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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
459,297 | In my job I test different versions of varying degrees on websites. Basically A vs B, and the results of this test determine which version should be developed.
The way a winner is chosen is by looking at the data. We can only take action on statistically **significant** data. When we talk about results some people say "we can't act on this because the data is **insignificant**" whereas I think we should say "we can't act on this because the data is **unsignificant**".
To me, **insignificant** data means it's not interesting/worth noting whereas **unsignificant** data means it hasn't reached statistical significance.
Is there any difference between the two?
(Not sure if this is the right board for this one but as it's about difference of wording I thought I'd start here) | 2018/08/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/459297",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/291804/"
] | Well you are correct in the usage of the word **Insignificant** in your sentence.
that is, ***"We can't act on this because the data is insignificant"*** [sic]
Merriam-Webster describes [**unsignificant**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unsignificant) as:
>
> lacking meaning or significance : insignificant
>
>
>
Here, unsignificant has a one particular meaning of insignificant4 i.e. **lacking meaning or import**
On the other hand,
Merriam Webster describes [**insignificant**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insignificant) as:
>
> : not significant: such as
>
>
> 1. not worth considering : unimportant
> 2. lacking weight, position, or influence : contemptible
> 3. **small in size, quantity, or number**
> 4. lacking meaning or import
>
>
>
So, you should go for **insignificant**3 which in your context means:
>
> not significant because **small in size, quantity, or number**
>
>
>
*Additional information [good to know]: Oxford dictionary does not consider "unsignificant" as word.* | I googled this very issue tonight after came across the word unsignificant on a 20th century poem "Landscape with the Fall of Icarus" in which the word unsignificant was used.
An article I read states that INsignificant is implied to mean "Not of statistical significance" when the connection is research.
NONsignificant is used to speak of unrelated or uninteresting.
UNsignificant seems to be an archaic term but since you need a word for uninteresting, and not statistically significant, I'd say NONsignificant for uninteresting and use insignificant when you speak of variables which failed to reach statistical significance.
This is similar to the neurology terms voluntary, involuntary and involuntary, the later being recently invented (I can think) to explain a movement or vocalization which is semi under ones control but not really voluntary. Like my urge to write this comment to you which I bet will go unread by the person who posted it, some 4 years ago! |
3,544,921 | We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S | 2010/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3544921",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/192204/"
] | I use SQL Compare for generating scripts when going from dev -> test -> production and it saves me tons of time.
For source control though, we use SVN and ScriptDB (<http://scriptdb.codeplex.com/>) though. I mainly use source control of SQL scripts for keeping track of changes. I think that rolling back a version of the database seldomly (if ever) works since data may have changed when making structure changes.
This works fine for a few of our current projects (largest is 200 tables and 2000 sprocs). The main reason for doing this though is cost since not all team members have to buy SQL Compare (I avoid adding dependencies to commercial projects unless really needed). | We performed an extensive evaluation of Red Gate's product and found a few major flaws. If you want to look at who changed an object, you can't do it **without** SysAdmin privileges. The product needs to look at the trace on your server, which requires those rights. I'm on a 5+ person team, and not knowing who had pending changes is what will stop us from using the product. |
3,544,921 | We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S | 2010/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3544921",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/192204/"
] | I use SQL Compare for generating scripts when going from dev -> test -> production and it saves me tons of time.
For source control though, we use SVN and ScriptDB (<http://scriptdb.codeplex.com/>) though. I mainly use source control of SQL scripts for keeping track of changes. I think that rolling back a version of the database seldomly (if ever) works since data may have changed when making structure changes.
This works fine for a few of our current projects (largest is 200 tables and 2000 sprocs). The main reason for doing this though is cost since not all team members have to buy SQL Compare (I avoid adding dependencies to commercial projects unless really needed). | I just started working for a new company and they use Redgate SQL Source Control for all their projects, amonst them a large and complex one. It does the job well in tandem with TFS. The only drawback from my point of view is that the SQL Server Management Studio integration is highly unstable. Frequent crashes of SQL Server Management Studio happen when the tools are installed. |
3,544,921 | We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S | 2010/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3544921",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/192204/"
] | **I have updated my original post below to reflect changes in the latest versions of SQL Source Control (3.0) and SQL Compare (10.1).**
Since this question was asked over a year ago, my response may not be that helpful to you, but for others who may currently be evaluating SSC, I thought I would throw in my two cents. We just started using SQL Source Control (SSC) and overall I am fairly satisfied with it so far. It does have some quirks though, especially if you are working in a shared database environment (as opposed to every developer working locally) and particularly working in a legacy environment where objects in the same database are divided haphazardly between development teams.
To give a brief overview of how we are using the product in our organization, we are working in a shared environment where we all make changes to the same development database, so we attached the shared database to the source control repository. Each developer is responsible for making changes to the objects in the database through SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS), and when they are finished, they can commit their changes to source control. When we are ready to deploy to staging, the build master (me) merges the development branch of the database code to the main (staging) branch and then runs SQL Compare using the main branch repository version of the database as the source and the live staging database as the target, and SQL Compare generates the necessary scripts to deploy the changes made to the staging environment. Staging to production deployments works in similar fashion. One other important point to note is that, given the fact that we are sharing the same database with other development teams, we use a built in feature of SSC that allows you to create filters on database objects by name, type, etc. We manually set up filters on our specific team's objects, excluding all other objects, so that we don't accidentally commit other development team's changes when we do our deployments.
So in general it's a fairly simple product to set up and use and it's really nice because you're always working with live objects in SSMS, as opposed to disconnected script files stored in a separate source repository that run the risk of getting out of sync. It's also nice because SQL Compare generates the deployment scripts for you so you don't have to worry about introducing errors as you would if you were creating the scripts on your own. And as SQL Compare is a very mature and stable product, you can feel pretty confident that it's going to create the proper scripts for you.
With that being said, however, here are some of the quirks that I have run into so far:
* SSC is pretty chatty out of the box in terms of communicating with the db server in order to keep track of database items that are out of sync with the source control repository. It polls every few milliseconds and if you add in multiple developers all working against the same database using SSC, you can imagine that our dba's weren't very happy. Fortunately, you can easily reduce your polling frequency to something more acceptable, although at the cost of sacrificing responsive visual notifications of when objects have been changed.
* Using the object filtering feature, you can't easily tell from looking at objects in SSMS which objects are included in your filter. So you don’t know for sure if an object is under source control, unlike in Visual Studio, where icons are used to indicate source controlled objects.
* The object filtering GUI is very clunky. Due to the fact that we are working in a legacy database environment, there is currently not a clear separation between the objects that our team owns and those owned by other teams, so in order to prevent us from accidentally committing/deploying other teams’ changes, we have set up a filtering scheme to explicitly include each specific object that we own. As you can imagine, this becomes quite cumbersome, and as the GUI to edit the filters is set up to enter one object at a time, it could become quite painful, especially trying to set up your environment for the first time (I ended up writing an application to do this). Going forward, we are creating a new schema for our application to better facilitate object filtering (besides being a better practice anyway).
* Using the shared database model, developers are allowed to commit any pending changes to a source controlled database, even if the changes are not theirs. SSC does give you a warning if you try to check in a bunch of changes that these changes might not be yours, but other than that you’re on your own. I actually find this to be one of SSC’s most dangerous “quirks”.
* SQL Compare can’t currently share the object filters created by SSC, so you would have to manually create a matching filter in SQL Compare, so there is a danger that these could get out of sync. I just ended up cut-and-pasting the filters from the underlying SSC filter file into the SQL Compare project filter to avoid dealing with the clunky object filtering GUI. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will allow it to share filters with SSC, so at least this problem is only a short term one. **(NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare. SQL Compare can now use the object filters created by SSC.)**
* SQL Compare also can’t compare against a SSC database repository when launched directly. It has to be launched from within SSMS. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will provide this functionality, so again it’s another short term problem. **(NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare.)**
* Sometimes SQL Compare isn’t able to create the proper scripts to get the target database from one state to another, usually in the case where you are updating the schema of existing tables that aren’t empty, so you currently have to write manual scripts and manage the process yourself. Fortunately, this will be addressed through “migration scripts” in the next release of SSC, and from looking at the early release version of the product, it appears that the implementation of this new feature was well thought out and designed. **(NOTE: Migration scripts functionality has been officially released. However, it does not currently support branching. If you want to use migration scripts, you will need to run sql compare against your original development code branch... the one where you checked in your changes... which is pretty clunky and has forced me to modify my build process in a less than ideal way in order to work around this limitation. Hopefully this will be addressed in a future release.)**
Overall, I am pretty happy with the product and with Redgate’s responsiveness to user feedback and the direction that the product is taking. The product is very easy to use and well designed, and I feel that in the next release or two the product will probably give us most, if not all, of what we need. | We performed an extensive evaluation of Red Gate's product and found a few major flaws. If you want to look at who changed an object, you can't do it **without** SysAdmin privileges. The product needs to look at the trace on your server, which requires those rights. I'm on a 5+ person team, and not knowing who had pending changes is what will stop us from using the product. |
3,544,921 | We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S | 2010/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3544921",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/192204/"
] | We performed an extensive evaluation of Red Gate's product and found a few major flaws. If you want to look at who changed an object, you can't do it **without** SysAdmin privileges. The product needs to look at the trace on your server, which requires those rights. I'm on a 5+ person team, and not knowing who had pending changes is what will stop us from using the product. | I just started working for a new company and they use Redgate SQL Source Control for all their projects, amonst them a large and complex one. It does the job well in tandem with TFS. The only drawback from my point of view is that the SQL Server Management Studio integration is highly unstable. Frequent crashes of SQL Server Management Studio happen when the tools are installed. |
3,544,921 | We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S | 2010/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3544921",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/192204/"
] | **I have updated my original post below to reflect changes in the latest versions of SQL Source Control (3.0) and SQL Compare (10.1).**
Since this question was asked over a year ago, my response may not be that helpful to you, but for others who may currently be evaluating SSC, I thought I would throw in my two cents. We just started using SQL Source Control (SSC) and overall I am fairly satisfied with it so far. It does have some quirks though, especially if you are working in a shared database environment (as opposed to every developer working locally) and particularly working in a legacy environment where objects in the same database are divided haphazardly between development teams.
To give a brief overview of how we are using the product in our organization, we are working in a shared environment where we all make changes to the same development database, so we attached the shared database to the source control repository. Each developer is responsible for making changes to the objects in the database through SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS), and when they are finished, they can commit their changes to source control. When we are ready to deploy to staging, the build master (me) merges the development branch of the database code to the main (staging) branch and then runs SQL Compare using the main branch repository version of the database as the source and the live staging database as the target, and SQL Compare generates the necessary scripts to deploy the changes made to the staging environment. Staging to production deployments works in similar fashion. One other important point to note is that, given the fact that we are sharing the same database with other development teams, we use a built in feature of SSC that allows you to create filters on database objects by name, type, etc. We manually set up filters on our specific team's objects, excluding all other objects, so that we don't accidentally commit other development team's changes when we do our deployments.
So in general it's a fairly simple product to set up and use and it's really nice because you're always working with live objects in SSMS, as opposed to disconnected script files stored in a separate source repository that run the risk of getting out of sync. It's also nice because SQL Compare generates the deployment scripts for you so you don't have to worry about introducing errors as you would if you were creating the scripts on your own. And as SQL Compare is a very mature and stable product, you can feel pretty confident that it's going to create the proper scripts for you.
With that being said, however, here are some of the quirks that I have run into so far:
* SSC is pretty chatty out of the box in terms of communicating with the db server in order to keep track of database items that are out of sync with the source control repository. It polls every few milliseconds and if you add in multiple developers all working against the same database using SSC, you can imagine that our dba's weren't very happy. Fortunately, you can easily reduce your polling frequency to something more acceptable, although at the cost of sacrificing responsive visual notifications of when objects have been changed.
* Using the object filtering feature, you can't easily tell from looking at objects in SSMS which objects are included in your filter. So you don’t know for sure if an object is under source control, unlike in Visual Studio, where icons are used to indicate source controlled objects.
* The object filtering GUI is very clunky. Due to the fact that we are working in a legacy database environment, there is currently not a clear separation between the objects that our team owns and those owned by other teams, so in order to prevent us from accidentally committing/deploying other teams’ changes, we have set up a filtering scheme to explicitly include each specific object that we own. As you can imagine, this becomes quite cumbersome, and as the GUI to edit the filters is set up to enter one object at a time, it could become quite painful, especially trying to set up your environment for the first time (I ended up writing an application to do this). Going forward, we are creating a new schema for our application to better facilitate object filtering (besides being a better practice anyway).
* Using the shared database model, developers are allowed to commit any pending changes to a source controlled database, even if the changes are not theirs. SSC does give you a warning if you try to check in a bunch of changes that these changes might not be yours, but other than that you’re on your own. I actually find this to be one of SSC’s most dangerous “quirks”.
* SQL Compare can’t currently share the object filters created by SSC, so you would have to manually create a matching filter in SQL Compare, so there is a danger that these could get out of sync. I just ended up cut-and-pasting the filters from the underlying SSC filter file into the SQL Compare project filter to avoid dealing with the clunky object filtering GUI. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will allow it to share filters with SSC, so at least this problem is only a short term one. **(NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare. SQL Compare can now use the object filters created by SSC.)**
* SQL Compare also can’t compare against a SSC database repository when launched directly. It has to be launched from within SSMS. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will provide this functionality, so again it’s another short term problem. **(NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare.)**
* Sometimes SQL Compare isn’t able to create the proper scripts to get the target database from one state to another, usually in the case where you are updating the schema of existing tables that aren’t empty, so you currently have to write manual scripts and manage the process yourself. Fortunately, this will be addressed through “migration scripts” in the next release of SSC, and from looking at the early release version of the product, it appears that the implementation of this new feature was well thought out and designed. **(NOTE: Migration scripts functionality has been officially released. However, it does not currently support branching. If you want to use migration scripts, you will need to run sql compare against your original development code branch... the one where you checked in your changes... which is pretty clunky and has forced me to modify my build process in a less than ideal way in order to work around this limitation. Hopefully this will be addressed in a future release.)**
Overall, I am pretty happy with the product and with Redgate’s responsiveness to user feedback and the direction that the product is taking. The product is very easy to use and well designed, and I feel that in the next release or two the product will probably give us most, if not all, of what we need. | I just started working for a new company and they use Redgate SQL Source Control for all their projects, amonst them a large and complex one. It does the job well in tandem with TFS. The only drawback from my point of view is that the SQL Server Management Studio integration is highly unstable. Frequent crashes of SQL Server Management Studio happen when the tools are installed. |
390,712 | On the near future I will have a WordPress blog, public and visible to anyone, that has a members area. This members area accesses some private data on a special database with financial data, so this kind of info should only be viewable to customers of the site.
The private site will be running inside a VPN on a business LAN and a little server, and I wonder if hosting that private part together with the public site would be a good idea.
In fact, due to WordPress vulnerabilities (it is a desired target right now) I think that if an attacker gains access to the WP site and that's inside the VPN, then he would be able to attack "from inside" and eventually he could even access to the private site and its data.
Wouldn't it be more appropiate to **have the public site outside**, on a VPS for example? The members area would be accessed through a secure protocol (HTPPS), and I wonder if there are some recommendations on this subject. | 2012/05/19 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/390712",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/49697/"
] | PAPERMASH is the NetBIOS name of the domain.
PAPERMASHCORPORATE.com is the DNS name of the domain.
You can also log on using your UPN (User Principal Name) in the format: user@PAPERMASHCORPORATE.com
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc739093(v=ws.10).aspx> | Still, nobody is legally required to have a website on a registered domain name, and some old schoolers still believe that the website should be at www.papermashcorporate.com and that a web browser should not be redirected from papermashcorporate.com to the www.papertiredoftypingthis.com server, since it is basically slightly unclean (your servers are no longer only at leaves of your dns hierarchy). |
16,275,695 | I'm seeing a high amount of fragmentation on APC (>80%) but performance actually seems pretty good. I've [read another post](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9292330/apc-cache-fragmentation-on-wordpress-site) that advises disabling object caching in wordpress / w3tc, but I wonder if the reduction in fragmentation is better than the performance boost of caching the objects in the first place.
 | 2013/04/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16275695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/262455/"
] | Fragmented APC is still a few times better than without APC, so please don't deactivate APC.
Increase your memory instead. With more memory APC will fragment lot less. This will be healthier for APC itself.
APC itself has no "defragmentation" process. You could restart yout http service or call apc\_clear\_cache() in an php script. But beware of the performance impact for the next minutes when your cache will be rebuilt. | Fragmentation on disk based systems is important because the head physically has to move to each location to read it. The APC cache though by definition is in Random Access Memory so the penalty for having to read a different location is in the order of a couple of CPU cycles, ie negligible unless you're seriously loading the CPU. And if you're doing that then you have bigger problems.
Also don't assign too much RAM to APC. You really want 5-10% more than the maximum possible cache. Any more is a waste of precious RAM.
I think it is misleading to put fragmentation as a metric on the APC monitor page as it's just not that important and people worry unduly. Running with highly fragmented APC is orders of magnitude better than running without it at all. |
90,916 | I saw the description for this module in a pamphlet a couple years before 3E came out, but I've forgotten the title. I seem to recall the goal was to spring someone from this prison but it's been so long I'm not sure- I do know it was described among other Greyhawk adventures, but I'm unsure if the prison was beneath the city Greyhawk itself or somewhere else in Oerth, sometimes referred to as the 'World of Greyhawk'. | 2016/11/27 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90916",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/22089/"
] | I think it's [WGR6 The city of skulls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_Skulls). | It could be:
* The first edition module **[The Temple of Elemental Evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temple_of_Elemental_Evil)** (1985) a continuation of (and which included) **The Village of Homlet** (1979). This was released as a reasonably accurate if buggy video game in 2003 using 3rd edition mechanics. It features:
>
> The demoness [Zuggtmoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuggtmoy) is imprisoned there
>
>
>
* The 2nd edition **[Greyhawk Ruins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhawk_Ruins#/search)** (1990) which was updated to 3rd edition in **[Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_to_the_Ruins_of_Greyhawk)** (2007). Castle Greyhawk was the original mega dungeon of Gary Gygax's home campaign and has always involved player characters imprisoning and releasing (often accidentally) deities. Notable residents have included:
>
> Fraz-Urb’luu, a demon lord, plus the demigods Iuz, Merikka, Rudd and Wastri. Traditionally 9 demigods were said to be held, the remaining 5 have not been canonically identified.
>
>
> |
253,916 | In a recent [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/us/dylann-storm-roof-photos-website-charleston-church-shooting.html) the reporter writes, "Criticisms are also levied at Jews...". I have always heard the idiom as "to level criticism" or to "level charges" against.
Which is the proper expression? Or do they both make sense? | 2015/06/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253916",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/5188/"
] | It's just "levelled" or "level"
"level" simply means "aim" (as in, aim a gun). It's verb definition 4 in the OED
>
> 4 [ with obj. ] aim (a weapon): he levelled a pistol at us.
> • direct (a criticism or accusation): accusations of corruption had been levelled against him.
>
>
>
This really ignorant mistake in the "New York Times" (which used to be a "newspaper of record") helps us remember an important fact about language in the English-speaking world of today:
**Standards are incredibly low.**
It's common to find on this site, questions about something which is actually just a complete editing screw-up by a major publication -- such as the example here. | Either "levied against" once was the preferred form, or typesetters of old made this setto(?) habitually.
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=leveled+against%2Clevied+against&year_start=1800> |
253,916 | In a recent [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/us/dylann-storm-roof-photos-website-charleston-church-shooting.html) the reporter writes, "Criticisms are also levied at Jews...". I have always heard the idiom as "to level criticism" or to "level charges" against.
