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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
396,478 | This is just a question for owners of Airpods Pro. I've noticed that with regular earbuds that seal with a foam or soft plastic tip, the seal makes your internal voice sound weird. This is very jarring and makes speaking normally very difficult. This makes earbuds very uncomfortable to use for meetings/phone calls.
Apple's regular wired earbuds don't have a perfect seal, and talking with them in doesn't change the way my voice sounds to myself. This is good, but the earbuds also don't fit well in my ears and keep falling out.
I can't find anyone talking about this online, possibly because I don't know what terms to search for. I'm wondering if anyone with Airpods Pro can let me know:
1. Are you familiar with this problem? It's possible that not everyone experiences this.
2. Do the Airpods Pro have this problem, where your voice sounds different to yourself? Does this change if you use Transparency mode? | 2020/07/19 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/396478",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/339289/"
] | Does that person know your passcode?
If not, then no.
You need passcode or fingerprint before the phone will trust the computer.
*From comments -* If they did know the passcode, there is no way to tell.
Giving someone your passcode or Apple ID password is almost the same as giving them your ATM card & PIN, if not worse. They can do what they like, because every system they interface with will think it is you. | In general, this will be difficult on the phone itself since you’re trying to forensically reconstruct past events from log files that expire routinely. The easiest thing would be to take your phone to each computer you suspect and see if there’s a pairing record or backup stored on the filesystem.
Each phone makes it’s own folder, so you might see two phones backed up to a computer you only expected one.
A pairing and backup surely leave log messages on iOS, but since you can’t easily inspect those, you would need Xcode to open the console and read the log files from the phone. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | Finder > Preferences > Advanced > Keep folders on top when sorting by name
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpLhv.png)
Before macOS 10.12 Sierra, this wasn't an option.
Before 10.12, Finder just didn't have a "group the folders" at the top/bottom. There are legions of Mac users that put all sorts of characters in their folder names so that they sort above or below when sorted by name.
There are all sorts of [hacky ways to manipulate the "kind" strings internally](https://superuser.com/a/185763/76395), but then everything is arranged by kind first, and secondarily alphabetically.
If this is a deal breaker - check out the many apps that run in place of the Finder. Here is a query to get you started:
<https://apple.stackexchange.com/search?q=finder+replacement> | On *macOS Sierra*, there is a way to group folders together. Launch the Finder. Then head to **Finder > Preferences** in the menu bar. Head to **Advanced** and check the option '**Keep folders on top when sorting by name**'. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | Finder > Preferences > Advanced > Keep folders on top when sorting by name
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpLhv.png)
Before macOS 10.12 Sierra, this wasn't an option.
Before 10.12, Finder just didn't have a "group the folders" at the top/bottom. There are legions of Mac users that put all sorts of characters in their folder names so that they sort above or below when sorted by name.
There are all sorts of [hacky ways to manipulate the "kind" strings internally](https://superuser.com/a/185763/76395), but then everything is arranged by kind first, and secondarily alphabetically.
If this is a deal breaker - check out the many apps that run in place of the Finder. Here is a query to get you started:
<https://apple.stackexchange.com/search?q=finder+replacement> | This can be done. You have to move "Folders" to the top of the Spotlight search results list in Spotlight's preferences. Then, arrange by kind in the Finder. This works. Here is what you need to do.
1) Type something in the SPOTLIGHT search (located on on right top corner of the screen)
2) At the bottom of the search, click on Spotlight Preferences.
3) In the preference box, just drag and move the Folder to the top of the list.
4) That's it. Now no matter how you arrange or sort in Finder window, folders will be at the top followed by other documents.
5) This is amazingly simple. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | I've put together a **[snippet](https://gist.github.com/nickbudi/11277384)** that does this a la terminal. It uses the " Folder" trick to sort folders above files and works in list view only.
Unfortunately files are sorted by kind first then alphabetically. Check the location of bootstrap.sh in the screenshot for example. | In the Finder: **View** Menu -> **Arrange** -> **By Kind**
In Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8): **View** menu -> **Sort By** -> **Kind**
(Or use the Finder's shortcut keystroke **Command-Option-Control-2**) |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | It is pretty simple to make it just like Windows, with folders (alphabetical) starting at the top then other files (also alphabetical). You can do it all using the regular finder application on OS X 10.9. Unfortunately, any applications (.dmg files) will still be stacked above folders.
Go into finder and under view options sort by name, then kind. It doesn't put them in the grid by type now. You'll have to make that the default and probably still change it in all of your favorites from Finder. Hope this works for others too. | This can be done. You have to move "Folders" to the top of the Spotlight search results list in Spotlight's preferences. Then, arrange by kind in the Finder. This works. Here is what you need to do.
1) Type something in the SPOTLIGHT search (located on on right top corner of the screen)
2) At the bottom of the search, click on Spotlight Preferences.
3) In the preference box, just drag and move the Folder to the top of the list.
4) That's it. Now no matter how you arrange or sort in Finder window, folders will be at the top followed by other documents.
5) This is amazingly simple. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | On *macOS Sierra*, there is a way to group folders together. Launch the Finder. Then head to **Finder > Preferences** in the menu bar. Head to **Advanced** and check the option '**Keep folders on top when sorting by name**'. | It is pretty simple to make it just like Windows, with folders (alphabetical) starting at the top then other files (also alphabetical). You can do it all using the regular finder application on OS X 10.9. Unfortunately, any applications (.dmg files) will still be stacked above folders.
Go into finder and under view options sort by name, then kind. It doesn't put them in the grid by type now. You'll have to make that the default and probably still change it in all of your favorites from Finder. Hope this works for others too. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | On *macOS Sierra*, there is a way to group folders together. Launch the Finder. Then head to **Finder > Preferences** in the menu bar. Head to **Advanced** and check the option '**Keep folders on top when sorting by name**'. | In the Finder: **View** Menu -> **Arrange** -> **By Kind**
In Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8): **View** menu -> **Sort By** -> **Kind**
(Or use the Finder's shortcut keystroke **Command-Option-Control-2**) |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | Finder > Preferences > Advanced > Keep folders on top when sorting by name
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpLhv.png)
Before macOS 10.12 Sierra, this wasn't an option.
Before 10.12, Finder just didn't have a "group the folders" at the top/bottom. There are legions of Mac users that put all sorts of characters in their folder names so that they sort above or below when sorted by name.
There are all sorts of [hacky ways to manipulate the "kind" strings internally](https://superuser.com/a/185763/76395), but then everything is arranged by kind first, and secondarily alphabetically.
If this is a deal breaker - check out the many apps that run in place of the Finder. Here is a query to get you started:
<https://apple.stackexchange.com/search?q=finder+replacement> | It is pretty simple to make it just like Windows, with folders (alphabetical) starting at the top then other files (also alphabetical). You can do it all using the regular finder application on OS X 10.9. Unfortunately, any applications (.dmg files) will still be stacked above folders.
Go into finder and under view options sort by name, then kind. It doesn't put them in the grid by type now. You'll have to make that the default and probably still change it in all of your favorites from Finder. Hope this works for others too. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | Finder > Preferences > Advanced > Keep folders on top when sorting by name
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpLhv.png)
Before macOS 10.12 Sierra, this wasn't an option.
Before 10.12, Finder just didn't have a "group the folders" at the top/bottom. There are legions of Mac users that put all sorts of characters in their folder names so that they sort above or below when sorted by name.
There are all sorts of [hacky ways to manipulate the "kind" strings internally](https://superuser.com/a/185763/76395), but then everything is arranged by kind first, and secondarily alphabetically.
If this is a deal breaker - check out the many apps that run in place of the Finder. Here is a query to get you started:
<https://apple.stackexchange.com/search?q=finder+replacement> | I've put together a **[snippet](https://gist.github.com/nickbudi/11277384)** that does this a la terminal. It uses the " Folder" trick to sort folders above files and works in list view only.
Unfortunately files are sorted by kind first then alphabetically. Check the location of bootstrap.sh in the screenshot for example. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | I've put together a **[snippet](https://gist.github.com/nickbudi/11277384)** that does this a la terminal. It uses the " Folder" trick to sort folders above files and works in list view only.
Unfortunately files are sorted by kind first then alphabetically. Check the location of bootstrap.sh in the screenshot for example. | This can be done. You have to move "Folders" to the top of the Spotlight search results list in Spotlight's preferences. Then, arrange by kind in the Finder. This works. Here is what you need to do.
1) Type something in the SPOTLIGHT search (located on on right top corner of the screen)
2) At the bottom of the search, click on Spotlight Preferences.
3) In the preference box, just drag and move the Folder to the top of the list.
4) That's it. Now no matter how you arrange or sort in Finder window, folders will be at the top followed by other documents.
5) This is amazingly simple. |
54,760 | I'd like to isolate the vocals on a track I have using Logic. Can anyone provide some advice on how to do this please? | 2012/06/26 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/54760",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/13671/"
] | [TotalFinder](http://totalfinder.binaryage.com) also has an option to keep folders on top:
 | This can be done. You have to move "Folders" to the top of the Spotlight search results list in Spotlight's preferences. Then, arrange by kind in the Finder. This works. Here is what you need to do.
1) Type something in the SPOTLIGHT search (located on on right top corner of the screen)
2) At the bottom of the search, click on Spotlight Preferences.
3) In the preference box, just drag and move the Folder to the top of the list.
4) That's it. Now no matter how you arrange or sort in Finder window, folders will be at the top followed by other documents.
5) This is amazingly simple. |
55,149 | Background
==========
I have been trying to read more on Native American history in the United States. While it seems to be a lot more multidimensional that I initially thought, the general trend of "the Natives got the short end of the stick in the long run" still seems to be true to me.
Given the numerous negative actions of the United States government toward various Native tribes, I was curious as to the diplomatic relations they adopted with the Confederates States of America. It would seem to be a natural alternative to what many Native tribes would have seen as an oppressive power. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Native_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Army) seems to imply that the Cherokee and, to a lesser extent, the Choctaw supported the Confederates in part because some of them also owned slaves. However, the sources on Wikipedia are few, and one of them is just a 10 page paper by a person with no credentials. Thus, I wanted to ask the experts/enthusiasts about...
Question
========
Were there any Native American tribes that had more than just a strategic alliance with the Confederate States of America? | 2019/10/28 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55149",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/36949/"
] | I only humbly suggest you might look into the book ["The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist : An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy”](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38173), by Annie Heloise Abel, published 1915. It is on Amazon with some commentary. I believe, and hope, that this helps.
I read this book several years ago. It is extremely detailed. And now, only because I was asked to, I will venture a few very abbreviated excerpts (I hope this is permissible):
>
> “This volume is the first .. of three dealing with the slaveholding Indians as secessionists, as participants in the Civil War…”
> “…the enormous price the unfortunate Indian had to pay for having allowed himself to become a secessionist and a soldier.”
> “…several Indian treaties bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states…”
> “… tremendous importance the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship….” “…offering political integrity & equality … establishing … not simply an empty wardship, but a bona fide protectorate.”
>
>
> “…Indians fought on both sides…, … moved to fight, not by instincts of savagery, but by identically the same motives and impulses as the white men….” // “ … the southern white man, embarrassed, conceded much, far more than he really believed in, more than he ever could or would have conceded, had he not himself been so fearfully hard pressed. His own predicament, the exigencies of the moment, made him give to the Indian a justice, the like of which neither one of them had dared even to dream.”
>
>
> “…consider to what Indian participation in the Civil War amounted. It was … interesting rather than significant; and … could not possibly have materially affected the ultimate situation.”
> “… Indian Territory occupied a position of strategic importance, from both the economic and the military point of view. The possession of it was absolutely necessary for the political and the institutional consolidation of the South. …. (There) were slaveholding tribes, too,….”
>
>
> | There were Native American tribes living in some of the states of the CSA and in the territories which the CSA hoped to take control of.
For any such tribe the Confederates have a range of possible policies to choose from. Such possible policies included:
1) enslave.
2) drive out of CSA territory.
3) exterminate.
4) leave where they were and generally continue the policies toward them of the USA.
5) treat them much better than the USA did.
6) inconsistently wavering between various of the above policies and not following any one policy long enough for it to have results.
And various other conceivable policies.
And I rather doubt that most members of the Confederate "government" gave relations with Native Americans much though, considering decisions about Native Americans relations something to consider after the CSA secured its independence and there was time to think about relatively minor factors.
So more or less continuing the policies and taking over the relationships of the USA toward the various tribes would have been the usual default position of most Rebel officials dealing with Indians. And of course trying to get them to support the Rebel war effort.
I have read that Rebel Colonel John Baylor, in command in southern New mexico and Arizona, desired or planned to exterminate the Apaches.
>
> Baylor became known for ordering his cavalry regiment to exterminate the Apache, with whom the encroaching settlers were in conflict. He issued the following order to his men:
>
>
> [U]se all means to persuade the Apaches or any tribe to come in for the purpose of making peace, and when you get them together kill all the grown Indians and take the children prisoners and sell them to defray the expense of killing the adult Indians. Buy whiskey and such other goods as may be necessary for the Indians and I will order vouchers given to cover the amount expended. Leave nothing undone to insure success, and have a sufficient number of men around to allow no Indian to escape.[3]
>
>
> There is no indication this order was followed. When President Davis learned of it, he relieved Baylor as governor and revoked his commission as colonel.
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor>[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor)
Here is a link to a discussion quoting official records:
<https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/>[2](https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/)
Note that Baylor's order claims - accurately or not - that the Confederate Congress passed a law calling for the extermination of all hostile Indians in Confederate territory. |
55,149 | Background
==========
I have been trying to read more on Native American history in the United States. While it seems to be a lot more multidimensional that I initially thought, the general trend of "the Natives got the short end of the stick in the long run" still seems to be true to me.
Given the numerous negative actions of the United States government toward various Native tribes, I was curious as to the diplomatic relations they adopted with the Confederates States of America. It would seem to be a natural alternative to what many Native tribes would have seen as an oppressive power. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Native_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Army) seems to imply that the Cherokee and, to a lesser extent, the Choctaw supported the Confederates in part because some of them also owned slaves. However, the sources on Wikipedia are few, and one of them is just a 10 page paper by a person with no credentials. Thus, I wanted to ask the experts/enthusiasts about...
Question
========
Were there any Native American tribes that had more than just a strategic alliance with the Confederate States of America? | 2019/10/28 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55149",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/36949/"
] | As of March 1863, there seems to have been no binding policy on how to deal with Native American tribes by the Confederacy, not to meantion any strategic alliance.
---
Based on the given source of [@MAGolding](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/55158/38607) answer, where most of Baylor's report and the reaction of the chain of command is given as text, Google Book links have been added to the corresponding portions.
---
[John R. Baylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor) letter, 20 March 1862
>
> "The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians."
>
>
>
---
[Baylor's report, HOUSTON, TEX., December 29, 1862](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA914&lpg=PA914)
* 5 Pages (914-917)
>
> The question now presents itself as to **what will be the policy of our Government** toward the Indians in such exposed sections as Arizona.
>
> ...
>
> If the Confederate Government **adopts the policy of making treaties** and endeavors to purchase peace and affords no more adequate protection from Indians than the Government of the United States has afforded on the frontier of this State and in Arizona the result will be that the citizens there will be reduced to the condition of stock raisers and herders for the benefit of the Indian tribes alone.
>
> ...
>
> As Texas and Arizona are the only portions of our youthful Confederacy that will suffer from Indian depredations and atrocities it is a matter of vital importance to them **what policy will be decisively adopted by our Government** toward the perpetrators of these villainies.
>
>
>
These statements imply, that at this point, no policy existed, which *contradicts* his letter of March 20 1862 (9 months before) claiming that: **The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians**.
And here we have the [endorsements on Baylor's report](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA918&lpg=PA918) as it works its' way up the chain of command [to President Davis in Richmond March 29, 1863](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA919&lpg=PA919):
* Pages 918 and 919
>
> SECRETARY OF WAR:
>
> This letter requires attention. It is an avowal of **an infamous crime** and the assertion of what should not be true in relation to troops in Texas, &c.
>
> J.D.
>
>
>
Here too, I believe, is further proof that the claim made in Baylor letter of 20th March 1862 is false, since if it was true, [Jefferson Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) statement would have been completely different.
---
**Source**:
* [The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union ... - United States. War Dept **Chapter 27** - Google Books](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1)
>
>
> >
> > Confederate Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In West Florida, Southern Alabama, Southern Mississippi, And Louisiana From May 12, 1862, To May 14, 1863: And In Texas, New Mexico, And Arizona From September 20, 1862, To May 14, 1863.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
* [Thread: confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches](https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/post-100483) | There were Native American tribes living in some of the states of the CSA and in the territories which the CSA hoped to take control of.
For any such tribe the Confederates have a range of possible policies to choose from. Such possible policies included:
1) enslave.
2) drive out of CSA territory.
3) exterminate.
4) leave where they were and generally continue the policies toward them of the USA.
5) treat them much better than the USA did.
6) inconsistently wavering between various of the above policies and not following any one policy long enough for it to have results.
And various other conceivable policies.
And I rather doubt that most members of the Confederate "government" gave relations with Native Americans much though, considering decisions about Native Americans relations something to consider after the CSA secured its independence and there was time to think about relatively minor factors.
So more or less continuing the policies and taking over the relationships of the USA toward the various tribes would have been the usual default position of most Rebel officials dealing with Indians. And of course trying to get them to support the Rebel war effort.
I have read that Rebel Colonel John Baylor, in command in southern New mexico and Arizona, desired or planned to exterminate the Apaches.
>
> Baylor became known for ordering his cavalry regiment to exterminate the Apache, with whom the encroaching settlers were in conflict. He issued the following order to his men:
>
>
> [U]se all means to persuade the Apaches or any tribe to come in for the purpose of making peace, and when you get them together kill all the grown Indians and take the children prisoners and sell them to defray the expense of killing the adult Indians. Buy whiskey and such other goods as may be necessary for the Indians and I will order vouchers given to cover the amount expended. Leave nothing undone to insure success, and have a sufficient number of men around to allow no Indian to escape.[3]
>
>
> There is no indication this order was followed. When President Davis learned of it, he relieved Baylor as governor and revoked his commission as colonel.
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor>[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor)
Here is a link to a discussion quoting official records:
<https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/>[2](https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/)
Note that Baylor's order claims - accurately or not - that the Confederate Congress passed a law calling for the extermination of all hostile Indians in Confederate territory. |
55,149 | Background
==========
I have been trying to read more on Native American history in the United States. While it seems to be a lot more multidimensional that I initially thought, the general trend of "the Natives got the short end of the stick in the long run" still seems to be true to me.
Given the numerous negative actions of the United States government toward various Native tribes, I was curious as to the diplomatic relations they adopted with the Confederates States of America. It would seem to be a natural alternative to what many Native tribes would have seen as an oppressive power. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Native_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Army) seems to imply that the Cherokee and, to a lesser extent, the Choctaw supported the Confederates in part because some of them also owned slaves. However, the sources on Wikipedia are few, and one of them is just a 10 page paper by a person with no credentials. Thus, I wanted to ask the experts/enthusiasts about...
Question
========
Were there any Native American tribes that had more than just a strategic alliance with the Confederate States of America? | 2019/10/28 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55149",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/36949/"
] | I only humbly suggest you might look into the book ["The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist : An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy”](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38173), by Annie Heloise Abel, published 1915. It is on Amazon with some commentary. I believe, and hope, that this helps.
I read this book several years ago. It is extremely detailed. And now, only because I was asked to, I will venture a few very abbreviated excerpts (I hope this is permissible):
>
> “This volume is the first .. of three dealing with the slaveholding Indians as secessionists, as participants in the Civil War…”
> “…the enormous price the unfortunate Indian had to pay for having allowed himself to become a secessionist and a soldier.”
> “…several Indian treaties bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states…”
> “… tremendous importance the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship….” “…offering political integrity & equality … establishing … not simply an empty wardship, but a bona fide protectorate.”
>
>
> “…Indians fought on both sides…, … moved to fight, not by instincts of savagery, but by identically the same motives and impulses as the white men….” // “ … the southern white man, embarrassed, conceded much, far more than he really believed in, more than he ever could or would have conceded, had he not himself been so fearfully hard pressed. His own predicament, the exigencies of the moment, made him give to the Indian a justice, the like of which neither one of them had dared even to dream.”
>
>
> “…consider to what Indian participation in the Civil War amounted. It was … interesting rather than significant; and … could not possibly have materially affected the ultimate situation.”
> “… Indian Territory occupied a position of strategic importance, from both the economic and the military point of view. The possession of it was absolutely necessary for the political and the institutional consolidation of the South. …. (There) were slaveholding tribes, too,….”
>
>
> | As of March 1863, there seems to have been no binding policy on how to deal with Native American tribes by the Confederacy, not to meantion any strategic alliance.
---
Based on the given source of [@MAGolding](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/55158/38607) answer, where most of Baylor's report and the reaction of the chain of command is given as text, Google Book links have been added to the corresponding portions.
---
[John R. Baylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor) letter, 20 March 1862
>
> "The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians."
>
>
>
---
[Baylor's report, HOUSTON, TEX., December 29, 1862](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA914&lpg=PA914)
* 5 Pages (914-917)
>
> The question now presents itself as to **what will be the policy of our Government** toward the Indians in such exposed sections as Arizona.
>
> ...
>
> If the Confederate Government **adopts the policy of making treaties** and endeavors to purchase peace and affords no more adequate protection from Indians than the Government of the United States has afforded on the frontier of this State and in Arizona the result will be that the citizens there will be reduced to the condition of stock raisers and herders for the benefit of the Indian tribes alone.
>
> ...
>
> As Texas and Arizona are the only portions of our youthful Confederacy that will suffer from Indian depredations and atrocities it is a matter of vital importance to them **what policy will be decisively adopted by our Government** toward the perpetrators of these villainies.
>
>
>
These statements imply, that at this point, no policy existed, which *contradicts* his letter of March 20 1862 (9 months before) claiming that: **The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians**.
And here we have the [endorsements on Baylor's report](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA918&lpg=PA918) as it works its' way up the chain of command [to President Davis in Richmond March 29, 1863](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA919&lpg=PA919):
* Pages 918 and 919
>
> SECRETARY OF WAR:
>
> This letter requires attention. It is an avowal of **an infamous crime** and the assertion of what should not be true in relation to troops in Texas, &c.
>
> J.D.
>
>
>
Here too, I believe, is further proof that the claim made in Baylor letter of 20th March 1862 is false, since if it was true, [Jefferson Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) statement would have been completely different.
---
**Source**:
* [The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union ... - United States. War Dept **Chapter 27** - Google Books](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1)
>
>
> >
> > Confederate Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In West Florida, Southern Alabama, Southern Mississippi, And Louisiana From May 12, 1862, To May 14, 1863: And In Texas, New Mexico, And Arizona From September 20, 1862, To May 14, 1863.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
* [Thread: confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches](https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/post-100483) |
55,149 | Background
==========
I have been trying to read more on Native American history in the United States. While it seems to be a lot more multidimensional that I initially thought, the general trend of "the Natives got the short end of the stick in the long run" still seems to be true to me.
Given the numerous negative actions of the United States government toward various Native tribes, I was curious as to the diplomatic relations they adopted with the Confederates States of America. It would seem to be a natural alternative to what many Native tribes would have seen as an oppressive power. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Native_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Army) seems to imply that the Cherokee and, to a lesser extent, the Choctaw supported the Confederates in part because some of them also owned slaves. However, the sources on Wikipedia are few, and one of them is just a 10 page paper by a person with no credentials. Thus, I wanted to ask the experts/enthusiasts about...
