg each in Economy Class, and two bags of up to 32kg
> each in First Class or Business Class.
>
>
>
Therefore, in your case you bag will be accepted, but you'll be charged a fee as it exceeds the dimensions.
Emirates provides a [baggage fee calculator](http://www.emirates.com/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/baggage_calculator.aspx), but this only allows you to purchase extra baggage at a discount. It does not display rates for oversize baggage:
>
> \*\*The checked baggage allowance and excess baggage rates calculator is for your information only. Overweight and oversize charges might
> apply. Please contact your local Emirates office for more information.
>
>
> | Don't worry about that much of a size difference. The maximum possibility is that if they think your hand-carry is too large they will ask you to book it with the luggage instead of taking it in the cabin.
source: i have traveled approximately 40 times between Oman and Pakistan using OmanAir, QatarAirways and Flydubai. |
72,457 | My journey is from Bangalore, India (BLR) to New York, USA (JFK) via Dubai in Emirates (Economy Flex). I have an *American Tourister* bag and the model is same as this [[Link](http://www.snapdeal.com/product/american-tourister-26r068003-grey-82cm/329893256)]. The Length + Width + Height is 164 cm. But when I checked Emirates itinerary, it clearly mentions 150 cm (or 59 inch) [[Link](http://www.emirates.com/in/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/baggage_calculator_result.aspx?departure=blr&arrival=jfk&class=yf&tier=sn&h=778bbf135dc692beeda051b39a61b84f0b9e0ae)] as allowed limit for check-in baggage.
Can any frequent flyer comment if this is safe to travel or Emirates will be very particular about the dimensions? | 2016/06/29 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/72457",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/39939/"
] | Emirates employ two types of baggage concept; the first is Weight Concept, and the second Piece Concept. The piece concept is applied when a journey is to any of the destinations in Canada, North America, and South America.
Since your Journey is to a destination (that is New York) in the States, Piece Concept applies.
According to this concept for Economy Class, two pieces of luggage weighing 23 kg each is checked-in. When it comes to dimensions, the total dimensions (height, width, length) of an individual piece should not exceed 150 cm or 59 inches. However, in your case, the total dimensions exceed by 14 cm. Hence, excess baggage allowance is charged. | Don't worry about that much of a size difference. The maximum possibility is that if they think your hand-carry is too large they will ask you to book it with the luggage instead of taking it in the cabin.
source: i have traveled approximately 40 times between Oman and Pakistan using OmanAir, QatarAirways and Flydubai. |
72,457 | My journey is from Bangalore, India (BLR) to New York, USA (JFK) via Dubai in Emirates (Economy Flex). I have an *American Tourister* bag and the model is same as this [[Link](http://www.snapdeal.com/product/american-tourister-26r068003-grey-82cm/329893256)]. The Length + Width + Height is 164 cm. But when I checked Emirates itinerary, it clearly mentions 150 cm (or 59 inch) [[Link](http://www.emirates.com/in/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/baggage_calculator_result.aspx?departure=blr&arrival=jfk&class=yf&tier=sn&h=778bbf135dc692beeda051b39a61b84f0b9e0ae)] as allowed limit for check-in baggage.
Can any frequent flyer comment if this is safe to travel or Emirates will be very particular about the dimensions? | 2016/06/29 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/72457",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/39939/"
] | Emirates has the following to say about this, on their [website](http://www.emirates.com/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/checked-baggage.aspx):
>
> If your journey includes any destinations in Canada, North America or
> South America, different baggage rules apply.
>
>
> The total dimensions (length + width + height) of each piece must not
> exceed 150cm (59 inches). You’ll be charged an additional fee for any
> individual items exceeding dimensions of 150cm (59 inches), up to a
> maximum of 300cm (118 inches). If an individual item has total
> dimensions greater than 300cm (118 inches), it can’t be checked in as
> baggage and will need to be sent as cargo or freight.
>
>
> If you check in two pieces of luggage (in any of our three classes),
> the total combined dimensions of both pieces should not exceed 300cm
> (118 inches).
>
>
> For travel to and from Canada and North America, you can check in two
> bags of up to 23kg each in Economy Class, and two bags of up to 32kg
> each in First Class or Business Class.
>
>
>
Therefore, in your case you bag will be accepted, but you'll be charged a fee as it exceeds the dimensions.
Emirates provides a [baggage fee calculator](http://www.emirates.com/english/plan_book/essential_information/baggages/baggage_calculator.aspx), but this only allows you to purchase extra baggage at a discount. It does not display rates for oversize baggage:
>
> \*\*The checked baggage allowance and excess baggage rates calculator is for your information only. Overweight and oversize charges might
> apply. Please contact your local Emirates office for more information.
>
>
> | Emirates employ two types of baggage concept; the first is Weight Concept, and the second Piece Concept. The piece concept is applied when a journey is to any of the destinations in Canada, North America, and South America.
Since your Journey is to a destination (that is New York) in the States, Piece Concept applies.
According to this concept for Economy Class, two pieces of luggage weighing 23 kg each is checked-in. When it comes to dimensions, the total dimensions (height, width, length) of an individual piece should not exceed 150 cm or 59 inches. However, in your case, the total dimensions exceed by 14 cm. Hence, excess baggage allowance is charged. |
32,730 | This might be a stupid idea, but I will try anyways:
I have a RF 433MHz TX module ([datasheet](http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Wireless/General/TWS-BS-3_433.92MHz_ASK_RF_Transmitter_Module_Data_Sheet.pdf)) which can be supplied with 1.5V...12V. My understanding is the range increases with higher voltage as the module can draw more power.
My power supply is a 5V 10W wall adapter. Suppose I cannot simply change that to a 12V adapter.
If I increase the voltage from 5V to 12V using a boost converter, or a charge pump, would that have the same effect as having a 12V supply in the first place? Can the RF TX really draw more power through a boost converter? | 2012/05/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/32730",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6515/"
] | The output power will be maximum at maximum input voltage. It just mentions a typical and maximum: 14dBm typical, which is 25mW, and 32mW maximum.
But it also says maximum supply current is 8mA. At a low supply voltage like 1.5V that would mean it consumes 12mW. In that case it can't possible transmit 25mW, so at lower voltages the power will be indeed limited. | **What range are you wishing to achieve?**
>
> If I increase the voltage from 5V to 12V using a boost converter, or a charge pump, would that have the same effect as having a 12V supply in the first place?
>
>
>
Yes. as long as the supply can provide the required current the transmitter does not "care" how the 12V is provided.
>
> Can the RF TX really draw more power through a boost converter?
>
>
>
It can really draw more power with more supply voltage - whether from a boost converter or otherwise.
RF can have more output voltage than supply voltage due to resonance but an order of magnitude check of result is often useful. A 12V rail to rail signal = +/- 6V. RmS value is 0.7071 of that or about 4.2V. Say 4V.
Power = V^2/R and R = V^2 / Power
To get 32 mW at 4V then Rload = V^2/Power = 16/.032 =~~ 500 ohms. As typical antennae used with such devices are liable to present impedances of 50 ohm or 75 ohm for whips or dipole or 300 ohm for a folder dipole. Either way, there is enough supply voltage at 12V to meet the 32 mw spec.
If you want substantial range you are liable to get best return for effort by implementing a formal antenna (ie not just a random untuned piece of wire of unknown characteristic), driving it well (impedance matched, low VSWR). If you need more than what simple whips etc will easily provide you can implement multi element "beams" or cantennas with relative ease. 432 MHz is a bit low for good gain cantennas but you are unlikely to need much.
---
**432 or adaptable:**
[Loop](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3122/2521325060_9fc1242fe5_m.jpg)
[Quadri Filar](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/SatelliteAntenna-137MHz.jpg/432px-SatelliteAntenna-137MHz.jpg) and [here](http://www.vklogger.com/forum/download/file.php?id=633&t=1)
[Skewplanar - from here](http://www.n2jrf.com/antennasforvhfabove.htm) includes dimensions for 432 MHz.
<http://www.n2jrf.com/antennasforvhfabove.htm>
)
[Classic turnstile](http://www.n2jrf.com/Moxon_Sat_Ant.pdf)
etc
---
**Mainly 2.x GHz - things to learn:**
**Oh Yes !!! :-)**
The photo below is [from this page](http://www.arab-eng.org/vb/showthread.php/178459-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7) which is all in Arabic unless you allow translation, when it's 98% in Arabic **and** the gear shown is largely aimed at 2.x GHz **BUT** it's very worth looking at regardless.
[They seem to think they know what they are doing :-) :
[Or in Turkish](http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_12976524/mpage_4/tm.htm) - not as good. 2.4 GHz
[Spanish 2.4 GHz excellent](http://montevideolibre.org/manuales:libros:wndw:capitulo_4:antenas)
The aerial with a rod with circles twisted in it can be adapted to 432 MHz.
[2.4 GH - v good](http://www.mikestechblog.com/joomla/component/content/article/42-wifi-wireless/58-extend-wireless-wifi-network-building-24-ghz-cantenna.html) |
32,730 | This might be a stupid idea, but I will try anyways:
I have a RF 433MHz TX module ([datasheet](http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Wireless/General/TWS-BS-3_433.92MHz_ASK_RF_Transmitter_Module_Data_Sheet.pdf)) which can be supplied with 1.5V...12V. My understanding is the range increases with higher voltage as the module can draw more power.
My power supply is a 5V 10W wall adapter. Suppose I cannot simply change that to a 12V adapter.
If I increase the voltage from 5V to 12V using a boost converter, or a charge pump, would that have the same effect as having a 12V supply in the first place? Can the RF TX really draw more power through a boost converter? | 2012/05/27 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/32730",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6515/"
] | To answer your questions: yes, you can, in general, deliver more power to a load, if you insert a boost converter between source and load and yes, in this specific case, the RF module will probably transmit with a higher RF power, if you insert such converter. It is hard to tell, because the datasheet is quite poor. However, both switching and (especially) charge-pump converters produce a lot of noise, at their outputs. Forget about charge pumps. If I used a switching converter there, I'd probably insert a low-dropout linear regulator (LDO) between the switching converter and the RF transmitter, to have a cleaner supply.
Also, by inserting a boost converter, you do increase the power that you can deliver to the load, but only up to the limit given by maximum power that your wall adapter may deliver (10 W in your case). In this case, the maximum power that the RF module may admit at its input (which is 12 V · 8 mA = 96 mW) is well below that 10 W limit, so that number will not limit anything. | **What range are you wishing to achieve?**
>
> If I increase the voltage from 5V to 12V using a boost converter, or a charge pump, would that have the same effect as having a 12V supply in the first place?
>
>
>
Yes. as long as the supply can provide the required current the transmitter does not "care" how the 12V is provided.
>
> Can the RF TX really draw more power through a boost converter?
>
>
>
It can really draw more power with more supply voltage - whether from a boost converter or otherwise.
RF can have more output voltage than supply voltage due to resonance but an order of magnitude check of result is often useful. A 12V rail to rail signal = +/- 6V. RmS value is 0.7071 of that or about 4.2V. Say 4V.
Power = V^2/R and R = V^2 / Power
To get 32 mW at 4V then Rload = V^2/Power = 16/.032 =~~ 500 ohms. As typical antennae used with such devices are liable to present impedances of 50 ohm or 75 ohm for whips or dipole or 300 ohm for a folder dipole. Either way, there is enough supply voltage at 12V to meet the 32 mw spec.
If you want substantial range you are liable to get best return for effort by implementing a formal antenna (ie not just a random untuned piece of wire of unknown characteristic), driving it well (impedance matched, low VSWR). If you need more than what simple whips etc will easily provide you can implement multi element "beams" or cantennas with relative ease. 432 MHz is a bit low for good gain cantennas but you are unlikely to need much.
---
**432 or adaptable:**
[Loop](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3122/2521325060_9fc1242fe5_m.jpg)
[Quadri Filar](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/SatelliteAntenna-137MHz.jpg/432px-SatelliteAntenna-137MHz.jpg) and [here](http://www.vklogger.com/forum/download/file.php?id=633&t=1)
[Skewplanar - from here](http://www.n2jrf.com/antennasforvhfabove.htm) includes dimensions for 432 MHz.
<http://www.n2jrf.com/antennasforvhfabove.htm>
)
[Classic turnstile](http://www.n2jrf.com/Moxon_Sat_Ant.pdf)
etc
---
**Mainly 2.x GHz - things to learn:**
**Oh Yes !!! :-)**
The photo below is [from this page](http://www.arab-eng.org/vb/showthread.php/178459-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7) which is all in Arabic unless you allow translation, when it's 98% in Arabic **and** the gear shown is largely aimed at 2.x GHz **BUT** it's very worth looking at regardless.
[They seem to think they know what they are doing :-) :
[Or in Turkish](http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_12976524/mpage_4/tm.htm) - not as good. 2.4 GHz
[Spanish 2.4 GHz excellent](http://montevideolibre.org/manuales:libros:wndw:capitulo_4:antenas)
The aerial with a rod with circles twisted in it can be adapted to 432 MHz.
[2.4 GH - v good](http://www.mikestechblog.com/joomla/component/content/article/42-wifi-wireless/58-extend-wireless-wifi-network-building-24-ghz-cantenna.html) |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | **Yes, this already happened**
I think your notion that humans are inherently competitive is inaccurate, at best. 'Competitive' and 'cooperating' aren't two binary options, it's a [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).
No species will ever be 100% competitive nor 100% cooperative, but somewhere between those extremes. **Humans certainly aren't 100% competitive**. If anything, we are more cooperating than many (most?) other species. You don't go around killing people for food, right? In fact, chances are that you have a job and work with other people, producing something of value, while someone else produces the food you eat, the electricity you consume and so on. Look around you, think about how many people, all over the world, engaged in cooperation to make the stuff you see. And this is *natural* to humans.
Back to your question, I find it hard to believe that a theoretical 100% competitive species will establish a civilization. Likewise the 100% cooperative one. Extremes will never get you anywhere.
But, excluding purely theoretical extremes - everything is possible. Fact is, we do not have the slightest idea which qualities are required to establish a space-faring civilization - as we only ever saw one successful example (from one single planet).
Aside from some far-fetched speculation,
I cannot see a reason why would a somewhat more cooperative civilization than humans fail to reach space. | Let's assume that a truly cooperative, all-life-loving species ever made the step to become comparable to humans in intelligence and technology. I think there are some vital ingedients to space exploration missing.
1. The incentive
----------------
Why would such a species want to reach space? You could argue with the general spirit of exploration or maybe some religious wanting to be near their God.
But realisticly, the spirit of exploration was fueled by competition. Explorers wanted be *the first* to see some foreign culture or to reach the top of a mountain. As soon as someone claimed the title of "First person to do X", the general desire to repeat the feat was low.
For religious enthusiasm the exact opposite often applies. Holy mountains are often so sacret that people are not allowed to climb them or ferain from doing so out of respect for the gods.
2. The idea
-----------
The first things that ever flew were insects, saurians and birds. They need an atmosphere to fly in and will never reach space.
The first things that could technically reach space were gunpowder propelled rockets build by the Chinese in the 13th century for military purposes.
These simple, unguided contraptions were further developed in Asia and Europe and later by every military nation in the world, always for military purposes.
>
> Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1903) first speculated on the possibility of using rocket technology for manned spaceflight ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket))
>
>
>
That's a damn long time of military development until someone publicly voiced the idea of using a rocket for something different than killing.
How and why would your cooperative aliens develop any idea about *how* they could transport someone into space if they never saw a rocket fly miles into enemy territory?
3. The development
------------------
Even if your aliens developed gunpowder and rockets to celebrate new years eve with bright sparks in the sky, how long would it take them to go from compackted gunpowder glued to a stick that sends sparks into the sky to a giant metal tube packed full of technology and volatile chemicals that sends one of them into the sky?
Many great inventions failed because they couldn't be implemented in a reasonable amount of time and ran out of interest and funding. The gap in technologies is just too big to bridge without actually having a use of the technology. We humans were only able to send a man into space because we sent many men into many wars. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | It's a very interesting question. If I may, I'll start by speculating about where you're coming from on this -- or at least, what it makes me think of!
**1. Some motives for the problem?**
------------------------------------
For a long time, the standard trope in sci fi was aggressive, militaristic aliens invading earth. Later, it was asked "why are these supposedly advanced civilizations still showing primitive, aggressive impulses like us humans?" And the aliens instead became benign beings, possibly trying to guide us on our own path of higher development.
More recently, people have started to suggest that the earlier model was in fact more realistic. The driving impulses in our species that gave us advanced civilisations and technology, and the possibility of becoming a space-faring species, all arise out of our aggressive past:
* Predators tend to be much more intelligent than herbivores, filter-feeders, and so on. (You don't need brains to stalk grass.) [1]
* Pack predators develop the degree of co-operation that enables the group to achieve much more than the sum of its parts, whilst maintaining an intense competition for resources which drives both biological and technological evolution
So in fact it seems pretty likely that the first alien civ we meet will be more like us: a thin veneer of civilization pasted on top of a vicious pack predator.