Which is the proper expression? Or do they both make sense? | 2015/06/21 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253916",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/5188/"
] | Ignorant though it might be, the use of "levy" to mean "level" has a long pedigree. The above-cited OED has this as meaning no. 7:
7. Wrongly used for level v.1
1618 N. Breton Court & Country (Grosart) 6/1 Winking with one eye, as though hee were leuying at a Woodcocke.
a1635 T. Randolph De Histrice in Two Poems (1638) 26 Fam'd Stymphall, I have heard, thy birds in flight Shoot showers of arrowes forth all levied right. | Either "levied against" once was the preferred form, or typesetters of old made this setto(?) habitually.
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=leveled+against%2Clevied+against&year_start=1800> |
141,532 | I had my finals for mg chemistry lecture. When I was starting my examination my professor went to my side and picked up a piece of paper then I realized it was the formula card that one of my classmate created.
Then after the exam my professor talked to me. First he was saying that I keep on looking at my seatmate but I defended that I it was just a glance because of the noise created by my seatmate and that because it distracted me. After that he show the card hand asked me to explain about it. I told him that I didn't see it and that it is not mine but he kept on saying that it would be impossible for me to not see it. I called for my classmate, who is the owner of the card, and she was asked if it was hers. She said that I must've fallen of her bag. But my professor keep on insisting that I tried to cheat with the use of that card.
I am so frustrated because if you would try to look at it on my view you cannot see the formula card. I swear that I really did not see it and I didn't even thought of cheating. I don't know what would I do to prove my innocence especially that I'm just a student and the staffs of our college would not believe me. Can you give an advice? And also it would not be the end of my studying right? I would be able to continue my studies even though of what happened? | 2019/12/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/141532",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/117358/"
] | You're in trouble. Based on the description the evidence against you is strong. Just about the only thing you can do is cast doubt on the evidence.
>
> First he was saying that I keep on looking at my seatmate but I defended that I it was just a glance because of the noise created by my seatmate and that because it distracted me.
>
>
>
You could conceivably find others seated nearby who were also distracted. However, this isn't a good defense in any case: if it's distracting you could've told the invigilator. Repeatedly looking at other students during an exam is inexcusable.
>
> After that he show the card hand asked me to explain about it. I told him that I didn't see it and that it is not mine but he kept on saying that it would be impossible for me to not see it.
>
>
>
You need to prove it: given the location of the card and your seating posture, you could not have seen it. Offer to re-enact the exam, sit at the same seat, and place the card where the professor picked it up. Warning, this can go the other way; it can easily prove that it is indeed impossible for you not to see it.
>
> I called for my classmate, who is the owner of the card, and she was asked if it was hers. She said that I must've fallen of her bag.
>
>
>
Again you need to prove it: prove by re-enacting it that it's possible for the card to fall out of the bag. Again, fair warning, this can go the other way; it can easily prove that unless the card was literally not stored, it cannot have fallen out of the bag.
Because the evidence against you is strong, weak defenses (such as "I don't remember where I sat" or plain denials) is not likely to work. If you can refute the last two points then you could apologize for the first and argue it's not enough to prove you're guilty. | >
> what would I do to prove my innocence
>
>
>
What is your schools procedures? You should read the entire rule book right now. Common sense dictates they should use "innocent unless proven guilty". Normally I would say the acusing party should be worried about proving anything.
With that said, depending on the school or disciplinary commitee you might actually be required to prove your innocence. Your best bet I would say is to take a written statement of your classmate (if they can join the hearing it is better) and prepare your statement in line with what I have discussed with the proctor. It is quite hard to prove you are innocent even if you are. I think your best bet is to reflect what has happened clearly, without hessitation to the deciding party and hope decide there is not sufficent evidence to imply you have cheated. |
59,270 | Are languages which are very customizable, like Python (see for example [goto in Python](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576944-the-goto-decorator/), [lightweight Python type-checking](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577299-method-signature-type-checking-decorator-for-pytho/)) and [Javascript](http://jquery.com/) (see [jQuery](http://www.jquery.com/) for one example of this) more widely used than languages which cannot be customized very much? | 2011/03/18 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/59270",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17415/"
] | These languages are well suited for rapid prototyping and for small projects. So they are popular in web development. But in a large project, the use of such languages only increases the complexity. Because you can never be sure which type you are working with in a given piece of code. | Are customizable languages widely used, may or may not be. But they sure stay around for a long time.
The thing about survival is a term called 'evolution'. You can never solve problems you can possibly face in the future right 'now'. There are many reasons for that. I think its basically because we can't anticipate what problems we may try to solve in the future. We don't even know what kind of problem those will be. We don't know how complex they will be. Hence the only way to ensure survival over long term is to open the door for 'Extensibility'. There are many languages which open doors for 'extensibility'. How they open doors for extensibility differs.
I think speaking from a purely layman's perspective. Most people confuse libraries and existing syntax tricks as extensibility. Which is not true. Lisp family of languages have macros to deal with this problem, you can easily build a DSL bend and extend the language the way you want it. However the cost you pay for it is to write the language in an homoiconic syntax, which often doesn't go down with a lot of people.
In the scripting languages arena, Perl is emerging as a very extensible and customizable language these days. Modules like Devel::Declare, Moose, Moosex::'sugar' , Try::Tiny et al are making language extensibility very simple. This is what true customization and extensibility will look like. Perl 6 is more customizable in the terms that there the grammar itself is changeable!!! The advantage of these sort of things if after some time you come to know something more powerful and better can be done with more power and alternate syntax you can easily do it without messing up with interpreter core and breaking backwards compatibility. Its only a syntax plugin after all, it will be there as long you need it. Then when the new stuff comes along you can shift to with the only code changes being import statements. These sort of languages will hang on for real long time because they combine power, flexibility and fast pace of development in one umbrella at the same time being extensible and evolvable.
On the other hand you can clearly see what happens when such level of extensibility is absent. The syntax becomes very brittle, any thing you try to do to change it breaks backwards compatibility and maintaining the grammar and growing it over time takes a lot of time. C++ and Java are standing testimonies to this things. Many other scripting language will soon follow.
Python is a very good language in the sense its simple, very easily readable and maintainable. But its hardly customizable and extensible in the 'true sense'. Its powers lie elsewhere. Its easy to learn and some very good web frameworks are out there to help out folks who are planning to make it big in that area.
So extensible and customizable languages may not be widely used, but they will sure last long. |
59,270 | Are languages which are very customizable, like Python (see for example [goto in Python](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576944-the-goto-decorator/), [lightweight Python type-checking](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577299-method-signature-type-checking-decorator-for-pytho/)) and [Javascript](http://jquery.com/) (see [jQuery](http://www.jquery.com/) for one example of this) more widely used than languages which cannot be customized very much? | 2011/03/18 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/59270",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17415/"
] | These languages are well suited for rapid prototyping and for small projects. So they are popular in web development. But in a large project, the use of such languages only increases the complexity. Because you can never be sure which type you are working with in a given piece of code. | I'm not sure that a programming language can be "customizable" in the full sense of that word. What you're talking about has more to do with what features a language offers and if those features are "powerful" enough to let you emulate things from other languages. Then to ask if this vague category is more popular than the alternative.
Well, since C++, Java, and the rest of the C/Simula derived ilk are the most popular, I guess the answer is no. Which isn't to say those languages don't have similar abilities in some regards, but those dynamic languages tend to make it a bit easier to extend with new features. Likewise while Python, Ruby, and other dynamic languages are pretty popular in the web space, the MOST extensible language, Lisp, continues to carry on at roughly same relative popularity it's always had.
To be clear though, I think a lot of misconceptions are floating about in the other answers though. A language does not have to be dynamic or unsafe to be extensible. Haskell is probably the most powerful language I'm aware of besides Lisp, and also the most strongly typed language. Haskell's combination of functional programming with inferred, highly-generic typing means that functions can be very general but also compile time enforced for correct types and safe usage. Being able to rig up a goto in Python is neat, or to use method-chaining to act like a mini-language in JQuery is really clever, but in a powerful enough language you don't even need those constructs. |
59,270 | Are languages which are very customizable, like Python (see for example [goto in Python](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576944-the-goto-decorator/), [lightweight Python type-checking](http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577299-method-signature-type-checking-decorator-for-pytho/)) and [Javascript](http://jquery.com/) (see [jQuery](http://www.jquery.com/) for one example of this) more widely used than languages which cannot be customized very much? | 2011/03/18 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/59270",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/17415/"
] | These languages are well suited for rapid prototyping and for small projects. So they are popular in web development. But in a large project, the use of such languages only increases the complexity. Because you can never be sure which type you are working with in a given piece of code. | Lisp is probably the most "customizable"(1) mainstream programming language available--using macros, it's possible to entirely change the syntax and add language features. Just look at [Common Lisp](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp)--it was standardized in 1984 and has since added an advanced object-oriented system ([CLOS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System)) along with countless other major and minor features. Java, on the other hand, is about as un-"customizable" as you can get--you have no choice but to use its particular form of object-oriented programming, and like it (you don't even get operator overloading). If you want a language feature, you have to cross your fingers and wait years for the next version of the language to come out.
Now, look at the [TIOBE Index](http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). Java is ranked as the number 1 language, whereas all lisp dialects together rank as number 15. After Java are C, C++, and C#, all of them highly un-customizable.
So no, customizable languages are not more popular.
(1) I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of support for [metaprogramming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming) and other ways of extending the language. Python isn't especially customizable in this regard. |
247,445 | 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'
Is this grammatically correct? I mean the tenses. 'Does' and 'bothers' sound a little awkward to me. | 2015/05/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/247445",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/122258/"
] | It sounds a lot awkward to me. You can't have **does** followed by a verb with the **-s** suffix.
You need **does...bother.** | if you really like to use 'bothers' how about
It bothers me so much, the fact that John has a girlfriend. |
247,445 | 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'
Is this grammatically correct? I mean the tenses. 'Does' and 'bothers' sound a little awkward to me. | 2015/05/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/247445",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/122258/"
] | It sounds a lot awkward to me. You can't have **does** followed by a verb with the **-s** suffix.
You need **does...bother.** | In my humble opinion...no 's' in the bothers will make it sound good.
Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bother me so much?' |
247,445 | 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'
Is this grammatically correct? I mean the tenses. 'Does' and 'bothers' sound a little awkward to me. | 2015/05/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/247445",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/122258/"
] | You're right, it's ungrammatical: 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'. The problem is that "bothers" agrees in number with the subject "the fact ...", but in this position, "bother" is not finite, and only finite verbs (those inflected for tense) agree.
In a corresponding statement, "bother" can be finite: "The fact bothers me." Then, it agrees with its singular subject, "the fact". But in this question, instead of "bothers", we have "does bother", where the finite verb of the clause has become "does", which displays singular agreement with its singular subject "the fact":
"The fact does bother me." You couldn't say \*"The fact does bothers me", because a clause cannot have two finite verbs. Once "bothers" is changed to "does bother", the auxiliary "does" is the one finite verb of the clause, and "bother" has become non-finite. Now, it can no longer agree. | if you really like to use 'bothers' how about
It bothers me so much, the fact that John has a girlfriend. |
247,445 | 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'
Is this grammatically correct? I mean the tenses. 'Does' and 'bothers' sound a little awkward to me. | 2015/05/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/247445",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/122258/"
] | In my humble opinion...no 's' in the bothers will make it sound good.
Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bother me so much?' | if you really like to use 'bothers' how about
It bothers me so much, the fact that John has a girlfriend. |
247,445 | 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'
Is this grammatically correct? I mean the tenses. 'Does' and 'bothers' sound a little awkward to me. | 2015/05/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/247445",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/122258/"
] | You're right, it's ungrammatical: 'Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bothers me so much?'. The problem is that "bothers" agrees in number with the subject "the fact ...", but in this position, "bother" is not finite, and only finite verbs (those inflected for tense) agree.
In a corresponding statement, "bother" can be finite: "The fact bothers me." Then, it agrees with its singular subject, "the fact". But in this question, instead of "bothers", we have "does bother", where the finite verb of the clause has become "does", which displays singular agreement with its singular subject "the fact":
"The fact does bother me." You couldn't say \*"The fact does bothers me", because a clause cannot have two finite verbs. Once "bothers" is changed to "does bother", the auxiliary "does" is the one finite verb of the clause, and "bother" has become non-finite. Now, it can no longer agree. | In my humble opinion...no 's' in the bothers will make it sound good.
Why does the fact that John has a girlfriend bother me so much?' |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [Check this poster](http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2008/10/29/net-framework-4-poster.aspx) and see if it helps.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wv7nb.png)
(source: [msdn.com](http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/brada/WindowsLiveWriter/55ff37220b2c.NETFramework4Poster_67A1/PDC2008-NETFX4_thumb.png))
and Here is the [deep zoom version](http://brad_abrams.members.winisp.net/Projects/PDC2008/DotNet4Poster/DotNetFramework4PosterDeepZoom.htm). | You didn't specify which version of the .NET Framework, and it's a little unclear if you mean a map of each class or a map of all classes. Anyhow, here's for .NET 3.5:
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET35_Namespaces_Poster_LORES.pdf> |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [.NET Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and Types Poster](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7b645f3a-6d22-4548-a0d8-c2a27e1917f8&displaylang=en)
>
> November 2007 Edition The .NET
>
> Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and
> Types Poster
>
>
> Overview
>
> The .NET Framework 3.5 Common
> Namespaces and Types Poster is
> downloadable as XPS or PDF format.
> There is also an XPS format file which
> prints over 16 letter or A4 pages for
> easy printing. Some assembly is
> required if you choose this print
> method.
>
>
> | <http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET_35_Namespaces_Poster_JAN08.pdf> |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [.NET Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and Types Poster](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7b645f3a-6d22-4548-a0d8-c2a27e1917f8&displaylang=en)
>
> November 2007 Edition The .NET
>
> Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and
> Types Poster
>
>
> Overview
>
> The .NET Framework 3.5 Common
> Namespaces and Types Poster is
> downloadable as XPS or PDF format.
> There is also an XPS format file which
> prints over 16 letter or A4 pages for
> easy printing. Some assembly is
> required if you choose this print
> method.
>
>
> | I'm looking at one (and several others) right behind me at the moment, apparently it comes with Visual C#/Studio. |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [.NET Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and Types Poster](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7b645f3a-6d22-4548-a0d8-c2a27e1917f8&displaylang=en)
>
> November 2007 Edition The .NET
>
> Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and
> Types Poster
>
>
> Overview
>
> The .NET Framework 3.5 Common
> Namespaces and Types Poster is
> downloadable as XPS or PDF format.
> There is also an XPS format file which
> prints over 16 letter or A4 pages for
> easy printing. Some assembly is
> required if you choose this print
> method.
>
>
> | If you are bold and adventurous you can use [a tool I found on CodeProject](http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/AutoDiagrammer.aspx "CodeProject Article"). Send the framework classes to it and, voila, after some crunching, grinding and groaning you should get a diagram from it. |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [.NET Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and Types Poster](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7b645f3a-6d22-4548-a0d8-c2a27e1917f8&displaylang=en)
>
> November 2007 Edition The .NET
>
> Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and
> Types Poster
>
>
> Overview
>
> The .NET Framework 3.5 Common
> Namespaces and Types Poster is
> downloadable as XPS or PDF format.
> There is also an XPS format file which
> prints over 16 letter or A4 pages for
> easy printing. Some assembly is
> required if you choose this print
> method.
>
>
> | You didn't specify which version of the .NET Framework, and it's a little unclear if you mean a map of each class or a map of all classes. Anyhow, here's for .NET 3.5:
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET35_Namespaces_Poster_LORES.pdf> |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [.NET Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and Types Poster](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7b645f3a-6d22-4548-a0d8-c2a27e1917f8&displaylang=en)
>
> November 2007 Edition The .NET
>
> Framework 3.5 Common Namespaces and
> Types Poster
>
>
> Overview
>
> The .NET Framework 3.5 Common
> Namespaces and Types Poster is
> downloadable as XPS or PDF format.
> There is also an XPS format file which
> prints over 16 letter or A4 pages for
> easy printing. Some assembly is
> required if you choose this print
> method.
>
>
> | [Check this poster](http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2008/10/29/net-framework-4-poster.aspx) and see if it helps.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wv7nb.png)
(source: [msdn.com](http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/brada/WindowsLiveWriter/55ff37220b2c.NETFramework4Poster_67A1/PDC2008-NETFX4_thumb.png))
and Here is the [deep zoom version](http://brad_abrams.members.winisp.net/Projects/PDC2008/DotNet4Poster/DotNetFramework4PosterDeepZoom.htm). |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | If you are bold and adventurous you can use [a tool I found on CodeProject](http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/AutoDiagrammer.aspx "CodeProject Article"). Send the framework classes to it and, voila, after some crunching, grinding and groaning you should get a diagram from it. | I'm looking at one (and several others) right behind me at the moment, apparently it comes with Visual C#/Studio. |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | <http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET_35_Namespaces_Poster_JAN08.pdf> | I'm looking at one (and several others) right behind me at the moment, apparently it comes with Visual C#/Studio. |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | [Check this poster](http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2008/10/29/net-framework-4-poster.aspx) and see if it helps.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wv7nb.png)
(source: [msdn.com](http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/brada/WindowsLiveWriter/55ff37220b2c.NETFramework4Poster_67A1/PDC2008-NETFX4_thumb.png))
and Here is the [deep zoom version](http://brad_abrams.members.winisp.net/Projects/PDC2008/DotNet4Poster/DotNetFramework4PosterDeepZoom.htm). | <http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET_35_Namespaces_Poster_JAN08.pdf> |
157,026 | I just need a file (picture, pdf or other type file for printing) of the framework structure.
It is very usefull while learning .Net framework. | 2008/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/157026",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/22641/"
] | <http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET_35_Namespaces_Poster_JAN08.pdf> | You didn't specify which version of the .NET Framework, and it's a little unclear if you mean a map of each class or a map of all classes. Anyhow, here's for .NET 3.5:
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/a/3/4a3c7c55-84ab-4588-84a4-f96424a7d82d/NET35_Namespaces_Poster_LORES.pdf> |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | Simplified, one key issue that drove or drives the Brexit movement is for the UK to have full sovereign control over the standards goods must adhere to.
Equally simplified, one key issue for the EU is what is known as the integrity of the internal market, i.e. that goods all across the EU adhere to the same sets of standards that were agreed upon by Parliament, Council and Commission—a.k.a. representatives of the people of the member states, the governments of the member states, and a kind of ‘expert committee’ nominally independent of the member states.
This would not be a problem if it were not for the history of the island of Ireland, especially the six counties in the northeastern corner usually known as Northern Ireland. Parts of the population see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom while other parts of the population see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland. One poll conducted in February this year found [just over one third of the population identifying as Irish and another third as British; one quarter said they were Unionist and one quarter said they were Nationalist](https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/northern-ireland-does-not-support-united-ireland-poll).
This conflict is almost impossible to solve, but the peace agreement currently in force has done a good job of preventing further violence that was prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. Although [a commitment to a fully open border is not literally part of this agreement](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40190), the current open border and the agreement are often [mentioned hand in hand (e.g. by the Irish Prime Minister)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/irish-pm-tells-uk-only-bilateral-deal-would-prevent-post-brexit-hard-border) which led to the public [often associating the open border primarily with this agreement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmniaf/329/32907.htm).
There is one more party whose wants we need to consider: the Republic of Ireland. It joined the EU (then EC) together with the UK in 1973 but it does not intend to leave the EU now or any time soon. In fact, as it uses the common currency it is more integrated into the EU than the UK ever was. It most likely sees significant benefits in remaining part of the EU, especially the Common Market. In addition, it has regularly repeated its commitment to keeping the border as open as possible.
Thus, from an EU point of view, the Common Market *must* include the Republic of Ireland. But also, there needs to be a fully open border between the UK territory of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. On the other hand barring agreements that the UK has indicated it is not willing to make, there cannot be an equally open border between the EU and the UK as a whole.
From a UK point of view, their internal market (between England, Scotland, Wales and critically Northern Ireland) must also remain open. The UK also wishes to uphold the peace process which in the minds of many requires the open border across the island of Ireland. Finally, they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to engage in a Monaco, Norway or Switzerland-like model with a fully open border to the EU as this violates the sovereign control mentioned at the very top of this answer.