Question
========
Were there any Native American tribes that had more than just a strategic alliance with the Confederate States of America? | 2019/10/28 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55149",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/36949/"
] | I only humbly suggest you might look into the book ["The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist : An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy”](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38173), by Annie Heloise Abel, published 1915. It is on Amazon with some commentary. I believe, and hope, that this helps.
I read this book several years ago. It is extremely detailed. And now, only because I was asked to, I will venture a few very abbreviated excerpts (I hope this is permissible):
>
> “This volume is the first .. of three dealing with the slaveholding Indians as secessionists, as participants in the Civil War…”
> “…the enormous price the unfortunate Indian had to pay for having allowed himself to become a secessionist and a soldier.”
> “…several Indian treaties bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states…”
> “… tremendous importance the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship….” “…offering political integrity & equality … establishing … not simply an empty wardship, but a bona fide protectorate.”
>
>
> “…Indians fought on both sides…, … moved to fight, not by instincts of savagery, but by identically the same motives and impulses as the white men….” // “ … the southern white man, embarrassed, conceded much, far more than he really believed in, more than he ever could or would have conceded, had he not himself been so fearfully hard pressed. His own predicament, the exigencies of the moment, made him give to the Indian a justice, the like of which neither one of them had dared even to dream.”
>
>
> “…consider to what Indian participation in the Civil War amounted. It was … interesting rather than significant; and … could not possibly have materially affected the ultimate situation.”
> “… Indian Territory occupied a position of strategic importance, from both the economic and the military point of view. The possession of it was absolutely necessary for the political and the institutional consolidation of the South. …. (There) were slaveholding tribes, too,….”
>
>
> | The exact opposite is true. For example, Elias Boudinot, editor of *The Cherokee
Phoenix*, reported in July 1829 on the efforts of some of the
state’s newspapers:
>
> “The eagerness which is manifested in Georgia to obtain the lands of the Cherokees has frequently led the journals of that state to deceive the people by stating that we [the Cherokees] are ‘making extensive preparations to remove
> to the west.’”
>
>
>
Georgia, of course was on the seven slave-owning states that made up the Confederate States of America. Two crucial court cases in the early 1830s were brought against Georgia, the first by the Cherokee Nation in *Cherokee Nation vs Georgia* in 1831, and then almst immediately afterwards, *Worcester vs Georgia* in 1832. Both were argued in the Supreme Court and in both instances the governor of Georgia and the state of Georgia not only refused to acknowledge the Cherokee position but also opposed the authority of the supreme court.
The first case failed on a technicality because the Supreme Court Justice, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Creek Nation did not constitute a foreign nation describing them as a 'domestic dependent nation.' The second case was brought by the missionary, Reverend Austin Worcester who had been sentenced to four years hard labour for breaking a law passed by the state legislature that Georgians were not allowed to reside in the Creek Nation without obtaining a license from the state. The rationale behind this particular law was to target those men, mostly teachers and missionaries who supported the Cherokees.
In this particular case the Supreme Court could not dismiss the case and was forced to a ruling. Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favour of the missionaries and against the state of Georgia, declaring that all laws targetting the Cherokees were unconstitutional. The Georgia laws, wrote Marshall, were
>
> “repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.”
>
>
>
Three of the remaining six justices agreed that Georgia’s actions had
defied the authority of the federal government. They also ruled that given their status, they had the right to self-determination as a nation stressing that prior treaties had recognised their right to sovereignty and self-government. This legal victory for the Cherokees, however, was nullified by the actions of Governor Lumpkin, who refusing to recognise the authority of the court and did not release the prisoners, and also by the US President, Andrew Jackson, who also did nothing to enforce the courts ruling. This eventually led to the Cherokee leadership agreeing to the Treaty of New Echota, despite vociferous opposition by the Creek Nation itself (and also by many senators including a former president, John Quincy Adams, who called the treaty 'an eternal disgrace.' The treaty led to the removal of the Indians west of the Mississipi and to the [Trail of Tears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears).
It's perhaps no suprise then, that the greed of Georgia for land and for slaves, eventually tipped the confederacy and the the union into a civil war. |
55,149 | Background
==========
I have been trying to read more on Native American history in the United States. While it seems to be a lot more multidimensional that I initially thought, the general trend of "the Natives got the short end of the stick in the long run" still seems to be true to me.
Given the numerous negative actions of the United States government toward various Native tribes, I was curious as to the diplomatic relations they adopted with the Confederates States of America. It would seem to be a natural alternative to what many Native tribes would have seen as an oppressive power. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Native_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Army) seems to imply that the Cherokee and, to a lesser extent, the Choctaw supported the Confederates in part because some of them also owned slaves. However, the sources on Wikipedia are few, and one of them is just a 10 page paper by a person with no credentials. Thus, I wanted to ask the experts/enthusiasts about...
Question
========
Were there any Native American tribes that had more than just a strategic alliance with the Confederate States of America? | 2019/10/28 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55149",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/36949/"
] | As of March 1863, there seems to have been no binding policy on how to deal with Native American tribes by the Confederacy, not to meantion any strategic alliance.
---
Based on the given source of [@MAGolding](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/55158/38607) answer, where most of Baylor's report and the reaction of the chain of command is given as text, Google Book links have been added to the corresponding portions.
---
[John R. Baylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Baylor) letter, 20 March 1862
>
> "The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians."
>
>
>
---
[Baylor's report, HOUSTON, TEX., December 29, 1862](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA914&lpg=PA914)
* 5 Pages (914-917)
>
> The question now presents itself as to **what will be the policy of our Government** toward the Indians in such exposed sections as Arizona.
>
> ...
>
> If the Confederate Government **adopts the policy of making treaties** and endeavors to purchase peace and affords no more adequate protection from Indians than the Government of the United States has afforded on the frontier of this State and in Arizona the result will be that the citizens there will be reduced to the condition of stock raisers and herders for the benefit of the Indian tribes alone.
>
> ...
>
> As Texas and Arizona are the only portions of our youthful Confederacy that will suffer from Indian depredations and atrocities it is a matter of vital importance to them **what policy will be decisively adopted by our Government** toward the perpetrators of these villainies.
>
>
>
These statements imply, that at this point, no policy existed, which *contradicts* his letter of March 20 1862 (9 months before) claiming that: **The Congress of the Confederate States has passed a law declaring extermination to all hostile Indians**.
And here we have the [endorsements on Baylor's report](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA918&lpg=PA918) as it works its' way up the chain of command [to President Davis in Richmond March 29, 1863](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA919&lpg=PA919):
* Pages 918 and 919
>
> SECRETARY OF WAR:
>
> This letter requires attention. It is an avowal of **an infamous crime** and the assertion of what should not be true in relation to troops in Texas, &c.
>
> J.D.
>
>
>
Here too, I believe, is further proof that the claim made in Baylor letter of 20th March 1862 is false, since if it was true, [Jefferson Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) statement would have been completely different.
---
**Source**:
* [The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union ... - United States. War Dept **Chapter 27** - Google Books](https://books.google.de/books?id=NfIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1)
>
>
> >
> > Confederate Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In West Florida, Southern Alabama, Southern Mississippi, And Louisiana From May 12, 1862, To May 14, 1863: And In Texas, New Mexico, And Arizona From September 20, 1862, To May 14, 1863.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
* [Thread: confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches](https://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-colonel-baylor-the-apaches.8890/post-100483) | The exact opposite is true. For example, Elias Boudinot, editor of *The Cherokee
Phoenix*, reported in July 1829 on the efforts of some of the
state’s newspapers:
>
> “The eagerness which is manifested in Georgia to obtain the lands of the Cherokees has frequently led the journals of that state to deceive the people by stating that we [the Cherokees] are ‘making extensive preparations to remove
> to the west.’”
>
>
>
Georgia, of course was on the seven slave-owning states that made up the Confederate States of America. Two crucial court cases in the early 1830s were brought against Georgia, the first by the Cherokee Nation in *Cherokee Nation vs Georgia* in 1831, and then almst immediately afterwards, *Worcester vs Georgia* in 1832. Both were argued in the Supreme Court and in both instances the governor of Georgia and the state of Georgia not only refused to acknowledge the Cherokee position but also opposed the authority of the supreme court.
The first case failed on a technicality because the Supreme Court Justice, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Creek Nation did not constitute a foreign nation describing them as a 'domestic dependent nation.' The second case was brought by the missionary, Reverend Austin Worcester who had been sentenced to four years hard labour for breaking a law passed by the state legislature that Georgians were not allowed to reside in the Creek Nation without obtaining a license from the state. The rationale behind this particular law was to target those men, mostly teachers and missionaries who supported the Cherokees.
In this particular case the Supreme Court could not dismiss the case and was forced to a ruling. Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favour of the missionaries and against the state of Georgia, declaring that all laws targetting the Cherokees were unconstitutional. The Georgia laws, wrote Marshall, were
>
> “repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.”
>
>
>
Three of the remaining six justices agreed that Georgia’s actions had
defied the authority of the federal government. They also ruled that given their status, they had the right to self-determination as a nation stressing that prior treaties had recognised their right to sovereignty and self-government. This legal victory for the Cherokees, however, was nullified by the actions of Governor Lumpkin, who refusing to recognise the authority of the court and did not release the prisoners, and also by the US President, Andrew Jackson, who also did nothing to enforce the courts ruling. This eventually led to the Cherokee leadership agreeing to the Treaty of New Echota, despite vociferous opposition by the Creek Nation itself (and also by many senators including a former president, John Quincy Adams, who called the treaty 'an eternal disgrace.' The treaty led to the removal of the Indians west of the Mississipi and to the [Trail of Tears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears).
It's perhaps no suprise then, that the greed of Georgia for land and for slaves, eventually tipped the confederacy and the the union into a civil war. |
92,056 | So I have read some of the questions and answers regarding soaking and cooking pinto beans and I am still trying to figure out the best process for my needs. I cook a bunch of pinto beans at one time and then freeze them. Because I cook a lot of beans at a time, I like using the pressure cooker. My main concern is loss of nutrients. I have been soaking the beans for 24 hours and then cooking them in a pressure cooker. Does this method compare well to others in retention of nutrients? | 2018/09/02 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69041/"
] | There doesn't seem to be much of a difference in nutrition between pressure cooking and boiling beans. Cooking at pressure cooker temperatures at 10, 20, or 40 minutes instead of boiling in a pot changed the nutrition/antinutrient content and digestibility by less than 5%.
Soaking prior to cooking was generally found to be advantageous. However, the results were not unanimous, and it didn't change very much in terms of nutrition. Soaking and discarding the water was found to:
1. reduce the carbohydrate fraction and maintain/increase fiber content.
2. reduce mineral content, but increase bioavailability.
3. reduce the oligosaccarides that cause flatulence.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814604004649>
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02395.x> | First I have to wonder just what nutrition you are expecting to get *from* pinto beans? There isn't that much there to begin with, but most of what is there is probably washed away with the water assuming you pour that off to keep the beans.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gGUWI.gif)
But still, the pressure cooker is my method of choice for making pintos. FWIW I always use beef or chicken broth in the pressure cooker when preparing my beans, it really helps to infuse the meaty flavor into the beans. When preparing beans for my chili recipe I will also slice up a jalapeno or two. You don't need to soak the beans prior to putting them into the pressure cooker, but a good rinse and sort is in order. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.
Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in [2 Peter 3:14-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:14-16&version=NRSV). The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone *but* Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of *several years*, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.
In [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NRSV), where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work. | Okay I will attempt to give an answer to this question that is based on evidence. It goes along the lines of the following websites:
<http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulorigin.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity>
My answer is that Protestants believe Paul's and Luke's writings for one main reason: they wound up in the New Testament Canon, and that the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow Jesus' message to be corrupted so the final Canon contains only 100% inspired and trustworthy writings, all heretical and apocryphal writings and having been eliminated from the Canon. Although this may be a circular reason, it has a logic to it -- after all, if the message has been corrupted, how do we know what to believe in the Bible?
In fact there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that would seem to make it very difficult to automatically place full trust in Paul and Luke. I will try to analyze the evidence step by step here.
First, Paul's own testimony should be scrutinized. For whether he is trustworthy or not, his own testimony should give us a basis to judge. Paul himself says that he didn't go to study with the actual students of Jesus after his conversion, but continued to receive visions and spread his message from his own understanding. After three years he went to see Peter, and wound up meeting with no one but James. Then fourteen years later he finally went, according to his own words, to meet with the "Pillars of the Church" - the one Jesus had established and gave authority to - and present them with his own gospel to the Gentiles he'd been spreading. As he tells it:
>
> 1Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time
> with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a
> revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I
> presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I
> wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race
> in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be
> circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because
> some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom
> we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to
> them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved
> for you.
>
>
> 6As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no
> difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to
> my message. 7On the contrary, they recognized that I had been
> entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,a
> just as Peter had been to the circumcised.b 8For God, who was at work
> in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as
> an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Cephasc and John, those esteemed
> as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when
> they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go
> to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10All they asked was
> that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had
> been eager to do all along.
>
>
> Paul Opposes Cephas
>
>
> 11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
> stood condemned...
>
>
>
We aren't told the events from the point of view of Peter or James. We simply assume Peter must have realized Paul was right, and that they told Paul they approve of everything he's doing. To me, this is already a very strange conclusion -- simply taking Paul's word for it. What's even more strange is that it almost seems from what Paul writes that the Great Commission wasn't even given. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20>
Paul's writings quote the OT from the Septuagint, showing Paul was a Greek Jew from Tarsus (modern day Turkey). Many have remarked that Paul's writings don't show a great knowledge of Jesus' actual ministry and parables during his life.
This is a very serious question because without Paul's writings it's not obvious that Jesus taught not to follow the Law. It seems, in fact, that Jesus seems to have taught the opposite. First of all he said he came to the lost sheep of Israel:
>
> He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
> <http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm>
>
>
>
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught you shouldn't teach Jews to ignore the commandments given through Moses, something Paul explicitly did:
>
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and
> teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be
> called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>
>
<http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm>
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said this about the Ten Commandments:
<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV>
In fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
This creates a high burden of proof that Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if a Jew becomes a Christian he essentially has to take Paul's word for it that the law has been nailed to the cross. He has to place his faith in the words of Paul and meanwhile will have to bend over backwards to reconcile it with the explicit words of God in the Old Testament, which he has much better reasons to believe, as well as the words of Jesus:
<http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm>
Basing Paul's authority on his own epistles or the writings of his students is the same as Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Protestants are not Muslims or Mormons, so if they apply the same standard, that rules out this reason for accepting Paul.
The only place I know where leaders of the Jerusalem church are said to vouch for Paul is here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter> ... but the problem is that most NT scholars don't believe it was written by Peter. As far as I know this removes the last piece of evidence that would give authority to Paul.
On the contrary, we see leaders of the Jerusalem Church following the Law long after the resurrection and even Pentecost, when they received the Holy Spirit and gained a lot of understanding. Furthermore, we know the historical Church in Jerusalem became marginalized over time, and the Ebionites, Nazarenes and Judaizers -- basically Jewish Christians -- were branded Heretics. Remember, though, Jesus said he was sent only to save the lost sheep of Israel. And he established a Church led by Peter and James. But something happened to them and the apostle to the Gentiles went on to found a bunch of Churches who then eclipsed the authority of the original Church.
The original religion of Jesus and his followers was called "The Way". And I see no way to rule out the possibility that Paul's ideas were, like Joseph Smith's and Mohammad's, basically innovations based on personal ideas and revelations. Paul was a Greek speaking Jew who always quoted from the Septuagint. Jesus' teachings focused on the Law and holiness, the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. Paul's ideas about Jesus being a blood sacrifice sound closer to the mystery cult religions of the Gentile nations at the time, which may explain why some people today like to make strained comparisons to the cult of Mithras or something similar. Jesus isn't clearly shown to teach anything like that.
So to sum up -- although I am *not* at all saying that Paul invented Christianity out of whole cloth, and *not* saying that Paul and Luke *couldn't be* saying the truth, I am aware of no solid reasons to automatically trust everything they wrote, and a lot of reasons that make it difficult for me to trust them when it comes to what God said and the teachings of Jesus, which stand on their own. My answer is that Protestants put faith in the way the Canon was compiled, and because of the way Christianity developed, Paul became quite a central figure to the early Church fathers and thus it is dogma today to put absolute faith in his writings. One might question, but that would be going against the official position. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Okay I will attempt to give an answer to this question that is based on evidence. It goes along the lines of the following websites:
<http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulorigin.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity>
My answer is that Protestants believe Paul's and Luke's writings for one main reason: they wound up in the New Testament Canon, and that the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow Jesus' message to be corrupted so the final Canon contains only 100% inspired and trustworthy writings, all heretical and apocryphal writings and having been eliminated from the Canon. Although this may be a circular reason, it has a logic to it -- after all, if the message has been corrupted, how do we know what to believe in the Bible?
In fact there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that would seem to make it very difficult to automatically place full trust in Paul and Luke. I will try to analyze the evidence step by step here.
First, Paul's own testimony should be scrutinized. For whether he is trustworthy or not, his own testimony should give us a basis to judge. Paul himself says that he didn't go to study with the actual students of Jesus after his conversion, but continued to receive visions and spread his message from his own understanding. After three years he went to see Peter, and wound up meeting with no one but James. Then fourteen years later he finally went, according to his own words, to meet with the "Pillars of the Church" - the one Jesus had established and gave authority to - and present them with his own gospel to the Gentiles he'd been spreading. As he tells it:
>
> 1Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time
> with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a
> revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I
> presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I
> wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race
> in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be
> circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because
> some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom
> we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to
> them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved
> for you.
>
>
> 6As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no
> difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to
> my message. 7On the contrary, they recognized that I had been
> entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,a
> just as Peter had been to the circumcised.b 8For God, who was at work
> in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as
> an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Cephasc and John, those esteemed
> as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when
> they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go
> to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10All they asked was
> that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had
> been eager to do all along.
>
>
> Paul Opposes Cephas
>
>
> 11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
> stood condemned...
>
>
>
We aren't told the events from the point of view of Peter or James. We simply assume Peter must have realized Paul was right, and that they told Paul they approve of everything he's doing. To me, this is already a very strange conclusion -- simply taking Paul's word for it. What's even more strange is that it almost seems from what Paul writes that the Great Commission wasn't even given. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20>
Paul's writings quote the OT from the Septuagint, showing Paul was a Greek Jew from Tarsus (modern day Turkey). Many have remarked that Paul's writings don't show a great knowledge of Jesus' actual ministry and parables during his life.
This is a very serious question because without Paul's writings it's not obvious that Jesus taught not to follow the Law. It seems, in fact, that Jesus seems to have taught the opposite. First of all he said he came to the lost sheep of Israel:
>
> He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
> <http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm>
>
>
>
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught you shouldn't teach Jews to ignore the commandments given through Moses, something Paul explicitly did:
>
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and
> teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be
> called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>
>
<http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm>
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said this about the Ten Commandments:
<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV>
In fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
This creates a high burden of proof that Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if a Jew becomes a Christian he essentially has to take Paul's word for it that the law has been nailed to the cross. He has to place his faith in the words of Paul and meanwhile will have to bend over backwards to reconcile it with the explicit words of God in the Old Testament, which he has much better reasons to believe, as well as the words of Jesus:
<http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm>
Basing Paul's authority on his own epistles or the writings of his students is the same as Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Protestants are not Muslims or Mormons, so if they apply the same standard, that rules out this reason for accepting Paul.
The only place I know where leaders of the Jerusalem church are said to vouch for Paul is here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter> ... but the problem is that most NT scholars don't believe it was written by Peter. As far as I know this removes the last piece of evidence that would give authority to Paul.
On the contrary, we see leaders of the Jerusalem Church following the Law long after the resurrection and even Pentecost, when they received the Holy Spirit and gained a lot of understanding. Furthermore, we know the historical Church in Jerusalem became marginalized over time, and the Ebionites, Nazarenes and Judaizers -- basically Jewish Christians -- were branded Heretics. Remember, though, Jesus said he was sent only to save the lost sheep of Israel. And he established a Church led by Peter and James. But something happened to them and the apostle to the Gentiles went on to found a bunch of Churches who then eclipsed the authority of the original Church.
The original religion of Jesus and his followers was called "The Way". And I see no way to rule out the possibility that Paul's ideas were, like Joseph Smith's and Mohammad's, basically innovations based on personal ideas and revelations. Paul was a Greek speaking Jew who always quoted from the Septuagint. Jesus' teachings focused on the Law and holiness, the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. Paul's ideas about Jesus being a blood sacrifice sound closer to the mystery cult religions of the Gentile nations at the time, which may explain why some people today like to make strained comparisons to the cult of Mithras or something similar. Jesus isn't clearly shown to teach anything like that.
So to sum up -- although I am *not* at all saying that Paul invented Christianity out of whole cloth, and *not* saying that Paul and Luke *couldn't be* saying the truth, I am aware of no solid reasons to automatically trust everything they wrote, and a lot of reasons that make it difficult for me to trust them when it comes to what God said and the teachings of Jesus, which stand on their own. My answer is that Protestants put faith in the way the Canon was compiled, and because of the way Christianity developed, Paul became quite a central figure to the early Church fathers and thus it is dogma today to put absolute faith in his writings. One might question, but that would be going against the official position. | >
> Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?
>
>
>
They don't. In fact, Paul and Luke sometimes disagree, and Protestants tend to take Paul over Luke in those cases. Consider these quotes from *The Theology of St. Luke* by Hans Conzelmann, which was published in German in 1953 and translated into English by Geoffrey Buswell in 1961. They are descriptive of Lukan theology and how it differs from Paul. Then ask yourself, which do Protestants follow?
From pages 208-209:
>
> ...We can see this in relation to the Law: although the primitive community–including Paul–keeps the Law, Gentile Christians are free from it, and for a reason which is characteristically different from Paul’s.
>
>
>
He recognizes that Luke agrees with Paul in the fact of Gentiles being free from the Law (at least from the ceremonial aspects of the Law) but also openly acknowledges that he sees that Luke believes this for an entirely different reason from Paul. In other words, Luke’s explanation of why we don’t have to be circumcised, etc. is not Paul’s explanation. This is massively significant!
He doesn’t elaborate any on the difference between the two (at least not in this chapter), but the difference is obvious to anyone who can read: Paul’s reason, of course, is the boneheaded faith vs works rhetoric. But Luke’s reason is that the apostles got together in Acts 15 and under the guidance of the Spirit determined that Gentiles need not keep any of the Law but the moral commandments, and to abstain from idolatry, abstain from eating blood/”things strangled”, and abstain from sexual immorality. Could there be any two more different ways to explain the same fact?
From page 228:
>
> The conception of sin [in Luke-Acts], compared with Paul’s, has a strong ethical colouring, and the same is true of deliverance from sin. The idea of ‘forgiveness’, which recedes right into the background in Paul, is predominant in Luke, but repentance is the condition of forgiveness.
>
>
>
My elaboration: Unlike Paul who speaks of justification instead of forgiveness and all but denies the necessity of repentance to ‘justification’. Luke’s theology which emphasizes forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance clearly calls for repentance, whereas Paul’s justification by faith and not by works deters people from repenting by making them feel that they are justified in continuing to sin even with reckless abandon.
Again, later on the same page, and continuing to 229:
>
> Forgiveness and repentance [in Luke-Acts] are inseparably connected…The combination which is characteristic of Luke is that of repentance and conversion, which shows that these two go together as the basis for Baptism and forgiveness and indicate a change of attitude in the way of life.