**2. But why?**
---------------
The fundamental drivers that create this are rules of evolution and ecology that are not even specific to, say, DNA based life; they arise from the very pattern of which life is created: individuals that each contain a genome, which survives through time by replication and consumption of resources. Anything that follows the same basics will develop similar rules. For example, the correct balance betwen co-operation and competition is found even in very simple, artifical games like Prisoner's Dilemma; and it is seen to evolve in highly artificial systems like Game of Life.
**3. So are there any other options?**
--------------------------------------
This is where it gets tricky. You are asking us to imagine something that is not only unlike any other life we know, but anything that follows the same general pattern of life -- and yet is still, in some sense, alive. I have two very incomplete offerings:
1. Life has evolved under very different rules because it is being monitored and "gardened" by some external force which imposes those rules; or
2. An ecosystem which in fact consists of a single mega-organism, where the competing organelles are regulated (similarly to option 1) by a central control mechanism.
How could either of these occur? I have no idea, sorry!
---
1. It is exceedingly difficult to compare intelligence between widely different species. They have different sensory capabilities, different modes of movement, different motivations. So there is no such thing as an official zoologists' list of top N most intelligent species -- and many such lists that are published on the 'net are more to shock and surprise, than to inform. (No; sheep are not particularly intelligent. For a large mammal, they are pretty stupid, actually.) But the only herbivore that regularly figures highly is the elephant. Some parrots also figure pretty highly, notably the African Grey -- but the most intelligent parrots are *not* strict herbivores. The African Grey eats fruit, but also hunts insects, and probably relies on them during dry seasons. | Let's assume that a truly cooperative, all-life-loving species ever made the step to become comparable to humans in intelligence and technology. I think there are some vital ingedients to space exploration missing.
1. The incentive
----------------
Why would such a species want to reach space? You could argue with the general spirit of exploration or maybe some religious wanting to be near their God.
But realisticly, the spirit of exploration was fueled by competition. Explorers wanted be *the first* to see some foreign culture or to reach the top of a mountain. As soon as someone claimed the title of "First person to do X", the general desire to repeat the feat was low.
For religious enthusiasm the exact opposite often applies. Holy mountains are often so sacret that people are not allowed to climb them or ferain from doing so out of respect for the gods.
2. The idea
-----------
The first things that ever flew were insects, saurians and birds. They need an atmosphere to fly in and will never reach space.
The first things that could technically reach space were gunpowder propelled rockets build by the Chinese in the 13th century for military purposes.
These simple, unguided contraptions were further developed in Asia and Europe and later by every military nation in the world, always for military purposes.
>
> Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1903) first speculated on the possibility of using rocket technology for manned spaceflight ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket))
>
>
>
That's a damn long time of military development until someone publicly voiced the idea of using a rocket for something different than killing.
How and why would your cooperative aliens develop any idea about *how* they could transport someone into space if they never saw a rocket fly miles into enemy territory?
3. The development
------------------
Even if your aliens developed gunpowder and rockets to celebrate new years eve with bright sparks in the sky, how long would it take them to go from compackted gunpowder glued to a stick that sends sparks into the sky to a giant metal tube packed full of technology and volatile chemicals that sends one of them into the sky?
Many great inventions failed because they couldn't be implemented in a reasonable amount of time and ran out of interest and funding. The gap in technologies is just too big to bridge without actually having a use of the technology. We humans were only able to send a man into space because we sent many men into many wars. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | Necessity is the mother of Invention, but curiosity drives exploration.
In your setting, you've stipulated that the NEED for space travel is not presented, for instance by thinning resources on the planet, but with intelligence comes curiosity, so at some point, an inevitable urge to examine the space above their heads.
To me, this is enough to suggest that even without a competitive drive, there would still be sufficient motive to push a civilisation to reach for the stars.
As for the second aspect of your question, could an ecosystem exist around a purely co-operative model with **no** trace of competition, well, I find this unlikely. You see, even in our nature there are many examples of co-operative evolution. Plants developed flowers of varying colours to attract creatures to them which in turn prompted the evolution of insects and birds that specialised in pollenating these flowers, however there was still competition among the species to find the best, most attractive flowers, to have the optimal strategy.
At some point it's not good enough to just be able to co-operate or face extinction, you still have to co-operate *better* than the other species in your class, or get left behind, and die out.
To remove the natural consequences that the strongest and best adapted species survive means that you are "carrying" every species that exists.
Looking at predator and prey balance, the kind of co-opeartaion you're suggesting would almost require a sort of ecological social welfare system. A species with no natural defences, low speed and reflexes and a very low rate of reproduction is meant to be ignored for the easy foodstuff it makes for the predators in the area? It would likely get hunted to extinction, in absence of any motive for it's predators to eat anything else until it is gone, unless the predators all agreed to conserve the last remaining populations of that species purely for the purpose of saving it from extinction. This does not serve any evolutionary purpose.
I think the closest reality to the one you are suggesting would be one that focusses survival on the efficiency of co-operation, that all things work in a symbiosis, but evolution is still driven by competition to be the best co-operator, that guaranteeing your usefulness keeps your species alive, until another species proves to be more useful, then it's back to adapt or die. | Let's assume that a truly cooperative, all-life-loving species ever made the step to become comparable to humans in intelligence and technology. I think there are some vital ingedients to space exploration missing.
1. The incentive
----------------
Why would such a species want to reach space? You could argue with the general spirit of exploration or maybe some religious wanting to be near their God.
But realisticly, the spirit of exploration was fueled by competition. Explorers wanted be *the first* to see some foreign culture or to reach the top of a mountain. As soon as someone claimed the title of "First person to do X", the general desire to repeat the feat was low.
For religious enthusiasm the exact opposite often applies. Holy mountains are often so sacret that people are not allowed to climb them or ferain from doing so out of respect for the gods.
2. The idea
-----------
The first things that ever flew were insects, saurians and birds. They need an atmosphere to fly in and will never reach space.
The first things that could technically reach space were gunpowder propelled rockets build by the Chinese in the 13th century for military purposes.
These simple, unguided contraptions were further developed in Asia and Europe and later by every military nation in the world, always for military purposes.
>
> Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1903) first speculated on the possibility of using rocket technology for manned spaceflight ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket))
>
>
>
That's a damn long time of military development until someone publicly voiced the idea of using a rocket for something different than killing.
How and why would your cooperative aliens develop any idea about *how* they could transport someone into space if they never saw a rocket fly miles into enemy territory?
3. The development
------------------
Even if your aliens developed gunpowder and rockets to celebrate new years eve with bright sparks in the sky, how long would it take them to go from compackted gunpowder glued to a stick that sends sparks into the sky to a giant metal tube packed full of technology and volatile chemicals that sends one of them into the sky?
Many great inventions failed because they couldn't be implemented in a reasonable amount of time and ran out of interest and funding. The gap in technologies is just too big to bridge without actually having a use of the technology. We humans were only able to send a man into space because we sent many men into many wars. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | **Preface**
I don't believe we have enough information to answer the 'will they be able to achieve spaceflight' question beyond a simple 'not as you describe it'. We need a lot more information about how your world actually functions before answering such a detailed question.
So, let's answer your 'can this work' question (which I think is a better starting point). Bear with me, this might be a long one, but hopefully it's worth it!
**Can a world based on co-operation not competition exist?**
Unfortunately, the answer is still 'not as you describe it'.
The issue is one of simple efficiency. In the vast majority of cases, it is more efficient to compete with other species for limited resources. From an evolutionary perspective, every resource is limited. If there is a surplus of resources, species will increase in numbers until a critical resource is no longer in surplus. This is most likely the reason competition is almost ubiquitous in our ecosystem. However, I do think that we might be able to engineer a set of circumstances in which an ecosystem of co-operators might exist.
In order to start, we need to define the main types of competition from the perspective of a species. Firstly, we have interspecies competition. Two species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it. Secondly, we have intraspecies competition. Two members of the same species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it.
**Interspecies Competition**
Let's look at interspecies competition first. In order to reduce this to negligible levels, we need to engineer a situation in which two species are able to support larger numbers by co-operating rather than competing. This is common in our world (extreme forms being symbiosis, but plenty of lower-level co-operation. If necessary I'll reel off a list, but only if necessary).
What's rarer, and more difficult to justify is predator-prey symbiosis. Surely if something wants to eat you, you're going to compete with it to not be eaten. The question becomes 'how can we make it *more* evolutionarily beneficial to allow yourself to be eaten by a predator?
Luckily for us, we've already got a few examples of animals allowing themselves to be eaten. In some praying mantises and some species of spider, the males allow themselves to be eaten by the females after mating. This gives the females a much-needed food source immediately prior to producing their mutual offspring. So, what we need is a way for a prey-animal to have a vested interest in the survival of their predator.
How about larval tapeworms? Lets say herbivore A reproduces by infecting predator B with tape-worm young (evolutionary path in the post-script). Now, hebivore A has a vested interest in the survival of its predator as it's now carrying its young. We have a lifecycle that involves a prey animal specifically seeking out another animal to eat it.
Energetically speaking, this is less efficient than just letting your larval young eat you. So we need another example to help guide us.
What about fruit? Ignoring the whole animal/plant divide (it's very much an earthling thing), we can define 'predation' as 'one organism subsisting off another organism'. If an animal eats fruit, it's definitely eating another organism. And yet trees go out of their way to make fruit *really* edible.
The reason they do this is because it's more efficient at propagating their seeds, spreading them far and wide, avoiding competition with the parent tree. As we'll see in a bit, this isn't a great example but what it does do is establish that there are other methods of generating efficiency at propagation than 'survive to create more babies'. Either that, or we could modify herbivore A so that they drop a highly-nutritious larval sac when they're scared, allowing them to survive to breed again.
It's a bit of a stretch to expand that method of reproduction to the majority of species on a planet, but evolution is strange with things like that. If one lucky larval-procreator survived some ancient extinction event and then speciated to become the dominant class of animals on a planet (somewhat of like mammals), then we might end up with a [Planet of Hats](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats) where the 'hat' is interspecies co-operation and symbiotic tapeworm-larvae reproduction.
This is sounding like less and less like an ideal holiday destination...
**Intraspecies co-operation**
I've got a blurb to go with this as well, but I've already wasted too much company time writing this rambling diatribe. My idea, once I've edited it, hinges on high-eusociality and low genetic difference meaning it's more efficient to allow others to procreate when you could otherwise have done.
**P.S.**
1. Initially, I'd imagine its larvae would just strike it out in the world like everyone else's larval young, hoping to infect another animal. But why waste energy looking for animals to infect when the animals can come to you? Heading through a stage where scavengers get infected after feasting on herbivore-A carrion, we get to a point where herbivore A can reproduce faster if it has a high turnover of generations feeding a predator that constantly maintains a colony of fast-maturing larvae of another species. Win-win. Herbivore A gets to offset the costs of pregnancy a little, and predator B gets a steady diet of tasty larvae (bonus points if they time their suicide to a point in time when there's few other prey-animals available so predator B becomes dependent on our little lemmings for survival).
**tl;dr Turns out co-operation-world *Utopia 1* is dominated by eusocial horrors that reproduce through infecting their predators with semi-symbiotic tapeworms. We don't recommend sampling the local cuisine, no matter how keen they are for you to try it.** | It's a very interesting question. If I may, I'll start by speculating about where you're coming from on this -- or at least, what it makes me think of!
**1. Some motives for the problem?**
------------------------------------
For a long time, the standard trope in sci fi was aggressive, militaristic aliens invading earth. Later, it was asked "why are these supposedly advanced civilizations still showing primitive, aggressive impulses like us humans?" And the aliens instead became benign beings, possibly trying to guide us on our own path of higher development.
More recently, people have started to suggest that the earlier model was in fact more realistic. The driving impulses in our species that gave us advanced civilisations and technology, and the possibility of becoming a space-faring species, all arise out of our aggressive past:
* Predators tend to be much more intelligent than herbivores, filter-feeders, and so on. (You don't need brains to stalk grass.) [1]
* Pack predators develop the degree of co-operation that enables the group to achieve much more than the sum of its parts, whilst maintaining an intense competition for resources which drives both biological and technological evolution
So in fact it seems pretty likely that the first alien civ we meet will be more like us: a thin veneer of civilization pasted on top of a vicious pack predator.
**2. But why?**
---------------
The fundamental drivers that create this are rules of evolution and ecology that are not even specific to, say, DNA based life; they arise from the very pattern of which life is created: individuals that each contain a genome, which survives through time by replication and consumption of resources. Anything that follows the same basics will develop similar rules. For example, the correct balance betwen co-operation and competition is found even in very simple, artifical games like Prisoner's Dilemma; and it is seen to evolve in highly artificial systems like Game of Life.
**3. So are there any other options?**
--------------------------------------
This is where it gets tricky. You are asking us to imagine something that is not only unlike any other life we know, but anything that follows the same general pattern of life -- and yet is still, in some sense, alive. I have two very incomplete offerings:
1. Life has evolved under very different rules because it is being monitored and "gardened" by some external force which imposes those rules; or
2. An ecosystem which in fact consists of a single mega-organism, where the competing organelles are regulated (similarly to option 1) by a central control mechanism.
How could either of these occur? I have no idea, sorry!
---
1. It is exceedingly difficult to compare intelligence between widely different species. They have different sensory capabilities, different modes of movement, different motivations. So there is no such thing as an official zoologists' list of top N most intelligent species -- and many such lists that are published on the 'net are more to shock and surprise, than to inform. (No; sheep are not particularly intelligent. For a large mammal, they are pretty stupid, actually.) But the only herbivore that regularly figures highly is the elephant. Some parrots also figure pretty highly, notably the African Grey -- but the most intelligent parrots are *not* strict herbivores. The African Grey eats fruit, but also hunts insects, and probably relies on them during dry seasons. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | Worth noting that there is a lot of information lacking in the question. from How big is the planet to what sort of landmasses and how the entire ecosystem co-operates. and how you define competition. and i'll ignore the predators and prey not competing as it makes my head hurt
But if... the planet was Earth. and the aliens were basically humans that were a lot nicer to each other and wildlife in general. then unfortunately no, not a chance.
*For a minute lets ignore everything that comes before space travel, all the research, all the technological developments that would be required to reach the point that Wernher Von Alien says "hey, i reckon i can put us in space." Lets also ignore the origins of space travel for humans, as it was the biggest game of oneupmanship ever, between Wernher Von Alien and Sergei Koralien*
What is required to reach space: a massive rocket.
When you consider that rockets require computer guidance systems, rocket fuel, a big tube to put the fuel in, and some rocket engines. Yes this i very much an oversimplification!
Now what does all that that require. a lot of very refined material. gold, tungsten, Steel, Copper... so so much copper, a absolutely huge amount of steel, and literally tonnes of aluminium, and a lot of other materials in varying amounts.
So if the entire planet lived in harmony. where does this material come from, at some point something will have to make way as the United States of Aliens compete with wildlife for the regions rich in these materials in order to build the rocket, some sort of wildlife will have to move out of home. this is competing for land against wildlife. or maybe even competing for land against others of the same intelligent species.
Then of course, when the rockets fire, what happens to the debris in the event of an accident, it WILL damaged someones back garden, whether that be actual people, or land animals or fish, someone will have to deal with the damage or debris, so how does that work. sorry guys we've decided to go to the moon, and that chunk of metal that just landed on and crushed those crabs... it was for the betterment of the entire planet.
The concept is great for primitive species, Movies like Avatar play this theme quite well. but advanced civilizations do require for them to compete against nature. it would definitely be possible for a peaceful species to acheive spacetrave while taking care not to damage too much of the planet, but one where everything is harmonic. i just don't think its possible | It's a very interesting question. If I may, I'll start by speculating about where you're coming from on this -- or at least, what it makes me think of!
**1. Some motives for the problem?**
------------------------------------
For a long time, the standard trope in sci fi was aggressive, militaristic aliens invading earth. Later, it was asked "why are these supposedly advanced civilizations still showing primitive, aggressive impulses like us humans?" And the aliens instead became benign beings, possibly trying to guide us on our own path of higher development.
More recently, people have started to suggest that the earlier model was in fact more realistic. The driving impulses in our species that gave us advanced civilisations and technology, and the possibility of becoming a space-faring species, all arise out of our aggressive past:
* Predators tend to be much more intelligent than herbivores, filter-feeders, and so on. (You don't need brains to stalk grass.) [1]
* Pack predators develop the degree of co-operation that enables the group to achieve much more than the sum of its parts, whilst maintaining an intense competition for resources which drives both biological and technological evolution
So in fact it seems pretty likely that the first alien civ we meet will be more like us: a thin veneer of civilization pasted on top of a vicious pack predator.