Putting all together, there must be a customs border between the UK and the EU *somewhere.* This could be:
* between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ideal in the eyes of Ireland and the EU, unacceptable for the UK)
* between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (absolutely unacceptable for the Republic of Ireland; not desired by any other party)
* between the mainland and the British Isles (unacceptable for the EU and the Republic of Ireland, possibly ideal in the eyes of the UK)
None of these solutions are good. Each violate a core idea (national sovereignty, the EU integrity or an international agreement). ‘Technical solutions’ have been used for years as a way to solve the problem but to the best of my knowledge no convincing idea of such a technical solution has been proposed. Until I see a working suggestion for these ‘technical solutions’, I consider them hot air.
Such are the facts. The rest is opinions. The UK, especially its current Prime Minister has voiced the opinion that the EU be forcing a customs border across the Irish sea. The EU might reply that the outcome of the Brexit vote and subsequent agreement are forcing the EU to suggest this model as it may be the only one possible. It might also argue that essentially the UK is forcing negotiations into that direction as they refuse to make other concessions that would facilitate a different solution. The UK might reply that it is merely following the result of a referendum.
These opinions can be written either way and amount to nothing more than shifting the blame to the other side. Importantly though, all parties can claim whatever they want but ultimately analysts and historians a decade down the line will assign blame if it is to be assigned. | As a similitude to a game of chess, it's very general pawn protection angst from the UKgov. As in chess, there are millions of possible outcomes, and the UK wants to go backwards on the chess game, because it's the first time that they play the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable.
The UKgov wants to strengthen it's negotiation position because the EUgov has a stronger negotiating position through strength of numbers.
The UKgov has agreed that it does not trust the EUgov to play nicely after Brexit, on the subject of the N.I. pawn, and has decided to move the position of the N.I. pawn.
There is a deep mistrust in between the UKgov and the EUgov and it is entirely real and well justified because there are billions of dollars of commodities and of lobbying money at stake for both parties of politicians. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | Simplified, one key issue that drove or drives the Brexit movement is for the UK to have full sovereign control over the standards goods must adhere to.
Equally simplified, one key issue for the EU is what is known as the integrity of the internal market, i.e. that goods all across the EU adhere to the same sets of standards that were agreed upon by Parliament, Council and Commission—a.k.a. representatives of the people of the member states, the governments of the member states, and a kind of ‘expert committee’ nominally independent of the member states.
This would not be a problem if it were not for the history of the island of Ireland, especially the six counties in the northeastern corner usually known as Northern Ireland. Parts of the population see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom while other parts of the population see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland. One poll conducted in February this year found [just over one third of the population identifying as Irish and another third as British; one quarter said they were Unionist and one quarter said they were Nationalist](https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/northern-ireland-does-not-support-united-ireland-poll).
This conflict is almost impossible to solve, but the peace agreement currently in force has done a good job of preventing further violence that was prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. Although [a commitment to a fully open border is not literally part of this agreement](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40190), the current open border and the agreement are often [mentioned hand in hand (e.g. by the Irish Prime Minister)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/irish-pm-tells-uk-only-bilateral-deal-would-prevent-post-brexit-hard-border) which led to the public [often associating the open border primarily with this agreement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmniaf/329/32907.htm).
There is one more party whose wants we need to consider: the Republic of Ireland. It joined the EU (then EC) together with the UK in 1973 but it does not intend to leave the EU now or any time soon. In fact, as it uses the common currency it is more integrated into the EU than the UK ever was. It most likely sees significant benefits in remaining part of the EU, especially the Common Market. In addition, it has regularly repeated its commitment to keeping the border as open as possible.
Thus, from an EU point of view, the Common Market *must* include the Republic of Ireland. But also, there needs to be a fully open border between the UK territory of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. On the other hand barring agreements that the UK has indicated it is not willing to make, there cannot be an equally open border between the EU and the UK as a whole.
From a UK point of view, their internal market (between England, Scotland, Wales and critically Northern Ireland) must also remain open. The UK also wishes to uphold the peace process which in the minds of many requires the open border across the island of Ireland. Finally, they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to engage in a Monaco, Norway or Switzerland-like model with a fully open border to the EU as this violates the sovereign control mentioned at the very top of this answer.
Putting all together, there must be a customs border between the UK and the EU *somewhere.* This could be:
* between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ideal in the eyes of Ireland and the EU, unacceptable for the UK)
* between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (absolutely unacceptable for the Republic of Ireland; not desired by any other party)
* between the mainland and the British Isles (unacceptable for the EU and the Republic of Ireland, possibly ideal in the eyes of the UK)
None of these solutions are good. Each violate a core idea (national sovereignty, the EU integrity or an international agreement). ‘Technical solutions’ have been used for years as a way to solve the problem but to the best of my knowledge no convincing idea of such a technical solution has been proposed. Until I see a working suggestion for these ‘technical solutions’, I consider them hot air.
Such are the facts. The rest is opinions. The UK, especially its current Prime Minister has voiced the opinion that the EU be forcing a customs border across the Irish sea. The EU might reply that the outcome of the Brexit vote and subsequent agreement are forcing the EU to suggest this model as it may be the only one possible. It might also argue that essentially the UK is forcing negotiations into that direction as they refuse to make other concessions that would facilitate a different solution. The UK might reply that it is merely following the result of a referendum.
These opinions can be written either way and amount to nothing more than shifting the blame to the other side. Importantly though, all parties can claim whatever they want but ultimately analysts and historians a decade down the line will assign blame if it is to be assigned. | Just to add to "what the UK wants" ... it is a stretch to say the UK is united in this : "what the UK wants" is what a very small majority wanted before it got messy, or in practice, what quite a large majority in England wants.
A little historical context : The EU referendum came hard on the heels of another referendum, (September 2014) in which the UK government vowed to do everything it could to get and keep Scotland out of the EU if Scotland voted for independence : and thus the only way to remain IN the EU was to vote NO to independence.
So Scotland duly voted NO to independence ... granted I can't put a figure on how much of the modest "NO" majority was because of the EU ... but then voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU (about 63% to 38%) - as did N. Ireland (though less heavily).
Now the breaking of that 2014 promise as a result of the 2016 referendum imposes further internal stresses in the UK and Scotland desires a second IndyRef. "The UK" is officially opposed to this under the current government, but at some point in the future, and with or without UK permission, it is likely to happen, and current polling suggests, with a different result.
How this will all play out is anybody's guess, but in one feasible scenario additional to Jan's excellent answer, Scotland rejoins the EU, allowing a border free region involving NI and the EU (inc. ROI, Scotland) with controls at the Scottish border and between NI and English seaports.
In this scenario, NI may either opt to unite with the ROI to rejoin the EU, or remain in the "UK" under a similarly bizarre agreement. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | From the EU27 viewpoint, the Brexiteers promised a *unicorn* and now expect the EU27 to deliver this impossible creature. The EU27 always said that it can't be done without breaking something, and that it won't be the EU internal market which breaks.
* The EU27 want to have an open internal market, notably between the ROI and the mainland EU.
* The UK want to have an open internal market, notably between NI and England/Scotland/Wales.
* The ROI and NI should have no hard border, and there should be good economic integration.
* The UK and the EU27 will have separate internal markets after Brexit unless current and future regulations are the same.
From the Brexiteer viewpoint, the problems can be solved with a little bit of technology ([online tracking of freight](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47047993)) and goodwill on both sides, and it is the EU27 being difficult on purpose to frustrate the Brexiteer goals. UK safety standards would remain high, [they say](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53368998), even if they differ in details, and there would not be smuggling on an industrial scale from England via Ireland to the mainland EU. | As a similitude to a game of chess, it's very general pawn protection angst from the UKgov. As in chess, there are millions of possible outcomes, and the UK wants to go backwards on the chess game, because it's the first time that they play the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable.
The UKgov wants to strengthen it's negotiation position because the EUgov has a stronger negotiating position through strength of numbers.
The UKgov has agreed that it does not trust the EUgov to play nicely after Brexit, on the subject of the N.I. pawn, and has decided to move the position of the N.I. pawn.
There is a deep mistrust in between the UKgov and the EUgov and it is entirely real and well justified because there are billions of dollars of commodities and of lobbying money at stake for both parties of politicians. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | From the EU27 viewpoint, the Brexiteers promised a *unicorn* and now expect the EU27 to deliver this impossible creature. The EU27 always said that it can't be done without breaking something, and that it won't be the EU internal market which breaks.
* The EU27 want to have an open internal market, notably between the ROI and the mainland EU.
* The UK want to have an open internal market, notably between NI and England/Scotland/Wales.
* The ROI and NI should have no hard border, and there should be good economic integration.
* The UK and the EU27 will have separate internal markets after Brexit unless current and future regulations are the same.
From the Brexiteer viewpoint, the problems can be solved with a little bit of technology ([online tracking of freight](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47047993)) and goodwill on both sides, and it is the EU27 being difficult on purpose to frustrate the Brexiteer goals. UK safety standards would remain high, [they say](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53368998), even if they differ in details, and there would not be smuggling on an industrial scale from England via Ireland to the mainland EU. | Simplified, one key issue that drove or drives the Brexit movement is for the UK to have full sovereign control over the standards goods must adhere to.
Equally simplified, one key issue for the EU is what is known as the integrity of the internal market, i.e. that goods all across the EU adhere to the same sets of standards that were agreed upon by Parliament, Council and Commission—a.k.a. representatives of the people of the member states, the governments of the member states, and a kind of ‘expert committee’ nominally independent of the member states.
This would not be a problem if it were not for the history of the island of Ireland, especially the six counties in the northeastern corner usually known as Northern Ireland. Parts of the population see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom while other parts of the population see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland. One poll conducted in February this year found [just over one third of the population identifying as Irish and another third as British; one quarter said they were Unionist and one quarter said they were Nationalist](https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/northern-ireland-does-not-support-united-ireland-poll).
This conflict is almost impossible to solve, but the peace agreement currently in force has done a good job of preventing further violence that was prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. Although [a commitment to a fully open border is not literally part of this agreement](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40190), the current open border and the agreement are often [mentioned hand in hand (e.g. by the Irish Prime Minister)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/irish-pm-tells-uk-only-bilateral-deal-would-prevent-post-brexit-hard-border) which led to the public [often associating the open border primarily with this agreement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmniaf/329/32907.htm).
There is one more party whose wants we need to consider: the Republic of Ireland. It joined the EU (then EC) together with the UK in 1973 but it does not intend to leave the EU now or any time soon. In fact, as it uses the common currency it is more integrated into the EU than the UK ever was. It most likely sees significant benefits in remaining part of the EU, especially the Common Market. In addition, it has regularly repeated its commitment to keeping the border as open as possible.
Thus, from an EU point of view, the Common Market *must* include the Republic of Ireland. But also, there needs to be a fully open border between the UK territory of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. On the other hand barring agreements that the UK has indicated it is not willing to make, there cannot be an equally open border between the EU and the UK as a whole.
From a UK point of view, their internal market (between England, Scotland, Wales and critically Northern Ireland) must also remain open. The UK also wishes to uphold the peace process which in the minds of many requires the open border across the island of Ireland. Finally, they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to engage in a Monaco, Norway or Switzerland-like model with a fully open border to the EU as this violates the sovereign control mentioned at the very top of this answer.
Putting all together, there must be a customs border between the UK and the EU *somewhere.* This could be:
* between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ideal in the eyes of Ireland and the EU, unacceptable for the UK)
* between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (absolutely unacceptable for the Republic of Ireland; not desired by any other party)
* between the mainland and the British Isles (unacceptable for the EU and the Republic of Ireland, possibly ideal in the eyes of the UK)
None of these solutions are good. Each violate a core idea (national sovereignty, the EU integrity or an international agreement). ‘Technical solutions’ have been used for years as a way to solve the problem but to the best of my knowledge no convincing idea of such a technical solution has been proposed. Until I see a working suggestion for these ‘technical solutions’, I consider them hot air.
Such are the facts. The rest is opinions. The UK, especially its current Prime Minister has voiced the opinion that the EU be forcing a customs border across the Irish sea. The EU might reply that the outcome of the Brexit vote and subsequent agreement are forcing the EU to suggest this model as it may be the only one possible. It might also argue that essentially the UK is forcing negotiations into that direction as they refuse to make other concessions that would facilitate a different solution. The UK might reply that it is merely following the result of a referendum.
These opinions can be written either way and amount to nothing more than shifting the blame to the other side. Importantly though, all parties can claim whatever they want but ultimately analysts and historians a decade down the line will assign blame if it is to be assigned. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | Let's just start with your title question:
>
> Why is the UK blaming the EU
>
>
>
Boris Johnson and every Brexiteer have a choice: blame themselves or blame the EU. They're not going to ever accept any blame themselves, so they will blame the EU for anything they think is unpopular.
Cynical politicians will not be the ones to stand up and say "My Fault !".
So expect more of the same.
One problem here is that UK voters seem to pay no attention at all to what is actually said by the EU. Their news is mostly fed via sources "they trust" - i.e. they choose sources that confirm their biases. Instead, people describe anything they don't already believe as "biased".
So in this climate ("us" and "them") in the UK, there's no checks and no balances to blaming the "them" and in this case that's the EU.
The EU, while exasperated by all this, has been planning with the expectation the UK would be daft enough to go for a no deal Brexit for a long time. My impression is that EU negotiators have regarded the UK as not engaging in negotiations for a long time.
>
> and what does the UK want ?
>
>
>
To eat the cake while still having the cake.
The UK "position" has always been that they should have free access to EU markets without having to obey the same rules as every other business in the EU ("the level playing field" concept), rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey.
It's the EU's marketplace - their pitch, their rules. Seems reasonable to me.
The UK present a level playing as "no rules for the UK", which of course is completely unacceptable to anyone in the EU, which is why the EU is in the rare position of being 100% united on its position on Brexit.
There never was (from the referendum on) any single unified UK position on what the UK actually wants from Brexit. There was no (realistic) plan, there is no plan and it seems quite like that when the UK "drives off the cliff edge" at the end of the year 2020, there will still be no plan.
What the UK wants is everything it had inside the EU without being subject to the rules that define that market.
No one will ever get that - it would be absurd for the EU to grant that wish.
And now that quote from the UK's foreign minister:
>
> what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain
>
>
>
This is what the UK agreed to under international law.
It was not hidden in the text, in the small print (and even if it was, the UK helped write that text and has a lot of lawyers for reading small print). They were not duped, tricked or pressured. They wrote it. It was, in fact, the single most important aspect that allowed a withdrawal agreement to be agreed.
They now have an international agreement they want to get out of.
What happens when you do that? No one trusts you.
Japan won't ratify the proposed trade deal it has (which is very favorable to Japan) until *after* Brexit is complete. Why? They want to see if the UK will stick to its agreements. How likely is it that the Japanese will ratify a deal with a country that (if things continue as they are) will have broken another international deal with a trading partner (the EU) that is orders of magnitude more important to them than the UK?
Not very, I think.
The US (even the Republican party with Trump at the helm !) has already made it clear that breaking international law is a non-starter and will make a trade deal with the US "problematic". (And if Brexiteers think the EU is unfair, wait until you see US trade terms.)
Risking stability and peace in Northern Ireland for that is staggeringly irresponsible, but it's apparently what the UK government is willing to do. The other thing being risked is that the UK will become something of a pariah if it violates international agreements.
The UK wants everything and will never get it. That is the nub of the problem. | As a similitude to a game of chess, it's very general pawn protection angst from the UKgov. As in chess, there are millions of possible outcomes, and the UK wants to go backwards on the chess game, because it's the first time that they play the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable.
The UKgov wants to strengthen it's negotiation position because the EUgov has a stronger negotiating position through strength of numbers.
The UKgov has agreed that it does not trust the EUgov to play nicely after Brexit, on the subject of the N.I. pawn, and has decided to move the position of the N.I. pawn.
There is a deep mistrust in between the UKgov and the EUgov and it is entirely real and well justified because there are billions of dollars of commodities and of lobbying money at stake for both parties of politicians. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | The following chart shows the various different levels of membership/alignment with the EU, along with the reasons the UK government has given for them being unacceptable ([source](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michel-barnier-killer-graphic-brexit-theresa-mays-red-lines-on-bespoke-model_uk_5a39497ce4b0fc99878f2058?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKW2eTkOqWpCjloHaFTxKs4Qs-Cdw_HYgqFIcCObf4RqPaj1KsByZoRxLhpbZcpiW9XeSkUOVHhFPHxbJzwdclxiT7AD0hDkQRgXhfcyYdljUo3TKNAC9VaTeu_h4iU6Luos_PuKmPo2gyADZVb-ijLWwR-1kIbiPe_FaWDtxNHS)).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LuhJC.jpg)
This chart was presented by Michel Barnier back in 2017 and the EU position has not changed since. Some details about what a Canada-style agreement would entail are covered [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45633592).
Essentially this would remove some tariffs and raise quotas but it would require some form of border checks between the EU and UK. In practice this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The UK government has said that instead of a hard border a technological solution could be used, however they have not provided any details of what such a solution would involve and there is speculation as to whether or not the required technology has been invented yet. If no technological solution can be found they will have to revert to a hard border.
So essentially the EU has given the UK a breakdown of the different relationships available but the UK government has rejected them all. The UK government wants the benefits of trading with the EU but refuses to accept any of the conditions required to make that possible. The UK is therefore trying to save face by blaming the EU for not giving them special treatment, despite the fact that the EU position has not changed since day one and the UK has never had a clear position of its own. Note that the UK has historically enjoyed a high representation in the EU and had a significant hand in producing the rules that they are now trying to change to their own benefit and to the EU's detriment. | As a similitude to a game of chess, it's very general pawn protection angst from the UKgov. As in chess, there are millions of possible outcomes, and the UK wants to go backwards on the chess game, because it's the first time that they play the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable.
The UKgov wants to strengthen it's negotiation position because the EUgov has a stronger negotiating position through strength of numbers.
The UKgov has agreed that it does not trust the EUgov to play nicely after Brexit, on the subject of the N.I. pawn, and has decided to move the position of the N.I. pawn.
There is a deep mistrust in between the UKgov and the EUgov and it is entirely real and well justified because there are billions of dollars of commodities and of lobbying money at stake for both parties of politicians. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | From the EU27 viewpoint, the Brexiteers promised a *unicorn* and now expect the EU27 to deliver this impossible creature. The EU27 always said that it can't be done without breaking something, and that it won't be the EU internal market which breaks.
* The EU27 want to have an open internal market, notably between the ROI and the mainland EU.
* The UK want to have an open internal market, notably between NI and England/Scotland/Wales.
* The ROI and NI should have no hard border, and there should be good economic integration.
* The UK and the EU27 will have separate internal markets after Brexit unless current and future regulations are the same.
From the Brexiteer viewpoint, the problems can be solved with a little bit of technology ([online tracking of freight](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47047993)) and goodwill on both sides, and it is the EU27 being difficult on purpose to frustrate the Brexiteer goals. UK safety standards would remain high, [they say](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53368998), even if they differ in details, and there would not be smuggling on an industrial scale from England via Ireland to the mainland EU. | Let's just start with your title question:
>
> Why is the UK blaming the EU
>
>
>
Boris Johnson and every Brexiteer have a choice: blame themselves or blame the EU. They're not going to ever accept any blame themselves, so they will blame the EU for anything they think is unpopular.
Cynical politicians will not be the ones to stand up and say "My Fault !".
So expect more of the same.
One problem here is that UK voters seem to pay no attention at all to what is actually said by the EU. Their news is mostly fed via sources "they trust" - i.e. they choose sources that confirm their biases. Instead, people describe anything they don't already believe as "biased".
So in this climate ("us" and "them") in the UK, there's no checks and no balances to blaming the "them" and in this case that's the EU.
The EU, while exasperated by all this, has been planning with the expectation the UK would be daft enough to go for a no deal Brexit for a long time. My impression is that EU negotiators have regarded the UK as not engaging in negotiations for a long time.