>
>
>
Compare that with the normal Protestant interpretation of Paul that its all by faith alone.
So do Protestants trust both Paul and Luke 100%? No.
Furthermore, Paul himself sometimes contradicts his own "by faith and not by works" theology, as in Galatians 3:26-27 where he says "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Here, he agrees with Luke against his normal Pauline theology, in making baptism essential to salvation rather than faith alone. Do Protestants trust this passage from Paul? No, generally, they do not. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Consider what the Apostle Paul cited as the proof of his authority:
>
> 2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I
> did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the
> testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was
> with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in
> weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching
> were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a **demonstration of
> the Spirit’s power**, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human
> wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
>
>
>
* In early 1985, a woman shared 1 Corinthians 13 (about love) with me. Weeks later I became a Christian.
* Months later, in Fall 1985, my new Bible study leader asked me to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:
>
> 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
> lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
> Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
> aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
> the law, Christ died for nothing!”
>
>
>
A month after memorizing it, the Lord took away my fear of death.
* A few months after that, in February 1986, I attended an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship retreat where we studied Philippians 2, which speaks of the joy that springs from sacrificing our own needs to serve others in imitation of Christ. Despite having suffered from depression for many years, a few weeks after the retreat, I was overwhelmed with joy for a month, and was led to a sound church where I worship still, 33 years later. Later meditations on Philippians a few years later finally delivered me from depression completely. Thirty years later, it still has not returned.
* In 1992, after four months of compounded losses (relationship breakup, job loss, car breakdown, a differnt Bible study leader leaving the church and the faith, and other things), a pastor taught from Romans 6 about dying to self as a necessary precursor to being resurrected in Christ. I ended up considering that year to be the best year of my life, so great was the spiritual progress that I made.
1 Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. Romans. I will spare you the personal results of my careful study of Ephesians and Paul's other letters. Paul said that his Words and ministry were accompanied by and authenticated by demonstrations of the Spirit's power. That has been my personal experience. I cannot speak for all of Protestantism, but that power has not diminished in the centuries since Paul walked among us. And every time I experienced a blessing, I was pointed by those words not to Paul, but to Christ. | Okay I will attempt to give an answer to this question that is based on evidence. It goes along the lines of the following websites:
<http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulorigin.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity>
My answer is that Protestants believe Paul's and Luke's writings for one main reason: they wound up in the New Testament Canon, and that the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow Jesus' message to be corrupted so the final Canon contains only 100% inspired and trustworthy writings, all heretical and apocryphal writings and having been eliminated from the Canon. Although this may be a circular reason, it has a logic to it -- after all, if the message has been corrupted, how do we know what to believe in the Bible?
In fact there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that would seem to make it very difficult to automatically place full trust in Paul and Luke. I will try to analyze the evidence step by step here.
First, Paul's own testimony should be scrutinized. For whether he is trustworthy or not, his own testimony should give us a basis to judge. Paul himself says that he didn't go to study with the actual students of Jesus after his conversion, but continued to receive visions and spread his message from his own understanding. After three years he went to see Peter, and wound up meeting with no one but James. Then fourteen years later he finally went, according to his own words, to meet with the "Pillars of the Church" - the one Jesus had established and gave authority to - and present them with his own gospel to the Gentiles he'd been spreading. As he tells it:
>
> 1Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time
> with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a
> revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I
> presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I
> wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race
> in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be
> circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because
> some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom
> we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to
> them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved
> for you.
>
>
> 6As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no
> difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to
> my message. 7On the contrary, they recognized that I had been
> entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,a
> just as Peter had been to the circumcised.b 8For God, who was at work
> in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as
> an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Cephasc and John, those esteemed
> as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when
> they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go
> to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10All they asked was
> that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had
> been eager to do all along.
>
>
> Paul Opposes Cephas
>
>
> 11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
> stood condemned...
>
>
>
We aren't told the events from the point of view of Peter or James. We simply assume Peter must have realized Paul was right, and that they told Paul they approve of everything he's doing. To me, this is already a very strange conclusion -- simply taking Paul's word for it. What's even more strange is that it almost seems from what Paul writes that the Great Commission wasn't even given. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20>
Paul's writings quote the OT from the Septuagint, showing Paul was a Greek Jew from Tarsus (modern day Turkey). Many have remarked that Paul's writings don't show a great knowledge of Jesus' actual ministry and parables during his life.
This is a very serious question because without Paul's writings it's not obvious that Jesus taught not to follow the Law. It seems, in fact, that Jesus seems to have taught the opposite. First of all he said he came to the lost sheep of Israel:
>
> He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
> <http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm>
>
>
>
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught you shouldn't teach Jews to ignore the commandments given through Moses, something Paul explicitly did:
>
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and
> teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be
> called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>
>
<http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm>
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said this about the Ten Commandments:
<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV>
In fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
This creates a high burden of proof that Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if a Jew becomes a Christian he essentially has to take Paul's word for it that the law has been nailed to the cross. He has to place his faith in the words of Paul and meanwhile will have to bend over backwards to reconcile it with the explicit words of God in the Old Testament, which he has much better reasons to believe, as well as the words of Jesus:
<http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm>
Basing Paul's authority on his own epistles or the writings of his students is the same as Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Protestants are not Muslims or Mormons, so if they apply the same standard, that rules out this reason for accepting Paul.
The only place I know where leaders of the Jerusalem church are said to vouch for Paul is here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter> ... but the problem is that most NT scholars don't believe it was written by Peter. As far as I know this removes the last piece of evidence that would give authority to Paul.
On the contrary, we see leaders of the Jerusalem Church following the Law long after the resurrection and even Pentecost, when they received the Holy Spirit and gained a lot of understanding. Furthermore, we know the historical Church in Jerusalem became marginalized over time, and the Ebionites, Nazarenes and Judaizers -- basically Jewish Christians -- were branded Heretics. Remember, though, Jesus said he was sent only to save the lost sheep of Israel. And he established a Church led by Peter and James. But something happened to them and the apostle to the Gentiles went on to found a bunch of Churches who then eclipsed the authority of the original Church.
The original religion of Jesus and his followers was called "The Way". And I see no way to rule out the possibility that Paul's ideas were, like Joseph Smith's and Mohammad's, basically innovations based on personal ideas and revelations. Paul was a Greek speaking Jew who always quoted from the Septuagint. Jesus' teachings focused on the Law and holiness, the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. Paul's ideas about Jesus being a blood sacrifice sound closer to the mystery cult religions of the Gentile nations at the time, which may explain why some people today like to make strained comparisons to the cult of Mithras or something similar. Jesus isn't clearly shown to teach anything like that.
So to sum up -- although I am *not* at all saying that Paul invented Christianity out of whole cloth, and *not* saying that Paul and Luke *couldn't be* saying the truth, I am aware of no solid reasons to automatically trust everything they wrote, and a lot of reasons that make it difficult for me to trust them when it comes to what God said and the teachings of Jesus, which stand on their own. My answer is that Protestants put faith in the way the Canon was compiled, and because of the way Christianity developed, Paul became quite a central figure to the early Church fathers and thus it is dogma today to put absolute faith in his writings. One might question, but that would be going against the official position. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.
Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in [2 Peter 3:14-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:14-16&version=NRSV). The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone *but* Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of *several years*, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.
In [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NRSV), where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work. | You forget that basically all epistles that we have (be it from Paul or not) have been written to combat false doctrine creeping in. If what Paul was teaching was so far off, there should be record of the other apostles speaking up against him. **But there isn't**.
Note also that in Acts (I know, by Luke, but bear with me), it's actually Peter who starts with teaching the Gentiles, having a vision that teaches him not to regard them unclean. He is the one that starts with "We should not require keeping the full law of non-Jews, since God has given them the spirit as he has us, while not having given them the law." This says nothing about Jewish christians, but still, the idea was there.
You get another important thing wrong - it's not (only) the miracles that give Paul authority, it is **the Holy Spirit** that was manifest during his works. People were converted because they received the Holy Spirit, not only because Paul showed miracles (indeed, he even had some problems that were caused by people seeing the miracles he performed).
And by the way, that's the same as with Joseph Smith. We as LDS believe him because we feel the Holy Spirit in what he did. In fact, one central important theme of our religion is receiving spiritual confirmation by God of our own. We don't believe J.S. because he said whatever he said or did whatever he did (mircaulously or not). We believe him because God has moved our hearts to believe him, by sending the Holy Ghost in response to prayer. I feel that is the same way in which Paul should be believed or not believed (and has been).
With Mohammed, I can't judge the days where he lived, but nowadays I feel overpowered by Muslims, not inspired. While certain people I know have definitely benefited from converting to Islam, I have never felt that the reason to believe Mohammed was given as "seek personal confirmation from God". In fact, many muslims I talked to didn't quite believe such a thing was possible. What I heard was "Mohammed is the last prophet, because Coran says so. And miraculous proofs are X, Y and Z." That is not to critique Islam or Mohammed or Muslims, since that's a valid point. But I want to point out that this is very different from Joseph Smith. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | You forget that basically all epistles that we have (be it from Paul or not) have been written to combat false doctrine creeping in. If what Paul was teaching was so far off, there should be record of the other apostles speaking up against him. **But there isn't**.
Note also that in Acts (I know, by Luke, but bear with me), it's actually Peter who starts with teaching the Gentiles, having a vision that teaches him not to regard them unclean. He is the one that starts with "We should not require keeping the full law of non-Jews, since God has given them the spirit as he has us, while not having given them the law." This says nothing about Jewish christians, but still, the idea was there.
You get another important thing wrong - it's not (only) the miracles that give Paul authority, it is **the Holy Spirit** that was manifest during his works. People were converted because they received the Holy Spirit, not only because Paul showed miracles (indeed, he even had some problems that were caused by people seeing the miracles he performed).
And by the way, that's the same as with Joseph Smith. We as LDS believe him because we feel the Holy Spirit in what he did. In fact, one central important theme of our religion is receiving spiritual confirmation by God of our own. We don't believe J.S. because he said whatever he said or did whatever he did (mircaulously or not). We believe him because God has moved our hearts to believe him, by sending the Holy Ghost in response to prayer. I feel that is the same way in which Paul should be believed or not believed (and has been).
With Mohammed, I can't judge the days where he lived, but nowadays I feel overpowered by Muslims, not inspired. While certain people I know have definitely benefited from converting to Islam, I have never felt that the reason to believe Mohammed was given as "seek personal confirmation from God". In fact, many muslims I talked to didn't quite believe such a thing was possible. What I heard was "Mohammed is the last prophet, because Coran says so. And miraculous proofs are X, Y and Z." That is not to critique Islam or Mohammed or Muslims, since that's a valid point. But I want to point out that this is very different from Joseph Smith. | >
> Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?
>
>
>
They don't. In fact, Paul and Luke sometimes disagree, and Protestants tend to take Paul over Luke in those cases. Consider these quotes from *The Theology of St. Luke* by Hans Conzelmann, which was published in German in 1953 and translated into English by Geoffrey Buswell in 1961. They are descriptive of Lukan theology and how it differs from Paul. Then ask yourself, which do Protestants follow?
From pages 208-209:
>
> ...We can see this in relation to the Law: although the primitive community–including Paul–keeps the Law, Gentile Christians are free from it, and for a reason which is characteristically different from Paul’s.
>
>
>
He recognizes that Luke agrees with Paul in the fact of Gentiles being free from the Law (at least from the ceremonial aspects of the Law) but also openly acknowledges that he sees that Luke believes this for an entirely different reason from Paul. In other words, Luke’s explanation of why we don’t have to be circumcised, etc. is not Paul’s explanation. This is massively significant!
He doesn’t elaborate any on the difference between the two (at least not in this chapter), but the difference is obvious to anyone who can read: Paul’s reason, of course, is the boneheaded faith vs works rhetoric. But Luke’s reason is that the apostles got together in Acts 15 and under the guidance of the Spirit determined that Gentiles need not keep any of the Law but the moral commandments, and to abstain from idolatry, abstain from eating blood/”things strangled”, and abstain from sexual immorality. Could there be any two more different ways to explain the same fact?
From page 228:
>
> The conception of sin [in Luke-Acts], compared with Paul’s, has a strong ethical colouring, and the same is true of deliverance from sin. The idea of ‘forgiveness’, which recedes right into the background in Paul, is predominant in Luke, but repentance is the condition of forgiveness.
>
>
>
My elaboration: Unlike Paul who speaks of justification instead of forgiveness and all but denies the necessity of repentance to ‘justification’. Luke’s theology which emphasizes forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance clearly calls for repentance, whereas Paul’s justification by faith and not by works deters people from repenting by making them feel that they are justified in continuing to sin even with reckless abandon.
Again, later on the same page, and continuing to 229:
>
> Forgiveness and repentance [in Luke-Acts] are inseparably connected…The combination which is characteristic of Luke is that of repentance and conversion, which shows that these two go together as the basis for Baptism and forgiveness and indicate a change of attitude in the way of life.
>
>
>
Compare that with the normal Protestant interpretation of Paul that its all by faith alone.
So do Protestants trust both Paul and Luke 100%? No.
Furthermore, Paul himself sometimes contradicts his own "by faith and not by works" theology, as in Galatians 3:26-27 where he says "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Here, he agrees with Luke against his normal Pauline theology, in making baptism essential to salvation rather than faith alone. Do Protestants trust this passage from Paul? No, generally, they do not. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Consider what the Apostle Paul cited as the proof of his authority:
>
> 2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I
> did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the
> testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was
> with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in
> weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching
> were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a **demonstration of
> the Spirit’s power**, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human
> wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
>
>
>
* In early 1985, a woman shared 1 Corinthians 13 (about love) with me. Weeks later I became a Christian.
* Months later, in Fall 1985, my new Bible study leader asked me to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:
>
> 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
> lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
> Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
> aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
> the law, Christ died for nothing!”
>
>
>
A month after memorizing it, the Lord took away my fear of death.
* A few months after that, in February 1986, I attended an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship retreat where we studied Philippians 2, which speaks of the joy that springs from sacrificing our own needs to serve others in imitation of Christ. Despite having suffered from depression for many years, a few weeks after the retreat, I was overwhelmed with joy for a month, and was led to a sound church where I worship still, 33 years later. Later meditations on Philippians a few years later finally delivered me from depression completely. Thirty years later, it still has not returned.
* In 1992, after four months of compounded losses (relationship breakup, job loss, car breakdown, a differnt Bible study leader leaving the church and the faith, and other things), a pastor taught from Romans 6 about dying to self as a necessary precursor to being resurrected in Christ. I ended up considering that year to be the best year of my life, so great was the spiritual progress that I made.
1 Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. Romans. I will spare you the personal results of my careful study of Ephesians and Paul's other letters. Paul said that his Words and ministry were accompanied by and authenticated by demonstrations of the Spirit's power. That has been my personal experience. I cannot speak for all of Protestantism, but that power has not diminished in the centuries since Paul walked among us. And every time I experienced a blessing, I was pointed by those words not to Paul, but to Christ. | You forget that basically all epistles that we have (be it from Paul or not) have been written to combat false doctrine creeping in. If what Paul was teaching was so far off, there should be record of the other apostles speaking up against him. **But there isn't**.
Note also that in Acts (I know, by Luke, but bear with me), it's actually Peter who starts with teaching the Gentiles, having a vision that teaches him not to regard them unclean. He is the one that starts with "We should not require keeping the full law of non-Jews, since God has given them the spirit as he has us, while not having given them the law." This says nothing about Jewish christians, but still, the idea was there.
You get another important thing wrong - it's not (only) the miracles that give Paul authority, it is **the Holy Spirit** that was manifest during his works. People were converted because they received the Holy Spirit, not only because Paul showed miracles (indeed, he even had some problems that were caused by people seeing the miracles he performed).
And by the way, that's the same as with Joseph Smith. We as LDS believe him because we feel the Holy Spirit in what he did. In fact, one central important theme of our religion is receiving spiritual confirmation by God of our own. We don't believe J.S. because he said whatever he said or did whatever he did (mircaulously or not). We believe him because God has moved our hearts to believe him, by sending the Holy Ghost in response to prayer. I feel that is the same way in which Paul should be believed or not believed (and has been).
With Mohammed, I can't judge the days where he lived, but nowadays I feel overpowered by Muslims, not inspired. While certain people I know have definitely benefited from converting to Islam, I have never felt that the reason to believe Mohammed was given as "seek personal confirmation from God". In fact, many muslims I talked to didn't quite believe such a thing was possible. What I heard was "Mohammed is the last prophet, because Coran says so. And miraculous proofs are X, Y and Z." That is not to critique Islam or Mohammed or Muslims, since that's a valid point. But I want to point out that this is very different from Joseph Smith. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.
Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in [2 Peter 3:14-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:14-16&version=NRSV). The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone *but* Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of *several years*, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.
In [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NRSV), where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work. | >
> Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?
>
>
>
They don't. In fact, Paul and Luke sometimes disagree, and Protestants tend to take Paul over Luke in those cases. Consider these quotes from *The Theology of St. Luke* by Hans Conzelmann, which was published in German in 1953 and translated into English by Geoffrey Buswell in 1961. They are descriptive of Lukan theology and how it differs from Paul. Then ask yourself, which do Protestants follow?
From pages 208-209:
>
> ...We can see this in relation to the Law: although the primitive community–including Paul–keeps the Law, Gentile Christians are free from it, and for a reason which is characteristically different from Paul’s.
>
>
>
He recognizes that Luke agrees with Paul in the fact of Gentiles being free from the Law (at least from the ceremonial aspects of the Law) but also openly acknowledges that he sees that Luke believes this for an entirely different reason from Paul. In other words, Luke’s explanation of why we don’t have to be circumcised, etc. is not Paul’s explanation. This is massively significant!
He doesn’t elaborate any on the difference between the two (at least not in this chapter), but the difference is obvious to anyone who can read: Paul’s reason, of course, is the boneheaded faith vs works rhetoric. But Luke’s reason is that the apostles got together in Acts 15 and under the guidance of the Spirit determined that Gentiles need not keep any of the Law but the moral commandments, and to abstain from idolatry, abstain from eating blood/”things strangled”, and abstain from sexual immorality. Could there be any two more different ways to explain the same fact?
From page 228:
>
> The conception of sin [in Luke-Acts], compared with Paul’s, has a strong ethical colouring, and the same is true of deliverance from sin. The idea of ‘forgiveness’, which recedes right into the background in Paul, is predominant in Luke, but repentance is the condition of forgiveness.
>
>
>
My elaboration: Unlike Paul who speaks of justification instead of forgiveness and all but denies the necessity of repentance to ‘justification’. Luke’s theology which emphasizes forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance clearly calls for repentance, whereas Paul’s justification by faith and not by works deters people from repenting by making them feel that they are justified in continuing to sin even with reckless abandon.
Again, later on the same page, and continuing to 229:
>
> Forgiveness and repentance [in Luke-Acts] are inseparably connected…The combination which is characteristic of Luke is that of repentance and conversion, which shows that these two go together as the basis for Baptism and forgiveness and indicate a change of attitude in the way of life.
>
>
>
Compare that with the normal Protestant interpretation of Paul that its all by faith alone.
So do Protestants trust both Paul and Luke 100%? No.
Furthermore, Paul himself sometimes contradicts his own "by faith and not by works" theology, as in Galatians 3:26-27 where he says "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Here, he agrees with Luke against his normal Pauline theology, in making baptism essential to salvation rather than faith alone. Do Protestants trust this passage from Paul? No, generally, they do not. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.
Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in [2 Peter 3:14-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:14-16&version=NRSV). The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone *but* Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of *several years*, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.
In [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NRSV), where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work. | Consider what the Apostle Paul cited as the proof of his authority:
>
> 2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I
> did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the
> testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was
> with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in
> weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching
> were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a **demonstration of
> the Spirit’s power**, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human
> wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
>
>
>
* In early 1985, a woman shared 1 Corinthians 13 (about love) with me. Weeks later I became a Christian.
* Months later, in Fall 1985, my new Bible study leader asked me to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:
>
> 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
> lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
> Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
> aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
> the law, Christ died for nothing!”
>
>
>
A month after memorizing it, the Lord took away my fear of death.
* A few months after that, in February 1986, I attended an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship retreat where we studied Philippians 2, which speaks of the joy that springs from sacrificing our own needs to serve others in imitation of Christ. Despite having suffered from depression for many years, a few weeks after the retreat, I was overwhelmed with joy for a month, and was led to a sound church where I worship still, 33 years later. Later meditations on Philippians a few years later finally delivered me from depression completely. Thirty years later, it still has not returned.
* In 1992, after four months of compounded losses (relationship breakup, job loss, car breakdown, a differnt Bible study leader leaving the church and the faith, and other things), a pastor taught from Romans 6 about dying to self as a necessary precursor to being resurrected in Christ. I ended up considering that year to be the best year of my life, so great was the spiritual progress that I made.
1 Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. Romans. I will spare you the personal results of my careful study of Ephesians and Paul's other letters. Paul said that his Words and ministry were accompanied by and authenticated by demonstrations of the Spirit's power. That has been my personal experience. I cannot speak for all of Protestantism, but that power has not diminished in the centuries since Paul walked among us. And every time I experienced a blessing, I was pointed by those words not to Paul, but to Christ. |
36,223 | This has always been a big question for me.
I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.
But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.
Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.
Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.
The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:
1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm))
2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm))
3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.
**This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**.
To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?
Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:
1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.
In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments. | 2015/01/07 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36223",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9944/"
] | Consider what the Apostle Paul cited as the proof of his authority:
>
> 2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I
> did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the
> testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was
> with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in
> weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching
> were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a **demonstration of
> the Spirit’s power**, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human
> wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
>
>
>
* In early 1985, a woman shared 1 Corinthians 13 (about love) with me. Weeks later I became a Christian.
* Months later, in Fall 1985, my new Bible study leader asked me to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:
>
> 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
> lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
> Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
> aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
> the law, Christ died for nothing!”
>
>
>
A month after memorizing it, the Lord took away my fear of death.
* A few months after that, in February 1986, I attended an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship retreat where we studied Philippians 2, which speaks of the joy that springs from sacrificing our own needs to serve others in imitation of Christ. Despite having suffered from depression for many years, a few weeks after the retreat, I was overwhelmed with joy for a month, and was led to a sound church where I worship still, 33 years later. Later meditations on Philippians a few years later finally delivered me from depression completely. Thirty years later, it still has not returned.
* In 1992, after four months of compounded losses (relationship breakup, job loss, car breakdown, a differnt Bible study leader leaving the church and the faith, and other things), a pastor taught from Romans 6 about dying to self as a necessary precursor to being resurrected in Christ. I ended up considering that year to be the best year of my life, so great was the spiritual progress that I made.
1 Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. Romans. I will spare you the personal results of my careful study of Ephesians and Paul's other letters. Paul said that his Words and ministry were accompanied by and authenticated by demonstrations of the Spirit's power. That has been my personal experience. I cannot speak for all of Protestantism, but that power has not diminished in the centuries since Paul walked among us. And every time I experienced a blessing, I was pointed by those words not to Paul, but to Christ. | >
> Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?
>
>
>
They don't. In fact, Paul and Luke sometimes disagree, and Protestants tend to take Paul over Luke in those cases. Consider these quotes from *The Theology of St. Luke* by Hans Conzelmann, which was published in German in 1953 and translated into English by Geoffrey Buswell in 1961. They are descriptive of Lukan theology and how it differs from Paul. Then ask yourself, which do Protestants follow?