**2. But why?**
---------------
The fundamental drivers that create this are rules of evolution and ecology that are not even specific to, say, DNA based life; they arise from the very pattern of which life is created: individuals that each contain a genome, which survives through time by replication and consumption of resources. Anything that follows the same basics will develop similar rules. For example, the correct balance betwen co-operation and competition is found even in very simple, artifical games like Prisoner's Dilemma; and it is seen to evolve in highly artificial systems like Game of Life.
**3. So are there any other options?**
--------------------------------------
This is where it gets tricky. You are asking us to imagine something that is not only unlike any other life we know, but anything that follows the same general pattern of life -- and yet is still, in some sense, alive. I have two very incomplete offerings:
1. Life has evolved under very different rules because it is being monitored and "gardened" by some external force which imposes those rules; or
2. An ecosystem which in fact consists of a single mega-organism, where the competing organelles are regulated (similarly to option 1) by a central control mechanism.
How could either of these occur? I have no idea, sorry!
---
1. It is exceedingly difficult to compare intelligence between widely different species. They have different sensory capabilities, different modes of movement, different motivations. So there is no such thing as an official zoologists' list of top N most intelligent species -- and many such lists that are published on the 'net are more to shock and surprise, than to inform. (No; sheep are not particularly intelligent. For a large mammal, they are pretty stupid, actually.) But the only herbivore that regularly figures highly is the elephant. Some parrots also figure pretty highly, notably the African Grey -- but the most intelligent parrots are *not* strict herbivores. The African Grey eats fruit, but also hunts insects, and probably relies on them during dry seasons. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | Necessity is the mother of Invention, but curiosity drives exploration.
In your setting, you've stipulated that the NEED for space travel is not presented, for instance by thinning resources on the planet, but with intelligence comes curiosity, so at some point, an inevitable urge to examine the space above their heads.
To me, this is enough to suggest that even without a competitive drive, there would still be sufficient motive to push a civilisation to reach for the stars.
As for the second aspect of your question, could an ecosystem exist around a purely co-operative model with **no** trace of competition, well, I find this unlikely. You see, even in our nature there are many examples of co-operative evolution. Plants developed flowers of varying colours to attract creatures to them which in turn prompted the evolution of insects and birds that specialised in pollenating these flowers, however there was still competition among the species to find the best, most attractive flowers, to have the optimal strategy.
At some point it's not good enough to just be able to co-operate or face extinction, you still have to co-operate *better* than the other species in your class, or get left behind, and die out.
To remove the natural consequences that the strongest and best adapted species survive means that you are "carrying" every species that exists.
Looking at predator and prey balance, the kind of co-opeartaion you're suggesting would almost require a sort of ecological social welfare system. A species with no natural defences, low speed and reflexes and a very low rate of reproduction is meant to be ignored for the easy foodstuff it makes for the predators in the area? It would likely get hunted to extinction, in absence of any motive for it's predators to eat anything else until it is gone, unless the predators all agreed to conserve the last remaining populations of that species purely for the purpose of saving it from extinction. This does not serve any evolutionary purpose.
I think the closest reality to the one you are suggesting would be one that focusses survival on the efficiency of co-operation, that all things work in a symbiosis, but evolution is still driven by competition to be the best co-operator, that guaranteeing your usefulness keeps your species alive, until another species proves to be more useful, then it's back to adapt or die. | It's a very interesting question. If I may, I'll start by speculating about where you're coming from on this -- or at least, what it makes me think of!
**1. Some motives for the problem?**
------------------------------------
For a long time, the standard trope in sci fi was aggressive, militaristic aliens invading earth. Later, it was asked "why are these supposedly advanced civilizations still showing primitive, aggressive impulses like us humans?" And the aliens instead became benign beings, possibly trying to guide us on our own path of higher development.
More recently, people have started to suggest that the earlier model was in fact more realistic. The driving impulses in our species that gave us advanced civilisations and technology, and the possibility of becoming a space-faring species, all arise out of our aggressive past:
* Predators tend to be much more intelligent than herbivores, filter-feeders, and so on. (You don't need brains to stalk grass.) [1]
* Pack predators develop the degree of co-operation that enables the group to achieve much more than the sum of its parts, whilst maintaining an intense competition for resources which drives both biological and technological evolution
So in fact it seems pretty likely that the first alien civ we meet will be more like us: a thin veneer of civilization pasted on top of a vicious pack predator.
**2. But why?**
---------------
The fundamental drivers that create this are rules of evolution and ecology that are not even specific to, say, DNA based life; they arise from the very pattern of which life is created: individuals that each contain a genome, which survives through time by replication and consumption of resources. Anything that follows the same basics will develop similar rules. For example, the correct balance betwen co-operation and competition is found even in very simple, artifical games like Prisoner's Dilemma; and it is seen to evolve in highly artificial systems like Game of Life.
**3. So are there any other options?**
--------------------------------------
This is where it gets tricky. You are asking us to imagine something that is not only unlike any other life we know, but anything that follows the same general pattern of life -- and yet is still, in some sense, alive. I have two very incomplete offerings:
1. Life has evolved under very different rules because it is being monitored and "gardened" by some external force which imposes those rules; or
2. An ecosystem which in fact consists of a single mega-organism, where the competing organelles are regulated (similarly to option 1) by a central control mechanism.
How could either of these occur? I have no idea, sorry!
---
1. It is exceedingly difficult to compare intelligence between widely different species. They have different sensory capabilities, different modes of movement, different motivations. So there is no such thing as an official zoologists' list of top N most intelligent species -- and many such lists that are published on the 'net are more to shock and surprise, than to inform. (No; sheep are not particularly intelligent. For a large mammal, they are pretty stupid, actually.) But the only herbivore that regularly figures highly is the elephant. Some parrots also figure pretty highly, notably the African Grey -- but the most intelligent parrots are *not* strict herbivores. The African Grey eats fruit, but also hunts insects, and probably relies on them during dry seasons. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | **Preface**
I don't believe we have enough information to answer the 'will they be able to achieve spaceflight' question beyond a simple 'not as you describe it'. We need a lot more information about how your world actually functions before answering such a detailed question.
So, let's answer your 'can this work' question (which I think is a better starting point). Bear with me, this might be a long one, but hopefully it's worth it!
**Can a world based on co-operation not competition exist?**
Unfortunately, the answer is still 'not as you describe it'.
The issue is one of simple efficiency. In the vast majority of cases, it is more efficient to compete with other species for limited resources. From an evolutionary perspective, every resource is limited. If there is a surplus of resources, species will increase in numbers until a critical resource is no longer in surplus. This is most likely the reason competition is almost ubiquitous in our ecosystem. However, I do think that we might be able to engineer a set of circumstances in which an ecosystem of co-operators might exist.
In order to start, we need to define the main types of competition from the perspective of a species. Firstly, we have interspecies competition. Two species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it. Secondly, we have intraspecies competition. Two members of the same species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it.
**Interspecies Competition**
Let's look at interspecies competition first. In order to reduce this to negligible levels, we need to engineer a situation in which two species are able to support larger numbers by co-operating rather than competing. This is common in our world (extreme forms being symbiosis, but plenty of lower-level co-operation. If necessary I'll reel off a list, but only if necessary).
What's rarer, and more difficult to justify is predator-prey symbiosis. Surely if something wants to eat you, you're going to compete with it to not be eaten. The question becomes 'how can we make it *more* evolutionarily beneficial to allow yourself to be eaten by a predator?
Luckily for us, we've already got a few examples of animals allowing themselves to be eaten. In some praying mantises and some species of spider, the males allow themselves to be eaten by the females after mating. This gives the females a much-needed food source immediately prior to producing their mutual offspring. So, what we need is a way for a prey-animal to have a vested interest in the survival of their predator.
How about larval tapeworms? Lets say herbivore A reproduces by infecting predator B with tape-worm young (evolutionary path in the post-script). Now, hebivore A has a vested interest in the survival of its predator as it's now carrying its young. We have a lifecycle that involves a prey animal specifically seeking out another animal to eat it.
Energetically speaking, this is less efficient than just letting your larval young eat you. So we need another example to help guide us.
What about fruit? Ignoring the whole animal/plant divide (it's very much an earthling thing), we can define 'predation' as 'one organism subsisting off another organism'. If an animal eats fruit, it's definitely eating another organism. And yet trees go out of their way to make fruit *really* edible.
The reason they do this is because it's more efficient at propagating their seeds, spreading them far and wide, avoiding competition with the parent tree. As we'll see in a bit, this isn't a great example but what it does do is establish that there are other methods of generating efficiency at propagation than 'survive to create more babies'. Either that, or we could modify herbivore A so that they drop a highly-nutritious larval sac when they're scared, allowing them to survive to breed again.
It's a bit of a stretch to expand that method of reproduction to the majority of species on a planet, but evolution is strange with things like that. If one lucky larval-procreator survived some ancient extinction event and then speciated to become the dominant class of animals on a planet (somewhat of like mammals), then we might end up with a [Planet of Hats](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats) where the 'hat' is interspecies co-operation and symbiotic tapeworm-larvae reproduction.
This is sounding like less and less like an ideal holiday destination...
**Intraspecies co-operation**
I've got a blurb to go with this as well, but I've already wasted too much company time writing this rambling diatribe. My idea, once I've edited it, hinges on high-eusociality and low genetic difference meaning it's more efficient to allow others to procreate when you could otherwise have done.
**P.S.**
1. Initially, I'd imagine its larvae would just strike it out in the world like everyone else's larval young, hoping to infect another animal. But why waste energy looking for animals to infect when the animals can come to you? Heading through a stage where scavengers get infected after feasting on herbivore-A carrion, we get to a point where herbivore A can reproduce faster if it has a high turnover of generations feeding a predator that constantly maintains a colony of fast-maturing larvae of another species. Win-win. Herbivore A gets to offset the costs of pregnancy a little, and predator B gets a steady diet of tasty larvae (bonus points if they time their suicide to a point in time when there's few other prey-animals available so predator B becomes dependent on our little lemmings for survival).
**tl;dr Turns out co-operation-world *Utopia 1* is dominated by eusocial horrors that reproduce through infecting their predators with semi-symbiotic tapeworms. We don't recommend sampling the local cuisine, no matter how keen they are for you to try it.** | Let's assume that a truly cooperative, all-life-loving species ever made the step to become comparable to humans in intelligence and technology. I think there are some vital ingedients to space exploration missing.
1. The incentive
----------------
Why would such a species want to reach space? You could argue with the general spirit of exploration or maybe some religious wanting to be near their God.
But realisticly, the spirit of exploration was fueled by competition. Explorers wanted be *the first* to see some foreign culture or to reach the top of a mountain. As soon as someone claimed the title of "First person to do X", the general desire to repeat the feat was low.
For religious enthusiasm the exact opposite often applies. Holy mountains are often so sacret that people are not allowed to climb them or ferain from doing so out of respect for the gods.
2. The idea
-----------
The first things that ever flew were insects, saurians and birds. They need an atmosphere to fly in and will never reach space.
The first things that could technically reach space were gunpowder propelled rockets build by the Chinese in the 13th century for military purposes.
These simple, unguided contraptions were further developed in Asia and Europe and later by every military nation in the world, always for military purposes.
>
> Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1903) first speculated on the possibility of using rocket technology for manned spaceflight ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket))
>
>
>
That's a damn long time of military development until someone publicly voiced the idea of using a rocket for something different than killing.
How and why would your cooperative aliens develop any idea about *how* they could transport someone into space if they never saw a rocket fly miles into enemy territory?
3. The development
------------------
Even if your aliens developed gunpowder and rockets to celebrate new years eve with bright sparks in the sky, how long would it take them to go from compackted gunpowder glued to a stick that sends sparks into the sky to a giant metal tube packed full of technology and volatile chemicals that sends one of them into the sky?
Many great inventions failed because they couldn't be implemented in a reasonable amount of time and ran out of interest and funding. The gap in technologies is just too big to bridge without actually having a use of the technology. We humans were only able to send a man into space because we sent many men into many wars. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | **Yes, this already happened**
I think your notion that humans are inherently competitive is inaccurate, at best. 'Competitive' and 'cooperating' aren't two binary options, it's a [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).
No species will ever be 100% competitive nor 100% cooperative, but somewhere between those extremes. **Humans certainly aren't 100% competitive**. If anything, we are more cooperating than many (most?) other species. You don't go around killing people for food, right? In fact, chances are that you have a job and work with other people, producing something of value, while someone else produces the food you eat, the electricity you consume and so on. Look around you, think about how many people, all over the world, engaged in cooperation to make the stuff you see. And this is *natural* to humans.
Back to your question, I find it hard to believe that a theoretical 100% competitive species will establish a civilization. Likewise the 100% cooperative one. Extremes will never get you anywhere.
But, excluding purely theoretical extremes - everything is possible. Fact is, we do not have the slightest idea which qualities are required to establish a space-faring civilization - as we only ever saw one successful example (from one single planet).
Aside from some far-fetched speculation,
I cannot see a reason why would a somewhat more cooperative civilization than humans fail to reach space. | It's a very interesting question. If I may, I'll start by speculating about where you're coming from on this -- or at least, what it makes me think of!
**1. Some motives for the problem?**
------------------------------------
For a long time, the standard trope in sci fi was aggressive, militaristic aliens invading earth. Later, it was asked "why are these supposedly advanced civilizations still showing primitive, aggressive impulses like us humans?" And the aliens instead became benign beings, possibly trying to guide us on our own path of higher development.
More recently, people have started to suggest that the earlier model was in fact more realistic. The driving impulses in our species that gave us advanced civilisations and technology, and the possibility of becoming a space-faring species, all arise out of our aggressive past:
* Predators tend to be much more intelligent than herbivores, filter-feeders, and so on. (You don't need brains to stalk grass.) [1]
* Pack predators develop the degree of co-operation that enables the group to achieve much more than the sum of its parts, whilst maintaining an intense competition for resources which drives both biological and technological evolution
So in fact it seems pretty likely that the first alien civ we meet will be more like us: a thin veneer of civilization pasted on top of a vicious pack predator.
**2. But why?**
---------------
The fundamental drivers that create this are rules of evolution and ecology that are not even specific to, say, DNA based life; they arise from the very pattern of which life is created: individuals that each contain a genome, which survives through time by replication and consumption of resources. Anything that follows the same basics will develop similar rules. For example, the correct balance betwen co-operation and competition is found even in very simple, artifical games like Prisoner's Dilemma; and it is seen to evolve in highly artificial systems like Game of Life.
**3. So are there any other options?**
--------------------------------------
This is where it gets tricky. You are asking us to imagine something that is not only unlike any other life we know, but anything that follows the same general pattern of life -- and yet is still, in some sense, alive. I have two very incomplete offerings:
1. Life has evolved under very different rules because it is being monitored and "gardened" by some external force which imposes those rules; or
2. An ecosystem which in fact consists of a single mega-organism, where the competing organelles are regulated (similarly to option 1) by a central control mechanism.
How could either of these occur? I have no idea, sorry!
---
1. It is exceedingly difficult to compare intelligence between widely different species. They have different sensory capabilities, different modes of movement, different motivations. So there is no such thing as an official zoologists' list of top N most intelligent species -- and many such lists that are published on the 'net are more to shock and surprise, than to inform. (No; sheep are not particularly intelligent. For a large mammal, they are pretty stupid, actually.) But the only herbivore that regularly figures highly is the elephant. Some parrots also figure pretty highly, notably the African Grey -- but the most intelligent parrots are *not* strict herbivores. The African Grey eats fruit, but also hunts insects, and probably relies on them during dry seasons. |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | Necessity is the mother of Invention, but curiosity drives exploration.
In your setting, you've stipulated that the NEED for space travel is not presented, for instance by thinning resources on the planet, but with intelligence comes curiosity, so at some point, an inevitable urge to examine the space above their heads.
To me, this is enough to suggest that even without a competitive drive, there would still be sufficient motive to push a civilisation to reach for the stars.
As for the second aspect of your question, could an ecosystem exist around a purely co-operative model with **no** trace of competition, well, I find this unlikely. You see, even in our nature there are many examples of co-operative evolution. Plants developed flowers of varying colours to attract creatures to them which in turn prompted the evolution of insects and birds that specialised in pollenating these flowers, however there was still competition among the species to find the best, most attractive flowers, to have the optimal strategy.
At some point it's not good enough to just be able to co-operate or face extinction, you still have to co-operate *better* than the other species in your class, or get left behind, and die out.
To remove the natural consequences that the strongest and best adapted species survive means that you are "carrying" every species that exists.
Looking at predator and prey balance, the kind of co-opeartaion you're suggesting would almost require a sort of ecological social welfare system. A species with no natural defences, low speed and reflexes and a very low rate of reproduction is meant to be ignored for the easy foodstuff it makes for the predators in the area? It would likely get hunted to extinction, in absence of any motive for it's predators to eat anything else until it is gone, unless the predators all agreed to conserve the last remaining populations of that species purely for the purpose of saving it from extinction. This does not serve any evolutionary purpose.