>
> and what does the UK want ?
>
>
>
To eat the cake while still having the cake.
The UK "position" has always been that they should have free access to EU markets without having to obey the same rules as every other business in the EU ("the level playing field" concept), rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey.
It's the EU's marketplace - their pitch, their rules. Seems reasonable to me.
The UK present a level playing as "no rules for the UK", which of course is completely unacceptable to anyone in the EU, which is why the EU is in the rare position of being 100% united on its position on Brexit.
There never was (from the referendum on) any single unified UK position on what the UK actually wants from Brexit. There was no (realistic) plan, there is no plan and it seems quite like that when the UK "drives off the cliff edge" at the end of the year 2020, there will still be no plan.
What the UK wants is everything it had inside the EU without being subject to the rules that define that market.
No one will ever get that - it would be absurd for the EU to grant that wish.
And now that quote from the UK's foreign minister:
>
> what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain
>
>
>
This is what the UK agreed to under international law.
It was not hidden in the text, in the small print (and even if it was, the UK helped write that text and has a lot of lawyers for reading small print). They were not duped, tricked or pressured. They wrote it. It was, in fact, the single most important aspect that allowed a withdrawal agreement to be agreed.
They now have an international agreement they want to get out of.
What happens when you do that? No one trusts you.
Japan won't ratify the proposed trade deal it has (which is very favorable to Japan) until *after* Brexit is complete. Why? They want to see if the UK will stick to its agreements. How likely is it that the Japanese will ratify a deal with a country that (if things continue as they are) will have broken another international deal with a trading partner (the EU) that is orders of magnitude more important to them than the UK?
Not very, I think.
The US (even the Republican party with Trump at the helm !) has already made it clear that breaking international law is a non-starter and will make a trade deal with the US "problematic". (And if Brexiteers think the EU is unfair, wait until you see US trade terms.)
Risking stability and peace in Northern Ireland for that is staggeringly irresponsible, but it's apparently what the UK government is willing to do. The other thing being risked is that the UK will become something of a pariah if it violates international agreements.
The UK wants everything and will never get it. That is the nub of the problem. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | Let's just start with your title question:
>
> Why is the UK blaming the EU
>
>
>
Boris Johnson and every Brexiteer have a choice: blame themselves or blame the EU. They're not going to ever accept any blame themselves, so they will blame the EU for anything they think is unpopular.
Cynical politicians will not be the ones to stand up and say "My Fault !".
So expect more of the same.
One problem here is that UK voters seem to pay no attention at all to what is actually said by the EU. Their news is mostly fed via sources "they trust" - i.e. they choose sources that confirm their biases. Instead, people describe anything they don't already believe as "biased".
So in this climate ("us" and "them") in the UK, there's no checks and no balances to blaming the "them" and in this case that's the EU.
The EU, while exasperated by all this, has been planning with the expectation the UK would be daft enough to go for a no deal Brexit for a long time. My impression is that EU negotiators have regarded the UK as not engaging in negotiations for a long time.
>
> and what does the UK want ?
>
>
>
To eat the cake while still having the cake.
The UK "position" has always been that they should have free access to EU markets without having to obey the same rules as every other business in the EU ("the level playing field" concept), rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey.
It's the EU's marketplace - their pitch, their rules. Seems reasonable to me.
The UK present a level playing as "no rules for the UK", which of course is completely unacceptable to anyone in the EU, which is why the EU is in the rare position of being 100% united on its position on Brexit.
There never was (from the referendum on) any single unified UK position on what the UK actually wants from Brexit. There was no (realistic) plan, there is no plan and it seems quite like that when the UK "drives off the cliff edge" at the end of the year 2020, there will still be no plan.
What the UK wants is everything it had inside the EU without being subject to the rules that define that market.
No one will ever get that - it would be absurd for the EU to grant that wish.
And now that quote from the UK's foreign minister:
>
> what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain
>
>
>
This is what the UK agreed to under international law.
It was not hidden in the text, in the small print (and even if it was, the UK helped write that text and has a lot of lawyers for reading small print). They were not duped, tricked or pressured. They wrote it. It was, in fact, the single most important aspect that allowed a withdrawal agreement to be agreed.
They now have an international agreement they want to get out of.
What happens when you do that? No one trusts you.
Japan won't ratify the proposed trade deal it has (which is very favorable to Japan) until *after* Brexit is complete. Why? They want to see if the UK will stick to its agreements. How likely is it that the Japanese will ratify a deal with a country that (if things continue as they are) will have broken another international deal with a trading partner (the EU) that is orders of magnitude more important to them than the UK?
Not very, I think.
The US (even the Republican party with Trump at the helm !) has already made it clear that breaking international law is a non-starter and will make a trade deal with the US "problematic". (And if Brexiteers think the EU is unfair, wait until you see US trade terms.)
Risking stability and peace in Northern Ireland for that is staggeringly irresponsible, but it's apparently what the UK government is willing to do. The other thing being risked is that the UK will become something of a pariah if it violates international agreements.
The UK wants everything and will never get it. That is the nub of the problem. | Just to add to "what the UK wants" ... it is a stretch to say the UK is united in this : "what the UK wants" is what a very small majority wanted before it got messy, or in practice, what quite a large majority in England wants.
A little historical context : The EU referendum came hard on the heels of another referendum, (September 2014) in which the UK government vowed to do everything it could to get and keep Scotland out of the EU if Scotland voted for independence : and thus the only way to remain IN the EU was to vote NO to independence.
So Scotland duly voted NO to independence ... granted I can't put a figure on how much of the modest "NO" majority was because of the EU ... but then voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU (about 63% to 38%) - as did N. Ireland (though less heavily).
Now the breaking of that 2014 promise as a result of the 2016 referendum imposes further internal stresses in the UK and Scotland desires a second IndyRef. "The UK" is officially opposed to this under the current government, but at some point in the future, and with or without UK permission, it is likely to happen, and current polling suggests, with a different result.
How this will all play out is anybody's guess, but in one feasible scenario additional to Jan's excellent answer, Scotland rejoins the EU, allowing a border free region involving NI and the EU (inc. ROI, Scotland) with controls at the Scottish border and between NI and English seaports.
In this scenario, NI may either opt to unite with the ROI to rejoin the EU, or remain in the "UK" under a similarly bizarre agreement. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | Simplified, one key issue that drove or drives the Brexit movement is for the UK to have full sovereign control over the standards goods must adhere to.
Equally simplified, one key issue for the EU is what is known as the integrity of the internal market, i.e. that goods all across the EU adhere to the same sets of standards that were agreed upon by Parliament, Council and Commission—a.k.a. representatives of the people of the member states, the governments of the member states, and a kind of ‘expert committee’ nominally independent of the member states.
This would not be a problem if it were not for the history of the island of Ireland, especially the six counties in the northeastern corner usually known as Northern Ireland. Parts of the population see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom while other parts of the population see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland. One poll conducted in February this year found [just over one third of the population identifying as Irish and another third as British; one quarter said they were Unionist and one quarter said they were Nationalist](https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/northern-ireland-does-not-support-united-ireland-poll).
This conflict is almost impossible to solve, but the peace agreement currently in force has done a good job of preventing further violence that was prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. Although [a commitment to a fully open border is not literally part of this agreement](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40190), the current open border and the agreement are often [mentioned hand in hand (e.g. by the Irish Prime Minister)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/irish-pm-tells-uk-only-bilateral-deal-would-prevent-post-brexit-hard-border) which led to the public [often associating the open border primarily with this agreement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmniaf/329/32907.htm).
There is one more party whose wants we need to consider: the Republic of Ireland. It joined the EU (then EC) together with the UK in 1973 but it does not intend to leave the EU now or any time soon. In fact, as it uses the common currency it is more integrated into the EU than the UK ever was. It most likely sees significant benefits in remaining part of the EU, especially the Common Market. In addition, it has regularly repeated its commitment to keeping the border as open as possible.
Thus, from an EU point of view, the Common Market *must* include the Republic of Ireland. But also, there needs to be a fully open border between the UK territory of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. On the other hand barring agreements that the UK has indicated it is not willing to make, there cannot be an equally open border between the EU and the UK as a whole.
From a UK point of view, their internal market (between England, Scotland, Wales and critically Northern Ireland) must also remain open. The UK also wishes to uphold the peace process which in the minds of many requires the open border across the island of Ireland. Finally, they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to engage in a Monaco, Norway or Switzerland-like model with a fully open border to the EU as this violates the sovereign control mentioned at the very top of this answer.
Putting all together, there must be a customs border between the UK and the EU *somewhere.* This could be:
* between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ideal in the eyes of Ireland and the EU, unacceptable for the UK)
* between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (absolutely unacceptable for the Republic of Ireland; not desired by any other party)
* between the mainland and the British Isles (unacceptable for the EU and the Republic of Ireland, possibly ideal in the eyes of the UK)
None of these solutions are good. Each violate a core idea (national sovereignty, the EU integrity or an international agreement). ‘Technical solutions’ have been used for years as a way to solve the problem but to the best of my knowledge no convincing idea of such a technical solution has been proposed. Until I see a working suggestion for these ‘technical solutions’, I consider them hot air.
Such are the facts. The rest is opinions. The UK, especially its current Prime Minister has voiced the opinion that the EU be forcing a customs border across the Irish sea. The EU might reply that the outcome of the Brexit vote and subsequent agreement are forcing the EU to suggest this model as it may be the only one possible. It might also argue that essentially the UK is forcing negotiations into that direction as they refuse to make other concessions that would facilitate a different solution. The UK might reply that it is merely following the result of a referendum.
These opinions can be written either way and amount to nothing more than shifting the blame to the other side. Importantly though, all parties can claim whatever they want but ultimately analysts and historians a decade down the line will assign blame if it is to be assigned. | The following chart shows the various different levels of membership/alignment with the EU, along with the reasons the UK government has given for them being unacceptable ([source](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michel-barnier-killer-graphic-brexit-theresa-mays-red-lines-on-bespoke-model_uk_5a39497ce4b0fc99878f2058?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKW2eTkOqWpCjloHaFTxKs4Qs-Cdw_HYgqFIcCObf4RqPaj1KsByZoRxLhpbZcpiW9XeSkUOVHhFPHxbJzwdclxiT7AD0hDkQRgXhfcyYdljUo3TKNAC9VaTeu_h4iU6Luos_PuKmPo2gyADZVb-ijLWwR-1kIbiPe_FaWDtxNHS)).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LuhJC.jpg)
This chart was presented by Michel Barnier back in 2017 and the EU position has not changed since. Some details about what a Canada-style agreement would entail are covered [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45633592).
Essentially this would remove some tariffs and raise quotas but it would require some form of border checks between the EU and UK. In practice this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The UK government has said that instead of a hard border a technological solution could be used, however they have not provided any details of what such a solution would involve and there is speculation as to whether or not the required technology has been invented yet. If no technological solution can be found they will have to revert to a hard border.
So essentially the EU has given the UK a breakdown of the different relationships available but the UK government has rejected them all. The UK government wants the benefits of trading with the EU but refuses to accept any of the conditions required to make that possible. The UK is therefore trying to save face by blaming the EU for not giving them special treatment, despite the fact that the EU position has not changed since day one and the UK has never had a clear position of its own. Note that the UK has historically enjoyed a high representation in the EU and had a significant hand in producing the rules that they are now trying to change to their own benefit and to the EU's detriment. |
57,262 | I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:
>
> [...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.
>
>
>
These are the words of the UK's foreign minister [reported](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571) by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that
1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);
2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.
How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite [the Troubles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)? | 2020/09/17 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57262",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/30327/"
] | From the EU27 viewpoint, the Brexiteers promised a *unicorn* and now expect the EU27 to deliver this impossible creature. The EU27 always said that it can't be done without breaking something, and that it won't be the EU internal market which breaks.
* The EU27 want to have an open internal market, notably between the ROI and the mainland EU.
* The UK want to have an open internal market, notably between NI and England/Scotland/Wales.
* The ROI and NI should have no hard border, and there should be good economic integration.
* The UK and the EU27 will have separate internal markets after Brexit unless current and future regulations are the same.
From the Brexiteer viewpoint, the problems can be solved with a little bit of technology ([online tracking of freight](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47047993)) and goodwill on both sides, and it is the EU27 being difficult on purpose to frustrate the Brexiteer goals. UK safety standards would remain high, [they say](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53368998), even if they differ in details, and there would not be smuggling on an industrial scale from England via Ireland to the mainland EU. | The following chart shows the various different levels of membership/alignment with the EU, along with the reasons the UK government has given for them being unacceptable ([source](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michel-barnier-killer-graphic-brexit-theresa-mays-red-lines-on-bespoke-model_uk_5a39497ce4b0fc99878f2058?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKW2eTkOqWpCjloHaFTxKs4Qs-Cdw_HYgqFIcCObf4RqPaj1KsByZoRxLhpbZcpiW9XeSkUOVHhFPHxbJzwdclxiT7AD0hDkQRgXhfcyYdljUo3TKNAC9VaTeu_h4iU6Luos_PuKmPo2gyADZVb-ijLWwR-1kIbiPe_FaWDtxNHS)).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LuhJC.jpg)
This chart was presented by Michel Barnier back in 2017 and the EU position has not changed since. Some details about what a Canada-style agreement would entail are covered [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45633592).
Essentially this would remove some tariffs and raise quotas but it would require some form of border checks between the EU and UK. In practice this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The UK government has said that instead of a hard border a technological solution could be used, however they have not provided any details of what such a solution would involve and there is speculation as to whether or not the required technology has been invented yet. If no technological solution can be found they will have to revert to a hard border.
So essentially the EU has given the UK a breakdown of the different relationships available but the UK government has rejected them all. The UK government wants the benefits of trading with the EU but refuses to accept any of the conditions required to make that possible. The UK is therefore trying to save face by blaming the EU for not giving them special treatment, despite the fact that the EU position has not changed since day one and the UK has never had a clear position of its own. Note that the UK has historically enjoyed a high representation in the EU and had a significant hand in producing the rules that they are now trying to change to their own benefit and to the EU's detriment. |
55,324 | I have some patches of bare earth in my back yard where the grass just will not grow. I figured I'd give a go at seeding it for moss, since I've heard that it works better for some poor soil conditions. My immediate problem is that the moss seeds are absolutely tiny, like the size of sesame seeds. The packet claims that the 1000 seeds are good for about 500 square feet, but short of carefully picking up and placing the seeds, I feel like they're just going to fall in clumps that barely cover a dozen square feet. Is there a trick to it? A good tool to use? I have a spreader, but even that seems to put down seed at a much higher density. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/55324",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/11453/"
] | I have never used moss seed. I think vegetative propagation would be more reliable . If you could find some mosses in a local wooded area and transplant it. I have found it grows slowly but consistently. I have a small pond with a flagstone area where I put in some and it has grown very well . I would hand broadcast the seed , that is what I do with annual rye and fertilizer. For small seed you can mix the seed with something like sand to make it easier to handle and help to see where it is being broadcast. | Just regularly spot treat any "normal" green plants (grass, weeds, etc) that appear with Roundup. Nature abhors a vacuum. Given time, assuming the habitat is suitable and with a bit of luck, more "primitive" plants (that Roundup doesn't affect) such as mosses, liverworts and ferns will naturally colonise the area. The advantage of this method is that you will end up with those species that are native to your location. |
55,324 | I have some patches of bare earth in my back yard where the grass just will not grow. I figured I'd give a go at seeding it for moss, since I've heard that it works better for some poor soil conditions. My immediate problem is that the moss seeds are absolutely tiny, like the size of sesame seeds. The packet claims that the 1000 seeds are good for about 500 square feet, but short of carefully picking up and placing the seeds, I feel like they're just going to fall in clumps that barely cover a dozen square feet. Is there a trick to it? A good tool to use? I have a spreader, but even that seems to put down seed at a much higher density. | 2020/10/09 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/55324",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/11453/"
] | As you realized, trying to sow individual tiny seeds 6 inches apart, outdoors, won't work.
You are supposed to sow them into seed trays and then transplant the moss plants after they have germinated. That is still going to be a lot of tedious work, but at least it is possible.
As blacksmith37's answer says, unless you really want some particular species of moss, just finding some moss that is already growing and transplanting it would be easier. | Just regularly spot treat any "normal" green plants (grass, weeds, etc) that appear with Roundup. Nature abhors a vacuum. Given time, assuming the habitat is suitable and with a bit of luck, more "primitive" plants (that Roundup doesn't affect) such as mosses, liverworts and ferns will naturally colonise the area. The advantage of this method is that you will end up with those species that are native to your location. |
159,156 | Say, I have two itineraries booked with Ryan Air. City A to City B, and City B to City C, with a few hours connection in City B. Being a point-to-point airline, Ryan Air does not offer connecting flights, and my itineraries have been booked independently.
Now because of COVID, the second flight City B to City C was cancelled. I was offered a full refund, which I have no hopes of receiving any time soon, but that's a different discussion. The cancellation notice was sent well in advance, so that no recourse to 261/2004 for compensation is possible.
However, with the cancellation of the second flight, the trip as such does not exist any more, and the first flight cannot be used. As per Article 10.2 of Ryan Air General terms & conditions of carriage,
>
> Except as otherwise provided by the Convention or Regulation (EC) No.
> 261/2004 (click here for the text setting out these rights), if we
> cancel a flight, fail to operate a flight reasonably according to
> schedule or cease to operate a route, we shall make a refund to you in
> respect of each sector shown in the Confirmation/Itinerary which has
> not been utilised for any of these reasons. The amount of refund
> shall be equal to the fare paid plus any associated taxes, fees and
> charges paid.
>
>
>
My itinerary for the flight City A - City B was not utilized because of the cancellation of the flight City B - City C. This is a consequence of Ryan Air's action, which they should care responsibility for. The online customer service agent denies any possibility of refund, and copies and pastes random passages from the agreement.
**Question:** Can I claim a refund for the unused flight City A to City B, based on the cancellation of the flight City B to City C? If yes, what would be the best ways to do so?
Thank you. | 2020/08/31 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/159156",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/113214/"
] | >
> Can I claim a refund for the unused flight City A to City B, based on the cancellation of the flight City B to City C? If yes,
>
>
>
Generally no. Each itinerary is a different contract and they are not coupled in any way. Ryan Air sold you ticket from B to C and if you don't show up it's your problem, not theirs. The fact that you happened to also use Ryan Air to get from A to B makes no material difference to the B to C flight.
>
> what would be the best ways to do so?
>
>
>
Best shot is to call Ryan Air and ask nicely. They have no real obligation but they may polite and offer your a partial refund, points, voucher or change fee waiver. It might also be useful to read all the current Covid waivers and rules very carefully.
Hindsight being 20:20: Booking separate tickets is almost always a bad idea: it may be cheaper in some cases, but the passenger carries the full risk of anything going wrong. At the very least, add a good travel insurance to get some protection, although the cost of the insurance may wipe out the price benefits. | No, you are not entitled to a refund of the first flight.
You already wrote the explanation yourself: you have booked two independent itineraries. The passage of the t&cs you are quoting gives you a right to refund if there are multiple flights on one itinerary, but that is clearly not applicable here. |
577,556 | Most algorithms use their own loss function for optimization. But these loss functions are always different from metrics used for actual evaluation. For example, for building binary classification models, log loss is normally used as the loss function, but accuracy or F1 score is used for evaluation. loss functions and evaluation metrics are not always highly correlated. So I wonder why we don't just use evaluation metrics \* -1 as the loss function. | 2022/06/02 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/577556",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/256617/"
] | Maximizing accuracy (percent of correctly examples) is the same as minimizing error rate (percent of incorrectly classified examples). For a single observation, the loss function for the error rate is always 1 (if the predicted class does not match the label) or 0 (if the predicted class matches the label). Accordingly, the derivative of this function is always 0 except at a negligible set of points where the derivative is infinite. This excludes any gradient-based optimizer from training a model, because the model parameters almost always have an update step size of 0, except for the countable number of times when the step size is infinite.