From pages 208-209:
>
> ...We can see this in relation to the Law: although the primitive community–including Paul–keeps the Law, Gentile Christians are free from it, and for a reason which is characteristically different from Paul’s.
>
>
>
He recognizes that Luke agrees with Paul in the fact of Gentiles being free from the Law (at least from the ceremonial aspects of the Law) but also openly acknowledges that he sees that Luke believes this for an entirely different reason from Paul. In other words, Luke’s explanation of why we don’t have to be circumcised, etc. is not Paul’s explanation. This is massively significant!
He doesn’t elaborate any on the difference between the two (at least not in this chapter), but the difference is obvious to anyone who can read: Paul’s reason, of course, is the boneheaded faith vs works rhetoric. But Luke’s reason is that the apostles got together in Acts 15 and under the guidance of the Spirit determined that Gentiles need not keep any of the Law but the moral commandments, and to abstain from idolatry, abstain from eating blood/”things strangled”, and abstain from sexual immorality. Could there be any two more different ways to explain the same fact?
From page 228:
>
> The conception of sin [in Luke-Acts], compared with Paul’s, has a strong ethical colouring, and the same is true of deliverance from sin. The idea of ‘forgiveness’, which recedes right into the background in Paul, is predominant in Luke, but repentance is the condition of forgiveness.
>
>
>
My elaboration: Unlike Paul who speaks of justification instead of forgiveness and all but denies the necessity of repentance to ‘justification’. Luke’s theology which emphasizes forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance clearly calls for repentance, whereas Paul’s justification by faith and not by works deters people from repenting by making them feel that they are justified in continuing to sin even with reckless abandon.
Again, later on the same page, and continuing to 229:
>
> Forgiveness and repentance [in Luke-Acts] are inseparably connected…The combination which is characteristic of Luke is that of repentance and conversion, which shows that these two go together as the basis for Baptism and forgiveness and indicate a change of attitude in the way of life.
>
>
>
Compare that with the normal Protestant interpretation of Paul that its all by faith alone.
So do Protestants trust both Paul and Luke 100%? No.
Furthermore, Paul himself sometimes contradicts his own "by faith and not by works" theology, as in Galatians 3:26-27 where he says "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Here, he agrees with Luke against his normal Pauline theology, in making baptism essential to salvation rather than faith alone. Do Protestants trust this passage from Paul? No, generally, they do not. |
1,105 | I've recently turned on Paypal Express Checkout on my Magento site, during testing I noticed that once the transaction is completed in Paypal the customer is redirected back to a final order confirmation page on my website.
Research told me that this was due to the "pass shipping options to Paypal" option as well as my cart/basket page not being HTTPS.
After having enabled SSL on the cart, Paypal is still redirecting customers back to my website to complete the transaction.
Can this be avoided? Is there a way for the customer to complete their entire transaction on Paypal and simply to return to my website for the "Order Complete" page? | 2013/03/04 | [
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/questions/1105",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/users/170/"
] | Anton is right: PayPal Express is designed to work this way (redirect to Paypal, then redirect to your website again). One reason is for example, that your business terms etc. must be shown to the customer before he finally agrees to buy.
There is - of course - another possibility: You could use Website Payments Standard. The customer will be redirected to PayPal after he confirmed your business terms and pays there.
Bad about this: I was told by PayPal staff members, that Website Payments Standard is an "old standard" and "redirects most of the time"; we see several cases where the payment is confirmed by the customer, but the IPN won't show im Magento backend.
Ask further if u need more detail :) | Paypal Express Checkout is a checkout method (don't mix with payment method that other paypal methods are) and goes for authorisation to paypal website, get's the authorisation and user billing details and redirects you back to finish the checkout in paypal express checkout page.
This is how it works, you can set the action to be "sale" instead of "authorisation" but it will still redirect you back to Paypal express Checkout page in Magento to finish the order placement.
see additional information from Magento knowledge base :
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/knowledge-base/entry/getting-started-with-paypal-express-checkout-for-magento-community>
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/knowledge-base/entry/paypal-express-checkout-workflow-for-magento-community>
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/knowledge-base/entry/setting-up-paypal-express-checkout-for-magento-community> |
1,105 | I've recently turned on Paypal Express Checkout on my Magento site, during testing I noticed that once the transaction is completed in Paypal the customer is redirected back to a final order confirmation page on my website.
Research told me that this was due to the "pass shipping options to Paypal" option as well as my cart/basket page not being HTTPS.
After having enabled SSL on the cart, Paypal is still redirecting customers back to my website to complete the transaction.
Can this be avoided? Is there a way for the customer to complete their entire transaction on Paypal and simply to return to my website for the "Order Complete" page? | 2013/03/04 | [
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/questions/1105",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/users/170/"
] | Anton is right: PayPal Express is designed to work this way (redirect to Paypal, then redirect to your website again). One reason is for example, that your business terms etc. must be shown to the customer before he finally agrees to buy.
There is - of course - another possibility: You could use Website Payments Standard. The customer will be redirected to PayPal after he confirmed your business terms and pays there.
Bad about this: I was told by PayPal staff members, that Website Payments Standard is an "old standard" and "redirects most of the time"; we see several cases where the payment is confirmed by the customer, but the IPN won't show im Magento backend.
Ask further if u need more detail :) | If you have to use Paypal Express (and there are good business reasons why - lower transaction fees), try this answer given on StackOverflow <https://stackoverflow.com/a/14313748/336905>. We are about to try that ourselves. |
5,772,313 | I'm gathering input data via a Django like validated form and then upon validating loading new form from and then validating and then I wish to send to the data store. I'd like to perform temporary storage on the first form, in case the user does not enter the full details on form two I don't see much point of adding to the datastore. So how should I persist the data between forms? Each form has its own handler and post section.
What is the best way to do this? | 2011/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5772313",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/712180/"
] | The natural place to persist data between forms is in the user's [session](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Http_session#Web_server_session_management); every fields in your multi-form wizard would be stored in session until the last form where, after the confirmation, the data should be finally persisted in the DataStore.
Since Google App Engine does not provide session in the python environment, I would suggest you to install a neat library for this purpose: [gae-sessions](https://github.com/dound/gae-sessions).
Gae-sessions is not magic but it uses [cookies](http://code.google.com/intl/it/appengine/docs/python/tools/webapp/requestclass.html#Request_cookies)+[memcache](https://code.google.com/intl/it/appengine/docs/python/memcache/)+[datastore](http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/) for session management; so, if you don't like to install a third-party library, you have the ingredients to cook your own session library. | I could describe the options, but this blogpost by Nick Johnson describes it perfectly:
[Storage options on App Engine](http://blog.notdot.net/2010/11/Storage-options-on-App-Engine) |
223,346 | I want to make sure the site is UP and running. Is reading the HTTP GET Response enough?
What does services like PingDom test? | 2011/01/17 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/223346",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/67127/"
] | Well, assuming you actually **get** a response, you can assume that the actual HTTP server is alive. If you wanted to test to see if the site was actually functional in addition to being online, you would have to read that response to ensure it's not an error page or something... | If you also want to make sure site actually **works** (and is not just "up"), you should run some transaction monitoring or, better yet, real browser monitoring in addition to the standard http get and ping tests.
Of course, this is most important for complex websites that have many 3rd party services integrated, Ajax, Javascript etc. - It is not required for a simple static website.
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_monitoring> |
223,346 | I want to make sure the site is UP and running. Is reading the HTTP GET Response enough?
What does services like PingDom test? | 2011/01/17 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/223346",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/67127/"
] | Usually monitoring of HTTP comes in one of three flavours:
1. Checking whether a server is responding on a port - i.e a TCP connection is ACK'ed (check\_tcp in nagios)
2. Checking just the HTTP response code, i.e doing an OPTIONS or HEAD and ensuring that the HTTP response that comes back is either 2xx or 3xx (as opposed to 4xx or 5xx).
3. Checking for a response like (2) - as well as checking for an expected string of text in the output.
Option 3 would be the most reliable, but requires a full GET of your page contents every time the monitoring server hits your server. Option 2 can be acheived with just a HTTP OPTIONS or HEAD, Option 1 can be done with just a connect().
PingDom probably would do option (3) I'd assume. | If you also want to make sure site actually **works** (and is not just "up"), you should run some transaction monitoring or, better yet, real browser monitoring in addition to the standard http get and ping tests.
Of course, this is most important for complex websites that have many 3rd party services integrated, Ajax, Javascript etc. - It is not required for a simple static website.
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_monitoring> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | A common expression is *to lose the [spark](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Spark) in a relashionship:* ( from TFD)
>
> * vivacity, enthusiasm, or humour
>
>
>
* 5 Reasons Your Relationship Has [Lost Its Spark](http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-12164/5-reasons-your-relationship-has-lost-its-spark-how-to-get-it-back.html).
* Why the [Spark](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201203/why-the-spark-fades-in-relationship) Fades in a Relationship.
>
> * Countless couples complain of losing the “spark” in their relationship. Some chalk it up to evolved differences, a slow growing apart, or sheer familiarity. The wave of “deadness” that can submerge a relationship after the first thrilling months or years have caused many couples to lose hope, and even look elsewhere for the excitement of newfound intimacy.
>
>
> | The verb *sour* can describe the deterioration of a relationship. Example from a Cambridge dictionary:
>
> This affair has soured relations between the two countries.
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | The relationship became **humdrum** Oxford Dictionaries define it as
[Lacking excitement or variety; boringly monotonous:](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humdrum)
>
> You hear your friends tell stories about how **humdrum** their marriage is so you think that maybe that's just how marriage is after all.
>
>
> | * "a relationship that became **tasteless**."
* "a relationship grown **insipid**."
>
> tasteless - "arousing no interest, dull. [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tasteless)
>
>
> insipid - "Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest" [TFD](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insipid)
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | You could say that the relationship has *grown stale*. [Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stale):
>
> **4.** having lost freshness, vigor, quick intelligence, initiative, or the like, as from overstrain, boredom, or surfeit:
> *He had grown stale on the job and needed a long vacation.*
>
>
> | Once you get past a certain age you can always crack the time-honoured joke: ***That relationship is like me, it's seen better days*** |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | A common expression is *to lose the [spark](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Spark) in a relashionship:* ( from TFD)
>
> * vivacity, enthusiasm, or humour
>
>
>
* 5 Reasons Your Relationship Has [Lost Its Spark](http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-12164/5-reasons-your-relationship-has-lost-its-spark-how-to-get-it-back.html).
* Why the [Spark](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201203/why-the-spark-fades-in-relationship) Fades in a Relationship.
>
> * Countless couples complain of losing the “spark” in their relationship. Some chalk it up to evolved differences, a slow growing apart, or sheer familiarity. The wave of “deadness” that can submerge a relationship after the first thrilling months or years have caused many couples to lose hope, and even look elsewhere for the excitement of newfound intimacy.
>
>
> | Once you get past a certain age you can always crack the time-honoured joke: ***That relationship is like me, it's seen better days*** |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | If you wanted to include a connotation of inevitability, you could say the relationship had **run its course** (though that also implies it is over, or nearly so). | The relationship became **humdrum** Oxford Dictionaries define it as
[Lacking excitement or variety; boringly monotonous:](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humdrum)
>
> You hear your friends tell stories about how **humdrum** their marriage is so you think that maybe that's just how marriage is after all.
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | "Lost its lustre" is a nice way of putting it.
>
> Lustre -
> 1A gentle sheen or soft glow.
> 1.2 Glory or distinction.
>
>
>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lustre>
"We grew apart" is a more relationship-specific phrase. | The relationship became **humdrum** Oxford Dictionaries define it as
[Lacking excitement or variety; boringly monotonous:](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humdrum)
>
> You hear your friends tell stories about how **humdrum** their marriage is so you think that maybe that's just how marriage is after all.
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | "Lost its lustre" is a nice way of putting it.
>
> Lustre -
> 1A gentle sheen or soft glow.
> 1.2 Glory or distinction.
>
>
>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lustre>
"We grew apart" is a more relationship-specific phrase. | Once you get past a certain age you can always crack the time-honoured joke: ***That relationship is like me, it's seen better days*** |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | You could say that the relationship has *grown stale*. [Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stale):
>
> **4.** having lost freshness, vigor, quick intelligence, initiative, or the like, as from overstrain, boredom, or surfeit:
> *He had grown stale on the job and needed a long vacation.*
>
>
> | **Deterioration** is widely used to describe relationships that fall apart as time wears on. (**Disintegration** is also used, but not as widely.) [[Ngram]](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disintegrating%20relationship%2C%20deteriorating%20relationship&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisintegrating%20relationship%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdeteriorating%20relationship%3B%2Cc0)
*Deterioration*, noun:
1. the act or process of deteriorating.
2. the state or condition of having deteriorated.
3. a gradual decline, as in quality, serviceability, or vigor.
Examples:
>
> [This Brutal Anecdote Reveals The Deteriorating Relationship Between Obama And Democrats](http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-harry-reid-anecdote-reveals-tension-2014-8#ixzz3McGjqs00)
>
>
> [How Ronaldo & Mourinho's relationship deteriorated at Real Madrid](http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3277/la-liga/2013/08/07/4170812/how-ronaldo-mourinhos-relationship-deteriorated-at-real)
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | "Lost its lustre" is a nice way of putting it.
>
> Lustre -
> 1A gentle sheen or soft glow.
> 1.2 Glory or distinction.
>
>
>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lustre>
"We grew apart" is a more relationship-specific phrase. | **Deterioration** is widely used to describe relationships that fall apart as time wears on. (**Disintegration** is also used, but not as widely.) [[Ngram]](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disintegrating%20relationship%2C%20deteriorating%20relationship&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisintegrating%20relationship%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdeteriorating%20relationship%3B%2Cc0)
*Deterioration*, noun:
1. the act or process of deteriorating.
2. the state or condition of having deteriorated.
3. a gradual decline, as in quality, serviceability, or vigor.
Examples:
>
> [This Brutal Anecdote Reveals The Deteriorating Relationship Between Obama And Democrats](http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-harry-reid-anecdote-reveals-tension-2014-8#ixzz3McGjqs00)
>
>
> [How Ronaldo & Mourinho's relationship deteriorated at Real Madrid](http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3277/la-liga/2013/08/07/4170812/how-ronaldo-mourinhos-relationship-deteriorated-at-real)
>
>
> |
216,096 | Specifically a relationship which fell apart as time wore on. | 2014/12/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/216096",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/102744/"
] | "Getting to be a job" or "Turning into a job" refers to a relationship that is becoming too similar to the daily grind of one's employment. | * "a relationship that became **tasteless**."
* "a relationship grown **insipid**."
>
> tasteless - "arousing no interest, dull. [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tasteless)
>
>
> insipid - "Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest" [TFD](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insipid)
>
>
> |
167,022 | Tzeentch, the weaver of destinies, the architect of fate, originates from the Warhammer 40K universe and is the god of knowledge, change, and evolution. However, I will take away the god like attributes and try to make tzeentch into an advanced alien species.
**Appearance and behaviour**
The species look vaguely humanoid and seem to have short stubby faces that sport no eyes and shark-like rows of teeth. They also have tentacle-like hair coming from the back of their heads but also have one tentacle-like appendage sprouting from each shoulder. Their hands only have three fingers as well as only having three toes and possess blue skin.
The species seems to be attracted to gold and blue materials and will often trade knowledge and technology for said gold and blue materials. Other than that, they seem not speak, preferring to sit crisscrossed and think over their “great plan”.
**Intelligence**
Despite being considered one of the oldest alien species, they are quite averagely advanced, capable of simple planetary colonization, and environmental manipulation. However, they seemingly have created two megastructures that make us question whether they are more advanced than they seem. The winged anem brain is a star-sized megastructure that acts both as a computer and an informational storage unit--essentially a Dyson sphere. It is theorized that this megastructure holds knowledge that even older races and species might not even know. The second megastructure is called the evolution machine. This megastructure stems from the desire to influence creatures on other worlds to evolve intelligence. They do this by changing the planet's environment slowly but slightly enough to induce evolutionary changes that cause the creature to become more aware and later intelligent. This process takes a very long time, but luckily the tzeentch have a outstandingly long life span, teetering from 500 to even 1000 years old.
Weirdly, where most advanced species have and end goal, the tzeentch will have some complex plans that will sometimes span eons, plans that look contradicting to themselves, and sometimes plans that will go against their own interest.
**Extra facts**
A recent information agreement has suggested that this species consider that the purpose of existing is only for gaining knowledge. The home world of the tzeentch suggests that over 80% of the surface is covered in water. It is theorized that the great plan has been going underway for untold eons, and is thought to have the singular objective of trying to know everything there is to know in their universe, store it in their megastructure, then send it off towards another universe to either continue its gathering of knowledge or to help out a random race.
Could such species feasible exist, if not, then why? | 2020/01/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/167022",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/70683/"
] | Tzeench must be optimized to support the Great Plan
---------------------------------------------------
**Appearance**
I won't address a lot of the cosmetic changes like "short stubby faces," "blue skin" or "three toes" because I'm assuming these are all possible evolutionarily.
* No eyes
This is plausible, but what's the alternative? Do these creatures use echolocation, or do they sense infrared radiation through eye-like structures beneath the skin? Eyes are by no means a requirement for intelligence species, but gathering sensory information is.
* Shark-like rows of teeth; tentacles on heads and shoulders
We can treat these as evolutionary vestiges of an aquatic lifestyle, considering their homeworld is mostly covered in water. I don't know if it's worth spending energy on shark teeth or extra movable appendages, but it certainly isn't impossible.
* 500 to 1000 years old
This is plausible given that [some animals](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/50-longest-living-animals-in-the-world/ss-BBWtx2k) on Earth can live up to 500 years - but it begs the question, *why*? What makes extending the lifespan of each individual worthwhile? Even if they have the technology to live forever or effective [biological immortality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality), how does this contribute to their great plans? Imo such drastic lifespan alterations may cost more resources than educating new generations.
**Behavior**
* Attracted to gold and blue
This can be explained by cultural values, or as an instinctual behavior from their time in the sea. Perhaps they used to hunt gold and blue prey?
* Don't speak
So how do they communicate? Any "great plan" surely requires a lot of communication. Regardless of whether they use something as mundane as sign language or something as complex as telepathy, a great plan will take active involvement.
* Preferred activity: sit and think over "great plan"
This seems like an unproductive approach to coordinating a plan of action. If every human that wanted to solve climate change sat on the floor and thought about it 24/7 instead of communicating ideas, writing it down, or taking the necessary steps to fight it, nothing would get done. Even if the entire species has no concept of individualism and an extreme cultural value of progress (which will be necessary for this plan), sitting and thinking does not equate doing.
**Technology**
I won't get too in-depth here because validating each technology in the question makes it far too broad. I will assume each technology is feasible in order to examine how they relate to the tzeentch culturally / socially.
* Dyson sphere machine: stores information and gathers energy
I question that this species possesses information that absolutely no other species knows, given that physics operate the same across the whole universe. Furthermore, what does gathering all the information in the universe mean? Cataloging each individual atom's position and velocity? I do think a Dyson sphere will be necessary, however.
* Evolution machine: influences planetary environments to promote intelligence
This objective makes little sense. Do the tzeentch assume all intelligences will join their quest for knowledge - what about the hostile species that actively destroy information? Would a bookkeeping species find intervening with the natural world in this way to be ethical, instead of cataloging it how it is? Also, is there "one" optimal set of circumstances to produce intelligence, or does it vary by planet?
**General thoughts**
Physiologically, this species makes sense. Culturally, an entire species having a collective goal may not be plausible - but if it is, they will certainly need to adapt their lifestyle in order to support it. | The main issues with this species are the tentacles and behaviour
Firstly, the tentacles: The shoulder tentacles would have to be some sort of limb, which would not make sense with the other 4 limbs being tetrapodal. There are 2 explainations I can give: Either the tentacles are a later adaptation, like a barbel, appended to the 4-limbed original design; or all six limbs are based on a system of vertebrae as in brittle stars, with the arms and legs being fused into a more tetrapodal-seeming arrangement for strength. The issue with the head tentacles is that they point backwards, and wouldn't be very useful. One explanation could be that they are a display structure similar to a giraffe's ossicones (so they'd be sarcocones perhaps?). Though I'm unsure if this would justify motility
On the behaviour: Communication is important, especially when planning things. However, this section have a simple solution: telepathy. There is no need for psychic powers, though; you could instead have all of the species use microchips in their brain, which allow them to connect their minds together into a superbrain, with the added benefit of being able to connect to external computer storage to note everything down |
34,855 | Is there any mechanism in mobile device management solutions that would allow a web server (for an internal, authenticated system, e.g. SharePoint) to know that a request is coming from a mobile device? e.g. something added to the header, or a special way of authenticating.
I'm a bit fuzzy on how these kinds of solutions work in practice, but obviously somewhere a server knows that a device is a mobile device that is registered with the MDM system, so that it can reject devices that aren't approved.
There's probably not one answer that applies to all MDM, but an example in a particular MDM is good, something that works similarly across many would be awesome. | 2013/04/25 | [
"https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/34855",
"https://security.stackexchange.com",
"https://security.stackexchange.com/users/25206/"
] | I can't imagine why it would since this is not the domain of MDM, but as commercial suppliers keep trying to build one product to do everything rather than developing platforms which integrate, then it's quite possible I might be wrong.
Any MDM platform should allow you to configure VPN on the devices it controls.
Any browser advertises exactly what version and OS it runs on in every request.
>
> knows that a device is a mobile device that is registered with the MDM system
>
>
>
That's something diferent - you want an MDM which can be integrated with your authentication system. I'm not aware of any product which does this. | If its a web server, you can install Google analytics that will not only tell you what device is connecting, but # of visits, browser, OS, country, new vs returning visits and much much more.
I am not sure if that's a kind of solution you were looking for but I decided to share this information just in case if you think its valuable. Other members will hopefully be able to provide you with other solutions.
Cheers,
Damon |
28,477,996 | **How to save mp4 in sql server c#.**
Which data type we should use in sql server. | 2015/02/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/28477996",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2812282/"
] | A `BLOB` stores binary data, so an time you have something you don't think fits into the databases defined type you can use a [BLOB](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/bb895234.aspx). | You would be better saving the MP4 on the server and storing the location of the file in the database. |
139,376 | I am wandering around in the open map of The Dusty Path. I have HP and Water remaining but the world just fades to white and returns me to main screen. I see this message
>
> the world fades
>
>
>
How can I continue questing?
I lose my spear and my torches and my meat.
This is frustrating. | 2013/11/09 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/139376",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You probably ran out of cured meat.