I think the closest reality to the one you are suggesting would be one that focusses survival on the efficiency of co-operation, that all things work in a symbiosis, but evolution is still driven by competition to be the best co-operator, that guaranteeing your usefulness keeps your species alive, until another species proves to be more useful, then it's back to adapt or die. | Worth noting that there is a lot of information lacking in the question. from How big is the planet to what sort of landmasses and how the entire ecosystem co-operates. and how you define competition. and i'll ignore the predators and prey not competing as it makes my head hurt
But if... the planet was Earth. and the aliens were basically humans that were a lot nicer to each other and wildlife in general. then unfortunately no, not a chance.
*For a minute lets ignore everything that comes before space travel, all the research, all the technological developments that would be required to reach the point that Wernher Von Alien says "hey, i reckon i can put us in space." Lets also ignore the origins of space travel for humans, as it was the biggest game of oneupmanship ever, between Wernher Von Alien and Sergei Koralien*
What is required to reach space: a massive rocket.
When you consider that rockets require computer guidance systems, rocket fuel, a big tube to put the fuel in, and some rocket engines. Yes this i very much an oversimplification!
Now what does all that that require. a lot of very refined material. gold, tungsten, Steel, Copper... so so much copper, a absolutely huge amount of steel, and literally tonnes of aluminium, and a lot of other materials in varying amounts.
So if the entire planet lived in harmony. where does this material come from, at some point something will have to make way as the United States of Aliens compete with wildlife for the regions rich in these materials in order to build the rocket, some sort of wildlife will have to move out of home. this is competing for land against wildlife. or maybe even competing for land against others of the same intelligent species.
Then of course, when the rockets fire, what happens to the debris in the event of an accident, it WILL damaged someones back garden, whether that be actual people, or land animals or fish, someone will have to deal with the damage or debris, so how does that work. sorry guys we've decided to go to the moon, and that chunk of metal that just landed on and crushed those crabs... it was for the betterment of the entire planet.
The concept is great for primitive species, Movies like Avatar play this theme quite well. but advanced civilizations do require for them to compete against nature. it would definitely be possible for a peaceful species to acheive spacetrave while taking care not to damage too much of the planet, but one where everything is harmonic. i just don't think its possible |
120,116 | I think the title speaks for itself. The species I'm designing doesn't have a sense of greed like us (greed isn't part of their nature). In fact, they deny the existence of something like greed, because it's simply not a part of their world. But back to the quiestion, can a species continue to develop as a civilization if it didn't have the sense of greed? | 2018/08/02 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120116",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/52938/"
] | **Yes, this already happened**
I think your notion that humans are inherently competitive is inaccurate, at best. 'Competitive' and 'cooperating' aren't two binary options, it's a [false dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).
No species will ever be 100% competitive nor 100% cooperative, but somewhere between those extremes. **Humans certainly aren't 100% competitive**. If anything, we are more cooperating than many (most?) other species. You don't go around killing people for food, right? In fact, chances are that you have a job and work with other people, producing something of value, while someone else produces the food you eat, the electricity you consume and so on. Look around you, think about how many people, all over the world, engaged in cooperation to make the stuff you see. And this is *natural* to humans.
Back to your question, I find it hard to believe that a theoretical 100% competitive species will establish a civilization. Likewise the 100% cooperative one. Extremes will never get you anywhere.
But, excluding purely theoretical extremes - everything is possible. Fact is, we do not have the slightest idea which qualities are required to establish a space-faring civilization - as we only ever saw one successful example (from one single planet).
Aside from some far-fetched speculation,
I cannot see a reason why would a somewhat more cooperative civilization than humans fail to reach space. | **Preface**
I don't believe we have enough information to answer the 'will they be able to achieve spaceflight' question beyond a simple 'not as you describe it'. We need a lot more information about how your world actually functions before answering such a detailed question.
So, let's answer your 'can this work' question (which I think is a better starting point). Bear with me, this might be a long one, but hopefully it's worth it!
**Can a world based on co-operation not competition exist?**
Unfortunately, the answer is still 'not as you describe it'.
The issue is one of simple efficiency. In the vast majority of cases, it is more efficient to compete with other species for limited resources. From an evolutionary perspective, every resource is limited. If there is a surplus of resources, species will increase in numbers until a critical resource is no longer in surplus. This is most likely the reason competition is almost ubiquitous in our ecosystem. However, I do think that we might be able to engineer a set of circumstances in which an ecosystem of co-operators might exist.
In order to start, we need to define the main types of competition from the perspective of a species. Firstly, we have interspecies competition. Two species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it. Secondly, we have intraspecies competition. Two members of the same species both need a resource, so compete with each other to access it.
**Interspecies Competition**
Let's look at interspecies competition first. In order to reduce this to negligible levels, we need to engineer a situation in which two species are able to support larger numbers by co-operating rather than competing. This is common in our world (extreme forms being symbiosis, but plenty of lower-level co-operation. If necessary I'll reel off a list, but only if necessary).
What's rarer, and more difficult to justify is predator-prey symbiosis. Surely if something wants to eat you, you're going to compete with it to not be eaten. The question becomes 'how can we make it *more* evolutionarily beneficial to allow yourself to be eaten by a predator?
Luckily for us, we've already got a few examples of animals allowing themselves to be eaten. In some praying mantises and some species of spider, the males allow themselves to be eaten by the females after mating. This gives the females a much-needed food source immediately prior to producing their mutual offspring. So, what we need is a way for a prey-animal to have a vested interest in the survival of their predator.
How about larval tapeworms? Lets say herbivore A reproduces by infecting predator B with tape-worm young (evolutionary path in the post-script). Now, hebivore A has a vested interest in the survival of its predator as it's now carrying its young. We have a lifecycle that involves a prey animal specifically seeking out another animal to eat it.
Energetically speaking, this is less efficient than just letting your larval young eat you. So we need another example to help guide us.
What about fruit? Ignoring the whole animal/plant divide (it's very much an earthling thing), we can define 'predation' as 'one organism subsisting off another organism'. If an animal eats fruit, it's definitely eating another organism. And yet trees go out of their way to make fruit *really* edible.
The reason they do this is because it's more efficient at propagating their seeds, spreading them far and wide, avoiding competition with the parent tree. As we'll see in a bit, this isn't a great example but what it does do is establish that there are other methods of generating efficiency at propagation than 'survive to create more babies'. Either that, or we could modify herbivore A so that they drop a highly-nutritious larval sac when they're scared, allowing them to survive to breed again.
It's a bit of a stretch to expand that method of reproduction to the majority of species on a planet, but evolution is strange with things like that. If one lucky larval-procreator survived some ancient extinction event and then speciated to become the dominant class of animals on a planet (somewhat of like mammals), then we might end up with a [Planet of Hats](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats) where the 'hat' is interspecies co-operation and symbiotic tapeworm-larvae reproduction.
This is sounding like less and less like an ideal holiday destination...
**Intraspecies co-operation**
I've got a blurb to go with this as well, but I've already wasted too much company time writing this rambling diatribe. My idea, once I've edited it, hinges on high-eusociality and low genetic difference meaning it's more efficient to allow others to procreate when you could otherwise have done.
**P.S.**
1. Initially, I'd imagine its larvae would just strike it out in the world like everyone else's larval young, hoping to infect another animal. But why waste energy looking for animals to infect when the animals can come to you? Heading through a stage where scavengers get infected after feasting on herbivore-A carrion, we get to a point where herbivore A can reproduce faster if it has a high turnover of generations feeding a predator that constantly maintains a colony of fast-maturing larvae of another species. Win-win. Herbivore A gets to offset the costs of pregnancy a little, and predator B gets a steady diet of tasty larvae (bonus points if they time their suicide to a point in time when there's few other prey-animals available so predator B becomes dependent on our little lemmings for survival).
**tl;dr Turns out co-operation-world *Utopia 1* is dominated by eusocial horrors that reproduce through infecting their predators with semi-symbiotic tapeworms. We don't recommend sampling the local cuisine, no matter how keen they are for you to try it.** |
21,388 | Which is correct: *shot* or *shooted*? Where and when is the form *shooted* used? | 2011/04/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21388",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7487/"
] | **Shooted** is an obsolete, nonstandard simple past tense and past participle of shoot. [(source)](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooted)
You should not use this form. *Shot* is proper.
It's still used sometimes, but it's really obsolete. Example:
>
> He took his gun and shooted people just like, from one block of LePlaza and two blocks from the main police station of PAP.
>
>
>
— [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/senator-leahy-calls-for-f_b_795356.html), “Georgianne Nienaber: Senator Leahy Calls for Freeze on Haiti Aid, Clinton Silent, Palin Visits Camps”
It's also *common* to use shooted when asking:
>
> Have you ever shooted a gun?
>
>
>
Although it's also improper and the correct term is "Have you ever shot a gun?" | *Shot* is the correct past tense of *shoot*. *Shot* is also a noun referring to the firing of a gun or the projectile that is blasted out of one. |
21,388 | Which is correct: *shot* or *shooted*? Where and when is the form *shooted* used? | 2011/04/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21388",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7487/"
] | It's related to usage.
Shooted is used when speaking of plants sending out shoots (My lilies have shooted). It's usually intransitive.
Shot is used in most other contexts. It can be transitive (I shot the sheriff) or intransitive (The kids shot out of class as soon as the bell rang). | *Shot* is the correct past tense of *shoot*. *Shot* is also a noun referring to the firing of a gun or the projectile that is blasted out of one. |
21,388 | Which is correct: *shot* or *shooted*? Where and when is the form *shooted* used? | 2011/04/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21388",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7487/"
] | **Shooted** is an obsolete, nonstandard simple past tense and past participle of shoot. [(source)](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooted)
You should not use this form. *Shot* is proper.
It's still used sometimes, but it's really obsolete. Example:
>
> He took his gun and shooted people just like, from one block of LePlaza and two blocks from the main police station of PAP.
>
>
>
— [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/senator-leahy-calls-for-f_b_795356.html), “Georgianne Nienaber: Senator Leahy Calls for Freeze on Haiti Aid, Clinton Silent, Palin Visits Camps”
It's also *common* to use shooted when asking:
>
> Have you ever shooted a gun?
>
>
>
Although it's also improper and the correct term is "Have you ever shot a gun?" | It's related to usage.
Shooted is used when speaking of plants sending out shoots (My lilies have shooted). It's usually intransitive.
Shot is used in most other contexts. It can be transitive (I shot the sheriff) or intransitive (The kids shot out of class as soon as the bell rang). |
81,025 | Yesterday, there was an off-topic question on Space.SE, asking if a ramjet-missile could place itself in orbit. Impossible for a ramjet, obviously, as it requires a high speed flow of air and is too slow to reach orbital velocity.
However, this got me thinking about a ramjets altitude limitations:
**How high could a ramjet-powered aircraft or missile possibly go?** And how does the speed the jet is traveling at effect the highest possible altitude? | 2020/09/14 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81025",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/50466/"
] | Here's a quick estimate for this.
The maximum altitude for level flight is when the engine can't produce the thrust required to fly fast enough to generate the lift required to balance the weight.
[Ramjets work best at around Mach 3 and can operate up to Mach 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet)
Lift is proportional to speed squared and air density. So doubling the speed allows the plane to fly in air that is a quarter of the density.
The equations for calculating air density with altitude are moderately complex but there are a couple of tables [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula) that show that the density at 32km is about eight times less than at 20km.
So if the [SR-71 flew at Mach 3 and 25km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird), and if you could make a SR-71 that could fly at Mach 6, it might manage another 5 or 10 km in altitude.
Obviously that's a massive simplification because if switching engine technologies would have improved the SR-71's speed, they would have done it. Also because the SR-71 engines *were* ramjets when it was flying fast.
A ram jet won't get you into orbit because orbit is not just a matter of flying high enough but of reaching orbital speed - the speed where the curve of your naturally falling trajectory will miss the earth due to the earth's curvature. It's about Mach 25. And (as Ross points out) even if you could reach Mach 25, you can't circularise the orbit with an air breathing engine because that requires thrust at the highest point. | Ramjets can fly *at least* this high:
Scramjet, X-43A flown in 2004: [110,000 feet / 33 km](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43_schedule.html).
Ramjet, RJ43-MA-11 on a BOMARC B missile, 1961, [100,000 feet / 30.5 km](https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/02/2002490101/-1/-1/1/WINGED%20MISSILES-SM.PDF) (photo caption, p. 31).
(Ramjet, XRJ47-W-5 tested by NACA in 1955: [73,000 feet / 22 km](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53082/m2/1/high_res_d/19660027126.pdf).)
Ramjet, extrapolated from data for flights where the vehicles were still accelerating when they ran out of fuel: [131,000 ft / 40 km](https://thespacereview.com/article/3652/1). (One flight coasted to 151,000 feet, but that's probably not what's being asked here.)
>
> ...if ramjets can continue to accelerate in an environment where the air density is under 20 g/m3, then perhaps they can sustain powered flight to 40 km, where the density is only 4 g/m3.
>
>
> |
81,025 | Yesterday, there was an off-topic question on Space.SE, asking if a ramjet-missile could place itself in orbit. Impossible for a ramjet, obviously, as it requires a high speed flow of air and is too slow to reach orbital velocity.
However, this got me thinking about a ramjets altitude limitations:
**How high could a ramjet-powered aircraft or missile possibly go?** And how does the speed the jet is traveling at effect the highest possible altitude? | 2020/09/14 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81025",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/50466/"
] | Here's a quick estimate for this.
The maximum altitude for level flight is when the engine can't produce the thrust required to fly fast enough to generate the lift required to balance the weight.
[Ramjets work best at around Mach 3 and can operate up to Mach 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet)
Lift is proportional to speed squared and air density. So doubling the speed allows the plane to fly in air that is a quarter of the density.
The equations for calculating air density with altitude are moderately complex but there are a couple of tables [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula) that show that the density at 32km is about eight times less than at 20km.
So if the [SR-71 flew at Mach 3 and 25km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird), and if you could make a SR-71 that could fly at Mach 6, it might manage another 5 or 10 km in altitude.
Obviously that's a massive simplification because if switching engine technologies would have improved the SR-71's speed, they would have done it. Also because the SR-71 engines *were* ramjets when it was flying fast.
A ram jet won't get you into orbit because orbit is not just a matter of flying high enough but of reaching orbital speed - the speed where the curve of your naturally falling trajectory will miss the earth due to the earth's curvature. It's about Mach 25. And (as Ross points out) even if you could reach Mach 25, you can't circularise the orbit with an air breathing engine because that requires thrust at the highest point. | [ Orbital Airplane, Science&Vie, Jul 1986]
Thrust and efficiency of Lorin Ramjet (Report by Sänger and Bredt) increase with the square of speed, with the square root of combustion temperature. Ramjet start working around 300 km/ h, studies considered 300 m/ sec airspeed. Yield circa 12'000 HP per square meter of main bulkhead area. At higher altitudes, (calculations were made for a top speed of 0.9 Mach and 12 km ceiling, intended in a pursuit airplane, engineers thought Lorin Ramjet would not work above 18 km, because of poor combustion), thrust and propulsion power decrease, slightly less than density of air, but propulsion coefficient and efficiency increase because of lower temperature of fresh incoming air.
At ground level and 300 m/ sec airspeed, thrust is 3'000 kg per square m of bulkhead area. Range increases from 367 km at ground level, in a case, Skoda-Kauba P.14?, proposed in <https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/LorinRamjet/LorinRamjet.shtml> to 1'100 km at 18'000 m.
Duration of flight for a given fuel load was maximum at 14'000 m height, decreased slightly above this, for a 6'000 kg total airplane weight, 1'000 kg payload, 2'400 kg of fuel, wing area 30 m2. Athodyd operating at higher temperatures losses efficiency, smaller athodyd impose higher working temperatures.
Propulsion power increases with third power of speed.
They advised 2 m diameter Ramjets. Minimum speed at which diving is not needed to accelerate, at 12'000 m height, was 430 km/ h. Test of this tube on conventional airplanes were conducted at 100 m/ sec over a Do-17Z, then 200 m/ sec airspeed. For the design considered, speeds were 1'100 km/ h at ground level, and 950 km/ h in mid stratosphere.
I've suggested having a Pulse Jet inside or side by sides of the Ramjet, Athodyd tube diameter modified accordingly, pulsejets provide power at zero airspeed, and could carry Ramjet to its start speed. Intake duct angle was determined being best at 10º. Inside a duct, heat form outer parts of pulsejet would be added to thrust; if a double duct wall is installed, same would happen with heat of outer side of ramjet.
OK?