Giving up gradient information is not a good trade, because gradient descent, Newton-Raphson and similar are very effective at finding solutions which also have high accuracies, even though accuracy was not optimized directly. Examples include [neural-networks](/questions/tagged/neural-networks "show questions tagged 'neural-networks'") and [logistic](/questions/tagged/logistic "show questions tagged 'logistic'") regression.
Not all models are trained with gradient information. One prominent example is tree-induction methods such as random forest (however, not all trees are free of gradients; gradient-boosted trees use gradient information). These tree-based models search for good splits by optimizing some criterion, usually gini impurity, or information gain. While these models aren't optimized using gradient information, they also aren't optimized using accuracy. I suppose hypothetically you could use accuracy as a the split criterion. | It's because [accuracy is *not a proper scoring rule*](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/359936/249731). You will want to consider the [*cost of misclassification*](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/312787/249731).
Here are some more useful links:
* [Example when using accuracy as an outcome measure will lead to a wrong conclusion.](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/368979/249731)
* [Use of proper scoring rule when classification is required.](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/469059/249731)
* [The statistical part of prediction ends with outputting a distribution.](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/367880/249731)
And here the excellent posts by Frank Harrel:
* [Classification vs. Prediction.](https://www.fharrell.com/post/classification/)
* [Damage Caused by Classification Accuracy and Other Discontinuous Improper Accuracy Scoring Rules](https://www.fharrell.com/post/class-damage/)
Here's a counter-example where using [accuracy as loss function *was* actually better](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/538524/249731) than using the Brier-score.
You'll find that this answer is not definitive, and it depends on your actual problem if using evaluation metrics is a valid choice. I suppose it depends on the answer to the question *"Does using a surrogate loss that also is a proper scoring rule reflect the learning goal of the problem well?"* |
109,683 | >
> 1. This blouse is a bit of a fiddle to do up.
> 2. It's kind of complicated to do up this blouse.
>
>
>
I've just came across the meaning of "fiddle" as "something difficult to do" and I tried to rephrase the sentence in order to get kind of a synonym. | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37612/"
] | Yes, you can say it and it won't be wrong:
>
> **fiddle**
>
> **3** *British informal* a small task that seems awkward and unnecessarily complex:
>
> *inserting a tape is a bit of a fiddle*
>
>
> [[ODO](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fiddle)]
>
>
>
but generally fiddle is defined & accepted as:
* to touch or move something with many small quick movements of your fingers because you are bored, nervous, or concentrating on something else
* to produce false results or records, in order to get money or other benefits
* to play a tune on the violin. | I agree. Fiddle is not complicated, but can require many steps with attention to detail and precision. Complicated implies levels of structure, and extensive decision making. |
109,683 | >
> 1. This blouse is a bit of a fiddle to do up.
> 2. It's kind of complicated to do up this blouse.
>
>
>
I've just came across the meaning of "fiddle" as "something difficult to do" and I tried to rephrase the sentence in order to get kind of a synonym. | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37612/"
] | Yes, you can say it and it won't be wrong:
>
> **fiddle**
>
> **3** *British informal* a small task that seems awkward and unnecessarily complex:
>
> *inserting a tape is a bit of a fiddle*
>
>
> [[ODO](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fiddle)]
>
>
>
but generally fiddle is defined & accepted as:
* to touch or move something with many small quick movements of your fingers because you are bored, nervous, or concentrating on something else
* to produce false results or records, in order to get money or other benefits
* to play a tune on the violin. | I wouldn't say a woman's blouse is *complicated* to do up, you don't need to follow a manual before it is buttoned. On the other hand, making something small and intricate like [Dorset buttons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_button) looks complicated and very *fiddly* work.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AyxLn.jpg)
Certain buttons can be time consuming to close and might require nimble finger work.
I'd say the following [*Austrian tinies*](http://galleryofcostume.org/Written%20Articles/Buttons/AA_Buttons_Frame.htm) [the website misnamed them *Austrian smalls*] are *fiddly* because of their tiny size. If you had twenty or more similar buttons on a dress or jacket, they wouldn't be easy to close quickly.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RFWL1.jpg)
>
> 1. This blouse is fiddly
> 2. This blouse takes ages to button up
> 3. Buttoning this blouse is time-consuming.
>
>
>
But, if you were talking about *making* something
>
> 1. These dorset buttons are a bit of a fiddle to do.
> 2. These dorset buttons are quite complicated to make
>
>
> |
109,683 | >
> 1. This blouse is a bit of a fiddle to do up.
> 2. It's kind of complicated to do up this blouse.
>
>
>
I've just came across the meaning of "fiddle" as "something difficult to do" and I tried to rephrase the sentence in order to get kind of a synonym. | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37612/"
] | Yes, you can say it and it won't be wrong:
>
> **fiddle**
>
> **3** *British informal* a small task that seems awkward and unnecessarily complex:
>
> *inserting a tape is a bit of a fiddle*
>
>
> [[ODO](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fiddle)]
>
>
>
but generally fiddle is defined & accepted as:
* to touch or move something with many small quick movements of your fingers because you are bored, nervous, or concentrating on something else
* to produce false results or records, in order to get money or other benefits
* to play a tune on the violin. | The thing to remember with *fiddle* is that its original, literal meaning is *violin*, and that the various figurative senses of *fiddle* and *fiddly* all derive from the very fast precise finger movements that playing the fiddle calls for. Thus:
* To *fiddle with* any object is to handle it rapidly in one's fingers.
* A task that is *fiddly* isn't necessarily complicated (it can be very simple, like threading a needle) but calls for small exact movements.
The fingers of a good fiddler playing a fast piece move almost too fast to see what s/he is doing. This is why a clever scam or swindle is called a *fiddle*. |
109,683 | >
> 1. This blouse is a bit of a fiddle to do up.
> 2. It's kind of complicated to do up this blouse.
>
>
>
I've just came across the meaning of "fiddle" as "something difficult to do" and I tried to rephrase the sentence in order to get kind of a synonym. | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37612/"
] | The thing to remember with *fiddle* is that its original, literal meaning is *violin*, and that the various figurative senses of *fiddle* and *fiddly* all derive from the very fast precise finger movements that playing the fiddle calls for. Thus:
* To *fiddle with* any object is to handle it rapidly in one's fingers.
* A task that is *fiddly* isn't necessarily complicated (it can be very simple, like threading a needle) but calls for small exact movements.
The fingers of a good fiddler playing a fast piece move almost too fast to see what s/he is doing. This is why a clever scam or swindle is called a *fiddle*. | I agree. Fiddle is not complicated, but can require many steps with attention to detail and precision. Complicated implies levels of structure, and extensive decision making. |
109,683 | >
> 1. This blouse is a bit of a fiddle to do up.
> 2. It's kind of complicated to do up this blouse.
>
>
>
I've just came across the meaning of "fiddle" as "something difficult to do" and I tried to rephrase the sentence in order to get kind of a synonym. | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37612/"
] | The thing to remember with *fiddle* is that its original, literal meaning is *violin*, and that the various figurative senses of *fiddle* and *fiddly* all derive from the very fast precise finger movements that playing the fiddle calls for. Thus:
* To *fiddle with* any object is to handle it rapidly in one's fingers.
* A task that is *fiddly* isn't necessarily complicated (it can be very simple, like threading a needle) but calls for small exact movements.
The fingers of a good fiddler playing a fast piece move almost too fast to see what s/he is doing. This is why a clever scam or swindle is called a *fiddle*. | I wouldn't say a woman's blouse is *complicated* to do up, you don't need to follow a manual before it is buttoned. On the other hand, making something small and intricate like [Dorset buttons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_button) looks complicated and very *fiddly* work.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AyxLn.jpg)
Certain buttons can be time consuming to close and might require nimble finger work.
I'd say the following [*Austrian tinies*](http://galleryofcostume.org/Written%20Articles/Buttons/AA_Buttons_Frame.htm) [the website misnamed them *Austrian smalls*] are *fiddly* because of their tiny size. If you had twenty or more similar buttons on a dress or jacket, they wouldn't be easy to close quickly.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RFWL1.jpg)
>
> 1. This blouse is fiddly
> 2. This blouse takes ages to button up
> 3. Buttoning this blouse is time-consuming.
>
>
>
But, if you were talking about *making* something
>
> 1. These dorset buttons are a bit of a fiddle to do.
> 2. These dorset buttons are quite complicated to make
>
>
> |
40,672 | What are the differences between *pig* and *hog*? The writer of [this article](http://news.yahoo.com/ny-seeks-stop-wild-hogs-may-ban-captive-163701421.html) wrote them consecutively, separated by only a comma. Searching Google images result in the same type of animal. The differences between *pig* and *boar* are clear though. | 2011/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40672",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12713/"
] | \*\*According to this [Article](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_pig_and_a_hog)
In the United States, the term "pig" refers to a younger domesticated swine weighing less than 120 pounds (50 kilograms), and the term "hog" refers to older swine weighing more than 120 lbs. In Great Britain all domesticated swine are referred to as pigs.
Thanks. | I can't say I read the article thoroughly, but it seems, that the author uses *hog* as a synonym for *feral pig* as opposed to *domestic pig* which is either called that or simply *pig*.
That corresponds with this [short Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hog), which defines *hog* as *Other than the Domestic pig* and lists a couple of examples on wildlife hogs ([Giant forest hog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_forest_hog) and [Red river hog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_river_hog)) |
40,672 | What are the differences between *pig* and *hog*? The writer of [this article](http://news.yahoo.com/ny-seeks-stop-wild-hogs-may-ban-captive-163701421.html) wrote them consecutively, separated by only a comma. Searching Google images result in the same type of animal. The differences between *pig* and *boar* are clear though. | 2011/09/05 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40672",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/12713/"
] | Actually, in current usage, "hog" and "pig" means pretty much the same, although there is a slight difference in semantics [*among pig breeders or famers*](http://www.goats4h.com/Pigs.html):
>
> The words "swine," "hogs," and "pigs" refer to animals of the porcine family or pig family. The term swine can also refer to the pig family in a general way, and "pig" can be used in referencing young animals. "Hog" will generally refer to animals at or nearing market weight or finished for market.
>
>
>
So, "hogs" referred to grown-up pigs. Why, in the first place, was two different words? It seems that, from Wiktionary, ["hog" used to have a slightly different meaning:](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hog)
>
> Hog" originally meant a castrated male pig. (Compare "hoggett" for a castrated male sheep.)
>
>
>
But that usage is no longer common. Kind of Archaic. | I can't say I read the article thoroughly, but it seems, that the author uses *hog* as a synonym for *feral pig* as opposed to *domestic pig* which is either called that or simply *pig*.
That corresponds with this [short Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hog), which defines *hog* as *Other than the Domestic pig* and lists a couple of examples on wildlife hogs ([Giant forest hog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_forest_hog) and [Red river hog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_river_hog)) |
4,151,754 | My technique for deploying an ASP.NET webapp into production is as follows:
Client:
* Select 'Release' mode and then right-click to publish.
* Go manually to the publish folder and zip contents.
* Now transfer to server by FTP.
Server:
* Unzip folder contents.
* Stop IIS.
* Deploy new folder contents for web app.
* Start IIS.
I don't stop the database or run any additional tools to promote to production. It's a small company, and this seems fine. What's wrong with this technique in your opinion? | 2010/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4151754",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/504115/"
] | You dont need to ZIP.
Just publish via PUBLISH in the VS to your server.
IIS processes will be killed and be restarted anyhow. | Scott Hanselman did a presentation about the web deployment stuff in VS at MIX in 2010:
<http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX10/FT14>
Scott could probably do an entertaining presentation about drying paint, so it's worth a look if you have a chance. |
4,151,754 | My technique for deploying an ASP.NET webapp into production is as follows:
Client:
* Select 'Release' mode and then right-click to publish.
* Go manually to the publish folder and zip contents.
* Now transfer to server by FTP.
Server:
* Unzip folder contents.
* Stop IIS.
* Deploy new folder contents for web app.
* Start IIS.
I don't stop the database or run any additional tools to promote to production. It's a small company, and this seems fine. What's wrong with this technique in your opinion? | 2010/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4151754",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/504115/"
] | You dont need to ZIP.
Just publish via PUBLISH in the VS to your server.
IIS processes will be killed and be restarted anyhow. | The only thing wrong with your approach is the manual intervention needed. I strongly encourage you to read [Continuous Delivery](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0321601912). |
4,151,754 | My technique for deploying an ASP.NET webapp into production is as follows:
Client:
* Select 'Release' mode and then right-click to publish.
* Go manually to the publish folder and zip contents.
* Now transfer to server by FTP.
Server:
* Unzip folder contents.
* Stop IIS.
* Deploy new folder contents for web app.
* Start IIS.
I don't stop the database or run any additional tools to promote to production. It's a small company, and this seems fine. What's wrong with this technique in your opinion? | 2010/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4151754",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/504115/"
] | Check this out <http://www.iis.net/download/webdeploy>
Web Deployment Tool works with both IIS6 and IIS7 and enables automated copy deployment, file synchronization, and migrating of applications onto web servers. | Scott Hanselman did a presentation about the web deployment stuff in VS at MIX in 2010:
<http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX10/FT14>
Scott could probably do an entertaining presentation about drying paint, so it's worth a look if you have a chance. |
4,151,754 | My technique for deploying an ASP.NET webapp into production is as follows:
Client:
* Select 'Release' mode and then right-click to publish.
* Go manually to the publish folder and zip contents.
* Now transfer to server by FTP.
Server:
* Unzip folder contents.
* Stop IIS.
* Deploy new folder contents for web app.
* Start IIS.
I don't stop the database or run any additional tools to promote to production. It's a small company, and this seems fine. What's wrong with this technique in your opinion? | 2010/11/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4151754",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/504115/"
] | Check this out <http://www.iis.net/download/webdeploy>
Web Deployment Tool works with both IIS6 and IIS7 and enables automated copy deployment, file synchronization, and migrating of applications onto web servers. | The only thing wrong with your approach is the manual intervention needed. I strongly encourage you to read [Continuous Delivery](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0321601912). |
98,933 | What's the difference between an Invalid Application (i.e., due to non-payment of Visa Fee) and a Rejected Application?
Can such an Invalid Application be deemed as Application Never Made or does it have to be referred in the subsequent applications under the questions, 'Have you Ever Applied for Visa' and 'Have you ever been rejected a Visa by any Country', etc.
The question I am specifically asking is in connection with the Australian Visa Application. | 2017/07/27 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/98933",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/65550/"
] | Here's a screen shot from the Australian visa application...
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k28zK.jpg)
If you are filling out an online form, it may look different but the terminology will be the same.
The relevant question on their visa application form is...
>
> Have you ever had an application for entry to or further stay in
> Australia refused, or had a visa cancelled?
>
>
>
Terminology is important here. Like most of the Commonwealth, Australia uses "refused" in the same way as our [current tag definitio](https://travel.stackexchange.com/tags/visa-refusals/info)n...
>
> Also called 'visa denial'. A refused application is a valid
> application which has been processed and the decision-maker has
> decided that the applicant fails to meet the requirements. Questions
> on this tag should include the applicant's nationality and who refused
> the application and the relevant text from the refusal notice in order
> to clarify the refusal grounds.
>
>
>
They also use 'cancelled' in the same way as the rest of the Commonwealth. It usually means the person got caught inland doing something illegal and their visa was curtailed. It can also happen before the person arrives, but the important distinction is that a visa has already been issued (Schengen uses the term 'revoked'). A cancelled (or revoked) visa is far worse than a refusal unless it was voluntarily revoked.
For other things that can happen, there is the term '[rejected](https://travel.stackexchange.com/tags/visa-rejections/info)'...
>
> An invalid application that did not reach the decision stage for any
> number of reasons: the wrong form was used, or the pictures were not
> in the correct format, or the bank declined to pay the credit card, or
> countless other reasons that can make an application invalid. When an
> application is rejected,, it will be returned unprocessed with the fee
> payment not taken or refunded. Compare/contrast to 'visa-refusal'
>
>
>
This type of question does not appear on the Australian visa application form, they don't care about these types of things. So if the fee was never collected for example you can safely (and honestly) deny having made an application. Even if you list a rejection they will see it as such and ignore it.
---
This answer should be applicable to *most* (but not all) of the affluent Commonwealth and Schengen. In the USA regime, the terminology is hopelessly inconsistent so this answer does not apply there.
---
Related: [Re-applying for a Schengen visa, difference between 'revoked' and 'annulled'](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/26898/re-applying-for-a-schengen-visa-difference-between-revoked-and-annulled)
Another [Difference between deportation and removal](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/60240/difference-between-deportation-and-removal)
'Hippietrail's' seminal question on terminology: [Are the terms "visa denial", "visa refusal", and "visa rejection" used in the same standardized way in countries that use English?](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/43273/are-the-terms-visa-denial-visa-refusal-and-visa-rejection-used-in-the-sa)
---
Adding as an afterthought...
Disclosing something on a visa application does not result in instantaneous refusal. People put all kinds of weird things on their applications and still get approved: nude photographs, an old flight jacket, microwave parts, ultrasound scans, parking tickets, a jar of nuts, eBay passwords, an autographed dollar bill... you name it. Visa officers are trained professionals who will *filter out* material that is innocuous, irrelevant, or superfluous. This includes an admission of guilt about something they don't care about. | The definitive answer comes from [section 47 of the Migration Act 1958](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00068/Html/Volume_1#_Toc476579864), particularly subsection (4):
>
> (1) The Minister is to consider a valid application for a visa.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> (3) To avoid doubt, the Minister is not to consider an application that is not a valid application.
>
>
> (4) To avoid doubt, a decision by the Minister that an application is not valid and cannot be considered is not a decision to refuse to grant the visa.
>
>
> |
11,884 | I want to share photos with my family but they don't have accounts on Flickr, is there any feature like Picasa's 'Anyone with the link' in Flickr? so they don't have to create account on Flickr. | 2011/02/01 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/11884",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Usually photos are public by default in flickr, but if you have set more restrictive permissions, you can go to <http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/>, drag the photos you want to share into the the center of the page, then select Permissions->Who can see, tag, comment?
Choose "Anyone (Public)" in the dialog that appears. | There is also the option to create a set and hand out a [guest pass](http://www.flickr.com/help/guestpass/) to see it. |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | Syntax just refers to the parts of the sentence: are they arranged correctly and are the components sufficient so as to deliver the meaning so as to be understood and not misinterpreted?
>
> Put your hat on.
>
>
> Put your hat on the table.
>
>
>
These mean different things. Adding "the table" to the first sentence changes the meaning entirely. The first sentence tells you to put the hat on your head (obviously), and the second adds a syntactical element to specify a different location.
Let's flip it around, and substitute a pronoun for "your hat":
>
> Take it off.
>
>
> Take it off the table.
>
>
>
These two sentences could mean the same thing. If you had just put your hat on my freshly varnished table, I might use the first sentence because the context (hat on table) would be obvious.
Semantics, on the other hand, refers to the meaning itself, irrespective of syntax (roughly speaking: there are different schools of thought regarding the intersections of syntax and semantics, and I do not mean to delve into those various permutations here). The words "white" and "black" when used to describe color have distinctly different meanings, but you could create a syntactically correct sentence that had semantic problems:
>
> My mother's white cat is black.
>
>
>
If you were speaking strictly about color, this sentence would have a semantic conflict that could not be resolved. | >
> While staring out of the window, his hat flew off.
>
>
>
Or something like this. Correct syntax, incorrect structure (not the hat was staring out of the window, but its nameless wearer) |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> A rock smelled the color nine
>
>
>
The syntax of the sentence works just fine but the sentence has absolutely no meaning because rocks do not smell and, even if they could, they couldn't smell a color that doesn't exist.
But the form works with other words:
>
> A cat smelled the blue fish
>
>
>
Related issues with English (which may or may not be next in your class) are sentences with an ambiguous meaning but perfectly fine syntax. My personal favorite is:
>
> Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
>
>
>
Figuring out the double meaning here is left as an exercise to the reader. | Here is a sentence that is syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect:
>
> The green apple ate a juicy bug.