If you notice, when you move on the map, you actually consume meat every few steps. If you run out of steps, starvation will "set in". Then, the world will fade as you die from starvation. If you have a trading post, eventually you can buy a wagon which lets you carry more on adventures. | It is when you overstay or when the game hates you. I had 26 water and 40 cured meat when I died of starvation so it's not the meat or water. I did go around the entire map and died of starvation on my way back to the village to save. This happens a lot. |
31,232,493 | I am using Xcode 7 Beta 2 on my Mac. I recently downloaded IOS 8.4 on my iPhone 6. IOS 8.4 was the public release **NOT** 8.4 Beta. When I plug in my iPhone into my Mac to download it to my phone, but next to my iPhone section it says *iPhone (unavailable)*. The deployment target is IOS 8.4. I suspect that this has something to do with the Xcode 7 Beta 2 not being supported with my newly update IOS 8.4 iPhone 6. And I had update a previous version of my app onto my phone when it was running on IOS 8.3. Could someone confirm my belief or help me solve this problem. Thanks | 2015/07/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31232493",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5046485/"
] | Check the deployment target in xcode project settings deployment info.... | Your belief is right. You can't run from Xcode 7 on a device with iOS 8. (You might manage to do it by jiggery-pokery, but the results are unreliable.) You need to install iOS 9 on the device. |
31,232,493 | I am using Xcode 7 Beta 2 on my Mac. I recently downloaded IOS 8.4 on my iPhone 6. IOS 8.4 was the public release **NOT** 8.4 Beta. When I plug in my iPhone into my Mac to download it to my phone, but next to my iPhone section it says *iPhone (unavailable)*. The deployment target is IOS 8.4. I suspect that this has something to do with the Xcode 7 Beta 2 not being supported with my newly update IOS 8.4 iPhone 6. And I had update a previous version of my app onto my phone when it was running on IOS 8.3. Could someone confirm my belief or help me solve this problem. Thanks | 2015/07/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31232493",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5046485/"
] | You can find ios8.4 sdk from Xcode 6.4,Path: /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/DeviceSupport,and copy to your Xcode 7.Path:Path: /Applications/Xcode-beta.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/DeviceSupport | Check the deployment target in xcode project settings deployment info.... |
31,232,493 | I am using Xcode 7 Beta 2 on my Mac. I recently downloaded IOS 8.4 on my iPhone 6. IOS 8.4 was the public release **NOT** 8.4 Beta. When I plug in my iPhone into my Mac to download it to my phone, but next to my iPhone section it says *iPhone (unavailable)*. The deployment target is IOS 8.4. I suspect that this has something to do with the Xcode 7 Beta 2 not being supported with my newly update IOS 8.4 iPhone 6. And I had update a previous version of my app onto my phone when it was running on IOS 8.3. Could someone confirm my belief or help me solve this problem. Thanks | 2015/07/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31232493",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5046485/"
] | You can find ios8.4 sdk from Xcode 6.4,Path: /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/DeviceSupport,and copy to your Xcode 7.Path:Path: /Applications/Xcode-beta.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/DeviceSupport | Your belief is right. You can't run from Xcode 7 on a device with iOS 8. (You might manage to do it by jiggery-pokery, but the results are unreliable.) You need to install iOS 9 on the device. |
5,101,635 | I have deleted some data from the table TAB1.
In order to claim the space i am performing
alter table TAB1 enable row movement; > goes fine
alter table TAB1 shrink space; > ORA-10631: SHRINK clause should not be specified for this object
This is because there are function based indexes in the table. We can't shrink a table with function based indexes. Any work around exists for this issue. | 2011/02/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5101635",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/534908/"
] | Dropping the Index was the most likely alternative:
1. Drop the Index
2. Shrink the table space
3. Create the same index. | Seems unlikely, other than dropping the FBI and then re-creating it. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [XDA-developers](http://forum.xda-developers.com)
-------------------------------------------------
Large development community with plenty of space for users and devs alike to talk about anything Android. Sub-forums for specific devices. **Beware the trolls!**
* [App Development Forums](http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2188) (Development tools, marketing, monetization) This e.g. explicitly includes *Issues with the Android Market from the point of view of a developer or publisher* and *Marketing your Android app*, which are off-topic at Android Enthusiasts
* [Android Development and Hacking](http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=564)
* Several device-specific development areas | [Android Police](http://www.androidpolice.com/)
-----------------------------------------------
Android news, app reviews, firmware updates, sharing tips, tricks, tutorials, videos and podcasts, device reviews, info about custom ROMs and hacks. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Our Chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/)
----------------------------------------------
Anything Android related, really. | [Droid Gamers](http://droidgamers.com/)
---------------------------------------
Android game reviews and news. Discussion forums. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Android Developers Forums](http://developer.android.com/resources/community-groups.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of different groups or forums for discussing development questions. | [GSM Arena](http://www.gsmarena.com/)
-------------------------------------
Android news, Android tech blog, device reviews, device tech specs and pictures, device estimated prices, device comparison, device rankings, device search based on user requested features, rumored devices. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Android and Me](http://androidandme.com/)
------------------------------------------
News blog. | [Android Authority](http://www.androidauthority.com/)
-----------------------------------------------------
You can ask question on the [Q&A page](http://www.androidauthority.com/qa/ask)
**Other Features**:
Forum, Security, Development, Reviews, News, Interviews, Debates, Opinions etc |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Droid Gamers](http://droidgamers.com/)
---------------------------------------
Android game reviews and news. Discussion forums. | [Android tag on Quora](https://www.quora.com/Android-OS)
--------------------------------------------------------
You can ask anything Android related here. Unlike SE sites, subjective questions are welcomed here. Though you'll most likely get opinions, not solutions there. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Software Engineering](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/android)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle. If you have a question about...
>
>
> * software development methods and practices
> * requirements, architecture, and design
> * quality assurance and testing
> * configuration management, build, release, and deployment
>
>
> ...then you're *probably* in the right place to ask your question.
>
>
> | [Unix & Linux](https://unix.stackexchange.com/)
-----------------------------------------------
Another Stack Exchange site specific to Linux and Unix. They do say that [most question about Android are off-topic](https://unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/103/are-android-questions-on-topic) (because they belong either at StackOverflow, or Here) but if the questions actually relate to the "\*nix" part of Android, they are on-topic. I have also seen quite a [few "compiling android" questions](https://unix.stackexchange.com/search?q=compile+android) there as well. So *Custom ROM Development* may be able to be asked there. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Our Chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/)
----------------------------------------------
Anything Android related, really. | [PhoneRocket](http://phonerocket.com/)
--------------------------------------
Not a discussion forum per se, the site offers comparisons of different smartphones.
>
> The site scores smartphones based on aggregated reviews, benchmarks, and specs. PhoneRocket also offers some common phone comparisons (Galaxy S4 vs. iPhone 5 and Galaxy S4 vs. HTC One, for example), and the ability to pit any two phones against each other.
>
>
> |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Reddit's Android Community](http://www.reddit.com/r/android+androidappreviews+androidapps+androiddev+nexusone+androidisawesome+androidquestions+htcevo+Galaxy_S+droid+htcdesire+androidthemes+htchero+redwall)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links and discussions for all things Android. | [Android tag on Quora](https://www.quora.com/Android-OS)
--------------------------------------------------------
You can ask anything Android related here. Unlike SE sites, subjective questions are welcomed here. Though you'll most likely get opinions, not solutions there. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [Android Developers Forums](http://developer.android.com/resources/community-groups.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of different groups or forums for discussing development questions. | [Android Arena](http://www.androidarena.com/)
---------------------------------------------
News blog. |
371 | **Thank you for your confidence in our abilities!** But have you read the [Android Enthusiasts FAQ](https://android.stackexchange.com/faq)?
This site is primarily a source to help people **use** their Android devices, whether it's an issue with hardware, software, a particular app, or even rooting. However, we get some other questions that don't fit here.
Yes, someone here might be able to help you, but you'll find that other forums and sites more focused on your topic can give you a much better answer than a bunch of Android geeks. It's likely that your question will be downvoted, closed, and in some cases marked "offensive." It's not that we hate you, it's just that we are trying to maintain the site's focus for maximum usability.
What forums can people go to to ask the questions that are off topic here? (Please list only **one** forum per answer so votes can bring the best forums to the top.)
Some potential topics might be:
* shopping recommendations
* phone hardware comparisons
* moderation support
* news blogs
* and so on
**Questions about programming issues with Android belong on [Stack Overflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/android).** | 2011/03/08 | [
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.meta.stackexchange.com/users/267/"
] | [XDA-developers](http://forum.xda-developers.com)
-------------------------------------------------
Large development community with plenty of space for users and devs alike to talk about anything Android. Sub-forums for specific devices. **Beware the trolls!**
* [App Development Forums](http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2188) (Development tools, marketing, monetization) This e.g. explicitly includes *Issues with the Android Market from the point of view of a developer or publisher* and *Marketing your Android app*, which are off-topic at Android Enthusiasts
* [Android Development and Hacking](http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=564)
* Several device-specific development areas | [Android Tapp](http://www.androidtapp.com/)
-------------------------------------------
App reviews, dev interviews, news. |
10,725 | I'm looking into opening a Scottrade account in the future, and was wondering if they pay interest on cash in your brokerage account? Are the rates published anywhere? | 2011/09/06 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/10725",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/4632/"
] | <http://www.scottrade.com/online-brokerage/interest-margin-rates.html>
Rates fluctuate based upon the federal funds rate. | These interest rates are very low. One of the reasons that I prefer E\*Trade is because on their on-line savings account the interest rates are several times higher than on ScotTrade margin accounts (currently it's 0.7% on E\*Trade, on any amount, IIRC).
The transfers between the accounts on E\*Trade are immediate, and they allow using the money for investing immediately even for transfers from outside source. If you can wait a couple of days for the money to arrive before your investment (unless ScotTrade, like E\*Trade, allow investing external transfers immediately), you can look at AMEX, ING Direct or Capitol One on-line savings accounts for even higher rates.
Oh, and needless to mention, on-line savings accounts are FDIC insured, I'm not sure if the uninvested deposits on Scottrade are. |
478,030 | Why do some people say things like "Would you like the salt and pepper" when they are in fact wanting it themselves? Or "would you like to turn on the ABC news" when it's they who want the news on?
I live in Australia, I heard not long ago that certain schools used to teach their pupils this format. But why?! | 2018/12/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/478030",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/328976/"
] | A theory about such indirection has emerged from the work of the philosopher J. L. Austen in his [How to do Things with Words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin). To be polite, instead of baldly giving an order, making a request, or asking a question, you mention a normal precondition for performing such a speech act. In your example, there's an added twist that you're depending on a convention of reciprocity in polite conversations that if you make an offer to someone, that person may be obligated to subsequently make a corresponding offer to you, as payback. | In my experience, I have heard phrases like "Would you care to turn on the AC?" and "Would you care to pass me the salt?", and I believe the phrases "care to" and "like to" have the same meaning but "care to" sounds better and is just a more common phrase.
This phrasing is probably used in order to be polite instead of demanding, as asking if the person doing the service wouldn't mind doing the action is more considerate than directly commanding them. It also could be used when the action being requested isn't extremely important and the person who wants the action done would prefer the other's opinion first. |
16,455 | I got the following device
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HNSIF.png)
(sorry for imperfect focus)
and found, that it can measure not only pressure, but also a temperature too. The code was taken from common sketches for Adafruit BMP085 and they were working. I checked, that temperature value rises if I touch sensor with finger.
Simultaneously, on [Bosch site for BMP180](https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/en/homepage/products_3/environmental_sensors_1/bmp180_1/bmp180) I can't find any notes it can measure temperature, only pressure.
How can it be?
1) Bosch's BMP180 has undocumented feature to measure a temperature
2) The device on picture has additional component to measure temperature
3) The device on picture has completely different sensor, which has the name of "BMP180" just by coincidence.
4) Something else.... | 2015/10/01 | [
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/16455",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com",
"https://arduino.stackexchange.com/users/6841/"
] | If you read the data sheet (on the site you point to) you see plenty of references to temperature:
>
> The BMP180 is designed to be connected directly to a microcontroller of a mobile device via the I 2 C
> bus. The pressure and **temperature** data has to be compensated by the calibration data of the
> E 2 PROM of the BMP180.
>
>
>
and
>
> The BMP180 consists of a piezo-resistive sensor, an analog to digital converter and a control unit with EEPROM and a serial I2C interface. The BMP180 delivers the uncompensated value of pressure and **temperature**. The E 2 PROM has stored 176 bit of individual calibration data. This is used to
> compensate offset, temperature dependence and other parameters of the sensor.
>
>
>
And many many more. | The [BMP085 Barometric Pressure/Temperature/Altitude Sensor- 5V ready](https://www.adafruit.com/products/391) page at adafruit.com says the BMP180 is a drop-in replacement for the BMP085.
The [BMP180 Barometric Pressure/Temperature/Altitude Sensor- 5V ready](http://www.adafruit.com/products/1603) page at adafruit.com says the BMP180 is completely identical to the BMP085 in terms of firmware/software/interfacing.
In addition, while [Bosch's web page for the BMP085](https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/en/homepage/products_3/environmental_sensors_1/bmp180_1/bmp180) doesn't mention temperature, the data sheet itself – the final reference, typically, for a device like this – says “Temperature measurement included” on page 2, and on page 14 refers to measuring temperature in steps of 0.1°C, and on other pages shows temperature register numbers, etc. To get the data sheet, click the Documents & Drivers tab, then the BST-BMP180-DS000-12 Datasheet link. |
91,482 | Background
----------
Byung Chulhan in his book [psychopolitics](https://youtu.be/ObCTx4UNwnA) defines freedom in two ways:
**a.** He defines it as an interlude which the subject feels when passing between lifestyles or ideologies. This is a somewhat cynical approach to defining liberty especially when we pay mind to the use of the term subject. Subject is often used when describing an individual or entity. That is in literal terms being subjugated or brought under control freedom in this sense is just the absence of the natural order of things of in: A rare moment not being subjected to a certain lifestyle. What if we remarketed and rebranded this word: age of neoliberalism has led to a shared belief that we are projects to be worked on rather than subjects to be dominated this process of projection however is really just a more efficient form of subjugation instead of any sort of all-powerful disciplinary instrument coercing us to be something we coerce and constrain ourselves to become what we think we want to be.
**b.** The second idea of freedom is a little bit more cheery. Freedom is to be among friends to have a successful relationship with others; it signifies a relationship as noted by the common root shared across indo-european languages between the words freedom and friendship.
This (b) may seem strange especially in capitalist societies where individual freedom is far more valued than this idea of self-realization through others. Psychopolitics is a thesis where Byung made sense of the word freedom.
Wittgenstien might say language is in some sense a community consensus. So can this word “freedom” be realized via consensus? If so, was freedom squandered? Chomsky successfully points out there is a human condition and biases in the very nature of language itself. Across different cultures the origins of the words friendship and freedom is striking indeed.
>
> "Philosophers, (the later) Wittgenstein believed, had been misled into
> thinking that their subject was a kind of science, a search for
> theoretical explanations of the things that puzzled them: the nature
> of meaning, truth, mind, time, justice, and so on. "
>
>
>
While he does not explicitly mention freedom I suspect he would have easily added it to the list.
Could Wittgenstien or anyone even define freedom? I suspect the answer would at best be a private language game. But at the age of 10 the word freedom may be a different private language game than it is at the age of 25. But then I suspect we fall into the trap of the first definition (point a) and perhaps the reader should again re-read from point a.
Question
--------
I find myself asking is it possible to coherently hold onto a set of insights?
1. There exists a notion of freedom
2. Wittgenstein - Language is a community consensus
3. Chomsky - Biases in humans and language exist
4. Our thoughts on various matters are informed by interactions with our community
5. (The opposite of) Byung Chulhan - Freedom and Neoliberalism are not at odds with each other | 2022/06/01 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91482",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/42369/"
] | This is a very well thought-out question. You invoke Noam Chomsky's contributions to the philosophy of mind with his proposals regarding innate properties which he puts forward in his ideas regarding [universal grammar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar). You also bring to the conversation an awareness of the contributions of later LW regarding his arguments about philosophy of language that contributed to the [linguistic turn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn). Among the [analytic tribes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy), it is now part of the philosophical method to explicitly examine language to suss out what is about reality, and what is about language. The erstwhile [Sapir-Whorf hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity) is part of such a discussion.
>
> I find myself asking is it possible to coherently hold onto [a] set of insights?
>
>
>
There seems to be two questions implicit in your question. 1. Is it possible for anyone to hold on to contradictory notions? 2. Are the following notions contradictory?
The answers in short order are yes, and depends.
First, obviously the psychology of dealing with logic and contradiction is addressed by Festinger's [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), and it's a matter of psychological fact that the brain is capable of not seeing logical contradictions. In extreme pathologies of the mind, the philosopher of the mind of a [naturalized epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology) must accept that the rules of logic are subject to psychological truths. To buttress this fact, the current state of logics is one of [metaphysical pluralism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(philosophy)#Metaphysical_pluralism). [Dialetheia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism), to which contradiction inheres and is accepted, is a perfectly legitimate metaphysical position. So, I push back and ask, is logical coherence and the [coherent theory of truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth) really so weighty matter that it can be applied in such a wide-ranging examination of [propositions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition)? [Worldviews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview), to be succinct, are not mathematical theorems.
Second, if you do attempt to play the philosophical game of trying to get the [truth-conditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics) of claims to align like a [mathematical model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory) to show that you can refute any claims of contradiction, are you cognizant of the fact that both ambiguity and vagueness may inhere so much in [natural language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language), that absent experience, you may not be able to pin down definitions, which are notoriously complicated affairs, to do so? LW's [family resemblances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance), which has laid the ground work in linguistics for [prototype theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory), challenges us to accept that natural language definitions for words like 'freedom' and 'neoliberalism' are tricky affairs. In fact, such efforts beg the question if it's possible to even pin down a concept? Definitions are without a doubt (and not to sound like a critical theorist), political matters. What does freedom mean after all? On the gates of Auschwitz was placed for all to see "Arbeit macht frei". Work is freedom. Words are susceptible to abuse by propaganda in the extreme, but even every day, the meaning of words are contested. Enter Gallie's thesis: some words are [essentially contested concepts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept).
Can you make those 5 claims cohere? Absolutely. Terms like 'freedom' are so flexible that anyone can use them to mean just about anything they'd like. Many a sophist has made a buck waxing philosophical on semantic nuance.
>
> Could Wittgenstien or anyone even define freedom?
>
>
>
Who doesn't have a definition of freedom? Definitions are like anuses. Everyone has one. The actual challenge is shopping for the definition that suits you and your experience. For some, there's freedom in bondage. For others, it's a religious devotion to libertarianism even if it enslaves them financially. Suicide is arguably finding freedom from life. The real error here may be in presuming that definitions have some objective reality and correctness as opposed to understanding them as acts of [social construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism). After all, LW's [private language argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument) highlights the highly [normative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normativity) grounding of definitions to begin with. | From Wikipedia - [Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism), or neo-liberalism, "is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism."
In contrast, how about *liberalism*? and individual freedom of thought in relation to the group, from a review of [Group Psychology and Political Theory](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Group+Psychology+and+Political+Theory.-a018540210):
>
> [Alford calls] for a much closer and sympathetic look not only at
> leadership but at the group foundations of political life. The group,
> in his view, precedes the individual; and it makes no sense to speak
> of social or political experience unless it is understood in the
> context of groups. The greatest efforts in establishing individuality
> lie in the often tragic process of freeing oneself from group
> domination and control; his political argument here clearly comes down
> on the side of ***liberal individualism*** and against the constraining,
> often authoritarian, demands of "community."
>
>
> We literally, Alford argues, are at war with our own "groupishness";
> and this is what gets us into personal and political trouble. He calls
> this process the "schizoid compromise ... the fundamental
> psychological event in the groups . . . the member tries to have his
> cake and eat it too: to give himself over to the group, while being
> separate and independent of it" (p. 52).
>
>
>
Chulhan's suggestion "that we are projects to be worked on” would seems quite enlightened, except for then saying this "is really just a more efficient form of subjugation". I don't think individuation can be passed off as a synthetic trend. |
502,798 | I noticed some people attack foreigners who say anything negative about their country, yet they themselves criticize their same country and are being negative. What's a word that describes them? Looking for a word that doesn't have a political connotation. Other than hypocrite. | 2019/06/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/502798",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/352642/"
] | I don't think there is one word that encompasses both attitudes. [Patriotism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism) may lead nationals to frown upon external criticism and, indirectly, to their feeling that they are the only ones empowered or entitled (as @tk421 cleverly suggested) to speak as they wish about their domestic affairs.
This issue reminds me of a famous, long poem from my country, "Martin Fierro", which refers to the question in the following words:
>
> Brothers should stand by each other because this is the first law.
>
>
> Keep a true bond between you always, at every time --
>
>
> because if you fight among yourselves you'll be devoured by those outside.
>
>
>
(Translated from Spanish by [Kate Kavanagh](http://martinfierroenglish.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-best-translation-of-martin-fierro.html)) | *"Don't talk about matters you don't know!"* ~ This is a very common sentence we hear now and then. And what you are describing is not hypocrisy in any way. **It's a psycological concept** and sadly has not specific term in the current dictionary.
If you live in a particular country A, you are the citizen, you are the one who voted for the system, you are the one suffering from the problems the nation is facing. But someone who lives thousands of miles away from you and has never visited your country has no right to critize it. They didn't vote for the system, they aren't experiencing what the citizens are. People don't like people to interfere in their personal matters when they can't change anything. It's like you fight with your siblings but if some stranger tries to harm them, you take your sibling's side. Look, at last your country is the only place which will help you, he's not inviting you to his country. **So, it's just a psycological concept which unfortunately has no terminology in English.** |
22,632 | Is it true that chanting mantra without moving lips and tongue gives more effect? Is it called Aajapa mantra? | 2017/12/08 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/22632",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/9685/"
] | Yes, that's true. Usually three forms of chanting (japa) are mentioned in scriptures.
From Tantra SAra:
>
> NijakarnAgocharohayam Sajapo MAnasah Smrito |
> UpAnsunijakarnasya
> Gocharaha Parikirtitaha ||
> MantromucchArayedvAchA Sajapo VAchika
> Smrito |
>
>
> ........................
>
>
> When the chants are completely done in one's mind and they are not
> audible even to oneself, its called mAnasa. When they are like whispers
> and the chants are audible to one's own ears, then it's called upAnsu.
> Loud japa, which everyone around can hear, is called vAchika japa.
>
>
>
>
>
So we have:
Ucchai japa or the **vAchika japa**- This is the loud japa which you can hear as well as others around you can too hear.
**UpAnshu Japa**- In this japa there are only slight movements of tongue and lips involved. This japa can be heard only by the one who is chanting and not by others.
**MAnasa Japa**- Repetition of the mantra completely in mind by contemplating on it's consciousness and meaning is mAnasa japa. Here, even lips, tongue don't move. And, even one who is doing it can not hear the japa.
Among these three kinds, the mAnasa is considered the best followed by upAnshu followed by vAchika. So, loud japa (or vAchika) is considered the worst kind. Now, this has been mentioned in many many scriptures.
For example, Lord Shiva says:
>
> Ucchair japohadhamah prokta upAnshur madhyamah smritah |
> **Uttamo
> mAnaso** devi trividhah kathitah japah ||
>
>
> ....
>
>
> O Goddess, the loud japa is considered as the worst kind, the
> whispering japa (upanshu) is the middling kind and **the japa in the mind
> (mAnasa) is the best form of japa**. These three are said to be the
> kinds of japa.
>
>
> **KulArnava Tantram 15.55**
>
>
>
>
>
Similarly, in another Agama, Lord Shiva says:
>
> Nigadena tu yajjaptam lakshyam chopAmshunA samam |
> **MAnasena
> maheshAni koti jApya phalam bhavet ||**
>
>
> ....
>
>
> O Great Goddess, One upAnsu japa is equal to one lakh loud japa and **by
> doing one mAnasa japa one gets the fruits of one crore upAnsu japa.**
>
>
> **NityAshodashikArnava Tantram 5.18**
>
>
>
In ShivAgama, Lord Shiva gives a different equation:
>
> TasmAcchatagunopansuhu Sahasro MAnasah Smritoho |
>
>
> ....................
>
>
> UpAnsu japa is 100 times more fruitful than vAchika and mAnasa 1000
> times.