Blessings +
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/imbVb.jpg) |
81,025 | Yesterday, there was an off-topic question on Space.SE, asking if a ramjet-missile could place itself in orbit. Impossible for a ramjet, obviously, as it requires a high speed flow of air and is too slow to reach orbital velocity.
However, this got me thinking about a ramjets altitude limitations:
**How high could a ramjet-powered aircraft or missile possibly go?** And how does the speed the jet is traveling at effect the highest possible altitude? | 2020/09/14 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81025",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/50466/"
] | Ramjets can fly *at least* this high:
Scramjet, X-43A flown in 2004: [110,000 feet / 33 km](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43_schedule.html).
Ramjet, RJ43-MA-11 on a BOMARC B missile, 1961, [100,000 feet / 30.5 km](https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/02/2002490101/-1/-1/1/WINGED%20MISSILES-SM.PDF) (photo caption, p. 31).
(Ramjet, XRJ47-W-5 tested by NACA in 1955: [73,000 feet / 22 km](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53082/m2/1/high_res_d/19660027126.pdf).)
Ramjet, extrapolated from data for flights where the vehicles were still accelerating when they ran out of fuel: [131,000 ft / 40 km](https://thespacereview.com/article/3652/1). (One flight coasted to 151,000 feet, but that's probably not what's being asked here.)
>
> ...if ramjets can continue to accelerate in an environment where the air density is under 20 g/m3, then perhaps they can sustain powered flight to 40 km, where the density is only 4 g/m3.
>
>
> | [ Orbital Airplane, Science&Vie, Jul 1986]
Thrust and efficiency of Lorin Ramjet (Report by Sänger and Bredt) increase with the square of speed, with the square root of combustion temperature. Ramjet start working around 300 km/ h, studies considered 300 m/ sec airspeed. Yield circa 12'000 HP per square meter of main bulkhead area. At higher altitudes, (calculations were made for a top speed of 0.9 Mach and 12 km ceiling, intended in a pursuit airplane, engineers thought Lorin Ramjet would not work above 18 km, because of poor combustion), thrust and propulsion power decrease, slightly less than density of air, but propulsion coefficient and efficiency increase because of lower temperature of fresh incoming air.
At ground level and 300 m/ sec airspeed, thrust is 3'000 kg per square m of bulkhead area. Range increases from 367 km at ground level, in a case, Skoda-Kauba P.14?, proposed in <https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/LorinRamjet/LorinRamjet.shtml> to 1'100 km at 18'000 m.
Duration of flight for a given fuel load was maximum at 14'000 m height, decreased slightly above this, for a 6'000 kg total airplane weight, 1'000 kg payload, 2'400 kg of fuel, wing area 30 m2. Athodyd operating at higher temperatures losses efficiency, smaller athodyd impose higher working temperatures.
Propulsion power increases with third power of speed.
They advised 2 m diameter Ramjets. Minimum speed at which diving is not needed to accelerate, at 12'000 m height, was 430 km/ h. Test of this tube on conventional airplanes were conducted at 100 m/ sec over a Do-17Z, then 200 m/ sec airspeed. For the design considered, speeds were 1'100 km/ h at ground level, and 950 km/ h in mid stratosphere.
I've suggested having a Pulse Jet inside or side by sides of the Ramjet, Athodyd tube diameter modified accordingly, pulsejets provide power at zero airspeed, and could carry Ramjet to its start speed. Intake duct angle was determined being best at 10º. Inside a duct, heat form outer parts of pulsejet would be added to thrust; if a double duct wall is installed, same would happen with heat of outer side of ramjet.
OK?
Blessings +
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/imbVb.jpg) |
285,636 | [This question](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/142248/how-to-turn-off-ps4-controller) details how to turn off the PS4 controller by going into the menu on the PS4.
I am using Ds4Windows so that I can use the PS4 controller to play games on my PC. However I am unsure how to turn off the controller when I am done playing. | 2016/09/16 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/285636",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/106901/"
] | Holding the PS button for 10 seconds will turn the controller off, regardless of what it is paired to (PC or PS4), according to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/25yjcz/a_quick_way_to_turn_off_your_ds4_controller_from/).
If you want to turn it off from DS4, though, I believe there is a button in the UI to disconnect/turn off the controller.
You can also check the DS4Windows setting "Disconnect from BT when Stopping", which will immediately disconnect the controller from the OS and turn it off when you press stop. When you want to start DS4Windows again, just press the PS button and it will power up and connect to the paired system. | **Just press PS + Options.**
Pressing PS for 10 seconds does not remove the controller from the DS4Windows list, making it hard to turn on and connect again. |
285,636 | [This question](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/142248/how-to-turn-off-ps4-controller) details how to turn off the PS4 controller by going into the menu on the PS4.
I am using Ds4Windows so that I can use the PS4 controller to play games on my PC. However I am unsure how to turn off the controller when I am done playing. | 2016/09/16 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/285636",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/106901/"
] | Holding the PS button for 10 seconds will turn the controller off, regardless of what it is paired to (PC or PS4), according to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/25yjcz/a_quick_way_to_turn_off_your_ds4_controller_from/).
If you want to turn it off from DS4, though, I believe there is a button in the UI to disconnect/turn off the controller.
You can also check the DS4Windows setting "Disconnect from BT when Stopping", which will immediately disconnect the controller from the OS and turn it off when you press stop. When you want to start DS4Windows again, just press the PS button and it will power up and connect to the paired system. | Using the "Big Picture" feature in Steam (which is what they prompt and recommend you use for controller interaction), there is a controller icon at the top that you can click with a mouse or by choosing it with the controller and it has the option to power off the controller. Depending on the controller, this will also show you the power left in the controller (for my Xbox 360 controller that was connected via a wire, it did NOT show the power left, but for my PS4 when connected via Bluetooth, it does show how much battery is left). |
285,636 | [This question](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/142248/how-to-turn-off-ps4-controller) details how to turn off the PS4 controller by going into the menu on the PS4.
I am using Ds4Windows so that I can use the PS4 controller to play games on my PC. However I am unsure how to turn off the controller when I am done playing. | 2016/09/16 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/285636",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/106901/"
] | **Just press PS + Options.**
Pressing PS for 10 seconds does not remove the controller from the DS4Windows list, making it hard to turn on and connect again. | Using the "Big Picture" feature in Steam (which is what they prompt and recommend you use for controller interaction), there is a controller icon at the top that you can click with a mouse or by choosing it with the controller and it has the option to power off the controller. Depending on the controller, this will also show you the power left in the controller (for my Xbox 360 controller that was connected via a wire, it did NOT show the power left, but for my PS4 when connected via Bluetooth, it does show how much battery is left). |
30,807 | I am looking for a solution to carry 2 check-in (around 50 lbs each) roller bags to airport.
Since I am alone its hard to pull both at same time.
Options I think I have:
1. Use taxi and pay him around 80bucks
2. Use option like luggage cart that can carry up to 100lbs.
3. Any other innovative idea.
In other words, I am trying to understand the usefulness of luggage
carts: e.g.
([cart at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000USIM5M)
or something as easy as travel dolly e.g.
[(dolly at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005N11RQ2) | 2014/06/21 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/16770/"
] | One option is to **strap your bags together**, so you can roll it like one suitcase. USA Today has [step-by-step instructions](http://traveltips.usatoday.com/hook-luggage-together-103520.html), and you can either use a regular long luggage strap, or Travelon's "[Multi-Bag Stacker](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001CZL0BU)" strap ($12) precisely for this. TL;DR version:
1. Pull out handle of bigger bag.
2. Place smaller bag on top, resting against handle.
3. Tie them together.
Obviously this works better if the 2nd bag is smaller, and for better balance you'll want to pack the heavy stuff at the bottom of the lower bag.
Alternatively, you can pull one suitcase and push the other in front of you. This is viable for short distances on level ground, but not realistic if navigating several miles on city streets. | You can check with hotels near you (or with the airport) if there are shuttle buses that go to hotels on demand. You can then take a taxi just up to the airport and then the shuttle bus the rest of the way.
Another way you can do it is to only take one bag at a time, and use an airport locker to store one of the bags, and then go and pick up the other bag. |
30,807 | I am looking for a solution to carry 2 check-in (around 50 lbs each) roller bags to airport.
Since I am alone its hard to pull both at same time.
Options I think I have:
1. Use taxi and pay him around 80bucks
2. Use option like luggage cart that can carry up to 100lbs.
3. Any other innovative idea.
In other words, I am trying to understand the usefulness of luggage
carts: e.g.
([cart at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000USIM5M)
or something as easy as travel dolly e.g.
[(dolly at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005N11RQ2) | 2014/06/21 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/16770/"
] | I've done this once or twice and it's generally horrible. Some tips:
* you have two hands, so you can generally handle two things, though doors and whatnot will provide a challenge. But you really can't do three. So your carry on should either be a backpack (so it doesn't use up any hands) or be strapped to one of the suitcases.
* the suitcases need wheels.
* ask people to help you: "Can you open that door for me?" or "could you push the button for me?" will make you much less frustrated
* if you have to navigate stairs, you will probably have to do it in shifts - try not to get too far from either bag or they may be stolen.
* don't feel guilty about being slow. You have every right to be on a sidewalk or platform.
* if you chain the bags up somehow, do accept the fact that it might not work in some circumstances and be able to get them apart quickly
* you may want to use a taxi for some small part of the trip to get around a particularly hard-to-navigate portion, and use public transit for the rest.
Finally, pull up a picture in your head of someone about your age who is struggling with a 50 lb suitcase, a baby stroller, a diaper bag full of baby stuff, a carry on bag for the plane, and oh yes, an actual baby, who is crying. Think about this person every time you start to feel sad about lugging two 50 lb suitcases. **It could be worse.** | You can check with hotels near you (or with the airport) if there are shuttle buses that go to hotels on demand. You can then take a taxi just up to the airport and then the shuttle bus the rest of the way.
Another way you can do it is to only take one bag at a time, and use an airport locker to store one of the bags, and then go and pick up the other bag. |
30,807 | I am looking for a solution to carry 2 check-in (around 50 lbs each) roller bags to airport.
Since I am alone its hard to pull both at same time.
Options I think I have:
1. Use taxi and pay him around 80bucks
2. Use option like luggage cart that can carry up to 100lbs.
3. Any other innovative idea.
In other words, I am trying to understand the usefulness of luggage
carts: e.g.
([cart at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000USIM5M)
or something as easy as travel dolly e.g.
[(dolly at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005N11RQ2) | 2014/06/21 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/16770/"
] | One option is to **strap your bags together**, so you can roll it like one suitcase. USA Today has [step-by-step instructions](http://traveltips.usatoday.com/hook-luggage-together-103520.html), and you can either use a regular long luggage strap, or Travelon's "[Multi-Bag Stacker](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001CZL0BU)" strap ($12) precisely for this. TL;DR version:
1. Pull out handle of bigger bag.
2. Place smaller bag on top, resting against handle.
3. Tie them together.
Obviously this works better if the 2nd bag is smaller, and for better balance you'll want to pack the heavy stuff at the bottom of the lower bag.
Alternatively, you can pull one suitcase and push the other in front of you. This is viable for short distances on level ground, but not realistic if navigating several miles on city streets. | I've done this once or twice and it's generally horrible. Some tips:
* you have two hands, so you can generally handle two things, though doors and whatnot will provide a challenge. But you really can't do three. So your carry on should either be a backpack (so it doesn't use up any hands) or be strapped to one of the suitcases.
* the suitcases need wheels.
* ask people to help you: "Can you open that door for me?" or "could you push the button for me?" will make you much less frustrated
* if you have to navigate stairs, you will probably have to do it in shifts - try not to get too far from either bag or they may be stolen.
* don't feel guilty about being slow. You have every right to be on a sidewalk or platform.
* if you chain the bags up somehow, do accept the fact that it might not work in some circumstances and be able to get them apart quickly
* you may want to use a taxi for some small part of the trip to get around a particularly hard-to-navigate portion, and use public transit for the rest.
Finally, pull up a picture in your head of someone about your age who is struggling with a 50 lb suitcase, a baby stroller, a diaper bag full of baby stuff, a carry on bag for the plane, and oh yes, an actual baby, who is crying. Think about this person every time you start to feel sad about lugging two 50 lb suitcases. **It could be worse.** |
30,807 | I am looking for a solution to carry 2 check-in (around 50 lbs each) roller bags to airport.
Since I am alone its hard to pull both at same time.
Options I think I have:
1. Use taxi and pay him around 80bucks
2. Use option like luggage cart that can carry up to 100lbs.
3. Any other innovative idea.
In other words, I am trying to understand the usefulness of luggage
carts: e.g.
([cart at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000USIM5M)
or something as easy as travel dolly e.g.
[(dolly at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005N11RQ2) | 2014/06/21 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/16770/"
] | One option is to **strap your bags together**, so you can roll it like one suitcase. USA Today has [step-by-step instructions](http://traveltips.usatoday.com/hook-luggage-together-103520.html), and you can either use a regular long luggage strap, or Travelon's "[Multi-Bag Stacker](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001CZL0BU)" strap ($12) precisely for this. TL;DR version:
1. Pull out handle of bigger bag.
2. Place smaller bag on top, resting against handle.
3. Tie them together.
Obviously this works better if the 2nd bag is smaller, and for better balance you'll want to pack the heavy stuff at the bottom of the lower bag.
Alternatively, you can pull one suitcase and push the other in front of you. This is viable for short distances on level ground, but not realistic if navigating several miles on city streets. | I have used the following Collapsible Dolly Cart, which could carry all three Bags easily.
<http://www.handtrucksrus.com/crashdetail.aspx?ID=371&cx=rwm>
It was a successful experiment. |
30,807 | I am looking for a solution to carry 2 check-in (around 50 lbs each) roller bags to airport.
Since I am alone its hard to pull both at same time.
Options I think I have:
1. Use taxi and pay him around 80bucks
2. Use option like luggage cart that can carry up to 100lbs.
3. Any other innovative idea.
In other words, I am trying to understand the usefulness of luggage
carts: e.g.
([cart at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000USIM5M)
or something as easy as travel dolly e.g.
[(dolly at Amazon)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005N11RQ2) | 2014/06/21 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/16770/"
] | I've done this once or twice and it's generally horrible. Some tips:
* you have two hands, so you can generally handle two things, though doors and whatnot will provide a challenge. But you really can't do three. So your carry on should either be a backpack (so it doesn't use up any hands) or be strapped to one of the suitcases.
* the suitcases need wheels.
* ask people to help you: "Can you open that door for me?" or "could you push the button for me?" will make you much less frustrated
* if you have to navigate stairs, you will probably have to do it in shifts - try not to get too far from either bag or they may be stolen.
* don't feel guilty about being slow. You have every right to be on a sidewalk or platform.
* if you chain the bags up somehow, do accept the fact that it might not work in some circumstances and be able to get them apart quickly
* you may want to use a taxi for some small part of the trip to get around a particularly hard-to-navigate portion, and use public transit for the rest.
Finally, pull up a picture in your head of someone about your age who is struggling with a 50 lb suitcase, a baby stroller, a diaper bag full of baby stuff, a carry on bag for the plane, and oh yes, an actual baby, who is crying. Think about this person every time you start to feel sad about lugging two 50 lb suitcases. **It could be worse.** | I have used the following Collapsible Dolly Cart, which could carry all three Bags easily.
<http://www.handtrucksrus.com/crashdetail.aspx?ID=371&cx=rwm>
It was a successful experiment. |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You're eating too much grains and sugar. The carbs from the wheat and almond milk you eat make you crave early. They cause an early sugar boost that doesn't take long to be absorbes by your body. This leads to a sugar crash. This is when you why you get hungry again before luchtime...
Solution:
Try adding more healthy fats and protein to your meals. For example:
- eggs, nuts, avocado
- For meat you could prepare some meatballs in the evening so you can microwave them in the
morning...
- Add some full fat cream in your coffee
- Add some vegetables to your breakfast
- Drink some morning soup with your breakfast that you prepared the evening before
- loose the grains, wheat and sugar
Do this and you won't be hungry before lunchtime. Trust me.
For healthy recipes take a look at these wonderful sites:
<http://fastpaleo.com/all-recipes/>
<http://nuttykitchen.com/category/paleo/>
<http://purelyprimal.com/category/recipes/breakfast/>
Have a great breakfast! | A search for "crockpot breakfast" or "slow cooker breakfast" will turn up wonder results. You can do the prep at night, start the cooker, and have to do nothing in the morning but eat. The only downside is many of the recipes can't be scaled down below two servings. So you'll need to find a friend to eat the other half. On the plus side, even if you waste half the meal, they're still cheaper than the cost of most fast food breakfasts and healthier too. |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Tinned tuna, mackeral and sardines. Not typically seen as a breakfast dish, but they are healthy and filling. Have protein and omega oils.