>
>
>
The [syntax](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax) is correct. That means the sentence is well-formed and structured properly. It contains articles in the appropriate places, the adjectives precede the nouns, and the verb is correctly conjugated. The first letter is capitalized and the terminal punctuation mark is in the appropriate place.
The sentence is not [semantically](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) correct, though. Apples don't eat things, so it doesn't make sense.
In computer programming, it is critical to always be mindful of the difference between syntax and semantics. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean that it is correct, so you must remember to think about code both in terms of how it is written and what it is actually doing. |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> The panda eats, shoots and leaves.
>
>
>
The syntax is correct: it relates an observation of a panda eating before shooting and leaving. However, the misplacement of the comma makes the sentence semantically incorrect, as the intention of the sentence should be that pandas eat shoots *and* leaves, not that this panda was shooting. (No offense to the Kung-Fu Panda, who may actually shoot.) | >
> While staring out of the window, his hat flew off.
>
>
>
Or something like this. Correct syntax, incorrect structure (not the hat was staring out of the window, but its nameless wearer) |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | Here is a sentence that is syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect:
>
> The green apple ate a juicy bug.
>
>
>
The [syntax](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax) is correct. That means the sentence is well-formed and structured properly. It contains articles in the appropriate places, the adjectives precede the nouns, and the verb is correctly conjugated. The first letter is capitalized and the terminal punctuation mark is in the appropriate place.
The sentence is not [semantically](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) correct, though. Apples don't eat things, so it doesn't make sense.
In computer programming, it is critical to always be mindful of the difference between syntax and semantics. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean that it is correct, so you must remember to think about code both in terms of how it is written and what it is actually doing. | >
> While staring out of the window, his hat flew off.
>
>
>
Or something like this. Correct syntax, incorrect structure (not the hat was staring out of the window, but its nameless wearer) |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | Noam Chomsky famously used the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The syntax is flawless, but it has no meaning. | Here is a sentence that is syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect:
>
> The green apple ate a juicy bug.
>
>
>
The [syntax](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax) is correct. That means the sentence is well-formed and structured properly. It contains articles in the appropriate places, the adjectives precede the nouns, and the verb is correctly conjugated. The first letter is capitalized and the terminal punctuation mark is in the appropriate place.
The sentence is not [semantically](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) correct, though. Apples don't eat things, so it doesn't make sense.
In computer programming, it is critical to always be mindful of the difference between syntax and semantics. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean that it is correct, so you must remember to think about code both in terms of how it is written and what it is actually doing. |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | Noam Chomsky famously used the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The syntax is flawless, but it has no meaning. | >
> While staring out of the window, his hat flew off.
>
>
>
Or something like this. Correct syntax, incorrect structure (not the hat was staring out of the window, but its nameless wearer) |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> The panda eats, shoots and leaves.
>
>
>
The syntax is correct: it relates an observation of a panda eating before shooting and leaving. However, the misplacement of the comma makes the sentence semantically incorrect, as the intention of the sentence should be that pandas eat shoots *and* leaves, not that this panda was shooting. (No offense to the Kung-Fu Panda, who may actually shoot.) | Here is a sentence that is syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect:
>
> The green apple ate a juicy bug.
>
>
>
The [syntax](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax) is correct. That means the sentence is well-formed and structured properly. It contains articles in the appropriate places, the adjectives precede the nouns, and the verb is correctly conjugated. The first letter is capitalized and the terminal punctuation mark is in the appropriate place.
The sentence is not [semantically](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) correct, though. Apples don't eat things, so it doesn't make sense.
In computer programming, it is critical to always be mindful of the difference between syntax and semantics. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean that it is correct, so you must remember to think about code both in terms of how it is written and what it is actually doing. |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> The panda eats, shoots and leaves.
>
>
>
The syntax is correct: it relates an observation of a panda eating before shooting and leaving. However, the misplacement of the comma makes the sentence semantically incorrect, as the intention of the sentence should be that pandas eat shoots *and* leaves, not that this panda was shooting. (No offense to the Kung-Fu Panda, who may actually shoot.) | Syntax just refers to the parts of the sentence: are they arranged correctly and are the components sufficient so as to deliver the meaning so as to be understood and not misinterpreted?
>
> Put your hat on.
>
>
> Put your hat on the table.
>
>
>
These mean different things. Adding "the table" to the first sentence changes the meaning entirely. The first sentence tells you to put the hat on your head (obviously), and the second adds a syntactical element to specify a different location.
Let's flip it around, and substitute a pronoun for "your hat":
>
> Take it off.
>
>
> Take it off the table.
>
>
>
These two sentences could mean the same thing. If you had just put your hat on my freshly varnished table, I might use the first sentence because the context (hat on table) would be obvious.
Semantics, on the other hand, refers to the meaning itself, irrespective of syntax (roughly speaking: there are different schools of thought regarding the intersections of syntax and semantics, and I do not mean to delve into those various permutations here). The words "white" and "black" when used to describe color have distinctly different meanings, but you could create a syntactically correct sentence that had semantic problems:
>
> My mother's white cat is black.
>
>
>
If you were speaking strictly about color, this sentence would have a semantic conflict that could not be resolved. |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> A rock smelled the color nine
>
>
>
The syntax of the sentence works just fine but the sentence has absolutely no meaning because rocks do not smell and, even if they could, they couldn't smell a color that doesn't exist.
But the form works with other words:
>
> A cat smelled the blue fish
>
>
>
Related issues with English (which may or may not be next in your class) are sentences with an ambiguous meaning but perfectly fine syntax. My personal favorite is:
>
> Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
>
>
>
Figuring out the double meaning here is left as an exercise to the reader. | >
> While staring out of the window, his hat flew off.
>
>
>
Or something like this. Correct syntax, incorrect structure (not the hat was staring out of the window, but its nameless wearer) |
29,504 | How would I answer the following programming exercise? It's trying to emphasize the difference between semantics and syntax.
>
> Write an English sentence that has correct syntax but has semantic errors.
>
>
> | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29504",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/3141/"
] | >
> A rock smelled the color nine
>
>
>
The syntax of the sentence works just fine but the sentence has absolutely no meaning because rocks do not smell and, even if they could, they couldn't smell a color that doesn't exist.
But the form works with other words:
>
> A cat smelled the blue fish
>
>
>
Related issues with English (which may or may not be next in your class) are sentences with an ambiguous meaning but perfectly fine syntax. My personal favorite is:
>
> Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
>
>
>
Figuring out the double meaning here is left as an exercise to the reader. | Syntax just refers to the parts of the sentence: are they arranged correctly and are the components sufficient so as to deliver the meaning so as to be understood and not misinterpreted?
>
> Put your hat on.
>
>
> Put your hat on the table.
>
>
>
These mean different things. Adding "the table" to the first sentence changes the meaning entirely. The first sentence tells you to put the hat on your head (obviously), and the second adds a syntactical element to specify a different location.
Let's flip it around, and substitute a pronoun for "your hat":
>
> Take it off.
>
>
> Take it off the table.
>
>
>
These two sentences could mean the same thing. If you had just put your hat on my freshly varnished table, I might use the first sentence because the context (hat on table) would be obvious.
Semantics, on the other hand, refers to the meaning itself, irrespective of syntax (roughly speaking: there are different schools of thought regarding the intersections of syntax and semantics, and I do not mean to delve into those various permutations here). The words "white" and "black" when used to describe color have distinctly different meanings, but you could create a syntactically correct sentence that had semantic problems:
>
> My mother's white cat is black.
>
>
>
If you were speaking strictly about color, this sentence would have a semantic conflict that could not be resolved. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | Actually there are [venomous mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) however they're obviously not widespread. I believe venom could evolve in more mammals but hasn't because of lack of requirement for it.
Consider the primary species which are poisonous or venomous:
* Snakes
* Frogs/Toads
* Fungi/Plants (such as nettles)
* Some fish
Venom and poisons fall into two categories, as a weapon when hunting and as a defense mechanism.
My suggestion would be that what groups all these species is their relatively slow speeds. Many of them are cold blooded and are vulnerable in cooler environments. The poisonous fungi certainly aren't renowned for going anywhere quickly! Even some of the fish (jellyfish for example sting their prey to prevent it escaping while it's digested).
I believe that most poisons and venoms have developed to make up for the creatures' weaknesses.
By contrast mammals are mostly fast and active. They don't suffer in cooler temperatures and generally rely on their speed and senses to escape harm/catch prey (something a nettle rarely does). As such they've never developed a need for venoms.
As to whether more mammals could evolve venomous characteristics I don't see why not. After all it's a competitive world. If a rabbit suddenly developed a venomous bite it would certainly dissuade a cat from hunting it!
I leave you with this thought from [XKCD](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1398:_Snake_Facts): *Snake Venom evolved from saliva, which means that it all started with a snake who's mouth was slightly more gross than usual...*
[](https://xkcd.com/1398/) | As Liath pointed out, (I just looked that question up yesterday trying to come up with a question to pose to the group.) If you read the article [venomous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) all of the listed mammals are pretty small. The Duck-billed Platypus is the largest but even that is really pretty small.
The Platypus is the only one that has it as a defense only weapon. One of the problems would be generating a toxin that will harm your food/enemies but will not cause adverse effects in the host. Most of the animals listed are rodents and the toxin is mostly for feeding and against invertebrates. The Vampire Bat is technically venomous, but it's venom has an anticoagulant and a local anesthetic, sooo...
Mammals are the biggest animals on the planet so we can take what we want without having to resort to costly poisons. Even the biggest snakes are non-poisonous. I suspect that if we (mammals) evolved with the dinosaurs more of us would have had venom in one form or another. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | Actually there are [venomous mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) however they're obviously not widespread. I believe venom could evolve in more mammals but hasn't because of lack of requirement for it.
Consider the primary species which are poisonous or venomous:
* Snakes
* Frogs/Toads
* Fungi/Plants (such as nettles)
* Some fish
Venom and poisons fall into two categories, as a weapon when hunting and as a defense mechanism.
My suggestion would be that what groups all these species is their relatively slow speeds. Many of them are cold blooded and are vulnerable in cooler environments. The poisonous fungi certainly aren't renowned for going anywhere quickly! Even some of the fish (jellyfish for example sting their prey to prevent it escaping while it's digested).
I believe that most poisons and venoms have developed to make up for the creatures' weaknesses.
By contrast mammals are mostly fast and active. They don't suffer in cooler temperatures and generally rely on their speed and senses to escape harm/catch prey (something a nettle rarely does). As such they've never developed a need for venoms.
As to whether more mammals could evolve venomous characteristics I don't see why not. After all it's a competitive world. If a rabbit suddenly developed a venomous bite it would certainly dissuade a cat from hunting it!
I leave you with this thought from [XKCD](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1398:_Snake_Facts): *Snake Venom evolved from saliva, which means that it all started with a snake who's mouth was slightly more gross than usual...*
[](https://xkcd.com/1398/) | If a trait is beneficial to an organism, it is more likely to be selected for. You could imagine an environment (resources, predators, etc) where venom could be useful enough for a mammal to provide an evolutionary advantage given enough time. Perhaps if a mammal had to compete with another species for resources, and they were fairly well matched competitively, a mutation (or series of, more likely) could eventually provide an advantage for one or other. Such a mutation could be venom.
You could alternatively develop something between venom (which is injected) and poison (which is ingested or absorbed), like the toxin that a slow loris has. They have glands on their arms that secrete a substance which, when mixed with their saliva, is toxic to other animals. (I forget the details.) Obviously this evolved because it provided an advantage to slow loris; they are small and slow, and it is a useful defense against predators. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | Actually there are [venomous mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) however they're obviously not widespread. I believe venom could evolve in more mammals but hasn't because of lack of requirement for it.
Consider the primary species which are poisonous or venomous:
* Snakes
* Frogs/Toads
* Fungi/Plants (such as nettles)
* Some fish
Venom and poisons fall into two categories, as a weapon when hunting and as a defense mechanism.
My suggestion would be that what groups all these species is their relatively slow speeds. Many of them are cold blooded and are vulnerable in cooler environments. The poisonous fungi certainly aren't renowned for going anywhere quickly! Even some of the fish (jellyfish for example sting their prey to prevent it escaping while it's digested).
I believe that most poisons and venoms have developed to make up for the creatures' weaknesses.
By contrast mammals are mostly fast and active. They don't suffer in cooler temperatures and generally rely on their speed and senses to escape harm/catch prey (something a nettle rarely does). As such they've never developed a need for venoms.
As to whether more mammals could evolve venomous characteristics I don't see why not. After all it's a competitive world. If a rabbit suddenly developed a venomous bite it would certainly dissuade a cat from hunting it!
I leave you with this thought from [XKCD](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1398:_Snake_Facts): *Snake Venom evolved from saliva, which means that it all started with a snake who's mouth was slightly more gross than usual...*
[](https://xkcd.com/1398/) | It's not a well known fact, but there are actually a species of venomous mammals already out there!
>
> This platypus, renowned as one of the few mammals that lay eggs, also is one of only a few venomous mammals. The males can deliver a mega-sting that causes immediate, excruciating pain, like hundreds of hornet stings, leaving victims incapacitated for weeks.
>
>
>
This is from "Unlocking the mystery of the duck-billed platypus' venom", American Chemical Society. I can't figure out how to link it. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | Actually there are [venomous mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) however they're obviously not widespread. I believe venom could evolve in more mammals but hasn't because of lack of requirement for it.
Consider the primary species which are poisonous or venomous:
* Snakes
* Frogs/Toads
* Fungi/Plants (such as nettles)
* Some fish
Venom and poisons fall into two categories, as a weapon when hunting and as a defense mechanism.
My suggestion would be that what groups all these species is their relatively slow speeds. Many of them are cold blooded and are vulnerable in cooler environments. The poisonous fungi certainly aren't renowned for going anywhere quickly! Even some of the fish (jellyfish for example sting their prey to prevent it escaping while it's digested).
I believe that most poisons and venoms have developed to make up for the creatures' weaknesses.
By contrast mammals are mostly fast and active. They don't suffer in cooler temperatures and generally rely on their speed and senses to escape harm/catch prey (something a nettle rarely does). As such they've never developed a need for venoms.
As to whether more mammals could evolve venomous characteristics I don't see why not. After all it's a competitive world. If a rabbit suddenly developed a venomous bite it would certainly dissuade a cat from hunting it!
I leave you with this thought from [XKCD](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1398:_Snake_Facts): *Snake Venom evolved from saliva, which means that it all started with a snake who's mouth was slightly more gross than usual...*
[](https://xkcd.com/1398/) | As pointed out by other posters, Venomous mammals do exist and are fairly widespread - even the common shrew could be considered venomous.
>
> Shrews are unusual among mammals in a number of respects. Unlike most
> mammals, some species of shrews are venomous. Shrew venom is not
> conducted into the wound by fangs, but by grooves in the teeth. The
> venom contains various compounds, and the contents of the venom glands
> of the American short-tailed shrew are sufficient to kill 200 mice by
> intravenous injection.
>
>
>
Alternatively, lots of mammals have pretty nasty bacteria and digestive enzymes in their saliva, which, whilst not technically 'venom' have pretty nasty cytotoxic effects - leading to nasty occurrences such as necrotising fascitis, and even death in some cases - e.g. Cat Scratch fever.
I've also heard anecdotally from several sources, that the worst bite you can recieve is from a human - the bacteria that live in a persons mouth can lead to some pretty nasty flesh eating diseases! |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | As Liath pointed out, (I just looked that question up yesterday trying to come up with a question to pose to the group.) If you read the article [venomous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) all of the listed mammals are pretty small. The Duck-billed Platypus is the largest but even that is really pretty small.
The Platypus is the only one that has it as a defense only weapon. One of the problems would be generating a toxin that will harm your food/enemies but will not cause adverse effects in the host. Most of the animals listed are rodents and the toxin is mostly for feeding and against invertebrates. The Vampire Bat is technically venomous, but it's venom has an anticoagulant and a local anesthetic, sooo...
Mammals are the biggest animals on the planet so we can take what we want without having to resort to costly poisons. Even the biggest snakes are non-poisonous. I suspect that if we (mammals) evolved with the dinosaurs more of us would have had venom in one form or another. | If a trait is beneficial to an organism, it is more likely to be selected for. You could imagine an environment (resources, predators, etc) where venom could be useful enough for a mammal to provide an evolutionary advantage given enough time. Perhaps if a mammal had to compete with another species for resources, and they were fairly well matched competitively, a mutation (or series of, more likely) could eventually provide an advantage for one or other. Such a mutation could be venom.
You could alternatively develop something between venom (which is injected) and poison (which is ingested or absorbed), like the toxin that a slow loris has. They have glands on their arms that secrete a substance which, when mixed with their saliva, is toxic to other animals. (I forget the details.) Obviously this evolved because it provided an advantage to slow loris; they are small and slow, and it is a useful defense against predators. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | As Liath pointed out, (I just looked that question up yesterday trying to come up with a question to pose to the group.) If you read the article [venomous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) all of the listed mammals are pretty small. The Duck-billed Platypus is the largest but even that is really pretty small.
The Platypus is the only one that has it as a defense only weapon. One of the problems would be generating a toxin that will harm your food/enemies but will not cause adverse effects in the host. Most of the animals listed are rodents and the toxin is mostly for feeding and against invertebrates. The Vampire Bat is technically venomous, but it's venom has an anticoagulant and a local anesthetic, sooo...
Mammals are the biggest animals on the planet so we can take what we want without having to resort to costly poisons. Even the biggest snakes are non-poisonous. I suspect that if we (mammals) evolved with the dinosaurs more of us would have had venom in one form or another. | It's not a well known fact, but there are actually a species of venomous mammals already out there!
>
> This platypus, renowned as one of the few mammals that lay eggs, also is one of only a few venomous mammals. The males can deliver a mega-sting that causes immediate, excruciating pain, like hundreds of hornet stings, leaving victims incapacitated for weeks.
>
>
>
This is from "Unlocking the mystery of the duck-billed platypus' venom", American Chemical Society. I can't figure out how to link it. |
320 | Venoms have evolved in certain classes of animals on Earth (notably snakes and frogs, but also fish and maybe elsewhere that I can't think of right now), sometimes for defense and sometimes (particularly in snakes) for offense or hunting.
Assuming an evolutionary process, **could venoms similarly evolve naturally in mammals?** What might be reasons why they might not? (For example, might it be too costly in terms of energy to produce a venom for it to provide enough advantage to be worthwhile?) | 2014/09/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/320",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
] | As Liath pointed out, (I just looked that question up yesterday trying to come up with a question to pose to the group.) If you read the article [venomous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammal) all of the listed mammals are pretty small. The Duck-billed Platypus is the largest but even that is really pretty small.
The Platypus is the only one that has it as a defense only weapon. One of the problems would be generating a toxin that will harm your food/enemies but will not cause adverse effects in the host. Most of the animals listed are rodents and the toxin is mostly for feeding and against invertebrates. The Vampire Bat is technically venomous, but it's venom has an anticoagulant and a local anesthetic, sooo...
Mammals are the biggest animals on the planet so we can take what we want without having to resort to costly poisons. Even the biggest snakes are non-poisonous. I suspect that if we (mammals) evolved with the dinosaurs more of us would have had venom in one form or another. | As pointed out by other posters, Venomous mammals do exist and are fairly widespread - even the common shrew could be considered venomous.
>
> Shrews are unusual among mammals in a number of respects. Unlike most
> mammals, some species of shrews are venomous. Shrew venom is not
> conducted into the wound by fangs, but by grooves in the teeth. The
> venom contains various compounds, and the contents of the venom glands
> of the American short-tailed shrew are sufficient to kill 200 mice by
> intravenous injection.
>
>
>
Alternatively, lots of mammals have pretty nasty bacteria and digestive enzymes in their saliva, which, whilst not technically 'venom' have pretty nasty cytotoxic effects - leading to nasty occurrences such as necrotising fascitis, and even death in some cases - e.g. Cat Scratch fever.