>
>
>
>
>
Same thing is stated in the Manu Smriti, in different words:
>
> Manu Smriti 2.85. An offering, consisting of muttered prayers, is ten
> times more efficacious than a sacrifice performed according to the
> rules (of the Veda); a (prayer) which is inaudible (to others)
> surpasses it a hundred times, **and the mental (recitation of sacred
> texts) a thousand times.**
>
>
>
The Vashista Dharma Sutras (26.9) also highly praises silent japa as follows:
>
> The sacrifice consisting of softly recited prayers is ten times better
> than a sacrifice involving the immolation of an animal; reciting
> prayers silently is a hundred times better; and mental prayer,
> tradition says, is a thousand times better. The four types of
> sacrifices with cooked food\* together with the sacrifices ordained in
> the Veda are not worth a sixteenth part of a sacrifice consisting of
> softly recited prayers. 11 Only through softly recited prayers does a
> Brahmin attain eternal bliss, in this there is no doubt. Whether he
> does other things or not, he is said to be a Brahmin who is a friend
> to all. 12 People who softly recite prayers, offer sacrifices,
> meditate, live at sacred fords, or have bathed after the ‘Head’
> vow\*––their sins do not endure.
>
>
>
>
>
**Ajapa Japa** is not necessarily MAnasa japa. It is something which is happening spontaneously in everyone of us continuously. Even if we consciously don't want to do it we are bound by nature to do it. It's the great **Hamsa** (one inhalation+one exhalation; Ha and Sah), the manifestation of the combined form Shiva (Ha)- Shakti (Sah) in all beings. | In the *Sandilya Upanishad* it says in Chapter 1 (*Thirty Minor Upanisads*, p 164, translator K. Narayanasvami Aiyar):
>
> ...*Japa* is the practicing of the mantras into which one is duly initiated by one's spiritual instructor, and which is not against [the rules of] the Vedas. It is of two kinds--the spoken and the mental. The mental is associated with contemplation by the mind. The spoken is of two kinds--the loud and the low. The loud pronunciation gives the reward as stated [in the Vedas]: [while] the low one gives a reward thousand times [of that]. The mental [gives] a reward a crore [times of that]...
>
>
>
Swami Vivekananda says (*Complete Works*, V1, p 190; available here under the heading Volume 1, *Raja Yoga*, sub-heading *Raja Yoga in Brief* - <http://www.advaitaashrama.org/cw/content.php>):
>
> The following are helps to success in Yoga and are called Niyama or regular habits and observances; Tapas, austerity; Svâdhyâya, study; Santosha, contentment; Shaucha, purity; Ishvara-pranidhâna, worshipping God. Fasting, or in other ways controlling the body, is called physical Tapas. Repeating the Vedas and other Mantras, by which the Sattva material in the body is purified, is called study, Svadhyaya. There are three sorts of repetitions of these Mantras. One is called the verbal, another semi-verbal, and the third mental. The verbal or audible is the lowest, and the inaudible is the highest of all. The repetition which is loud is the verbal; the next one is where only the lips move, but no sound is heard. The inaudible repetition of the Mantra, accompanied with the thinking of its meaning, is called the "mental repetition," and is the highest.
>
>
>
And in his translation of the *Mahanirvana Tantra*, Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodruffe) writes in his *Introduction*:
>
> *Japa* is defined as "*vidhanena mantrochcharanam*," or the repeated utterance or recitation of mantra according to certain rules. It is according to the Tantra-sara of three kinds: *Vachika* or verbal *japa*, in which the mantra is audibly recited, the fifty matrika being sounded nasally with *vindu*; *Upangshu-japa*, which is superior to the last kind, and in which the tongue and lips are moved, but no sound, or only a slight whisper, is heard; and, lastly, the highest form which is called *manasa-japa*, or mental utterance. In this there is neither sound nor movement of the external organs, but a repetition in the mind which is fixed on the meaning of mantra...
>
>
>
There are many references to the 3 ways that japa can be performed through many different scriptures - all of them in agreement. One should talk with one's own guru to learn what is best for one's self and under what circumstances and conditions. |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | I think the closest thing to a central organized list of libraries right now is:
<http://wiki.dlang.org/Libraries_and_Frameworks>
There is also the dub repository:
<http://code.dlang.org/> | DSource used to be the de facto standard place, but lately the trend seems to be to use Github. Unfortunately the community is in the middle of the transition, so you probably have to search both places. |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | DSource used to be the de facto standard place, but lately the trend seems to be to use Github. Unfortunately the community is in the middle of the transition, so you probably have to search both places. | D libraries are spread all over the net ;)
dsource, github and ohloh are good places to start the search. |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | DSource used to be the de facto standard place, but lately the trend seems to be to use Github. Unfortunately the community is in the middle of the transition, so you probably have to search both places. | 2014 update for late comers:
The new package/library management tool is called "dub" and its repositories are here:
<http://code.dlang.org/> |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | I think the closest thing to a central organized list of libraries right now is:
<http://wiki.dlang.org/Libraries_and_Frameworks>
There is also the dub repository:
<http://code.dlang.org/> | D libraries are spread all over the net ;)
dsource, github and ohloh are good places to start the search. |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | I think the closest thing to a central organized list of libraries right now is:
<http://wiki.dlang.org/Libraries_and_Frameworks>
There is also the dub repository:
<http://code.dlang.org/> | 2014 update for late comers:
The new package/library management tool is called "dub" and its repositories are here:
<http://code.dlang.org/> |
7,123,870 | I am looking for something like CTAN, CPAN, PyPI. A standard place for solid 3rd party libraries. There is Dsource but majority of the libraries seem to be defunct abandonware and dsource itself does not seem to have been updated since 2007. | 2011/08/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7123870",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/617371/"
] | 2014 update for late comers:
The new package/library management tool is called "dub" and its repositories are here:
<http://code.dlang.org/> | D libraries are spread all over the net ;)
dsource, github and ohloh are good places to start the search. |
3,874,280 | I am attempting to create an html document parser with Python. I am very familiar with jQuery and I would like to use its traversing functionality to parse these html files and return the data gathered with jQuery back to my Python program.
Is there any way to use javascript scripts through Python? Or is this just a pipe dream? | 2010/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3874280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/468160/"
] | You might not need to do this. There is a Python module called [PyQuery](http://packages.python.org/pyquery/) that directly emulates the API for jQuery. It works exactly as you would expect it to in almost every way. Give it a shot! | jQuery itself does not contain an HTML/XML parser at all. It uses the browser to do all its parsing. Thus, even if you figure out how to run Javascript from Python, it won't do you any good. |
3,874,280 | I am attempting to create an html document parser with Python. I am very familiar with jQuery and I would like to use its traversing functionality to parse these html files and return the data gathered with jQuery back to my Python program.
Is there any way to use javascript scripts through Python? Or is this just a pipe dream? | 2010/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3874280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/468160/"
] | jQuery itself does not contain an HTML/XML parser at all. It uses the browser to do all its parsing. Thus, even if you figure out how to run Javascript from Python, it won't do you any good. | Well from your question it seems you will require python-javascript bridge like
Pyjamas <http://pyjs.org/> , PyPy <http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/> , skulpt <http://www.skulpt.org/> . Or my personal favorite PyXPCOM <http://pyxpcomext.mozdev.org/> it installs a python backend directly into the firefox browser and using xpi stubs one can make bidirectioal calls ( mind you very complicated ) |
3,874,280 | I am attempting to create an html document parser with Python. I am very familiar with jQuery and I would like to use its traversing functionality to parse these html files and return the data gathered with jQuery back to my Python program.
Is there any way to use javascript scripts through Python? Or is this just a pipe dream? | 2010/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3874280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/468160/"
] | You might not need to do this. There is a Python module called [PyQuery](http://packages.python.org/pyquery/) that directly emulates the API for jQuery. It works exactly as you would expect it to in almost every way. Give it a shot! | jQuery doesn't parse HTML - it traverses the DOM. You'd need an entire rendering engine (e.g. [WebKit](http://webkit.org/)) if you wanted to use jQuery to work on the HTML. |
3,874,280 | I am attempting to create an html document parser with Python. I am very familiar with jQuery and I would like to use its traversing functionality to parse these html files and return the data gathered with jQuery back to my Python program.
Is there any way to use javascript scripts through Python? Or is this just a pipe dream? | 2010/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3874280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/468160/"
] | You might not need to do this. There is a Python module called [PyQuery](http://packages.python.org/pyquery/) that directly emulates the API for jQuery. It works exactly as you would expect it to in almost every way. Give it a shot! | Well from your question it seems you will require python-javascript bridge like
Pyjamas <http://pyjs.org/> , PyPy <http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/> , skulpt <http://www.skulpt.org/> . Or my personal favorite PyXPCOM <http://pyxpcomext.mozdev.org/> it installs a python backend directly into the firefox browser and using xpi stubs one can make bidirectioal calls ( mind you very complicated ) |
3,874,280 | I am attempting to create an html document parser with Python. I am very familiar with jQuery and I would like to use its traversing functionality to parse these html files and return the data gathered with jQuery back to my Python program.
Is there any way to use javascript scripts through Python? Or is this just a pipe dream? | 2010/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3874280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/468160/"
] | jQuery doesn't parse HTML - it traverses the DOM. You'd need an entire rendering engine (e.g. [WebKit](http://webkit.org/)) if you wanted to use jQuery to work on the HTML. | Well from your question it seems you will require python-javascript bridge like
Pyjamas <http://pyjs.org/> , PyPy <http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/> , skulpt <http://www.skulpt.org/> . Or my personal favorite PyXPCOM <http://pyxpcomext.mozdev.org/> it installs a python backend directly into the firefox browser and using xpi stubs one can make bidirectioal calls ( mind you very complicated ) |
55,233 | I'm working on a new website for my freelance UX design company. One feature that has done very well with usability testers so far is a new section of the site explaining my design process. Testers mentioned that this really sets my company apart from other design companies they have seen and it helps ease their concern that I have had fewer client projects than most other designers.
My process, which is based on projects I've done for multiple clients in the past year and a half, goes like this:
1. Understand users
2. Evaluate usability/design of existing site (heuristic evaluation)
3. Initial user test
4. Open and closed card sorting
5. Brainstorm and sketch
6. Select a theme (text: "We select a theme that will let the site look great on any device. We look for themes that allow extensive customization so that the site looks like yours, not someone else's.")
7. Wireframe
8. Prototype and customize the theme (iterate on 5-8 as necessary)
9. Prepare for launch: "We work with developers to help our vision for your site become a reality and perform as well as it can. Bringing our previous development experience, we understand what can and can't be built well."
10. Go live
With average users doing the rest of the tests on my company's new site, I had one more senior UX designer test it. (This was on purpose. Since I've never been part of a larger UX team, I was looking for a design review.) His feedback was very helpful. Two of his questions really got me thinking about my process:
1. Why step 6 (select a theme)? It sounds like you're just going to ThemeForest, which won't necessarily give me the best possible result. (He's right about going to ThemeForest, though I've customized themes so extensively that the original theme is hardly recognizable.)
2. Why would you create wireframes if you're using a theme?
For my clients, customizing themes has worked well so far. But in my industry, clients' sizes, budgets, and customization needs vary quite widely. Some need a team of developers or, at least, one developer doing full-stack development work. Doing full-stack dev work myself isn't an option for me and doesn't seem cost-effective.
Currently, I don't have the budget to hire a developer. Potential future projects, including some longer-term ones with bigger teams that are probably another 1-2 years out, may give me the chance to hire contractors. But without any projects on the horizon that look like they will definitely need this, I can't say yet how the development step will definitely be handled.
If you were in this situation and writing about each step of your process on your company's website, how would you address the development step?
**Edit** - On some of the theme customization projects, I worked with the client's in-house webmaster / back-end developer. | 2014/04/04 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55233",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13930/"
] | Answering this question is hard because we are not you and we don't know what you do and how, so assuming that the steps you posted are the steps and order that you follow, then that is the right answer.
But, less assume that you want to change that aspect of your communication with your clients, not necessarily change your steps, although a little change would be great.
First lets tackle the problems with what you posted.
For steps 3 to 5 I'd ask, of what? grammatically, it says that you are testing and investigating the existing site from the user perspective to complement your personal expert opinion, is that so? If it is, then a little longer explanation would be good so there is no possible misunderstanding. Then you would have to repeat those steps later with the wireframes of the new site, otherwise, you are stating that the original design may have problems but yours doesn't and that what you do is exactly what users and stakeholders want, which sounds arrogant or irresponsible.
Step 6, in that position is wrong on many levels. First states clearly that you don't design, second that you copy (even if it's just as a base design), third that you have no idea what is the relevance and use of a wireframe and prototype, which most probably is not the case since you mention them, but then it can be seen also as that you are just using them as buzzwords that you don't understand and that's why you put them in the wrong order, for users with zero understanding it may be OK that way, but for clients with a little bit of knowledge, it may sound bad and it may reduce their confidence on you.
If the creation of the aesthetics and design of the site is something that you want to make relevant to your clients, do it but in the right position, after you have done the wireframing and tested it. If it's not relevant because you focus on usability, accessibility and/or UX, then leave it out from that list and mention it later. For instance separate the information in sections, one section for the Information architecture of the site and another one for the design.
Steps 7 and 8 should not be after selecting the theme, the theme has to adapt to the needs of the site, which has to adapt to the needs of the user and stakeholders.
Steps 9 and 10 are OK, although you don't mention any post launch analysis, may be you don't do any, and then you are honest; in that case, you should start doing it. If you do it, then don't leave it out of the list, is one of the most important aspects to remind the client that you are there to help them get the site working properly, not that you are going to abandon them as soon as you can.
After that long but not too deep analysis of your steps, lets see how you can adapt those steps to better help you user, and may be yourself. I'm considering that you already have enough experience to decide what is a good starting design for a website, and flexible enough to adapt it to your clients and his users needs.
1. Interview users.
2. Analyse usability of the existing site.
3. Analyse design of the existing site.
4. Present conclusions and options to the client.
5. Design a wireframe
6. Test the wireframe with users and stakeholders.
7. Adjust the wireframe and generate final prototype.
8. Create the visual design (This, obviously, happens together with step 5, but as a separate item looks like you are doing more detailed work, which is also true).
9. Implement the visual design and fuse aesthetics and functionality.
10. Launch.
11. Post launch analysis.
12. Fix or adjust details.
Those steps don't cover everything and the text is not final, but gives you an idea of how to write the process from a UX perspective where you don't mention details that are not relevant to the client, like choosing a theme instead of doing original design, but gives the right weight to select and test things for the benefit of the final user. It's also a similar process for the development fase, you can mention that you can work with their team. But you have to make very clear that you don't have much development or designing capabilities, not because you don't know the area, but because you focus on a different one.
Of course each step can be explained with as much detail as you want on your site, giving the client the option to really understand how each step works and how it relates to the whole process.
You also should mention somewhere the burocratic process, like payments, way of communication, expectation of input from the client, timing for deliverables, etc, but that can be on another section of your site. I'm sure that would also be a good thing for your clients and you since that stablishes from the beginning the way you are going to interact with them.
All the above mentioned is similar to what we use to do in our company, although we don't have that explanation online now while we are transitioning to a new design. We had a page about the interaction with the client that was like a timeline to show the evolution of the process, one page to talk about design specifics, one to talk about analysis and tests and one just to explain the relevance of the content that the user has to write/deliver. | Since you are a freelance person. Developers are involved at the planning phases each of your steps: 1, 3, 5,6,8,9, 10.
The clients must approve your designs before the developers start implementing the design to code. During the planning process, the developers will be able to estimate how long the development would take place once the Clients have approved the design. |
55,233 | I'm working on a new website for my freelance UX design company. One feature that has done very well with usability testers so far is a new section of the site explaining my design process. Testers mentioned that this really sets my company apart from other design companies they have seen and it helps ease their concern that I have had fewer client projects than most other designers.
My process, which is based on projects I've done for multiple clients in the past year and a half, goes like this:
1. Understand users
2. Evaluate usability/design of existing site (heuristic evaluation)
3. Initial user test
4. Open and closed card sorting
5. Brainstorm and sketch
6. Select a theme (text: "We select a theme that will let the site look great on any device. We look for themes that allow extensive customization so that the site looks like yours, not someone else's.")
7. Wireframe
8. Prototype and customize the theme (iterate on 5-8 as necessary)
9. Prepare for launch: "We work with developers to help our vision for your site become a reality and perform as well as it can. Bringing our previous development experience, we understand what can and can't be built well."
10. Go live
With average users doing the rest of the tests on my company's new site, I had one more senior UX designer test it. (This was on purpose. Since I've never been part of a larger UX team, I was looking for a design review.) His feedback was very helpful. Two of his questions really got me thinking about my process:
1. Why step 6 (select a theme)? It sounds like you're just going to ThemeForest, which won't necessarily give me the best possible result. (He's right about going to ThemeForest, though I've customized themes so extensively that the original theme is hardly recognizable.)
2. Why would you create wireframes if you're using a theme?
For my clients, customizing themes has worked well so far. But in my industry, clients' sizes, budgets, and customization needs vary quite widely. Some need a team of developers or, at least, one developer doing full-stack development work. Doing full-stack dev work myself isn't an option for me and doesn't seem cost-effective.
Currently, I don't have the budget to hire a developer. Potential future projects, including some longer-term ones with bigger teams that are probably another 1-2 years out, may give me the chance to hire contractors. But without any projects on the horizon that look like they will definitely need this, I can't say yet how the development step will definitely be handled.
If you were in this situation and writing about each step of your process on your company's website, how would you address the development step?
**Edit** - On some of the theme customization projects, I worked with the client's in-house webmaster / back-end developer. | 2014/04/04 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55233",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13930/"
] | Since you are a freelance person. Developers are involved at the planning phases each of your steps: 1, 3, 5,6,8,9, 10.
The clients must approve your designs before the developers start implementing the design to code. During the planning process, the developers will be able to estimate how long the development would take place once the Clients have approved the design. | Your question is a bit vague.
First you ask "how to describe dev.step", then you ask about *our* process. On top of that you raise a few issues during your background description.
I have some comments, answers and questions that might be helpful.
1) Who is your user group?
--------------------------
When you want to describe your process, you need to understand that this is *not* a CV or a job application or an examination answer. You are describing this to your potential customer. Thus you need to think about what *they* want to know, what they *need* to know, what you want them to know.
This is really important!
You have thrown a senior UX designer into the test. Are any of your customers "fellow designers" that knows about wireframes and what you mean by "select a theme"?
Or are your customers "end users" that runs their own coffee bar or their own thrift shop?
That's a big difference right there. The cashier might consider "theme" to be the visual tone of the site (retro, modern, flower-power, princess, pirate), while the fellow designer would think about WordPress themes.
2) What's important for the customer?
-------------------------------------
I can assure you that most customers are concerned about the overall cost of the work. While *we* will argue that "a proper job must be carried out", the end user will have some budget or limit they need to keep in mind. When they look at the process you describe, they would probably want to get a rough feeling about how much time you spend on each step, and they would probably use this to track progress.
The customer would also like to know where in the process *they* are involved and where in the process they can see some results.
3) What's important for you?
----------------------------
For your sake, it is nice to be able to point the user to a description of the process. Make it clear for the end user what you will do, so that you wont enter some arguments about what's necessary to do in the process.
This will also work as an implicit state and progress report.
4) The simplest process ever...
-------------------------------
I love the waterfall model for it's simplicity. Even if the strict waterfall process isn't suitable for running projects, it very nice for simple explanations:
*What* should we create **->** *How* should we create it **->** *Create* it **->** *Test* it
5) How to describe "development"
--------------------------------
I don't believe it's necessary for the customer to know whether this step is outsourced or not. They just want to know that it's properly done.
In general, I believe "development" it self is explanatory, but you could use terms like:
* Implementation of features
* Customization of functionality
* Let's *create* the god damn thing
---
>
> **Bottom line:**
>
> *Step into the mindset of your customers and figure out
>
> what they want to know and
>
> what they need to know...*
>
>
> Be sure that the explanations are in the language of the customers.
>
>
> |
55,233 | I'm working on a new website for my freelance UX design company. One feature that has done very well with usability testers so far is a new section of the site explaining my design process. Testers mentioned that this really sets my company apart from other design companies they have seen and it helps ease their concern that I have had fewer client projects than most other designers.
My process, which is based on projects I've done for multiple clients in the past year and a half, goes like this:
1. Understand users
2. Evaluate usability/design of existing site (heuristic evaluation)
3. Initial user test
4. Open and closed card sorting
5. Brainstorm and sketch
6. Select a theme (text: "We select a theme that will let the site look great on any device. We look for themes that allow extensive customization so that the site looks like yours, not someone else's.")
7. Wireframe
8. Prototype and customize the theme (iterate on 5-8 as necessary)
9. Prepare for launch: "We work with developers to help our vision for your site become a reality and perform as well as it can. Bringing our previous development experience, we understand what can and can't be built well."
10. Go live
With average users doing the rest of the tests on my company's new site, I had one more senior UX designer test it. (This was on purpose. Since I've never been part of a larger UX team, I was looking for a design review.) His feedback was very helpful. Two of his questions really got me thinking about my process:
1. Why step 6 (select a theme)? It sounds like you're just going to ThemeForest, which won't necessarily give me the best possible result. (He's right about going to ThemeForest, though I've customized themes so extensively that the original theme is hardly recognizable.)
2. Why would you create wireframes if you're using a theme?
For my clients, customizing themes has worked well so far. But in my industry, clients' sizes, budgets, and customization needs vary quite widely. Some need a team of developers or, at least, one developer doing full-stack development work. Doing full-stack dev work myself isn't an option for me and doesn't seem cost-effective.
Currently, I don't have the budget to hire a developer. Potential future projects, including some longer-term ones with bigger teams that are probably another 1-2 years out, may give me the chance to hire contractors. But without any projects on the horizon that look like they will definitely need this, I can't say yet how the development step will definitely be handled.
If you were in this situation and writing about each step of your process on your company's website, how would you address the development step?
**Edit** - On some of the theme customization projects, I worked with the client's in-house webmaster / back-end developer. | 2014/04/04 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55233",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13930/"
] | Since you are a freelance person. Developers are involved at the planning phases each of your steps: 1, 3, 5,6,8,9, 10.
The clients must approve your designs before the developers start implementing the design to code. During the planning process, the developers will be able to estimate how long the development would take place once the Clients have approved the design. | I just want to address the part of your question that revolves around describing development.
It will always be **'Bringing the intended to life'.** If you follow that chain of thought you could describe it as **'translating functionality and aesthetics into code'**. This statement gets the most singular interpretation in my experience. It is intended to replace step 8 of your process. Themes do exactly that, as will your future stack of developers or contractors.
I do not want to say 'translating design into code', I prefer to mention aesthetics & functionality as it is the result of the design process.
Even though you use themes, as your business grows you probably wont be if you follow the path to cultivating a development stack. And either way, in the foreseeable future if design is easier to implement, you would still be 'translating aesthetics & functionality into code' when you enter the development phase.
To make it all come together consider describing step 6 as 'Visual Design'; As suggested by a others who have answered this question.
The language you use needs to be dynamic in its ability to deliver a message that adjusts to the scale of your operations whether big or small. |
55,233 | I'm working on a new website for my freelance UX design company. One feature that has done very well with usability testers so far is a new section of the site explaining my design process. Testers mentioned that this really sets my company apart from other design companies they have seen and it helps ease their concern that I have had fewer client projects than most other designers.