Very convenient, just open and go. Depending where you are they often come with a range of different sauces.
Do not eat at your desk at work. | A search for "crockpot breakfast" or "slow cooker breakfast" will turn up wonder results. You can do the prep at night, start the cooker, and have to do nothing in the morning but eat. The only downside is many of the recipes can't be scaled down below two servings. So you'll need to find a friend to eat the other half. On the plus side, even if you waste half the meal, they're still cheaper than the cost of most fast food breakfasts and healthier too. |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | * Add powdered protein (whey, soy, whatever your preference) to your drink (almond milk is fine).
* Crack a few eggs in a pan and scramble them (takes <5 mins total).
* High protein cereal. Several types exist including one by Kashi
* More whole grains- Oatmeal works well for example.
* Don't add sugar to your meal or drink as sugar is an appetite stimulant | A search for "crockpot breakfast" or "slow cooker breakfast" will turn up wonder results. You can do the prep at night, start the cooker, and have to do nothing in the morning but eat. The only downside is many of the recipes can't be scaled down below two servings. So you'll need to find a friend to eat the other half. On the plus side, even if you waste half the meal, they're still cheaper than the cost of most fast food breakfasts and healthier too. |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Tinned tuna, mackeral and sardines. Not typically seen as a breakfast dish, but they are healthy and filling. Have protein and omega oils.
Very convenient, just open and go. Depending where you are they often come with a range of different sauces.
Do not eat at your desk at work. | You're eating too much grains and sugar. The carbs from the wheat and almond milk you eat make you crave early. They cause an early sugar boost that doesn't take long to be absorbes by your body. This leads to a sugar crash. This is when you why you get hungry again before luchtime...
Solution:
Try adding more healthy fats and protein to your meals. For example:
- eggs, nuts, avocado
- For meat you could prepare some meatballs in the evening so you can microwave them in the
morning...
- Add some full fat cream in your coffee
- Add some vegetables to your breakfast
- Drink some morning soup with your breakfast that you prepared the evening before
- loose the grains, wheat and sugar
Do this and you won't be hungry before lunchtime. Trust me.
For healthy recipes take a look at these wonderful sites:
<http://fastpaleo.com/all-recipes/>
<http://nuttykitchen.com/category/paleo/>
<http://purelyprimal.com/category/recipes/breakfast/>
Have a great breakfast! |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | * Add powdered protein (whey, soy, whatever your preference) to your drink (almond milk is fine).
* Crack a few eggs in a pan and scramble them (takes <5 mins total).
* High protein cereal. Several types exist including one by Kashi
* More whole grains- Oatmeal works well for example.
* Don't add sugar to your meal or drink as sugar is an appetite stimulant | You're eating too much grains and sugar. The carbs from the wheat and almond milk you eat make you crave early. They cause an early sugar boost that doesn't take long to be absorbes by your body. This leads to a sugar crash. This is when you why you get hungry again before luchtime...
Solution:
Try adding more healthy fats and protein to your meals. For example:
- eggs, nuts, avocado
- For meat you could prepare some meatballs in the evening so you can microwave them in the
morning...
- Add some full fat cream in your coffee
- Add some vegetables to your breakfast
- Drink some morning soup with your breakfast that you prepared the evening before
- loose the grains, wheat and sugar
Do this and you won't be hungry before lunchtime. Trust me.
For healthy recipes take a look at these wonderful sites:
<http://fastpaleo.com/all-recipes/>
<http://nuttykitchen.com/category/paleo/>
<http://purelyprimal.com/category/recipes/breakfast/>
Have a great breakfast! |
4,147 | I'm looking for some different breakfast items that have more protein so I can stay full longer until closer to lunchtime. My typical breakfast includes some kind of cereal (a whole grain type, not a sugary kind) plus almond milk (regular milk upsets my stomach, and I dislike American soy milk). I'm not a huge fan of baked goods (as delicious as they are) like bagels, muffins, and croissants.
Lately though, I have not had a lot of free time to the grocery store so I have been eating some kind of breakfast sandwich (some combination of sausage, egg, cheese, and a bagel/croissant/English muffin) from my office complex's cafeteria or nearby restaurant. The cost and lack of variety associated with this are also things I would like to avoid.
Ideally, I'd like meat but I do not want to spend the time in the morning in my kitchen to prepare and cook things. I prefer to leave early in the morning to get to work to avoid the traffic. In terms of equipment I have a stove, microwave, and toaster at home. At work I have access to a toaster, a hot plate with a small pot, microwave, and hot filtered water (from the coffee machine). There are some markets close to work that open just as I get in to work so I am not opposed to driving the extra distance in the morning.
What are suggestions of foods I can buy or minimally prepare that will keep me full for a longer time? | 2011/10/07 | [
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/4147",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com",
"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It's not just protein that will keep you full for longer but also fat and fibre (vegetables/whole grains). Which is why the best breakfast I find has some combination of eggs and veggies. I would strongly recommend against eating some kind of breakfast sandwich from a restaurant/cafeteria although a homemade sandwich is great. I also recommend staying away from cereals since they aren't satiating and offer a poor macro split.
Here are some balanced breakfast ideas:
* Eggs and veggies: Can be scrambled, boiled, omelette, sunny side up or however you prefer. The veggies can be raw or just cooked with the eggs. Obviously this will involve cooking in the morning -unless you eat precook boiled eggs the night before. Eggs are very nutritious and filling, while at the same time offering a [good balance of fat/protein.](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/111/2)
* Deli Meat: Not only it's convenient and quick it's very versatile. You can make sandwiches/wrap with it. Introduce it in a salad. Or simply add it to your egg dish to [increase the protein ratio](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1493/2). Most deli meats are fine but I prefer fresh cuts from the deli counter such as pastrami/turkey or chicken breast. You can also make your own seasoning and roasting a turkey breast or cut of beef and slicing it to make sandwiches.
* [Plain Greek yogurt](http://www.fageusa.com/products/fage-total-2-percent/#): Very high in protein and requires no cooking. You can make savory or sweet dishes with it. One option is to use it in a [labneh style](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strained_yogurt#Middle_East) sandwich with olive oil and tomatoes ([Zaata'r](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Za%27atar) optional). You can also eat it with oatmeal and eggs. For a sweeter dish you add chopped fruit like bananas, apples, pears or berries. It also goes great with fruits and [muesli](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muesli). You can also eat nuts/nut butters to increase the fat content.
In the end you really aren't going to find the perfect breakfast, that is nutritionally balanced and effort free. It's going to take some sacrifices by getting up earlier/cooking or just managing your time better. But that's the price you pay for having a healthier life. | You're eating too much grains and sugar. The carbs from the wheat and almond milk you eat make you crave early. They cause an early sugar boost that doesn't take long to be absorbes by your body. This leads to a sugar crash. This is when you why you get hungry again before luchtime...
Solution:
Try adding more healthy fats and protein to your meals. For example:
- eggs, nuts, avocado
- For meat you could prepare some meatballs in the evening so you can microwave them in the
morning...
- Add some full fat cream in your coffee
- Add some vegetables to your breakfast
- Drink some morning soup with your breakfast that you prepared the evening before
- loose the grains, wheat and sugar
Do this and you won't be hungry before lunchtime. Trust me.
For healthy recipes take a look at these wonderful sites:
<http://fastpaleo.com/all-recipes/>
<http://nuttykitchen.com/category/paleo/>
<http://purelyprimal.com/category/recipes/breakfast/>
Have a great breakfast! |
24,987 | When Agent Coulson visits Stark and Potts in Stark Tower, he gives Stark all of their information on the various Avengers. When Stark pulls it up he sees footage of the Hulk rampaging through some military tanks or something.
Was that footage original to The Avengers movie? Or was it footage from a previous installment of the Hulk (Either The Incredible Hulk (2008) or Hulk (2003)) ? | 2012/10/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/24987",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1148/"
] | I disagree that it's new footage. The argument about different actors is null here, as the Hulk is facing away from the camera in the looped footage, probably for that reason.
I took snapshots from both *The Incredible Hulk* (2008) and *The Avengers* to compare them side-by-side, and it's the same shot. The only difference is the one shown in *The Avengers* is smaller and flipped (because we're seeing it from behind) and cropped because it's part of a news broadcast. The pose is the same, the tank and tree are the same, and the soldiers are cropped out of frame.
The Incredible Hulk (2008):
The Avengers (2012):
 | It's **NOT** a footage from the previous installment (maybe, due to certain rights issues). The footage shows the image of current Hulk in Avengers with a video in which he is shaking a tank and soldiers are shooting. If you watch that 3 second footage carefully, you will notice that **the footage is in loop**. Hulk lifts the tank, soldiers shoot and then again Hulk lifts the tank and soldiers shoot. If they would have used a previous movie footage, why would they loop it?
**Source:** Just watched the movie for the answer... |
52,893,818 | I am quit confused with these two peers since I am new to Fabric. If any body help me with this. | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/52893818",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10517879/"
] | Endorsing peers are basically approvers.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgm62.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LvYpZ.jpg) | A transaction has to be proposed and then endorsed before it can be submitted successfully to the blockchain.
**Endorsing peer** is the peer that will "endorse"/provide the seal of approval to a transaction when it is proposed. After the transaction is endorsed, the transaction(plus the endorsement) will be submitted to blockchain.
Once the Transaction is submitted, it will make way to the peers that are supposed to get that transaction. These peers will then "commit"/save the transaction in their Ledger, and these are the **committer** peers.
The committing peers and endorsing peers can be the same peers sometimes. |
52,893,818 | I am quit confused with these two peers since I am new to Fabric. If any body help me with this. | 2018/10/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/52893818",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10517879/"
] | Endorsing peers are basically approvers.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgm62.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LvYpZ.jpg) | To understand the difference among those Peers, I thinks that it is important to know where takes part its Peer in the [flow of a transaction](https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.2/txflow.html) of Hyperledger Fabric.
* A proposal is send to the Endorser Peers. These Peers verify the proposal, execute it and send the reply signed to the client.
* The client inspect those replies. If they result is succesfull, it generates a new transaction with the replies of the Endorser Peers and sends it to the Ordering Service.
* The Ordering Service executes its operations and sends the block to the corresponding Peers, i.e. the Commiters.
* The Commiters append each block to the corresponding ledger.
As @adnan.c said:
>
> "The committing peers and endorsing peers can be the same peers
> sometimes."
>
>
> |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | [NDepend](http://www.ndepend.com/Features.aspx) | This won't give you function complexity and it's not scriptable (that I know of), but the SlickEdit Gadgets for VS has a great SLOC report tool and you can use from the solution explorer and will give you a detailed report at the file, project or solution level.
You can get it here: <http://www.slickedit.com/content/view/441> |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | [NDepend](http://www.ndepend.com/Features.aspx) | Whilst I never did find a .NET product that can equally parse C# and C++, I did manage to find an easy-to-use product, [CODECOUNT](http://sunset.usc.edu/research/CODECOUNT/) that supports those languages and many more.
It has a simple command line, unlike SourceMonitor that was being used on my project up until CODECOUNT replaced it. |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | [NDepend](http://www.ndepend.com/Features.aspx) | A reliable command line based tool for calculating SLOC is [Cloc](http://cloc.sourceforge.net/). It supports many languages including C# and C++. Supported output formats are xml, csv and sql. |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | You can find an open source code for C# SLOC and comments here: <http://code.google.com/p/projectpilot/source/browse/#svn/trunk/ProjectPilot.Framework/Metrics> | This won't give you function complexity and it's not scriptable (that I know of), but the SlickEdit Gadgets for VS has a great SLOC report tool and you can use from the solution explorer and will give you a detailed report at the file, project or solution level.
You can get it here: <http://www.slickedit.com/content/view/441> |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | Whilst I never did find a .NET product that can equally parse C# and C++, I did manage to find an easy-to-use product, [CODECOUNT](http://sunset.usc.edu/research/CODECOUNT/) that supports those languages and many more.
It has a simple command line, unlike SourceMonitor that was being used on my project up until CODECOUNT replaced it. | This won't give you function complexity and it's not scriptable (that I know of), but the SlickEdit Gadgets for VS has a great SLOC report tool and you can use from the solution explorer and will give you a detailed report at the file, project or solution level.
You can get it here: <http://www.slickedit.com/content/view/441> |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | A reliable command line based tool for calculating SLOC is [Cloc](http://cloc.sourceforge.net/). It supports many languages including C# and C++. Supported output formats are xml, csv and sql. | This won't give you function complexity and it's not scriptable (that I know of), but the SlickEdit Gadgets for VS has a great SLOC report tool and you can use from the solution explorer and will give you a detailed report at the file, project or solution level.
You can get it here: <http://www.slickedit.com/content/view/441> |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | You can find an open source code for C# SLOC and comments here: <http://code.google.com/p/projectpilot/source/browse/#svn/trunk/ProjectPilot.Framework/Metrics> | Whilst I never did find a .NET product that can equally parse C# and C++, I did manage to find an easy-to-use product, [CODECOUNT](http://sunset.usc.edu/research/CODECOUNT/) that supports those languages and many more.
It has a simple command line, unlike SourceMonitor that was being used on my project up until CODECOUNT replaced it. |
133,679 | I have been using SourceMonitor on my project for a couple of years to keep records of source-code complexity and basic SLOC (including comments) for C# and C++ components. These are used for external reporting to our customer, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits or lack of.
I've been working on a repository analysis tool which is able to give me a snap-shot view of the project at any date/time. The next stage I want to add is caching of the metrics for a specified file and revision.
I know SourceMonitor can be scripted to allow me to supply the files to be tested and grab the metrics out of the result file CSV or XML.
Is there a native library in .NET that I could use to do the same thing -- e.g. avoid spawning an external process and parsing the results.
I only really need the following metrics:
* SLOC
* Number of comment lines
* Complexity of most complex method
* Name of most complex method
I need to run this on **C#** code and normal **C++** code.
Edit: since I already have tool which provides the GUI and reports I want, the metrics need to be scripted or generated using a library/API without manual steps. Ideally I want to get metrics for a specified file/revision (rather than a whole project) which my utility will drag from version-control automatically.
**NOTE: I created a bounty for this and was on holiday when it expired... the NDepends answer does NOT satisfy me as it doesn't look at source-code but the assembly itself!!!** | 2008/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/133679",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7093/"
] | You can find an open source code for C# SLOC and comments here: <http://code.google.com/p/projectpilot/source/browse/#svn/trunk/ProjectPilot.Framework/Metrics> | A reliable command line based tool for calculating SLOC is [Cloc](http://cloc.sourceforge.net/). It supports many languages including C# and C++. Supported output formats are xml, csv and sql. |
153,922 | Can a PC's alignment be forcibly changed?
I've been skimming through the classes on PFSRD, and noticed a lot of them have alignment restrictions. Many state that if their alignment changes, they lose X, Y, and Z, or just stop gaining class levels, period.
Since that's the case and a number of classes I'm interested in have alignment restrictions, I wanted to know if that's possible so I don't end up losing my hard-earned levels later down the line. | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/153922",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/49714/"
] | Yes, albeit not *irreversibly*
------------------------------
There are effects in the game which can cause changes to a PC's alignment against their will - the most well known of which must undoubtedly be the *[helm of opposite alignment](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Magic-items/cursed-items/#Helm_of_Opposite_Alignment)*:
>
> When placed upon the head, this item’s curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). [...]
>
>
> Only a *wish* or a *miracle* can restore a character’s former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
>
>
>
Except when specifically stated otherwise (such as by the helm above), the *[atonement](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/atonement/)* spell is a panacea for most involuntary alignment changes that might affect a character, as it has the capability to unconditionally reverse magical alignment changes and restore class features lost due to alignment restrictions (so long as the character has returned to a compatible alignment). Forced alignment change is also a relatively rare in-game mechanic, so it's not something you should probably worry about much on that basis alone.
What's more common will be your GM enforcing an alignment change on a character based on the way they act in-character, which could be contentious if you and your GM don't have the same views on the meaning of alignment. If you play a character class that has alignment restrictions, I would strongly suggest talking to your GM about what you both think the relevant alignment means, so that you can come to an agreement (or at least you know how your GM intends to rule if it comes up) and you aren't setting yourself up for an unpleasant shock later on. | Yes. Alignment can be changed involuntarily
-------------------------------------------
It can be from magical effects, choice, or behaving in a method contradictory to your alignment. [From the GMG on Changing Alignment](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/ADditional-rules/#Changing_Alignment):
>
> **Changing Alignment**
>
>
> While alignment is often a static trait, options and effects exist that might cause it to change, and players might seek to change their PCs’ alignments for a variety of reasons.
>
>
> **Voluntarily:** Aside from merely having misunderstood what a specific alignment means, PCs might seek to change their alignment in light of game events or to qualify for some alignment-related goal. How this change takes shape should be determined by the player and GM. Often, some quest, trauma, rehabilitation, or other life-changing event triggers the alignment change. Players should be sure of their decision, as changing alignment should be the result of an extraordinary effort, not a whim, and a PC with a shifting personality risks losing definition as a character and might begin to seem like he’s trying to exploit the rules.