I've also heard anecdotally from several sources, that the worst bite you can recieve is from a human - the bacteria that live in a persons mouth can lead to some pretty nasty flesh eating diseases! |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The [22nd Session of the Council of Trent](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html#v.i.i.ix-p0.5) on the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass says that, since there was no perfect sacrifice "because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood" (Heb. vii. 11, 18.), "another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb. v. 10.) to offer the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ.
The Council continues, saying Jesus Himself is the new Passover:
>
> by those words, *Do this in commemoration of me* [Luke xxii. 19.] he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer [them]; even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of Egypt, he instituted the new Passover [to wit], himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through [the ministry of] priests, in memory of his own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of his own blood he redeemed us, *and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom*. [Col. i. 13.]
>
>
> | It's anachronistic to ask the question "What is the biblical basis for this belief" because the belief came before the Bible itself. The Bible was written with the conviction in mind that Jesus had sacrificed Himself on Calvary and He had instituted a sacrament (liturgical celebration) equivalent to the Jewish Passover ceremony (seder meal) commemorating that sacrifice. Furthermore, the apostles were convinced that they were ordained by Jesus in that very ceremony to continue reenacting it so as to allow His disciples to participate in that sacrifice analogous to the Passover sacrifice.
All four gospels make a point of specifying that the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover seder. The seder is explicitly a meal in which a sacrificial lamb is consumed during a liturgical reenactment of God's salvation of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. There is some controversy about a couple of ambiguities in the gospel of John, but properly understood, he too indicates that it was a seder meal. John 13:1-4 is awkwardly sequenced, but should be understood as saying after the disciples had reclined for the seder meal (which is at the very start of the first day of the seven day Passover festival), but before they began to eat, Jesus rose from the table and washed the feet of the disciples. (It wouldn't really make sense for Jesus to do it during the meal or after it since it is customary to wash feet of guests upon their arrival.) These verses are best translated by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:
>
> It was before the festival of the Passover, and Jesus knew that the
> hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had
> always loved those who were his in the world, but now he showed how
> perfect his love was.
>
>
> They were at supper, and the devil had already put it into the mind of
> Judas Iscariot son of Simon to betray him. Jesus knew that the Father
> had put everything into his hands and that he had come from God and
> was returning to God, and he got up from table, removed his outer
> garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then
> poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and
> wipe them with the towel he was wearing.
>
>
>
Later, beginning in John 13:21 the actual betrayal of Judas takes place. Note John's explanation of "That thou doest, do quickly" in verse 29: "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Judas being sent out in the middle of the night to give something to the poor only makes sense on the night of Passover, the night when the seder is celebrated, because only on that night the gates of the temple were opened at midnight and the poor congregated to receive alms.
The other problematic passage is John 19:14, repeated in 31 and 42 "And it was the preparation of the passover" or simply "preparation". Properly understood, this means Friday of the week long festival of Passover, not the eve before the seder was eaten. Preparation was always the day before a Sabbath (Saturday). Note that in verse 31 it is specific that the following day is a Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but the Sabbath during a high festival week. The day before the start of a festival is erev in Hebrew, meaning eve, just like in English. Equivalent Greek terms would be hespera or opsia, or possibly paramoni which is not attested in the Bible and therefore may be only modern Greek.
Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:15-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25 all attest that Jesus says “Take, eat; this is my body.” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He does this in a very special context, a paschal supper, already understood sacramentally by His Jewish audience. In Luke and 1 Cor he also says "do this in remembrance of me". Now, a paschal meal was a remembrance of God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was never understood by the Jews as a mere symbolic remembrance. It was a liturgical recreation of the event that put the participants back in that original last night in Egypt, ready to be rescued from slavery. This was Jesus's last night before His death, and by His sacrifice the next day they were rescued from the slavery to sin. The parallelism was not lost on the apostles. It was very clear to them that he was not asking them to eat merely a symbol, but the actual food of His sacrifice, just as the lamb of the seder was the holy substance of a sacrifice. Furthermore they understood Him to be ordaining them to a new priesthood, one that required that they repeat this event over and over for the new Christian community.
John doesn't record the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper since by the time he wrote his gospel it had already been set down in writing four times. Instead, he recorded sayings of Jesus in Chapter 6 that can only be properly understood in light of the eucharist as a sacrificial meal analogous to a Passover seder. Note verse 4: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." There follows the miracle of the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish in verses 5-14. The miracle of Jesus walking on the sea comes in verses 15-25.
There follows many sayings of Jesus alluding to the future sacrament of the eucharist. I will bold the key words and phrases:
>
> 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
> seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did **eat**
> of the **loaves**, and were **filled**. 27 Labour not for the **meat**
> which perisheth, but for that **meat** which endureth unto
> **everlasting life**, which the **Son of man shall give unto you**: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What
> shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered
> and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye **believe on him
> whom he hath sent**. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign
> shewest thou then, that we may see, and **believe** thee? what dost
> thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat **manna** in the desert; as it is
> written, **He gave them bread from heaven to eat**. 32 Then Jesus said
> unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
> **bread from heaven**; but my Father giveth you the **true bread from heaven**. 33 For the **bread of God is he which cometh down from
> heaven, and giveth life unto the world**. 34 Then said they unto him,
> Lord, **evermore** give us this **bread**. 35 And Jesus said unto
> them, **I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
> hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst**. 36 But I
> said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that
> the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I
> will in no wise cast out. 38 For **I came down from heaven**, not to
> do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the
> Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
> should lose nothing, but should **raise it up again at the last day**.
> 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
> seeth the Son, and **believeth on him**, may have **everlasting
> life**: and **I will raise him up at the last day**. 41 The Jews then
> murmured at him, because he said, **I am the bread which came down
> from heaven**. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
> whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, **I
> came down from heaven**? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto
> them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except
> the Father which hath sent me draw him: and **I will raise him up at
> the last day**. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be
> all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
> learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen
> the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that **believeth on me** hath
> **everlasting life**. 48 **I am that bread of life**. 49 Your fathers did eat **manna** in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the
> **bread which cometh down from heaven**, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 **I am the living bread which came down from heaven**:
> if any man **eat** of this **bread**, **he shall live for ever**: and
> the **bread** that I will give is **my flesh**, which I will give for
> the **life** of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among
> themselves, saying, How can this man give us his **flesh** to **eat**?
> 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
> ye **eat** the **flesh** of the **Son of man**, and **drink** his
> **blood**, ye have no **life** in you. 54 Whoso **eateth my flesh**, and **drinketh my blood**, hath **eternal life**; and **I will raise
> him up at the last day**. 55 For **my flesh is meat indeed**, and **my
> blood is drink indeed**. 56 He that **eateth my flesh**, and
> **drinketh my blood**, **dwelleth in me**, and **I in him**. 57 As the **living** Father hath sent me, and I **live** by the Father: so he that **eateth me**, even **he shall live by me**. 58 This is that
> **bread which came down from heaven**: not as your fathers did eat **manna**, and are dead: he that **eateth** of this **bread** shall **live for ever**. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
> heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When
> Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto
> them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the **Son of
> man ascend up where he was before**? 63 It is the **spirit** that
> quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
> you, they are **spirit**, and they are **life**. 64 But there are some
> of you that **believe** not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
> they were that **believed** not, and who should **betray** him. 65 And
> he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
> except it were given unto him of my Father.
>
>
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
> with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68
> Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
> the words of **eternal life**. 69 And we **believe** and are sure that
> **thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God**. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He
> spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
> **betray** him, being one of the twelve.
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The section ***Scriptural proof*** in [Sacrifice of the Mass | New Advent](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm) begins by noting that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established by both the Old and the New Testament. In *2. New Testament*, the section says
>
> **The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of
> consecration spoken over the chalice.** *(my emphasis)* For this
> reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to
> the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on
> the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For
> this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing
> to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown
> on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread.
> For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four
> passages in Greek and English:
>
>
> * Matthew 26:28: *Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion.* For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
> * Mark 14:24: *Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon.* This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
> * Luke 22:20: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon.* This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
> * 1 Corinthians 11:25: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati.* This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
>
>
> **The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing** *(my emphasis)*
>
>
> * that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
> * that it was a true and real sacrifice;
> * that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
---
Cf. [The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church CCC 1362-1372](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1362). | The [22nd Session of the Council of Trent](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html#v.i.i.ix-p0.5) on the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass says that, since there was no perfect sacrifice "because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood" (Heb. vii. 11, 18.), "another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb. v. 10.) to offer the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ.
The Council continues, saying Jesus Himself is the new Passover:
>
> by those words, *Do this in commemoration of me* [Luke xxii. 19.] he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer [them]; even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of Egypt, he instituted the new Passover [to wit], himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through [the ministry of] priests, in memory of his own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of his own blood he redeemed us, *and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom*. [Col. i. 13.]
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In [1 Cor. 10:18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=18&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072018), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? **1**
>
>
> βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν
>
>
>
"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. [Deu. 18:1](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=18&v=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_171001); [Lev. 7:15-18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=7&v=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_97015)).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In [1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020), he wrote,
>
> But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
>
>
> ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι
>
>
>
The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In *[Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice](https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf?id=D3YcA72rnqQC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72d09rOGyCXRFrAhtTQelZNGWF5uiqMsCEUGdtbwv5QCfzWLz-wj5yqn0bBwRmUC84zkAdu_YQeio8DAbBgYXkpY5qb4A&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf%3Fid%3DD3YcA72rnqQC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den)*, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,
>
> The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (**which represented God**) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.
>
>
>
Finally, in [1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
>
>
> οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων
>
>
>
The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,
>
> You offer polluted bread **2** upon My **altar**. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The **table** of Yahveh is contemptible."
>
>
> מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא
>
>
>
In his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1), Franz Delitzsch wrote,
>
> The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.
>
>
>
Likewise, in his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=26&perek=1&mefaresh=radak), Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,
>
> "The table of Yahveh" - **It is the altar**, and so it said in [Eze. [41:22]](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=41&v=22&t=KJV#s=t_conc_843022) regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
>
>
> שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה
>
>
>
Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons ([1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021))? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons ([1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020)). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by **offering sacrifices to the Lord**.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier ([1 Cor. 10:16](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072016)). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed **sacrifices** offered to God on His altar/table.
---
**Footnotes**
**1** [Henry Alford](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=45&ch=10): "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
**2** [Franz Delitzsch](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1): לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in [Lev. 21:6](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=6&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111006), [21:8](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=8&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111008), [21:17](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=17&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111017), the food (לֶחֶם) of God | The [22nd Session of the Council of Trent](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html#v.i.i.ix-p0.5) on the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass says that, since there was no perfect sacrifice "because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood" (Heb. vii. 11, 18.), "another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb. v. 10.) to offer the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ.
The Council continues, saying Jesus Himself is the new Passover:
>
> by those words, *Do this in commemoration of me* [Luke xxii. 19.] he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer [them]; even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of Egypt, he instituted the new Passover [to wit], himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through [the ministry of] priests, in memory of his own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of his own blood he redeemed us, *and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom*. [Col. i. 13.]
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Ultimately, the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it is a memorial: a memorial of an eternal sacrifice:
>
> We carry out this command of the Lord ["Do this in remembrance of me"; cf. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24] by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
>
>
>
And this belief that the memorial is a sacrifice is based on the words of Jesus:
>
> This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me. ... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
>
>
>
(Luke 22:19–20; [New American Bible, Revised Edition](http://usccb.org/bible/luke/22:19))
We interpret these words to mean that the bread and wine which we offer becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and thus takes part in the sacrifice which he made and makes before the Father:
>
> He entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption
>
>
>
(Hebrews 9:12, [NABRE](http://usccb.org/bible/hebrews/9:12))
This latter verse is cited in a document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops titled ["The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers"](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm). In Section 2, "Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?", the bishops explain that since "[Jesus'] actions transcend time, which is part of creation"1, therefore
>
> Jesus the eternal Son of God made his act of sacrifice in the presence of his Father, who lives in eternity. Jesus' one perfect sacrifice is thus eternally present before the Father, who eternally accepts it. This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it.
>
>
>
Thus, **the Biblical basis for this belief is largely present in Luke 22:19–20 and synoptic verses, as well as in Hebrews 9:11–12**.
---
1Support for this interpretation may be found, e.g., in Hebrews 9:11:
>
> Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, *not belonging to this creation*.
>
>
>
(emphasis added) | It's anachronistic to ask the question "What is the biblical basis for this belief" because the belief came before the Bible itself. The Bible was written with the conviction in mind that Jesus had sacrificed Himself on Calvary and He had instituted a sacrament (liturgical celebration) equivalent to the Jewish Passover ceremony (seder meal) commemorating that sacrifice. Furthermore, the apostles were convinced that they were ordained by Jesus in that very ceremony to continue reenacting it so as to allow His disciples to participate in that sacrifice analogous to the Passover sacrifice.
All four gospels make a point of specifying that the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover seder. The seder is explicitly a meal in which a sacrificial lamb is consumed during a liturgical reenactment of God's salvation of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. There is some controversy about a couple of ambiguities in the gospel of John, but properly understood, he too indicates that it was a seder meal. John 13:1-4 is awkwardly sequenced, but should be understood as saying after the disciples had reclined for the seder meal (which is at the very start of the first day of the seven day Passover festival), but before they began to eat, Jesus rose from the table and washed the feet of the disciples. (It wouldn't really make sense for Jesus to do it during the meal or after it since it is customary to wash feet of guests upon their arrival.) These verses are best translated by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:
>
> It was before the festival of the Passover, and Jesus knew that the
> hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had
> always loved those who were his in the world, but now he showed how
> perfect his love was.
>
>
> They were at supper, and the devil had already put it into the mind of
> Judas Iscariot son of Simon to betray him. Jesus knew that the Father
> had put everything into his hands and that he had come from God and
> was returning to God, and he got up from table, removed his outer
> garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then
> poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and
> wipe them with the towel he was wearing.
>
>
>
Later, beginning in John 13:21 the actual betrayal of Judas takes place. Note John's explanation of "That thou doest, do quickly" in verse 29: "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Judas being sent out in the middle of the night to give something to the poor only makes sense on the night of Passover, the night when the seder is celebrated, because only on that night the gates of the temple were opened at midnight and the poor congregated to receive alms.
The other problematic passage is John 19:14, repeated in 31 and 42 "And it was the preparation of the passover" or simply "preparation". Properly understood, this means Friday of the week long festival of Passover, not the eve before the seder was eaten. Preparation was always the day before a Sabbath (Saturday). Note that in verse 31 it is specific that the following day is a Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but the Sabbath during a high festival week. The day before the start of a festival is erev in Hebrew, meaning eve, just like in English. Equivalent Greek terms would be hespera or opsia, or possibly paramoni which is not attested in the Bible and therefore may be only modern Greek.
Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:15-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25 all attest that Jesus says “Take, eat; this is my body.” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He does this in a very special context, a paschal supper, already understood sacramentally by His Jewish audience. In Luke and 1 Cor he also says "do this in remembrance of me". Now, a paschal meal was a remembrance of God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was never understood by the Jews as a mere symbolic remembrance. It was a liturgical recreation of the event that put the participants back in that original last night in Egypt, ready to be rescued from slavery. This was Jesus's last night before His death, and by His sacrifice the next day they were rescued from the slavery to sin. The parallelism was not lost on the apostles. It was very clear to them that he was not asking them to eat merely a symbol, but the actual food of His sacrifice, just as the lamb of the seder was the holy substance of a sacrifice. Furthermore they understood Him to be ordaining them to a new priesthood, one that required that they repeat this event over and over for the new Christian community.
John doesn't record the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper since by the time he wrote his gospel it had already been set down in writing four times. Instead, he recorded sayings of Jesus in Chapter 6 that can only be properly understood in light of the eucharist as a sacrificial meal analogous to a Passover seder. Note verse 4: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." There follows the miracle of the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish in verses 5-14. The miracle of Jesus walking on the sea comes in verses 15-25.
There follows many sayings of Jesus alluding to the future sacrament of the eucharist. I will bold the key words and phrases:
>
> 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
> seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did **eat**
> of the **loaves**, and were **filled**. 27 Labour not for the **meat**
> which perisheth, but for that **meat** which endureth unto
> **everlasting life**, which the **Son of man shall give unto you**: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What
> shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered
> and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye **believe on him
> whom he hath sent**. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign
> shewest thou then, that we may see, and **believe** thee? what dost
> thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat **manna** in the desert; as it is
> written, **He gave them bread from heaven to eat**. 32 Then Jesus said
> unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
> **bread from heaven**; but my Father giveth you the **true bread from heaven**. 33 For the **bread of God is he which cometh down from
> heaven, and giveth life unto the world**. 34 Then said they unto him,
> Lord, **evermore** give us this **bread**. 35 And Jesus said unto
> them, **I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
> hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst**. 36 But I
> said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that
> the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I
> will in no wise cast out. 38 For **I came down from heaven**, not to
> do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the
> Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
> should lose nothing, but should **raise it up again at the last day**.
> 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
> seeth the Son, and **believeth on him**, may have **everlasting
> life**: and **I will raise him up at the last day**. 41 The Jews then
> murmured at him, because he said, **I am the bread which came down
> from heaven**. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
> whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, **I
> came down from heaven**? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto
> them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except
> the Father which hath sent me draw him: and **I will raise him up at
> the last day**. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be
> all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
> learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen
> the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that **believeth on me** hath
> **everlasting life**. 48 **I am that bread of life**. 49 Your fathers did eat **manna** in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the
> **bread which cometh down from heaven**, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 **I am the living bread which came down from heaven**:
> if any man **eat** of this **bread**, **he shall live for ever**: and
> the **bread** that I will give is **my flesh**, which I will give for
> the **life** of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among
> themselves, saying, How can this man give us his **flesh** to **eat**?
> 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
> ye **eat** the **flesh** of the **Son of man**, and **drink** his
> **blood**, ye have no **life** in you. 54 Whoso **eateth my flesh**, and **drinketh my blood**, hath **eternal life**; and **I will raise
> him up at the last day**. 55 For **my flesh is meat indeed**, and **my
> blood is drink indeed**. 56 He that **eateth my flesh**, and
> **drinketh my blood**, **dwelleth in me**, and **I in him**. 57 As the **living** Father hath sent me, and I **live** by the Father: so he that **eateth me**, even **he shall live by me**. 58 This is that
> **bread which came down from heaven**: not as your fathers did eat **manna**, and are dead: he that **eateth** of this **bread** shall **live for ever**. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
> heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When
> Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto
> them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the **Son of
> man ascend up where he was before**? 63 It is the **spirit** that
> quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
> you, they are **spirit**, and they are **life**. 64 But there are some
> of you that **believe** not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
> they were that **believed** not, and who should **betray** him. 65 And
> he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
> except it were given unto him of my Father.
>
>
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
> with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68
> Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
> the words of **eternal life**. 69 And we **believe** and are sure that
> **thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God**. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He
> spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
> **betray** him, being one of the twelve.
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The section ***Scriptural proof*** in [Sacrifice of the Mass | New Advent](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm) begins by noting that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established by both the Old and the New Testament. In *2. New Testament*, the section says
>
> **The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of
> consecration spoken over the chalice.** *(my emphasis)* For this
> reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to
> the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on
> the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For
> this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing
> to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown
> on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread.