My process, which is based on projects I've done for multiple clients in the past year and a half, goes like this:
1. Understand users
2. Evaluate usability/design of existing site (heuristic evaluation)
3. Initial user test
4. Open and closed card sorting
5. Brainstorm and sketch
6. Select a theme (text: "We select a theme that will let the site look great on any device. We look for themes that allow extensive customization so that the site looks like yours, not someone else's.")
7. Wireframe
8. Prototype and customize the theme (iterate on 5-8 as necessary)
9. Prepare for launch: "We work with developers to help our vision for your site become a reality and perform as well as it can. Bringing our previous development experience, we understand what can and can't be built well."
10. Go live
With average users doing the rest of the tests on my company's new site, I had one more senior UX designer test it. (This was on purpose. Since I've never been part of a larger UX team, I was looking for a design review.) His feedback was very helpful. Two of his questions really got me thinking about my process:
1. Why step 6 (select a theme)? It sounds like you're just going to ThemeForest, which won't necessarily give me the best possible result. (He's right about going to ThemeForest, though I've customized themes so extensively that the original theme is hardly recognizable.)
2. Why would you create wireframes if you're using a theme?
For my clients, customizing themes has worked well so far. But in my industry, clients' sizes, budgets, and customization needs vary quite widely. Some need a team of developers or, at least, one developer doing full-stack development work. Doing full-stack dev work myself isn't an option for me and doesn't seem cost-effective.
Currently, I don't have the budget to hire a developer. Potential future projects, including some longer-term ones with bigger teams that are probably another 1-2 years out, may give me the chance to hire contractors. But without any projects on the horizon that look like they will definitely need this, I can't say yet how the development step will definitely be handled.
If you were in this situation and writing about each step of your process on your company's website, how would you address the development step?
**Edit** - On some of the theme customization projects, I worked with the client's in-house webmaster / back-end developer. | 2014/04/04 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55233",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13930/"
] | Answering this question is hard because we are not you and we don't know what you do and how, so assuming that the steps you posted are the steps and order that you follow, then that is the right answer.
But, less assume that you want to change that aspect of your communication with your clients, not necessarily change your steps, although a little change would be great.
First lets tackle the problems with what you posted.
For steps 3 to 5 I'd ask, of what? grammatically, it says that you are testing and investigating the existing site from the user perspective to complement your personal expert opinion, is that so? If it is, then a little longer explanation would be good so there is no possible misunderstanding. Then you would have to repeat those steps later with the wireframes of the new site, otherwise, you are stating that the original design may have problems but yours doesn't and that what you do is exactly what users and stakeholders want, which sounds arrogant or irresponsible.
Step 6, in that position is wrong on many levels. First states clearly that you don't design, second that you copy (even if it's just as a base design), third that you have no idea what is the relevance and use of a wireframe and prototype, which most probably is not the case since you mention them, but then it can be seen also as that you are just using them as buzzwords that you don't understand and that's why you put them in the wrong order, for users with zero understanding it may be OK that way, but for clients with a little bit of knowledge, it may sound bad and it may reduce their confidence on you.
If the creation of the aesthetics and design of the site is something that you want to make relevant to your clients, do it but in the right position, after you have done the wireframing and tested it. If it's not relevant because you focus on usability, accessibility and/or UX, then leave it out from that list and mention it later. For instance separate the information in sections, one section for the Information architecture of the site and another one for the design.
Steps 7 and 8 should not be after selecting the theme, the theme has to adapt to the needs of the site, which has to adapt to the needs of the user and stakeholders.
Steps 9 and 10 are OK, although you don't mention any post launch analysis, may be you don't do any, and then you are honest; in that case, you should start doing it. If you do it, then don't leave it out of the list, is one of the most important aspects to remind the client that you are there to help them get the site working properly, not that you are going to abandon them as soon as you can.
After that long but not too deep analysis of your steps, lets see how you can adapt those steps to better help you user, and may be yourself. I'm considering that you already have enough experience to decide what is a good starting design for a website, and flexible enough to adapt it to your clients and his users needs.
1. Interview users.
2. Analyse usability of the existing site.
3. Analyse design of the existing site.
4. Present conclusions and options to the client.
5. Design a wireframe
6. Test the wireframe with users and stakeholders.
7. Adjust the wireframe and generate final prototype.
8. Create the visual design (This, obviously, happens together with step 5, but as a separate item looks like you are doing more detailed work, which is also true).
9. Implement the visual design and fuse aesthetics and functionality.
10. Launch.
11. Post launch analysis.
12. Fix or adjust details.
Those steps don't cover everything and the text is not final, but gives you an idea of how to write the process from a UX perspective where you don't mention details that are not relevant to the client, like choosing a theme instead of doing original design, but gives the right weight to select and test things for the benefit of the final user. It's also a similar process for the development fase, you can mention that you can work with their team. But you have to make very clear that you don't have much development or designing capabilities, not because you don't know the area, but because you focus on a different one.
Of course each step can be explained with as much detail as you want on your site, giving the client the option to really understand how each step works and how it relates to the whole process.
You also should mention somewhere the burocratic process, like payments, way of communication, expectation of input from the client, timing for deliverables, etc, but that can be on another section of your site. I'm sure that would also be a good thing for your clients and you since that stablishes from the beginning the way you are going to interact with them.
All the above mentioned is similar to what we use to do in our company, although we don't have that explanation online now while we are transitioning to a new design. We had a page about the interaction with the client that was like a timeline to show the evolution of the process, one page to talk about design specifics, one to talk about analysis and tests and one just to explain the relevance of the content that the user has to write/deliver. | Your question is a bit vague.
First you ask "how to describe dev.step", then you ask about *our* process. On top of that you raise a few issues during your background description.
I have some comments, answers and questions that might be helpful.
1) Who is your user group?
--------------------------
When you want to describe your process, you need to understand that this is *not* a CV or a job application or an examination answer. You are describing this to your potential customer. Thus you need to think about what *they* want to know, what they *need* to know, what you want them to know.
This is really important!
You have thrown a senior UX designer into the test. Are any of your customers "fellow designers" that knows about wireframes and what you mean by "select a theme"?
Or are your customers "end users" that runs their own coffee bar or their own thrift shop?
That's a big difference right there. The cashier might consider "theme" to be the visual tone of the site (retro, modern, flower-power, princess, pirate), while the fellow designer would think about WordPress themes.
2) What's important for the customer?
-------------------------------------
I can assure you that most customers are concerned about the overall cost of the work. While *we* will argue that "a proper job must be carried out", the end user will have some budget or limit they need to keep in mind. When they look at the process you describe, they would probably want to get a rough feeling about how much time you spend on each step, and they would probably use this to track progress.
The customer would also like to know where in the process *they* are involved and where in the process they can see some results.
3) What's important for you?
----------------------------
For your sake, it is nice to be able to point the user to a description of the process. Make it clear for the end user what you will do, so that you wont enter some arguments about what's necessary to do in the process.
This will also work as an implicit state and progress report.
4) The simplest process ever...
-------------------------------
I love the waterfall model for it's simplicity. Even if the strict waterfall process isn't suitable for running projects, it very nice for simple explanations:
*What* should we create **->** *How* should we create it **->** *Create* it **->** *Test* it
5) How to describe "development"
--------------------------------
I don't believe it's necessary for the customer to know whether this step is outsourced or not. They just want to know that it's properly done.
In general, I believe "development" it self is explanatory, but you could use terms like:
* Implementation of features
* Customization of functionality
* Let's *create* the god damn thing
---
>
> **Bottom line:**
>
> *Step into the mindset of your customers and figure out
>
> what they want to know and
>
> what they need to know...*
>
>
> Be sure that the explanations are in the language of the customers.
>
>
> |
55,233 | I'm working on a new website for my freelance UX design company. One feature that has done very well with usability testers so far is a new section of the site explaining my design process. Testers mentioned that this really sets my company apart from other design companies they have seen and it helps ease their concern that I have had fewer client projects than most other designers.
My process, which is based on projects I've done for multiple clients in the past year and a half, goes like this:
1. Understand users
2. Evaluate usability/design of existing site (heuristic evaluation)
3. Initial user test
4. Open and closed card sorting
5. Brainstorm and sketch
6. Select a theme (text: "We select a theme that will let the site look great on any device. We look for themes that allow extensive customization so that the site looks like yours, not someone else's.")
7. Wireframe
8. Prototype and customize the theme (iterate on 5-8 as necessary)
9. Prepare for launch: "We work with developers to help our vision for your site become a reality and perform as well as it can. Bringing our previous development experience, we understand what can and can't be built well."
10. Go live
With average users doing the rest of the tests on my company's new site, I had one more senior UX designer test it. (This was on purpose. Since I've never been part of a larger UX team, I was looking for a design review.) His feedback was very helpful. Two of his questions really got me thinking about my process:
1. Why step 6 (select a theme)? It sounds like you're just going to ThemeForest, which won't necessarily give me the best possible result. (He's right about going to ThemeForest, though I've customized themes so extensively that the original theme is hardly recognizable.)
2. Why would you create wireframes if you're using a theme?
For my clients, customizing themes has worked well so far. But in my industry, clients' sizes, budgets, and customization needs vary quite widely. Some need a team of developers or, at least, one developer doing full-stack development work. Doing full-stack dev work myself isn't an option for me and doesn't seem cost-effective.
Currently, I don't have the budget to hire a developer. Potential future projects, including some longer-term ones with bigger teams that are probably another 1-2 years out, may give me the chance to hire contractors. But without any projects on the horizon that look like they will definitely need this, I can't say yet how the development step will definitely be handled.
If you were in this situation and writing about each step of your process on your company's website, how would you address the development step?
**Edit** - On some of the theme customization projects, I worked with the client's in-house webmaster / back-end developer. | 2014/04/04 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55233",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13930/"
] | Answering this question is hard because we are not you and we don't know what you do and how, so assuming that the steps you posted are the steps and order that you follow, then that is the right answer.
But, less assume that you want to change that aspect of your communication with your clients, not necessarily change your steps, although a little change would be great.
First lets tackle the problems with what you posted.
For steps 3 to 5 I'd ask, of what? grammatically, it says that you are testing and investigating the existing site from the user perspective to complement your personal expert opinion, is that so? If it is, then a little longer explanation would be good so there is no possible misunderstanding. Then you would have to repeat those steps later with the wireframes of the new site, otherwise, you are stating that the original design may have problems but yours doesn't and that what you do is exactly what users and stakeholders want, which sounds arrogant or irresponsible.
Step 6, in that position is wrong on many levels. First states clearly that you don't design, second that you copy (even if it's just as a base design), third that you have no idea what is the relevance and use of a wireframe and prototype, which most probably is not the case since you mention them, but then it can be seen also as that you are just using them as buzzwords that you don't understand and that's why you put them in the wrong order, for users with zero understanding it may be OK that way, but for clients with a little bit of knowledge, it may sound bad and it may reduce their confidence on you.
If the creation of the aesthetics and design of the site is something that you want to make relevant to your clients, do it but in the right position, after you have done the wireframing and tested it. If it's not relevant because you focus on usability, accessibility and/or UX, then leave it out from that list and mention it later. For instance separate the information in sections, one section for the Information architecture of the site and another one for the design.
Steps 7 and 8 should not be after selecting the theme, the theme has to adapt to the needs of the site, which has to adapt to the needs of the user and stakeholders.
Steps 9 and 10 are OK, although you don't mention any post launch analysis, may be you don't do any, and then you are honest; in that case, you should start doing it. If you do it, then don't leave it out of the list, is one of the most important aspects to remind the client that you are there to help them get the site working properly, not that you are going to abandon them as soon as you can.
After that long but not too deep analysis of your steps, lets see how you can adapt those steps to better help you user, and may be yourself. I'm considering that you already have enough experience to decide what is a good starting design for a website, and flexible enough to adapt it to your clients and his users needs.
1. Interview users.
2. Analyse usability of the existing site.
3. Analyse design of the existing site.
4. Present conclusions and options to the client.
5. Design a wireframe
6. Test the wireframe with users and stakeholders.
7. Adjust the wireframe and generate final prototype.
8. Create the visual design (This, obviously, happens together with step 5, but as a separate item looks like you are doing more detailed work, which is also true).
9. Implement the visual design and fuse aesthetics and functionality.
10. Launch.
11. Post launch analysis.
12. Fix or adjust details.
Those steps don't cover everything and the text is not final, but gives you an idea of how to write the process from a UX perspective where you don't mention details that are not relevant to the client, like choosing a theme instead of doing original design, but gives the right weight to select and test things for the benefit of the final user. It's also a similar process for the development fase, you can mention that you can work with their team. But you have to make very clear that you don't have much development or designing capabilities, not because you don't know the area, but because you focus on a different one.
Of course each step can be explained with as much detail as you want on your site, giving the client the option to really understand how each step works and how it relates to the whole process.
You also should mention somewhere the burocratic process, like payments, way of communication, expectation of input from the client, timing for deliverables, etc, but that can be on another section of your site. I'm sure that would also be a good thing for your clients and you since that stablishes from the beginning the way you are going to interact with them.
All the above mentioned is similar to what we use to do in our company, although we don't have that explanation online now while we are transitioning to a new design. We had a page about the interaction with the client that was like a timeline to show the evolution of the process, one page to talk about design specifics, one to talk about analysis and tests and one just to explain the relevance of the content that the user has to write/deliver. | I just want to address the part of your question that revolves around describing development.
It will always be **'Bringing the intended to life'.** If you follow that chain of thought you could describe it as **'translating functionality and aesthetics into code'**. This statement gets the most singular interpretation in my experience. It is intended to replace step 8 of your process. Themes do exactly that, as will your future stack of developers or contractors.
I do not want to say 'translating design into code', I prefer to mention aesthetics & functionality as it is the result of the design process.
Even though you use themes, as your business grows you probably wont be if you follow the path to cultivating a development stack. And either way, in the foreseeable future if design is easier to implement, you would still be 'translating aesthetics & functionality into code' when you enter the development phase.
To make it all come together consider describing step 6 as 'Visual Design'; As suggested by a others who have answered this question.
The language you use needs to be dynamic in its ability to deliver a message that adjusts to the scale of your operations whether big or small. |
48,157,909 | I've been starting to learn about DDD and I have couple of questions so that I can improve my understanding of it.
So a typical DDD architecture looks like this
Domain Layer => this layer should be technology agnostic and should contain the following
Domain.Entities (different from the persistence layer Entities, should contain only validation rules ? any other domain business should go here?)
Domain.ValueObjects (objects that do not require to be unique in the domain, should contain only validation rules)
Domain.Services (this layer should contain business logic that although related to an Aggregate, does not fit into the Aggregate itself. orchestrators for operations that require multi Domain.Entities and/or Domain.ValueObjects collaborating together)
Domain.Factories ( this layer is somehow not fully understood, i mean it's responsibility is to create Aggregates or what ?) Is it purely the Factory Design Pattern or is different from it?
Domain.Repositories (this layer is also ambiguous, except for the fact that i know that this layer is responsible to communicate with external services, what type of business logic should it handle?)
Anti-corruption layer (this layer should act as a gateway between the Domain layer and the Application Layer, it should be responsible with Translation of responses and requests from one layer to the other)
Application Layer => should only be used to expose data in a format easy to understand by the Client. Filtering is done in this layer (Linq-To-SQL) / (Linq-To-Entity)
Client (final layer) => should be free of any logic only exposes the models that the Application Layer Services provides.
other Layers as I see them
Shared.Kernel (Domain.ValueObjects / Domain.Entites (not AggregateRoots) that are shared across multiple Bounded Contexts)
Infrastructure.Domain.Common(shared across the entire Domain, ex AggregateRoot, BaseEntity, BaseValueObject etc)
Infrastructure.DataAccess.Provider(example EntityFramework / nHibernate/ MongoDriver , with whom this layer should communicate ? the Application Layer ? | 2018/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48157909",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | DDD does not define a layering approach. It simply recommends that one be used. I would suggest reading up on Clean/Hexagonal/Onion layering. This approach is consistent with DDD and broadly endorsed.
[Hexagonal](http://alistair.cockburn.us/Hexagonal+architecture)
[Clean](https://8thlight.com/blog/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html)
[Onion](http://jeffreypalermo.com/blog/the-onion-architecture-part-1/)
Don't let the different names fool you, the approaches are very similar, if not identical. | Honestly, the premise for domain driven design will vary based on the application requirements, business mission, and underlying architecture that may dictate the application. The simplest interpretation for domain driven design.
* Data Layer : An abstracted data layer, a separation of concerns from the graphical user interface.
* Domain Layer : Your business rules and logic, the fundamental foundation of the company requirements, mission.
* Service Layer : Not required, but to act as a mediator between the graphical user interface and the data layer. A clear concise translation between modeled data to a business entity.
* Application Layer : Your user interface, providing core business functionality to the user, in a meaningful way.
The important concept, no layer relies on one another. They're all independent and acting as a compliment to one another. You've dabbled into more specific contextual notions, all aren't relevant or viable in every application.
Based on your examples, you may abstract your domain outward to a point that the layer may be anemic, not holding enough relevant or useful information. A traditional tiered application, if written in a micro service approach, circular approach (clean architecture), or a hierarchical approach can be domain driven design. Because each approach or style is using the fundamental purpose of domain driven design, capturing the business purpose and mission.
An application isn't domain driven design because you have a layer. Your application will follow a series of principles to be domain driven design compliant. Those principles are to ensure your application adapts to the business shifts. Holding a core logic that represents the business, while pivoting as the business goals change throughout the life of the company. They often fall to the side of loose coupling.
Half of the above layers you mentioned, are patterns of complexity to solve a problem. All tools have a purpose, like a pattern, a screw driver is used for problem x, a factory may solve x, but repository may solve y. Not every pattern fits every use. They aren't cookie cutter solutions to problems.
A lot of material exist on the subject. Fowler, Evans, Vaughn, and countless others. |
48,157,909 | I've been starting to learn about DDD and I have couple of questions so that I can improve my understanding of it.
So a typical DDD architecture looks like this
Domain Layer => this layer should be technology agnostic and should contain the following
Domain.Entities (different from the persistence layer Entities, should contain only validation rules ? any other domain business should go here?)
Domain.ValueObjects (objects that do not require to be unique in the domain, should contain only validation rules)
Domain.Services (this layer should contain business logic that although related to an Aggregate, does not fit into the Aggregate itself. orchestrators for operations that require multi Domain.Entities and/or Domain.ValueObjects collaborating together)
Domain.Factories ( this layer is somehow not fully understood, i mean it's responsibility is to create Aggregates or what ?) Is it purely the Factory Design Pattern or is different from it?
Domain.Repositories (this layer is also ambiguous, except for the fact that i know that this layer is responsible to communicate with external services, what type of business logic should it handle?)
Anti-corruption layer (this layer should act as a gateway between the Domain layer and the Application Layer, it should be responsible with Translation of responses and requests from one layer to the other)
Application Layer => should only be used to expose data in a format easy to understand by the Client. Filtering is done in this layer (Linq-To-SQL) / (Linq-To-Entity)
Client (final layer) => should be free of any logic only exposes the models that the Application Layer Services provides.
other Layers as I see them
Shared.Kernel (Domain.ValueObjects / Domain.Entites (not AggregateRoots) that are shared across multiple Bounded Contexts)
Infrastructure.Domain.Common(shared across the entire Domain, ex AggregateRoot, BaseEntity, BaseValueObject etc)
Infrastructure.DataAccess.Provider(example EntityFramework / nHibernate/ MongoDriver , with whom this layer should communicate ? the Application Layer ? | 2018/01/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/48157909",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The place to start with DDD is "the blue book": [Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans](http://a.co/eIlQQtK)
>
> a typical DDD architecture looks like
>
>
>
[a layered architecture](https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/software-architecture-patterns/page/2/layered-architecture). Evans recaps four conceptual layers
* User Interface
* Application
* Domain
* Infrastructure
In Chapter 4 (Isolating the Domain), Evans points out
>
> The part of the software that specifically solves problems from the domain usually constitutes only a small portion of the entire software system, although its importance is disproportionate to its size. To apply our best thinking, we need to be able to look at the elements of our model and see them as a system.... We need to decouple the domain objects from other functions of the system, so we can avoid confusing the domain concepts with other concepts related only to software technology or losing sight of the domain altogether....
>
>
>
Within the "domain layer", Evans recognizes two different sets of concerns.
Domain entities, value objects, and domain services model the business in the software (Chapter 5). In other words, these elements the model the concepts that your domain experts would recognize.
Repositories and Factories are life cycle concerns - not strictly related to the business as the experts would recognize it, but instead acting as the boundary between the application layer and the domain layer.
In Evan's formulation, the validation of business rules typically lives in the domain entities (not domain services). As is common in OO styles, the domain entities combine state (domain values) and behavior (rules for change) -- any change to a persistence layer entity (you are right, not the same thing) happens because of code executed by a domain entity.
[Anti corruption layers](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/anti-corruption-layer) more about integrating with an external data source (perhaps a legacy system) then they are about integrating with the application layer.
>
> Implement a façade or adapter layer between a modern application and a legacy system that it depends on. This layer translates requests between the modern application and the legacy system. Use this pattern to ensure that an application's design is not limited by dependencies on legacy systems.
>
>
>
You might want to review the DDD Sample application available on [github](https://github.com/citerus/dddsample-core). It's a decent sketch of how the different pieces might fit together.
Note: these days, the layered architecture has lost ground to some of the other alternatives, and we are beginning to see more work on implementing the domain model with a functional core (rather than the OO style). | Honestly, the premise for domain driven design will vary based on the application requirements, business mission, and underlying architecture that may dictate the application. The simplest interpretation for domain driven design.
* Data Layer : An abstracted data layer, a separation of concerns from the graphical user interface.
* Domain Layer : Your business rules and logic, the fundamental foundation of the company requirements, mission.
* Service Layer : Not required, but to act as a mediator between the graphical user interface and the data layer. A clear concise translation between modeled data to a business entity.
* Application Layer : Your user interface, providing core business functionality to the user, in a meaningful way.
The important concept, no layer relies on one another. They're all independent and acting as a compliment to one another. You've dabbled into more specific contextual notions, all aren't relevant or viable in every application.
Based on your examples, you may abstract your domain outward to a point that the layer may be anemic, not holding enough relevant or useful information. A traditional tiered application, if written in a micro service approach, circular approach (clean architecture), or a hierarchical approach can be domain driven design. Because each approach or style is using the fundamental purpose of domain driven design, capturing the business purpose and mission.
An application isn't domain driven design because you have a layer. Your application will follow a series of principles to be domain driven design compliant. Those principles are to ensure your application adapts to the business shifts. Holding a core logic that represents the business, while pivoting as the business goals change throughout the life of the company. They often fall to the side of loose coupling.
Half of the above layers you mentioned, are patterns of complexity to solve a problem. All tools have a purpose, like a pattern, a screw driver is used for problem x, a factory may solve x, but repository may solve y. Not every pattern fits every use. They aren't cookie cutter solutions to problems.
A lot of material exist on the subject. Fowler, Evans, Vaughn, and countless others. |
65,045 | What does it mean by Live AR in music performance? Sometimes, they also put it as Live AR mic open in the setlist/cue sheet of the live music performance/concert. | 2017/12/30 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/65045",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/46640/"
] | It is possible you saw the cue for the Audience Reaction mic. When recording live performance you often want to include the applause in the mix. Mics are set over the audience to separate tracks for mixing. Also used for the Laugh Track on Television shows. | In this context it usually refers to a microphone that's dedicated to picking up any audience response to the performance. |
20,261 | It takes a bit of prep to make an iPad dog safe and vice versa; but after a heavy duty screen protector and a rugged case our dog has his own iPad.