>
>
> **Involuntarily:** All manner of events might lead a character to have an involuntary alignment shift. Some are truly involuntary, as some force overrides or corrupts the PC’s personality. The GM should work with the player in such cases, perhaps making an unnaturally compromised PC a confederate in an ongoing story. Stepping out of the norm and playing her own character in a contradictory fashion can be fun for a player and delightfully unnerving for the rest of a group.
>
>
> Characters also risk having their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose. For many characters, this matters little, but in the case of characters bound to a specific alignment for rules-related purposes, an alignment change might mean having to reimagine their entire character. Instead of springing this on a player, make it clear when an action risks violating an alignment-related requirement. Sometimes this will be seen as the voice of the character’s conscience, and allow the player to refrain from the action or suitably justify it to themselves (and you) to bring it into accordance with their values.
>
>
> |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | Given that this has appeared around Easter (albeit a couple of days early in my calendar), I'm going to answer on the basis of the phrase
>
> Christ is risen! He is risen indeed, alleluia!
>
>
>
which is [used in some traditions](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/holy-communion/orderone.aspx).
There are two ways of looking at this.
1. It's an archaic use of English which conjugates [verbs of motion with *be* in present perfect](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51), in much the same way as French still does. The statement is the equivalent of "Christ has risen" and is stating a present-perfect fact.
2. It's stating an eternal truth that not only did he rise all those years ago, but he remains risen now. That is, not just "he has risen" but "he **is** risen" and *risen* is closer to being an adjective than a pure participle. | The past tense (perfect) would be he rose. But this is confirming Jesus' present state of being a risen person. Therefore in this use I wonder might it not be an adjective. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | It is not contemporary English, as others note in their answers, but mixing present and past tense is not the problem. There is no past tense in the form. I suppose you're taking "risen" to be a past participle, and it is, but despite the name, a "past participle" is not past. It's misleading terminology -- don't let it confuse you. | While the sentence could be taken legal modern English (with the same sentence structure as *He is here*), the real answer is that it is an archaic form.
The King James Version of the Bible consistently uses such language -- for example ["He is come"](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13222/he-is-come-john-168), in John 16:8.
In older English, forms of *to be* rather than forms of *to have* are used, if the verb is a verb of motion. Hence, *he is risen*.
---
This behavior can be traced back to German, the principal ancestor of English grammar.
For example *to eat* is not a verb of motion, and *to travel* is a verb of motion.
* English: *He has eaten.* -- German: *Er **hat** gegessen.* -- Archaic English: *He has eaten.*
* English: *He has traveled.* -- German: *Er **ist** gereist.* -- Archaic English: *He is traveled.*
---
Being a verb of motion can be a tough distinction, with differing opinions and accepted exceptions. Fortunately, English speakers today don't have to worry about such distinctions. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | The past tense (perfect) would be he rose. But this is confirming Jesus' present state of being a risen person. Therefore in this use I wonder might it not be an adjective. | While the sentence could be taken legal modern English (with the same sentence structure as *He is here*), the real answer is that it is an archaic form.
The King James Version of the Bible consistently uses such language -- for example ["He is come"](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13222/he-is-come-john-168), in John 16:8.
In older English, forms of *to be* rather than forms of *to have* are used, if the verb is a verb of motion. Hence, *he is risen*.
---
This behavior can be traced back to German, the principal ancestor of English grammar.
For example *to eat* is not a verb of motion, and *to travel* is a verb of motion.
* English: *He has eaten.* -- German: *Er **hat** gegessen.* -- Archaic English: *He has eaten.*
* English: *He has traveled.* -- German: *Er **ist** gereist.* -- Archaic English: *He is traveled.*
---
Being a verb of motion can be a tough distinction, with differing opinions and accepted exceptions. Fortunately, English speakers today don't have to worry about such distinctions. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | Given that this has appeared around Easter (albeit a couple of days early in my calendar), I'm going to answer on the basis of the phrase
>
> Christ is risen! He is risen indeed, alleluia!
>
>
>
which is [used in some traditions](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/holy-communion/orderone.aspx).
There are two ways of looking at this.
1. It's an archaic use of English which conjugates [verbs of motion with *be* in present perfect](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51), in much the same way as French still does. The statement is the equivalent of "Christ has risen" and is stating a present-perfect fact.
2. It's stating an eternal truth that not only did he rise all those years ago, but he remains risen now. That is, not just "he has risen" but "he **is** risen" and *risen* is closer to being an adjective than a pure participle. | It is correct Early Modern English meaning "He has risen". In older novels one can still find similar sentences, such as "He is come to see you, my Lord."
Present perfect is a phenomenon that emerged in / has spread over many European languages. I believe initially the construction was restricted to certain verbs. In any case, it originally used either *to have* or *to be* as the auxiliary, depending on what made more sense for the (full) verb in question. Examples for this:
* He *has* bought a coat. (He *has* a coat because he bought one.)
* She *has* seen the cat. (She *has* a cat in her mind because she saw one.)
* I *am* gone home. (I *am* home because I went there.)
* He *is* risen. (He *is* upright - or in heaven - because he rose.)
This selection between *to have* and *to be* can still be observed in many (most?) of the European languages that have a present perfect. E.g. in German, Dutch and French (and probably many others), the rule is approximately that *to be* is used for verbs of motion and *to have* for all other verbs. The details differ between these languages (and also between northern and southern speakers of German). *To have* is slowly taking over one after another of the verbs whose present perfect was originally formed with *to be*. English is one of the few languages in which this process has already been completed. See Wikipedia on [Perfect constructions with auxiliaries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29#Perfect_constructions_with_auxiliaries) for details.
(Interesting detail: In some variants of South American Spanish there is a recent development towards using the full verb *tener* instead of the auxiliary *haber*, which can no longer be used to express possession.) |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | Given that this has appeared around Easter (albeit a couple of days early in my calendar), I'm going to answer on the basis of the phrase
>
> Christ is risen! He is risen indeed, alleluia!
>
>
>
which is [used in some traditions](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/holy-communion/orderone.aspx).
There are two ways of looking at this.
1. It's an archaic use of English which conjugates [verbs of motion with *be* in present perfect](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51), in much the same way as French still does. The statement is the equivalent of "Christ has risen" and is stating a present-perfect fact.
2. It's stating an eternal truth that not only did he rise all those years ago, but he remains risen now. That is, not just "he has risen" but "he **is** risen" and *risen* is closer to being an adjective than a pure participle. | Affirming Andrew Leach's answer, the [Paschal Greeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_greeting) can be classified as a set phrase in many languages--especially those influenced by Orthodox Christianity.
*He is risen* is **perceived** in modern English as a predicate adjective, but it is technically an archaic [present perfect construction](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51) from Matthew 28:6:
>
> He is not here: for he ***is risen***, as he said. Come, see the place where
> the Lord lay.
>
> *[KJV Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028:6-28:7&version=KJV)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The translators of the KJV used this construction to translate the aorist passive ἠγέρθη in the Greek text:
>
> οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, **ἠγέρθη** γὰρ καθὼς εἶπεν: δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον
> ὅπου ἔκειτο:
>
> *[qbible.com](http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/matthew/28.html)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The Greek [aorist passive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_%28Ancient_Greek%29) has no precise equivalent in English, and this present perfect construction was particularly useful for verbs that presented an ongoing state resulting from a past action like [ἐγείρω](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453):
>
> A. to arouse from sleep, to awake
>
> B. to arouse from the sleep of
> death, to recall the dead to life
>
> *blueletterbible.org*
>
>
>
Some have tried to parse this as a simple present passive construction, but that is problematic. To distinguish it from the [predicate adjective with a past participle](http://www.english-language-grammar-guide.com/present-participle.html), the *[simple present passive](http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.html)* normally demands an explicit agent :
>
> Simple Present
>
> *Active* : Once a week, Tom cleans the house.
>
> *Passive*: Once a week, the house is cleaned **by Tom**.
>
> *englishpage.com*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
Regardless of the parsing, the expression is designed to **emphasize**--for theological reasons--*the present state of a past action*. Orthodox Christians are taught the preeminence of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of his ultimate sovereignty and their eternal hope, impregnating the entire antiphonal greeting with theological significance:
>
> Christ is risen!
>
> He is risen indeed!
>
> Alleluia!
>
>
>
Unbelievers can find solace in the fact that this greeting is rarely used outside of the church building. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | It is not contemporary English, as others note in their answers, but mixing present and past tense is not the problem. There is no past tense in the form. I suppose you're taking "risen" to be a past participle, and it is, but despite the name, a "past participle" is not past. It's misleading terminology -- don't let it confuse you. | The past tense (perfect) would be he rose. But this is confirming Jesus' present state of being a risen person. Therefore in this use I wonder might it not be an adjective. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | It is correct Early Modern English meaning "He has risen". In older novels one can still find similar sentences, such as "He is come to see you, my Lord."
Present perfect is a phenomenon that emerged in / has spread over many European languages. I believe initially the construction was restricted to certain verbs. In any case, it originally used either *to have* or *to be* as the auxiliary, depending on what made more sense for the (full) verb in question. Examples for this:
* He *has* bought a coat. (He *has* a coat because he bought one.)
* She *has* seen the cat. (She *has* a cat in her mind because she saw one.)
* I *am* gone home. (I *am* home because I went there.)
* He *is* risen. (He *is* upright - or in heaven - because he rose.)
This selection between *to have* and *to be* can still be observed in many (most?) of the European languages that have a present perfect. E.g. in German, Dutch and French (and probably many others), the rule is approximately that *to be* is used for verbs of motion and *to have* for all other verbs. The details differ between these languages (and also between northern and southern speakers of German). *To have* is slowly taking over one after another of the verbs whose present perfect was originally formed with *to be*. English is one of the few languages in which this process has already been completed. See Wikipedia on [Perfect constructions with auxiliaries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29#Perfect_constructions_with_auxiliaries) for details.
(Interesting detail: In some variants of South American Spanish there is a recent development towards using the full verb *tener* instead of the auxiliary *haber*, which can no longer be used to express possession.) | While the sentence could be taken legal modern English (with the same sentence structure as *He is here*), the real answer is that it is an archaic form.
The King James Version of the Bible consistently uses such language -- for example ["He is come"](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13222/he-is-come-john-168), in John 16:8.
In older English, forms of *to be* rather than forms of *to have* are used, if the verb is a verb of motion. Hence, *he is risen*.
---
This behavior can be traced back to German, the principal ancestor of English grammar.
For example *to eat* is not a verb of motion, and *to travel* is a verb of motion.
* English: *He has eaten.* -- German: *Er **hat** gegessen.* -- Archaic English: *He has eaten.*
* English: *He has traveled.* -- German: *Er **ist** gereist.* -- Archaic English: *He is traveled.*
---
Being a verb of motion can be a tough distinction, with differing opinions and accepted exceptions. Fortunately, English speakers today don't have to worry about such distinctions. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | Affirming Andrew Leach's answer, the [Paschal Greeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_greeting) can be classified as a set phrase in many languages--especially those influenced by Orthodox Christianity.
*He is risen* is **perceived** in modern English as a predicate adjective, but it is technically an archaic [present perfect construction](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51) from Matthew 28:6:
>
> He is not here: for he ***is risen***, as he said. Come, see the place where
> the Lord lay.
>
> *[KJV Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028:6-28:7&version=KJV)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The translators of the KJV used this construction to translate the aorist passive ἠγέρθη in the Greek text:
>
> οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, **ἠγέρθη** γὰρ καθὼς εἶπεν: δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον
> ὅπου ἔκειτο:
>
> *[qbible.com](http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/matthew/28.html)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The Greek [aorist passive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_%28Ancient_Greek%29) has no precise equivalent in English, and this present perfect construction was particularly useful for verbs that presented an ongoing state resulting from a past action like [ἐγείρω](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453):
>
> A. to arouse from sleep, to awake
>
> B. to arouse from the sleep of
> death, to recall the dead to life
>
> *blueletterbible.org*
>
>
>
Some have tried to parse this as a simple present passive construction, but that is problematic. To distinguish it from the [predicate adjective with a past participle](http://www.english-language-grammar-guide.com/present-participle.html), the *[simple present passive](http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.html)* normally demands an explicit agent :
>
> Simple Present
>
> *Active* : Once a week, Tom cleans the house.
>
> *Passive*: Once a week, the house is cleaned **by Tom**.
>
> *englishpage.com*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
Regardless of the parsing, the expression is designed to **emphasize**--for theological reasons--*the present state of a past action*. Orthodox Christians are taught the preeminence of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of his ultimate sovereignty and their eternal hope, impregnating the entire antiphonal greeting with theological significance:
>
> Christ is risen!
>
> He is risen indeed!
>
> Alleluia!
>
>
>
Unbelievers can find solace in the fact that this greeting is rarely used outside of the church building. | The past tense (perfect) would be he rose. But this is confirming Jesus' present state of being a risen person. Therefore in this use I wonder might it not be an adjective. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | It is correct Early Modern English meaning "He has risen". In older novels one can still find similar sentences, such as "He is come to see you, my Lord."
Present perfect is a phenomenon that emerged in / has spread over many European languages. I believe initially the construction was restricted to certain verbs. In any case, it originally used either *to have* or *to be* as the auxiliary, depending on what made more sense for the (full) verb in question. Examples for this:
* He *has* bought a coat. (He *has* a coat because he bought one.)
* She *has* seen the cat. (She *has* a cat in her mind because she saw one.)
* I *am* gone home. (I *am* home because I went there.)
* He *is* risen. (He *is* upright - or in heaven - because he rose.)
This selection between *to have* and *to be* can still be observed in many (most?) of the European languages that have a present perfect. E.g. in German, Dutch and French (and probably many others), the rule is approximately that *to be* is used for verbs of motion and *to have* for all other verbs. The details differ between these languages (and also between northern and southern speakers of German). *To have* is slowly taking over one after another of the verbs whose present perfect was originally formed with *to be*. English is one of the few languages in which this process has already been completed. See Wikipedia on [Perfect constructions with auxiliaries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29#Perfect_constructions_with_auxiliaries) for details.
(Interesting detail: In some variants of South American Spanish there is a recent development towards using the full verb *tener* instead of the auxiliary *haber*, which can no longer be used to express possession.) | The past tense (perfect) would be he rose. But this is confirming Jesus' present state of being a risen person. Therefore in this use I wonder might it not be an adjective. |
237,348 | This is not correct, right? Mixing present tense and past tense makes me think it is not correct but I see it so often on signs that I'm not even sure any more. Is there a specific reason *why* it's often said like that or is it just consistently overlooked? | 2015/04/03 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/237348",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107796/"
] | Affirming Andrew Leach's answer, the [Paschal Greeting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_greeting) can be classified as a set phrase in many languages--especially those influenced by Orthodox Christianity.
*He is risen* is **perceived** in modern English as a predicate adjective, but it is technically an archaic [present perfect construction](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be#be__51) from Matthew 28:6:
>
> He is not here: for he ***is risen***, as he said. Come, see the place where
> the Lord lay.
>
> *[KJV Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028:6-28:7&version=KJV)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The translators of the KJV used this construction to translate the aorist passive ἠγέρθη in the Greek text:
>
> οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, **ἠγέρθη** γὰρ καθὼς εἶπεν: δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον
> ὅπου ἔκειτο:
>
> *[qbible.com](http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/matthew/28.html)*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
The Greek [aorist passive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_%28Ancient_Greek%29) has no precise equivalent in English, and this present perfect construction was particularly useful for verbs that presented an ongoing state resulting from a past action like [ἐγείρω](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1453):
>
> A. to arouse from sleep, to awake
>
> B. to arouse from the sleep of
> death, to recall the dead to life
>
> *blueletterbible.org*
>
>
>
Some have tried to parse this as a simple present passive construction, but that is problematic. To distinguish it from the [predicate adjective with a past participle](http://www.english-language-grammar-guide.com/present-participle.html), the *[simple present passive](http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.html)* normally demands an explicit agent :
>
> Simple Present
>
> *Active* : Once a week, Tom cleans the house.
>
> *Passive*: Once a week, the house is cleaned **by Tom**.
>
> *englishpage.com*
>
> ***Emphasis*** mine
>
>
>
Regardless of the parsing, the expression is designed to **emphasize**--for theological reasons--*the present state of a past action*. Orthodox Christians are taught the preeminence of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of his ultimate sovereignty and their eternal hope, impregnating the entire antiphonal greeting with theological significance:
>
> Christ is risen!
>
> He is risen indeed!
>
> Alleluia!