He loves the app, Games for Dogs.
I’m hoping to find some more iPad games for dogs. Any suggestions? | 2018/04/28 | [
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/20261",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com",
"https://pets.stackexchange.com/users/12035/"
] | I could be wrong, but I don't think you're going to have success with anything but the most basic games for a dog. If there isn't something about the game that the dog immediately finds fun, it's probably not going to be interested in it. A video game is not like one of those toys you can hide treats in, where it'll be obvious to the dog there's a reward to be had. Dogs have to be trained in types of play that don't come naturally to them and the reward isn't immediately obvious, like they have to be trained to use an automatic ball thrower.
When young children play video games, they'll often become obsessed with some silly small aspect, like trying on different hats, and ignore the entire rest of the game, because the trying on hats part is fun for them, and they don't really care about other potential fun they could be having. I imagine a dog would behave similarly. I think it'd be very hard to design a game for a dog that has some obvious thing that will immediately attract its attention, and not have the dog end up obsessed with that part, ignoring the whole other part that's there to make the game more challenging.
If the goal is to keep the dog exercised and entertained, you've already achieved that. Animals like repetitive games. It's less likely they'll get bored of it like an adult human would. | When a dog shows such a fixation for a technical device, it's either a sign of mental underload or he's being (un)consciously trained to do so by you. However, I would even call it an abnormal behavior for a dog. Normally dogs don't need artificial distraction other then doing regular dog stuff nor do they have any natural interest in electronic devices. I would assume the fixation you're dog is showing is the result of the positive reinforcement you've given him, consciously or unconsciously, watching his interaction with the iPad.
So instead of searching for more Apps to further drive your dogs unnatural behavior, you'd be better advised to channel it onto dog typical activities. I don't think it is harmful, but I don't think it's a healthy behavior either. |
45,790,703 | Is there any difference if I perform clean + Build Vs only Build in Eclipse?
I am aware that clean will remove all compiled classes.
But if I only build it will just overwrite them isn't it?
So what is the advantage of performing clean + Build Over only performing Build. | 2017/08/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/45790703",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8192377/"
] | The whole idea of the incremental eclipse build is to give you **better** performance - whilst still ensuring *integrity*.
When you update your files (via your source code management tool) and files get erased, eclipse will detect that too - and automatically remove the corresponding artifacts, too! eclipse is really smart about dependencies and it will do its best to get things right without throwing away everything. Of course - the one precondition here: you have to **refresh** eclipse so that it checks file system contents to actually figure when things have changed! And of course, you want to have *built automatically* enabled!
You should see *clean build* as your last resort. Normally you only need it when eclipse is somehow "messed" up internally.
More of *anecdotal* evidence: our eclipse projects are **large** (a full clean build takes two minutes, and ends up with 100 000+ warnings). This means that each git fetch/rebase can result in a lot of files added/changed/deleted. Still I do not need to run a clean build - I do not even recall the last time a clean build was required. And still everything works nicely, and no pillage of garbage in my output directories!
The one exception in my eyes: when you are using SVN repositories and SVN plugins for eclipse - then the need for "clean builds" *might* be noticeably higher. As all SVN plugins for eclipsee do not work perfect for large code bases. They do all kinds of internal caching - and I have seen many incidents when a clean build and eclipse restart was necessary to really get back to a working environment. ( for the record: the answer to such issues is to get rid of SVN within eclipse, for example by using the git-svn tooling ) | Build without clean attempts to build only resources that have changed or need to be rebuilt for some other reasons.
Sometimes you still need to do a clean in order to get a clean slate and not have obsolete resources end up breaking your build or software.
For example if you delete a class, and do a build without clean, the previously compiled class file would still exist and potentially cause problems. |
30,216,944 | Some time ago I started to use the Bluemix platform to develop PHP services that were used by a mobile application. After a while, I realized that it would be very useful to have a repository to which I can connect multiple Eclipse IDEs and work on the same application.
I already had a Jazz ID which was used for the work projects; I am talking about using Bluemix+Jazz for personal projects.
When I first connected the Bluemix ID with the Jazz ID, everything was well. But I realized that it might be a conflict of interest because I am using the same Jazz ID for both work and personal projects.
**My question is: Is there a way to use a new Jazz ID in Bluemix?**
It seems that the connection between the two IDs cannot be changed from Bluemix, DevOps or Jazz.net. | 2015/05/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/30216944",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2563708/"
] | Costin, thanks for your interest in IBM Bluemix and the IBM Bluemix DevOps Services. Like Lauren has said, you'll probably want two IBM IDs, one for your work email address and one for your personal. They ultimately can be associated with two Bluemix orgs, each associated with a different DevOps user.
You'll need to decide which Bluemix org you want each of your apps to live in; the corresponding user should own the app's Git repository. To move a Git repository, you can use either of these approaches:
1. Use the repository's "Download the contents of this branch as a zip file" button to download the contents. Then as the other user, create a repository and import the zip file.
2. Share the repository with the other user, fork as the new user to get a copy.
Once you have the code in the other user's repository, redeploy to that user's Bluemix org.
Once you have everything where you want it, delete the stuff (apps and repositories) that are not where you want them. | One option is to create a new IBM id that is linked to your personal e-mail address. The IBM id could be used to sign in to Bluemix and DevOps Services. |
46,669,115 | Hi im using Docker on windows 10 with a proxy.
Docker itself works fine with the proxy IP set correctly in the docker settings.
I can download images through docker.
The problem is that any container I want to run or build also needs these HTTP\_PROXY and HHTPS\_PROXY variables.
I can do this by adding it to build arguments, run arguments or the docker file.
However none of these solutions are perfect because they add machine specific variable values to either the docker files and/or the docker-compose files.
I have checked the MobyLinuxVM's values for these HTTP\_PROXY and HHTPS\_PROXY variables by hacking into it with this trick:
[How to connect to docker VM (MobyLinux) from windows shell?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40867501/how-to-connect-to-docker-vm-mobylinux-from-windows-shell)
Eventhough these variables were displayed correctly any image that I run or dockerfile I build still needs to get these variables.
Is there a way that any container automatically gets these proxy environment variables from the docker deamon who already has them set?
I know Linux has this feature by nature, but it seems to be missing for Windows. | 2017/10/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/46669115",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6604018/"
] | This does not provide a way to set those values or to get them in a container's context, but has stopped me from having to change my proxy settings every time I change IP addresses and keeps me from having to pass them to containers at runtime (builds are still a different story).
This works for me behind an NTLM-authenticating web proxy, even from home on VPN:
1) Get the IP address of the DummyDesperatePoitras virtual switch Docker for Windows creates (starts with 169.254., which is usually a non-routable IP)
2) Install CNTLM (not perfect, as it's not been updated in 5 years) and set it to listen on that "dummy" IP address
3) Use that "dummy" IP address as the proxy in Docker for Windows settings
4) Add your internal corporate DNS server's IP and the domain name to the daemon.json in Docker for Windows settings
Again, this works for running containers - I only have to deal with the proxy server when I run docker build, passing it along in the build-args. I've not found a way around that yet.
Detailed walkthrough: <https://mandie.net/2017/12/10/docker-for-windows-behind-a-corporate-web-proxy-tips-and-tricks/> | My advice is to use a tool to transparently route all your traffic to the proxy, without having to set any proxy configuration locally.
For windows there is [proxifier](https://www.proxifier.com/). It will transparently route all the traffic from your host to the proxy. |
53,154 | >
> Brothers and sisters I have none,
>
>
> But evil cousins I have one.
>
>
> That doesn’t matter at all to me,
>
>
> For I have friends who help me defeat,
>
>
> The Evil one whom I cannot say.
>
>
> His name, or else others will be afraid.
>
>
>
**Who am I?** | 2017/07/05 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/53154",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/37280/"
] | Are you
>
> Harry Potter?
>
>
>
Brothers and sisters I have none,
But evil cousins I have one.
>
> He has no brothers or sisters, but has a cousin who is rude towards him, Dudley.
>
>
>
That doesn’t matter at all to me,
For I have friends who help me defeat
The Evil one whom I cannot say
His name, or else others will be afraid.
>
> The evil one, Voldemort, (He Who Must Not Be Named), is defeated by Harry Potter with assistance from his friends along the way.
>
>
> | How easy is this...
The answer is most obviously
>
> Harry Potter.
>
>
>
And that's because..
>
> Harry, surely dosen't have any siblings but, yes he does have his muggle cousin Dudley, he has his dear friends, Ron, Hermione, Neville, and so many. And together they must defeat the one who must not be named.
>
>
> |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | The stock market returns about 10% a year. This doesn't happen every year some years might be below (or even a negative return) but typically over longer spans of time (like 5 or 10 years) you can expect a 10% return. Anything else is probably a scam, even mutual funds that advertise 20% returns only do this for a few years and over the long run fail.
This isn't to say that you can't do better than average but the average is about 10%.
>
> Stock market returns average about 10%
>
>
> A sense of reason might be the first casualty of a bull market.
> Investors get comfortable when stocks rise consistently. In a roaring
> market, stocks seem to go only up, up, up, and 30% returns appear
> perfectly normal. Everything you buy turns to gold — but then comes
> the crash.
>
>
> Over time, stocks, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 index,
> return about 10% annually. The index comprises America’s 500 largest
> publicly traded companies and is considered the benchmark measure for
> annual returns. When investors say “the market,” they mean the S&P
> 500.
>
> Source: <https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/average-stock-market-return/>
>
>
>
As far as anything associated with bit coin, you can make nice returns, but it is extremely volatile and the price is based mainly on belief (whereas a company has assets that are worth something if things go south ), and as of now the hype is dying down and so is the price. I would stay away from anything related to a high risk investment. Before investing in any opportunity, you need to know how *they* are going to make money. So look at other players in the market and their returns if the information is available. 5% a month or more seems way to high. The other big red flag is the return goes up with the amount of investment, which incentivizes you to give up your money, and is unusual for most investments.
Do yourself a favor, find a nice medium risk mutual fund to invest your money in and get your ~10% a year. | You can't scale cryptomining in a timeframe like that depending on how much money you have invested in it.
But none of that matters. It doesn't matter what they promise that they're doing with the money if the interest rates are such that they wouldn't need your money. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | Both of these "*investments*" bear all the hallmarks of a [Ponzi Scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme), where investors are promised high and consistent (but not usually outlandish) returns on their money but in reality the principal has simply been stolen. Symptoms like "too good to be true returns", "different tiers of investment", "returns significantly above the value the company could borrow money commercially", etc. are usually very good signs to be wary of.
---
There are basically two variations on the theme;
* **The Classic Ponzi**
Investors are told that their money has been invested in some sort of poorly understood money-making scheme, then given an actual % return on their money. In reality their dividends are paid for by taking the investor's own money (and that of later investors) and giving it back to them in tranches.
* **Madoff Ponzi**
With the Madoff Ponzi, investors aren't given cash dividends and are strongly discouraged from taking money out of their "account" which then appears to appreciate at a constant rate. Those who give money are regularly advised not to withdraw their money because of a nebulous rule that forbids them them from getting the best return on their money. Those who do withdraw money are (usually) given it promptly for fear that they'll call the authorities.
Depending on whether your friend is receiving dividends or simply a (bogus) annual statement of their account value will determine what kind of scam they've fallen for (or are trying to suck you into). | You can't scale cryptomining in a timeframe like that depending on how much money you have invested in it.
But none of that matters. It doesn't matter what they promise that they're doing with the money if the interest rates are such that they wouldn't need your money. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | Anybody that guarantees a monthly (for example 5%,11%,16%, 20%) return that would be great if that was a annual return, is running a scam.
If they guarantee they could take your 20K euros and make enough money to pay you a guaranteed 24K euros 30 days later and keep the rest for themselves, then they are running a scam.
If they are legitimate then they should be able to start small and build up to a point where they can be basically printing money, and they don't need to solicit money from "friends" they recently met.
So yes it is a scam. | **The return is your own money, until it isn't**
The way these scams often work is you buy a 'thing' and promise to pay back X% per month/year. Doesn't really matter what the 'thing' is - hotel rooms, parking spaces, vineyards, bitcoin miners...
Let's say they offer to pay 10% per month. What will happen is things seem to go fine for a few months, then all of sudden things go a bit quiet.
Up until month 11, they're just paying back the sum that you paid upfront. Meanwhile, they're working out some quasi-legal way to extract the cash from the company (assuming it is a company). Let's say they pay themselves a big dividend, or a pile of equipment that just happens to get stolen, or whatever... Then the company just happens to go bankrupt, and there's nothing to pay you back with. Meanwhile they start up a different company and repeat with a new batch of suckers. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | Anybody that guarantees a monthly (for example 5%,11%,16%, 20%) return that would be great if that was a annual return, is running a scam.
If they guarantee they could take your 20K euros and make enough money to pay you a guaranteed 24K euros 30 days later and keep the rest for themselves, then they are running a scam.
If they are legitimate then they should be able to start small and build up to a point where they can be basically printing money, and they don't need to solicit money from "friends" they recently met.
So yes it is a scam. | You can't scale cryptomining in a timeframe like that depending on how much money you have invested in it.
But none of that matters. It doesn't matter what they promise that they're doing with the money if the interest rates are such that they wouldn't need your money. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | The stock market returns about 10% a year. This doesn't happen every year some years might be below (or even a negative return) but typically over longer spans of time (like 5 or 10 years) you can expect a 10% return. Anything else is probably a scam, even mutual funds that advertise 20% returns only do this for a few years and over the long run fail.
This isn't to say that you can't do better than average but the average is about 10%.
>
> Stock market returns average about 10%
>
>
> A sense of reason might be the first casualty of a bull market.
> Investors get comfortable when stocks rise consistently. In a roaring
> market, stocks seem to go only up, up, up, and 30% returns appear
> perfectly normal. Everything you buy turns to gold — but then comes
> the crash.
>
>
> Over time, stocks, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 index,
> return about 10% annually. The index comprises America’s 500 largest
> publicly traded companies and is considered the benchmark measure for
> annual returns. When investors say “the market,” they mean the S&P
> 500.
>
> Source: <https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/average-stock-market-return/>
>
>
>
As far as anything associated with bit coin, you can make nice returns, but it is extremely volatile and the price is based mainly on belief (whereas a company has assets that are worth something if things go south ), and as of now the hype is dying down and so is the price. I would stay away from anything related to a high risk investment. Before investing in any opportunity, you need to know how *they* are going to make money. So look at other players in the market and their returns if the information is available. 5% a month or more seems way to high. The other big red flag is the return goes up with the amount of investment, which incentivizes you to give up your money, and is unusual for most investments.
Do yourself a favor, find a nice medium risk mutual fund to invest your money in and get your ~10% a year. | **The return is your own money, until it isn't**
The way these scams often work is you buy a 'thing' and promise to pay back X% per month/year. Doesn't really matter what the 'thing' is - hotel rooms, parking spaces, vineyards, bitcoin miners...
Let's say they offer to pay 10% per month. What will happen is things seem to go fine for a few months, then all of sudden things go a bit quiet.
Up until month 11, they're just paying back the sum that you paid upfront. Meanwhile, they're working out some quasi-legal way to extract the cash from the company (assuming it is a company). Let's say they pay themselves a big dividend, or a pile of equipment that just happens to get stolen, or whatever... Then the company just happens to go bankrupt, and there's nothing to pay you back with. Meanwhile they start up a different company and repeat with a new batch of suckers. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | The stock market returns about 10% a year. This doesn't happen every year some years might be below (or even a negative return) but typically over longer spans of time (like 5 or 10 years) you can expect a 10% return. Anything else is probably a scam, even mutual funds that advertise 20% returns only do this for a few years and over the long run fail.
This isn't to say that you can't do better than average but the average is about 10%.
>
> Stock market returns average about 10%
>
>
> A sense of reason might be the first casualty of a bull market.
> Investors get comfortable when stocks rise consistently. In a roaring
> market, stocks seem to go only up, up, up, and 30% returns appear
> perfectly normal. Everything you buy turns to gold — but then comes
> the crash.
>
>
> Over time, stocks, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 index,
> return about 10% annually. The index comprises America’s 500 largest
> publicly traded companies and is considered the benchmark measure for
> annual returns. When investors say “the market,” they mean the S&P
> 500.
>
> Source: <https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/average-stock-market-return/>
>
>
>
As far as anything associated with bit coin, you can make nice returns, but it is extremely volatile and the price is based mainly on belief (whereas a company has assets that are worth something if things go south ), and as of now the hype is dying down and so is the price. I would stay away from anything related to a high risk investment. Before investing in any opportunity, you need to know how *they* are going to make money. So look at other players in the market and their returns if the information is available. 5% a month or more seems way to high. The other big red flag is the return goes up with the amount of investment, which incentivizes you to give up your money, and is unusual for most investments.
Do yourself a favor, find a nice medium risk mutual fund to invest your money in and get your ~10% a year. | I will answer this as an ex-miner actual trader.
Mining (I guess you're talking about Bitcoin) is not worth anymore, at least not for individuals. If you are part of mining group it may not be worth either, just bear in mind that electricity costs, the difficulty and the hardware needed that is not yours will cost money, and the group that offers the mining has to earn money so what is left of all that may very well be a scam even more if they offer a 20% monthly. Bear in mind Bitcoin is in its long time low values, it may recover but there are still options for it to fall near the 3000 area, so if the 20% they offer has in mind Bitcoin value your friend may very well end up scammed.
Trading is another thing, you may make much money (but you may very well end up loosing it too) if you know how to trade but I wouldn't leave that in some "experts" hands. Those experts play with tons of coins and don't mind loosing here and gaining there while the total is positive for them, but that doesn't mean it will be for you.
If you/he are interested in trading learn about TA (<https://www.babypips.com/> is a great place to start) and trade yourself. There are many many markets out there for crypto trading that let anyone do his own trades without the need of intermediaries.
My advise would be to learn and do your own trades, and even if you don't know how to trade but think cryptos (Bitcoin in this case) have future you can buy now and just wait for 5 years, you will surely end with huge proffits. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | Question: if I could guarantee 20% monthly, why would I let you in on it? I wouldn’t. I’d mortgage my home, take out the biggest loan I can, and keep the 20% myself.
And that’s how you know it’s a scam. If it was true, it would not be offered to you. | **The return is your own money, until it isn't**
The way these scams often work is you buy a 'thing' and promise to pay back X% per month/year. Doesn't really matter what the 'thing' is - hotel rooms, parking spaces, vineyards, bitcoin miners...
Let's say they offer to pay 10% per month. What will happen is things seem to go fine for a few months, then all of sudden things go a bit quiet.
Up until month 11, they're just paying back the sum that you paid upfront. Meanwhile, they're working out some quasi-legal way to extract the cash from the company (assuming it is a company). Let's say they pay themselves a big dividend, or a pile of equipment that just happens to get stolen, or whatever... Then the company just happens to go bankrupt, and there's nothing to pay you back with. Meanwhile they start up a different company and repeat with a new batch of suckers. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | I'm Norwegian and I *think* I've heard about the first example in the news.
It's not so much that it's a classic scam that they've covered their asses (or at least think they've done so, let's see what The Man says if they try anything crazy) and will reduce the rates if the cryptocurrency prices drop to the point where they can't deliver on their promises.
There's still no such thing as a free lunch, and if it's the one I'm thinking of I'm pretty sure they've already failed to deliver which is why they were in the news. | You can't scale cryptomining in a timeframe like that depending on how much money you have invested in it.
But none of that matters. It doesn't matter what they promise that they're doing with the money if the interest rates are such that they wouldn't need your money. |
99,754 | I recently meet a guy who invested his money in 2 systems.
1) The first one is mining. He gave 20.000 euros to this company ([redacted]) and they promised to give him back 20% a month. There are different tiers, like from 1000 to 10000 you get 11%, from 10000 to 20000 you get 16%, etc.
It could be a scam but this would be a nice passive income. They say they have a big farm in Norway where electricity doesn't cost much.
What do you think about this?
2) The second one is trading. He sent BTC to these guys and they trade forex/crypto/commodities. They guarantee you at least 5% monthly return on your investment.
I again smell a scam. What you think?
I've been burst 7k on bitconnect so i'm not really interested in these things. Because these 2 are different and 1% daily is unsustainable but 5% monthly looks more realistic, I would like to know what you think about it and if any of you had good experiences in similar investment. Thank you | 2018/09/12 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/99754",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/76870/"
] | Aside from the points everyone else has made, consider this: if they fail to live up to their guarantee to return 5% a month, what are you going to do about it? Do they live in the same country as you do? Do you really even know who they are and where they are actually located?
If you go to your local police and tell them "Some folks on the Internet talked me into sending them 20.000 euros, and now they won't give it back!" do you think they are going to send a detective half-way around the world to a nation that your country may not even have an extradition treaty with?
Are you going to hire a lawyer in a distant country to bring suit in that country's legal system to enforce their promise?
Never rely on a guarantee unless you have some legal leverage to enforce the honoring of the guarantee. | **The return is your own money, until it isn't**
The way these scams often work is you buy a 'thing' and promise to pay back X% per month/year. Doesn't really matter what the 'thing' is - hotel rooms, parking spaces, vineyards, bitcoin miners...
Let's say they offer to pay 10% per month. What will happen is things seem to go fine for a few months, then all of sudden things go a bit quiet.
Up until month 11, they're just paying back the sum that you paid upfront. Meanwhile, they're working out some quasi-legal way to extract the cash from the company (assuming it is a company). Let's say they pay themselves a big dividend, or a pile of equipment that just happens to get stolen, or whatever... Then the company just happens to go bankrupt, and there's nothing to pay you back with. Meanwhile they start up a different company and repeat with a new batch of suckers. |
2,578,944 | Does anyone know any site or book that presents problems like [python challenge](http://www.pythonchallenge.com/), but for C++?
When I think python challenge, I do not mean only a set of problems to be solved with C++ (for that I could probably use the same problems of python challenge), but rather problems that will probably be best solved using C++ STL, special features of the language, etc.
For example, there is one python challenge that is specifically designed to teach you how to use `pickle`, a serializing library for python.
Until now, I only know programming contests problems, but they could also be solved with C, java or other languages. | 2010/04/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2578944",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/309254/"
] | You might like to have a look at Herb Sutter's [Guru of the Week](http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/index.htm) series of articles. | You're going to have a difficult time finding that because C++ provides less for you than almost any other language available. If C++ provides it, it's probably provided by Python or Java or C or any other programming language.
Why not try using some C++ concepts such as the STL to solve [Project Euler](http://projecteuler.net/) problems? |
2,578,944 | Does anyone know any site or book that presents problems like [python challenge](http://www.pythonchallenge.com/), but for C++?
When I think python challenge, I do not mean only a set of problems to be solved with C++ (for that I could probably use the same problems of python challenge), but rather problems that will probably be best solved using C++ STL, special features of the language, etc.
For example, there is one python challenge that is specifically designed to teach you how to use `pickle`, a serializing library for python.
Until now, I only know programming contests problems, but they could also be solved with C, java or other languages. | 2010/04/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2578944",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/309254/"
] | [Google Code Jam](http://code.google.com/codejam) problems frequently have analyses with snippets of C++ code, probably because C++ is by far the most popular language used for solving code-jam problems. The latter also allows you to see many C++ constructs cleverly employed, as code-jam allows you to download the solutions by all the competitors. As most code is C++, you'll get to learn a lot of nice C++ tricks for efficient code. | You might like to have a look at Herb Sutter's [Guru of the Week](http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/index.htm) series of articles. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.