>
>
>
Unbelievers can find solace in the fact that this greeting is rarely used outside of the church building. | It is correct Early Modern English meaning "He has risen". In older novels one can still find similar sentences, such as "He is come to see you, my Lord."
Present perfect is a phenomenon that emerged in / has spread over many European languages. I believe initially the construction was restricted to certain verbs. In any case, it originally used either *to have* or *to be* as the auxiliary, depending on what made more sense for the (full) verb in question. Examples for this:
* He *has* bought a coat. (He *has* a coat because he bought one.)
* She *has* seen the cat. (She *has* a cat in her mind because she saw one.)
* I *am* gone home. (I *am* home because I went there.)
* He *is* risen. (He *is* upright - or in heaven - because he rose.)
This selection between *to have* and *to be* can still be observed in many (most?) of the European languages that have a present perfect. E.g. in German, Dutch and French (and probably many others), the rule is approximately that *to be* is used for verbs of motion and *to have* for all other verbs. The details differ between these languages (and also between northern and southern speakers of German). *To have* is slowly taking over one after another of the verbs whose present perfect was originally formed with *to be*. English is one of the few languages in which this process has already been completed. See Wikipedia on [Perfect constructions with auxiliaries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29#Perfect_constructions_with_auxiliaries) for details.
(Interesting detail: In some variants of South American Spanish there is a recent development towards using the full verb *tener* instead of the auxiliary *haber*, which can no longer be used to express possession.) |
27,457 | The best way to travel across wilderness with a lot of gear depends on the exact nature of the terrain; in particular, if it contains rivers, the best solution may be a boat. Lewis and Clark accordingly made use of such, as detailed in this excellent article <http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/3072>
One thing I notice, looking at the models of the boats involved, is that they had square rigged sails.
As I understand it, the two reasons for using square rigged sails were:
1. It's early enough in history that nothing more sophisticated has yet been invented.
2. Big oceangoing cargo ship that will mostly be traveling downwind on the prevailing winds.
The former was obviously not the case by the time of Lewis and Clark, and the latter was very definitely not the case either; on the contrary, river travel is the scenario when you most badly need maneuverability, and I get the impression the optimal sail plan for that is the fore-and-aft a.k.a. schooner rig – is that the correct terminology?
So why would the Lewis and Clark boats have used square rig? Is there something about either that kind of travel, or the construction of small boats with hand tools, that I am missing? | 2021/07/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/27457",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/19794/"
] | From the article you've linked, *they were under sail a little more than one-tenth of the time [on the river]*. Perhaps that could have been a bit greater if they were schooner- or lateen-rigged, but fundamentally these boats were rowed, poled, or hauled by ropes most of the time and the sailing gear should therefore be thought of as an optional extra to some extent.
The simple mast with little rigging doesn't get in the way too much, and doesn't require too much complexity or rope in construction. It's easier for lightly-trained crew to operate. Note that the "white pirogue" mentioned in the article wasn't purely square-rigged - there's a [spritsail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spritsail) pictured, and from the article that boat was favoured.
On a reach, a sailing boat needs a decent keel, leeboards, daggerboard or similar to resist sideways movement. In a river that may be shallow in places, this will be very vulnerable to hitting the bottom. No leeboards are pictured in the models; oars could perhaps have been used but that would occupy men. | I am no historian, and the "Red Pirogue" modal does appear to be rigged as a square sail, but it is possible that, either the modeler made a mistake, or the boat was re-rigged with something like a dipping lugsail, which looks square from a distance, but acts more like a for-and-aft sail. A quick read of some of your linked website shows the expeditions not only changed boats, but built completely new ones at various times, it would be totally plausible that the boats were re-riged one or more times over the length of the trips.
[Dipping Lug Sail](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGn7MWPOwx0)
[A note referencing Chris's answer]
>
> Blockquote
> On a reach, a sailing boat needs a decent keel, leeboards, daggerboard or similar to resist sideways movement. In a river that may be shallow in places this will be very vulnerable to hitting the bottom. No leeboards are pictured in the models; oars could perhaps have been used but that would occupy men.
>
>
>
a keel on a longboat of the same era, was simply a center timber sticking a few inches lower than the planking, It does not give much, if any upwind performance, but it would reach significantly more than a strait down wind barge. Its also more than possible sailing was never a priority and they just used the sails to have a rest when the wind was in the right place. |
27,457 | The best way to travel across wilderness with a lot of gear depends on the exact nature of the terrain; in particular, if it contains rivers, the best solution may be a boat. Lewis and Clark accordingly made use of such, as detailed in this excellent article <http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/3072>
One thing I notice, looking at the models of the boats involved, is that they had square rigged sails.
As I understand it, the two reasons for using square rigged sails were:
1. It's early enough in history that nothing more sophisticated has yet been invented.
2. Big oceangoing cargo ship that will mostly be traveling downwind on the prevailing winds.
The former was obviously not the case by the time of Lewis and Clark, and the latter was very definitely not the case either; on the contrary, river travel is the scenario when you most badly need maneuverability, and I get the impression the optimal sail plan for that is the fore-and-aft a.k.a. schooner rig – is that the correct terminology?
So why would the Lewis and Clark boats have used square rig? Is there something about either that kind of travel, or the construction of small boats with hand tools, that I am missing? | 2021/07/19 | [
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/27457",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com",
"https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/19794/"
] | From the article you've linked, *they were under sail a little more than one-tenth of the time [on the river]*. Perhaps that could have been a bit greater if they were schooner- or lateen-rigged, but fundamentally these boats were rowed, poled, or hauled by ropes most of the time and the sailing gear should therefore be thought of as an optional extra to some extent.
The simple mast with little rigging doesn't get in the way too much, and doesn't require too much complexity or rope in construction. It's easier for lightly-trained crew to operate. Note that the "white pirogue" mentioned in the article wasn't purely square-rigged - there's a [spritsail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spritsail) pictured, and from the article that boat was favoured.
On a reach, a sailing boat needs a decent keel, leeboards, daggerboard or similar to resist sideways movement. In a river that may be shallow in places, this will be very vulnerable to hitting the bottom. No leeboards are pictured in the models; oars could perhaps have been used but that would occupy men. | **Why did Lewis and Clark use square rigged boats?**
Meriwether Lewis had boats designed for his expedition that could fundamentally be used in all sorts of weather and topographical situations that would probably be encountered.
>
> Lewis and Clark's keelboat was built as a galley in Pittsburgh in 1803 for the Lewis and Clark Expedition, after detailed specifications by Meriwether Lewis. **A keelboat, it could be propelled by oars, sails, poles and towlines.** The boat was the expedition's main vessel until the spring of 1805, when it was returned to Saint Louis.
>
>
> In May 1803, Lewis ordered that a riverboat, built to defined specifications, be built at Pittsburgh for the expedition. When he arrived at Pittsburgh, he found that the boat builder had just begun building the boat and that it would take six weeks to finish it. This worried Lewis, who wanted to get underway in the vessel before the summer drought lowered the water level of the Ohio River, and to reach the Mississippi River before it froze in the fall. - [Lewis and Clark's keelboat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark%27s_keelboat)
>
>
>
Good biographies about the [**Lewis and Clark Expedition**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark_Expedition) demonstrate that the boats employed in the expedition did in fact use many different methods to travel the various rivers encountered. They actually employed all methods mentioned in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. The keelboat was actually propelled by oars, sails, poles or towlines, at different moments due to unforeseen conditions and situations.
The square rigged thus meant that they would be able to constantly make headway in many manners of situations that arose. Buoyancy was more an issue for the expedition than speed. At times the water levels were quite low and poles were employed at the same time the sails were up!
>
> Lewis had designed the keelboat; he supervised its construction, and probably made changes and additions during the building period. The boat was basically a galley, a vessel not like any other found west of the Appalachians, although of a standard type used on inland waters in the east. It was 55 feet long, with an eight feet beam, and with a shallow draft. The mast was 32 feet high and could be lowered. The boat could carry a headsail and a square rigged sail. A ten feet long deck at the bow made a forecastle. A raised aftercastle of the same length contained a cabin. The hold had a capacity of 12 tons. Eleven benches for the oarsmen crossed the deck in front of the aftercastle.
>
>
> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sq68W.jpg)
>
>
> The keelboat could be propelled by oars, sails, poles and towlines. When using the setting poles, the crew put the poles in the bottom of the river and pushed off while walking from the bow to the stern. Towlines were used by men, horses, or oxen pulling the boat.
>
>
> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2PFRf.jpg)
>
>
> This memorial nickel shows the use of setting poles on Lewis & Clark's Keelboat.
>
>
> |
48,814 | I've seen metal "sticks" with a special end that let them fit snugly into a through-hole for when you want a contact but don't want to solder a wire into the hole. What are they called and where can I buy them?
I think they are called "Posts" and are used for prototyping, but searching "electrical post" on Google just doesn't cut it. | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/48814",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6346/"
] | You want [pogo pins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_pin). Solder the non-pointy end into a board and push the receiving board onto the pointy end when you want to use it. Obviously you'll have some pattern of pogo pins and a matching pattern of smaller-than-the-pointy-bit vias (through holes) to mate with. The idea is they allow some wiggle room for mating boards, all the pins don't have to be perfectly the same length.
I use these for test boards. Make a board to match the test points on your device and build your test circuitry onto it. Recently I've started using them for very small programming connectors too, seems to be working pretty well.
---
EDIT:
The very small Spy-Bi-Wire programming connector I made looks like this on the board 
This is the surface pad version on a 1 mm grid, I also made a through hole version of the same size for use if I have the board space on both sides (I suppose a blind via would work, if I didn't care about board cost). The programmer has an identical arrangement, but with through holes for the pogo pins to solder in (but pointing out the bottom of the board). The center is an alignment hole. Until I find a better solution, the programmer side of this connection has a thin pin where the alignment hole is, I stick that through the target board alignment hole and clip the far side so it doesn't slide back out. The surface pad version works fine if I'm not moving the board all around because it can accidentally rotate, though I've found the pogo pins usually stop at the solder mask (the through hole version doesn't have this problem). I'm still trying out other variations, but like I said, this one does seem to be working out quite well. | Are you talking about [male](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/116) and [female](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/115) header pins? They "mate" with each other to form a decent connection but you still have to solder one end of them down. Very useful for prototyping though as once you have soldered in the one end, the other end basically makes a breadboard.
Or perhaps [POGO pins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_pin) would better suit your needs. They are generally used for flashing/testing a part that is going into production when you don't want to leave the connector on. The basic idea for using pogo pins is you create a secondary board with pogo receptacles. They allow for good temporary connections without any additional hardware on the primary board. See the [sparkfun tutorial](http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/138). That is what they use for their quality testing.
Lastly, [wire wrap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_wrap) is a good way to make an electrical connection without the need for soldering. |
48,814 | I've seen metal "sticks" with a special end that let them fit snugly into a through-hole for when you want a contact but don't want to solder a wire into the hole. What are they called and where can I buy them?
I think they are called "Posts" and are used for prototyping, but searching "electrical post" on Google just doesn't cut it. | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/48814",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6346/"
] | Are you talking about [male](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/116) and [female](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/115) header pins? They "mate" with each other to form a decent connection but you still have to solder one end of them down. Very useful for prototyping though as once you have soldered in the one end, the other end basically makes a breadboard.
Or perhaps [POGO pins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_pin) would better suit your needs. They are generally used for flashing/testing a part that is going into production when you don't want to leave the connector on. The basic idea for using pogo pins is you create a secondary board with pogo receptacles. They allow for good temporary connections without any additional hardware on the primary board. See the [sparkfun tutorial](http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/138). That is what they use for their quality testing.
Lastly, [wire wrap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_wrap) is a good way to make an electrical connection without the need for soldering. | I know this is a very old post but I found this Solderless Headers - 10-pin Straight PRT-10527 <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/10527> the obvious problem is at this site it's no longer available.
(I'm still looking for this so if found please comment.) |
48,814 | I've seen metal "sticks" with a special end that let them fit snugly into a through-hole for when you want a contact but don't want to solder a wire into the hole. What are they called and where can I buy them?
I think they are called "Posts" and are used for prototyping, but searching "electrical post" on Google just doesn't cut it. | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/48814",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6346/"
] | You want [pogo pins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_pin). Solder the non-pointy end into a board and push the receiving board onto the pointy end when you want to use it. Obviously you'll have some pattern of pogo pins and a matching pattern of smaller-than-the-pointy-bit vias (through holes) to mate with. The idea is they allow some wiggle room for mating boards, all the pins don't have to be perfectly the same length.
I use these for test boards. Make a board to match the test points on your device and build your test circuitry onto it. Recently I've started using them for very small programming connectors too, seems to be working pretty well.
---
EDIT:
The very small Spy-Bi-Wire programming connector I made looks like this on the board 
This is the surface pad version on a 1 mm grid, I also made a through hole version of the same size for use if I have the board space on both sides (I suppose a blind via would work, if I didn't care about board cost). The programmer has an identical arrangement, but with through holes for the pogo pins to solder in (but pointing out the bottom of the board). The center is an alignment hole. Until I find a better solution, the programmer side of this connection has a thin pin where the alignment hole is, I stick that through the target board alignment hole and clip the far side so it doesn't slide back out. The surface pad version works fine if I'm not moving the board all around because it can accidentally rotate, though I've found the pogo pins usually stop at the solder mask (the through hole version doesn't have this problem). I'm still trying out other variations, but like I said, this one does seem to be working out quite well. | I know this is a very old post but I found this Solderless Headers - 10-pin Straight PRT-10527 <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/10527> the obvious problem is at this site it's no longer available.
(I'm still looking for this so if found please comment.) |
48,814 | I've seen metal "sticks" with a special end that let them fit snugly into a through-hole for when you want a contact but don't want to solder a wire into the hole. What are they called and where can I buy them?
I think they are called "Posts" and are used for prototyping, but searching "electrical post" on Google just doesn't cut it. | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/48814",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6346/"
] | You want [pogo pins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_pin). Solder the non-pointy end into a board and push the receiving board onto the pointy end when you want to use it. Obviously you'll have some pattern of pogo pins and a matching pattern of smaller-than-the-pointy-bit vias (through holes) to mate with. The idea is they allow some wiggle room for mating boards, all the pins don't have to be perfectly the same length.
I use these for test boards. Make a board to match the test points on your device and build your test circuitry onto it. Recently I've started using them for very small programming connectors too, seems to be working pretty well.
---
EDIT:
The very small Spy-Bi-Wire programming connector I made looks like this on the board 
This is the surface pad version on a 1 mm grid, I also made a through hole version of the same size for use if I have the board space on both sides (I suppose a blind via would work, if I didn't care about board cost). The programmer has an identical arrangement, but with through holes for the pogo pins to solder in (but pointing out the bottom of the board). The center is an alignment hole. Until I find a better solution, the programmer side of this connection has a thin pin where the alignment hole is, I stick that through the target board alignment hole and clip the far side so it doesn't slide back out. The surface pad version works fine if I'm not moving the board all around because it can accidentally rotate, though I've found the pogo pins usually stop at the solder mask (the through hole version doesn't have this problem). I'm still trying out other variations, but like I said, this one does seem to be working out quite well. | While Op found what they were looking for, adding to improve the answers.
**Pogo Pins**, aka Spring Loaded Contacts are non permanent contacts that are pressed into a hole or pad. They require constant pressure to make contact, via internal springs. They need to be held, by hand, screws, or a jig/rig. They come in a variety of heads, lengths, styles, etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LDFZYm.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8amGC.jpg)
The other option is **Press Fit Pins or Headers**. These are meant to be pushed into a through hole plated hole. They are mostly permanent, providing good solid mechanical contact, and do not need to be soldered. They can be removed, but will either damage the hole or no longer be usable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/opr2dm.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pG1SL.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WCOkw.gif) |
48,814 | I've seen metal "sticks" with a special end that let them fit snugly into a through-hole for when you want a contact but don't want to solder a wire into the hole. What are they called and where can I buy them?
I think they are called "Posts" and are used for prototyping, but searching "electrical post" on Google just doesn't cut it. | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/48814",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/6346/"
] | While Op found what they were looking for, adding to improve the answers.
**Pogo Pins**, aka Spring Loaded Contacts are non permanent contacts that are pressed into a hole or pad. They require constant pressure to make contact, via internal springs. They need to be held, by hand, screws, or a jig/rig. They come in a variety of heads, lengths, styles, etc.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LDFZYm.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8amGC.jpg)
The other option is **Press Fit Pins or Headers**. These are meant to be pushed into a through hole plated hole. They are mostly permanent, providing good solid mechanical contact, and do not need to be soldered. They can be removed, but will either damage the hole or no longer be usable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/opr2dm.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pG1SL.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WCOkw.gif) | I know this is a very old post but I found this Solderless Headers - 10-pin Straight PRT-10527 <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/10527> the obvious problem is at this site it's no longer available.
(I'm still looking for this so if found please comment.) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.