> For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four
> passages in Greek and English:
>
>
> * Matthew 26:28: *Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion.* For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
> * Mark 14:24: *Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon.* This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
> * Luke 22:20: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon.* This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
> * 1 Corinthians 11:25: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati.* This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
>
>
> **The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing** *(my emphasis)*
>
>
> * that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
> * that it was a true and real sacrifice;
> * that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
---
Cf. [The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church CCC 1362-1372](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1362). | Ultimately, the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it is a memorial: a memorial of an eternal sacrifice:
>
> We carry out this command of the Lord ["Do this in remembrance of me"; cf. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24] by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
>
>
>
And this belief that the memorial is a sacrifice is based on the words of Jesus:
>
> This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me. ... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
>
>
>
(Luke 22:19–20; [New American Bible, Revised Edition](http://usccb.org/bible/luke/22:19))
We interpret these words to mean that the bread and wine which we offer becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and thus takes part in the sacrifice which he made and makes before the Father:
>
> He entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption
>
>
>
(Hebrews 9:12, [NABRE](http://usccb.org/bible/hebrews/9:12))
This latter verse is cited in a document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops titled ["The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers"](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm). In Section 2, "Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?", the bishops explain that since "[Jesus'] actions transcend time, which is part of creation"1, therefore
>
> Jesus the eternal Son of God made his act of sacrifice in the presence of his Father, who lives in eternity. Jesus' one perfect sacrifice is thus eternally present before the Father, who eternally accepts it. This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it.
>
>
>
Thus, **the Biblical basis for this belief is largely present in Luke 22:19–20 and synoptic verses, as well as in Hebrews 9:11–12**.
---
1Support for this interpretation may be found, e.g., in Hebrews 9:11:
>
> Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, *not belonging to this creation*.
>
>
>
(emphasis added) |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In [1 Cor. 10:18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=18&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072018), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? **1**
>
>
> βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν
>
>
>
"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. [Deu. 18:1](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=18&v=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_171001); [Lev. 7:15-18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=7&v=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_97015)).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In [1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020), he wrote,
>
> But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
>
>
> ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι
>
>
>
The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In *[Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice](https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf?id=D3YcA72rnqQC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72d09rOGyCXRFrAhtTQelZNGWF5uiqMsCEUGdtbwv5QCfzWLz-wj5yqn0bBwRmUC84zkAdu_YQeio8DAbBgYXkpY5qb4A&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf%3Fid%3DD3YcA72rnqQC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den)*, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,
>
> The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (**which represented God**) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.
>
>
>
Finally, in [1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
>
>
> οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων
>
>
>
The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,
>
> You offer polluted bread **2** upon My **altar**. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The **table** of Yahveh is contemptible."
>
>
> מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא
>
>
>
In his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1), Franz Delitzsch wrote,
>
> The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.
>
>
>
Likewise, in his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=26&perek=1&mefaresh=radak), Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,
>
> "The table of Yahveh" - **It is the altar**, and so it said in [Eze. [41:22]](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=41&v=22&t=KJV#s=t_conc_843022) regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
>
>
> שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה
>
>
>
Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons ([1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021))? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons ([1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020)). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by **offering sacrifices to the Lord**.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier ([1 Cor. 10:16](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072016)). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed **sacrifices** offered to God on His altar/table.
---
**Footnotes**
**1** [Henry Alford](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=45&ch=10): "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
**2** [Franz Delitzsch](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1): לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in [Lev. 21:6](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=6&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111006), [21:8](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=8&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111008), [21:17](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=17&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111017), the food (לֶחֶם) of God | Ultimately, the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it is a memorial: a memorial of an eternal sacrifice:
>
> We carry out this command of the Lord ["Do this in remembrance of me"; cf. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24] by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
>
>
>
And this belief that the memorial is a sacrifice is based on the words of Jesus:
>
> This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me. ... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
>
>
>
(Luke 22:19–20; [New American Bible, Revised Edition](http://usccb.org/bible/luke/22:19))
We interpret these words to mean that the bread and wine which we offer becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and thus takes part in the sacrifice which he made and makes before the Father:
>
> He entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption
>
>
>
(Hebrews 9:12, [NABRE](http://usccb.org/bible/hebrews/9:12))
This latter verse is cited in a document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops titled ["The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers"](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm). In Section 2, "Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?", the bishops explain that since "[Jesus'] actions transcend time, which is part of creation"1, therefore
>
> Jesus the eternal Son of God made his act of sacrifice in the presence of his Father, who lives in eternity. Jesus' one perfect sacrifice is thus eternally present before the Father, who eternally accepts it. This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it.
>
>
>
Thus, **the Biblical basis for this belief is largely present in Luke 22:19–20 and synoptic verses, as well as in Hebrews 9:11–12**.
---
1Support for this interpretation may be found, e.g., in Hebrews 9:11:
>
> Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, *not belonging to this creation*.
>
>
>
(emphasis added) |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The section ***Scriptural proof*** in [Sacrifice of the Mass | New Advent](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm) begins by noting that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established by both the Old and the New Testament. In *2. New Testament*, the section says
>
> **The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of
> consecration spoken over the chalice.** *(my emphasis)* For this
> reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to
> the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on
> the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For
> this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing
> to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown
> on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread.
> For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four
> passages in Greek and English:
>
>
> * Matthew 26:28: *Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion.* For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
> * Mark 14:24: *Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon.* This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
> * Luke 22:20: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon.* This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
> * 1 Corinthians 11:25: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati.* This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
>
>
> **The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing** *(my emphasis)*
>
>
> * that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
> * that it was a true and real sacrifice;
> * that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
---
Cf. [The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church CCC 1362-1372](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1362). | It's anachronistic to ask the question "What is the biblical basis for this belief" because the belief came before the Bible itself. The Bible was written with the conviction in mind that Jesus had sacrificed Himself on Calvary and He had instituted a sacrament (liturgical celebration) equivalent to the Jewish Passover ceremony (seder meal) commemorating that sacrifice. Furthermore, the apostles were convinced that they were ordained by Jesus in that very ceremony to continue reenacting it so as to allow His disciples to participate in that sacrifice analogous to the Passover sacrifice.
All four gospels make a point of specifying that the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover seder. The seder is explicitly a meal in which a sacrificial lamb is consumed during a liturgical reenactment of God's salvation of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. There is some controversy about a couple of ambiguities in the gospel of John, but properly understood, he too indicates that it was a seder meal. John 13:1-4 is awkwardly sequenced, but should be understood as saying after the disciples had reclined for the seder meal (which is at the very start of the first day of the seven day Passover festival), but before they began to eat, Jesus rose from the table and washed the feet of the disciples. (It wouldn't really make sense for Jesus to do it during the meal or after it since it is customary to wash feet of guests upon their arrival.) These verses are best translated by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:
>
> It was before the festival of the Passover, and Jesus knew that the
> hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had
> always loved those who were his in the world, but now he showed how
> perfect his love was.
>
>
> They were at supper, and the devil had already put it into the mind of
> Judas Iscariot son of Simon to betray him. Jesus knew that the Father
> had put everything into his hands and that he had come from God and
> was returning to God, and he got up from table, removed his outer
> garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then
> poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and
> wipe them with the towel he was wearing.
>
>
>
Later, beginning in John 13:21 the actual betrayal of Judas takes place. Note John's explanation of "That thou doest, do quickly" in verse 29: "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Judas being sent out in the middle of the night to give something to the poor only makes sense on the night of Passover, the night when the seder is celebrated, because only on that night the gates of the temple were opened at midnight and the poor congregated to receive alms.
The other problematic passage is John 19:14, repeated in 31 and 42 "And it was the preparation of the passover" or simply "preparation". Properly understood, this means Friday of the week long festival of Passover, not the eve before the seder was eaten. Preparation was always the day before a Sabbath (Saturday). Note that in verse 31 it is specific that the following day is a Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but the Sabbath during a high festival week. The day before the start of a festival is erev in Hebrew, meaning eve, just like in English. Equivalent Greek terms would be hespera or opsia, or possibly paramoni which is not attested in the Bible and therefore may be only modern Greek.
Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:15-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25 all attest that Jesus says “Take, eat; this is my body.” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He does this in a very special context, a paschal supper, already understood sacramentally by His Jewish audience. In Luke and 1 Cor he also says "do this in remembrance of me". Now, a paschal meal was a remembrance of God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was never understood by the Jews as a mere symbolic remembrance. It was a liturgical recreation of the event that put the participants back in that original last night in Egypt, ready to be rescued from slavery. This was Jesus's last night before His death, and by His sacrifice the next day they were rescued from the slavery to sin. The parallelism was not lost on the apostles. It was very clear to them that he was not asking them to eat merely a symbol, but the actual food of His sacrifice, just as the lamb of the seder was the holy substance of a sacrifice. Furthermore they understood Him to be ordaining them to a new priesthood, one that required that they repeat this event over and over for the new Christian community.
John doesn't record the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper since by the time he wrote his gospel it had already been set down in writing four times. Instead, he recorded sayings of Jesus in Chapter 6 that can only be properly understood in light of the eucharist as a sacrificial meal analogous to a Passover seder. Note verse 4: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." There follows the miracle of the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish in verses 5-14. The miracle of Jesus walking on the sea comes in verses 15-25.
There follows many sayings of Jesus alluding to the future sacrament of the eucharist. I will bold the key words and phrases:
>
> 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
> seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did **eat**
> of the **loaves**, and were **filled**. 27 Labour not for the **meat**
> which perisheth, but for that **meat** which endureth unto
> **everlasting life**, which the **Son of man shall give unto you**: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What
> shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered
> and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye **believe on him
> whom he hath sent**. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign
> shewest thou then, that we may see, and **believe** thee? what dost
> thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat **manna** in the desert; as it is
> written, **He gave them bread from heaven to eat**. 32 Then Jesus said
> unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
> **bread from heaven**; but my Father giveth you the **true bread from heaven**. 33 For the **bread of God is he which cometh down from
> heaven, and giveth life unto the world**. 34 Then said they unto him,
> Lord, **evermore** give us this **bread**. 35 And Jesus said unto
> them, **I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
> hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst**. 36 But I
> said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that
> the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I
> will in no wise cast out. 38 For **I came down from heaven**, not to
> do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the
> Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
> should lose nothing, but should **raise it up again at the last day**.
> 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
> seeth the Son, and **believeth on him**, may have **everlasting
> life**: and **I will raise him up at the last day**. 41 The Jews then
> murmured at him, because he said, **I am the bread which came down
> from heaven**. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
> whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, **I
> came down from heaven**? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto
> them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except
> the Father which hath sent me draw him: and **I will raise him up at
> the last day**. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be
> all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
> learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen
> the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that **believeth on me** hath
> **everlasting life**. 48 **I am that bread of life**. 49 Your fathers did eat **manna** in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the
> **bread which cometh down from heaven**, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 **I am the living bread which came down from heaven**:
> if any man **eat** of this **bread**, **he shall live for ever**: and
> the **bread** that I will give is **my flesh**, which I will give for
> the **life** of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among
> themselves, saying, How can this man give us his **flesh** to **eat**?
> 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
> ye **eat** the **flesh** of the **Son of man**, and **drink** his
> **blood**, ye have no **life** in you. 54 Whoso **eateth my flesh**, and **drinketh my blood**, hath **eternal life**; and **I will raise
> him up at the last day**. 55 For **my flesh is meat indeed**, and **my
> blood is drink indeed**. 56 He that **eateth my flesh**, and
> **drinketh my blood**, **dwelleth in me**, and **I in him**. 57 As the **living** Father hath sent me, and I **live** by the Father: so he that **eateth me**, even **he shall live by me**. 58 This is that
> **bread which came down from heaven**: not as your fathers did eat **manna**, and are dead: he that **eateth** of this **bread** shall **live for ever**. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
> heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When
> Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto
> them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the **Son of
> man ascend up where he was before**? 63 It is the **spirit** that
> quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
> you, they are **spirit**, and they are **life**. 64 But there are some
> of you that **believe** not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
> they were that **believed** not, and who should **betray** him. 65 And
> he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
> except it were given unto him of my Father.
>
>
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
> with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68
> Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
> the words of **eternal life**. 69 And we **believe** and are sure that
> **thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God**. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He
> spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
> **betray** him, being one of the twelve.
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In [1 Cor. 10:18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=18&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072018), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? **1**
>
>
> βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν
>
>
>
"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. [Deu. 18:1](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=18&v=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_171001); [Lev. 7:15-18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=7&v=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_97015)).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In [1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020), he wrote,
>
> But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
>
>
> ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι
>
>
>
The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In *[Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice](https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf?id=D3YcA72rnqQC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72d09rOGyCXRFrAhtTQelZNGWF5uiqMsCEUGdtbwv5QCfzWLz-wj5yqn0bBwRmUC84zkAdu_YQeio8DAbBgYXkpY5qb4A&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf%3Fid%3DD3YcA72rnqQC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den)*, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,
>
> The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (**which represented God**) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.
>
>
>
Finally, in [1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
>
>
> οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων
>
>
>
The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,
>
> You offer polluted bread **2** upon My **altar**. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The **table** of Yahveh is contemptible."
>
>
> מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא
>
>
>
In his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1), Franz Delitzsch wrote,
>
> The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.
>
>
>
Likewise, in his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=26&perek=1&mefaresh=radak), Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,
>
> "The table of Yahveh" - **It is the altar**, and so it said in [Eze. [41:22]](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=41&v=22&t=KJV#s=t_conc_843022) regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
>
>
> שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה
>
>
>
Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons ([1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021))? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons ([1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020)). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by **offering sacrifices to the Lord**.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier ([1 Cor. 10:16](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072016)). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed **sacrifices** offered to God on His altar/table.
---
**Footnotes**
**1** [Henry Alford](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=45&ch=10): "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
**2** [Franz Delitzsch](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1): לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in [Lev. 21:6](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=6&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111006), [21:8](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=8&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111008), [21:17](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=17&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111017), the food (לֶחֶם) of God | It's anachronistic to ask the question "What is the biblical basis for this belief" because the belief came before the Bible itself. The Bible was written with the conviction in mind that Jesus had sacrificed Himself on Calvary and He had instituted a sacrament (liturgical celebration) equivalent to the Jewish Passover ceremony (seder meal) commemorating that sacrifice. Furthermore, the apostles were convinced that they were ordained by Jesus in that very ceremony to continue reenacting it so as to allow His disciples to participate in that sacrifice analogous to the Passover sacrifice.
All four gospels make a point of specifying that the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover seder. The seder is explicitly a meal in which a sacrificial lamb is consumed during a liturgical reenactment of God's salvation of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. There is some controversy about a couple of ambiguities in the gospel of John, but properly understood, he too indicates that it was a seder meal. John 13:1-4 is awkwardly sequenced, but should be understood as saying after the disciples had reclined for the seder meal (which is at the very start of the first day of the seven day Passover festival), but before they began to eat, Jesus rose from the table and washed the feet of the disciples. (It wouldn't really make sense for Jesus to do it during the meal or after it since it is customary to wash feet of guests upon their arrival.) These verses are best translated by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:
>
> It was before the festival of the Passover, and Jesus knew that the
> hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had
> always loved those who were his in the world, but now he showed how
> perfect his love was.
>
>
> They were at supper, and the devil had already put it into the mind of
> Judas Iscariot son of Simon to betray him. Jesus knew that the Father
> had put everything into his hands and that he had come from God and
> was returning to God, and he got up from table, removed his outer
> garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then
> poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and
> wipe them with the towel he was wearing.
>
>
>
Later, beginning in John 13:21 the actual betrayal of Judas takes place. Note John's explanation of "That thou doest, do quickly" in verse 29: "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Judas being sent out in the middle of the night to give something to the poor only makes sense on the night of Passover, the night when the seder is celebrated, because only on that night the gates of the temple were opened at midnight and the poor congregated to receive alms.
The other problematic passage is John 19:14, repeated in 31 and 42 "And it was the preparation of the passover" or simply "preparation". Properly understood, this means Friday of the week long festival of Passover, not the eve before the seder was eaten. Preparation was always the day before a Sabbath (Saturday). Note that in verse 31 it is specific that the following day is a Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but the Sabbath during a high festival week. The day before the start of a festival is erev in Hebrew, meaning eve, just like in English. Equivalent Greek terms would be hespera or opsia, or possibly paramoni which is not attested in the Bible and therefore may be only modern Greek.
Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:15-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25 all attest that Jesus says “Take, eat; this is my body.” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He does this in a very special context, a paschal supper, already understood sacramentally by His Jewish audience. In Luke and 1 Cor he also says "do this in remembrance of me". Now, a paschal meal was a remembrance of God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was never understood by the Jews as a mere symbolic remembrance. It was a liturgical recreation of the event that put the participants back in that original last night in Egypt, ready to be rescued from slavery. This was Jesus's last night before His death, and by His sacrifice the next day they were rescued from the slavery to sin. The parallelism was not lost on the apostles. It was very clear to them that he was not asking them to eat merely a symbol, but the actual food of His sacrifice, just as the lamb of the seder was the holy substance of a sacrifice. Furthermore they understood Him to be ordaining them to a new priesthood, one that required that they repeat this event over and over for the new Christian community.
John doesn't record the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper since by the time he wrote his gospel it had already been set down in writing four times. Instead, he recorded sayings of Jesus in Chapter 6 that can only be properly understood in light of the eucharist as a sacrificial meal analogous to a Passover seder. Note verse 4: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." There follows the miracle of the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish in verses 5-14. The miracle of Jesus walking on the sea comes in verses 15-25.
There follows many sayings of Jesus alluding to the future sacrament of the eucharist. I will bold the key words and phrases:
>
> 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
> seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did **eat**
> of the **loaves**, and were **filled**. 27 Labour not for the **meat**
> which perisheth, but for that **meat** which endureth unto
> **everlasting life**, which the **Son of man shall give unto you**: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What
> shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered
> and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye **believe on him
> whom he hath sent**. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign
> shewest thou then, that we may see, and **believe** thee? what dost
> thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat **manna** in the desert; as it is
> written, **He gave them bread from heaven to eat**. 32 Then Jesus said
> unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
> **bread from heaven**; but my Father giveth you the **true bread from heaven**. 33 For the **bread of God is he which cometh down from
> heaven, and giveth life unto the world**. 34 Then said they unto him,
> Lord, **evermore** give us this **bread**. 35 And Jesus said unto
> them, **I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
> hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst**. 36 But I
> said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that
> the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I
> will in no wise cast out. 38 For **I came down from heaven**, not to
> do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the
> Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
> should lose nothing, but should **raise it up again at the last day**.
> 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
> seeth the Son, and **believeth on him**, may have **everlasting
> life**: and **I will raise him up at the last day**. 41 The Jews then
> murmured at him, because he said, **I am the bread which came down
> from heaven**. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
> whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, **I
> came down from heaven**? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto
> them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except
> the Father which hath sent me draw him: and **I will raise him up at
> the last day**. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be
> all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
> learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen
> the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that **believeth on me** hath
> **everlasting life**. 48 **I am that bread of life**. 49 Your fathers did eat **manna** in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the
> **bread which cometh down from heaven**, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 **I am the living bread which came down from heaven**:
> if any man **eat** of this **bread**, **he shall live for ever**: and
> the **bread** that I will give is **my flesh**, which I will give for
> the **life** of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among
> themselves, saying, How can this man give us his **flesh** to **eat**?
> 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
> ye **eat** the **flesh** of the **Son of man**, and **drink** his
> **blood**, ye have no **life** in you. 54 Whoso **eateth my flesh**, and **drinketh my blood**, hath **eternal life**; and **I will raise
> him up at the last day**. 55 For **my flesh is meat indeed**, and **my
> blood is drink indeed**. 56 He that **eateth my flesh**, and
> **drinketh my blood**, **dwelleth in me**, and **I in him**. 57 As the **living** Father hath sent me, and I **live** by the Father: so he that **eateth me**, even **he shall live by me**. 58 This is that
> **bread which came down from heaven**: not as your fathers did eat **manna**, and are dead: he that **eateth** of this **bread** shall **live for ever**. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
> heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When
> Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto
> them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the **Son of
> man ascend up where he was before**? 63 It is the **spirit** that
> quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
> you, they are **spirit**, and they are **life**. 64 But there are some
> of you that **believe** not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
> they were that **believed** not, and who should **betray** him. 65 And
> he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
> except it were given unto him of my Father.
>
>
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
> with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68
> Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
> the words of **eternal life**. 69 And we **believe** and are sure that
> **thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God**. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He
> spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
> **betray** him, being one of the twelve.
>
>
> |
38,981 | It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."
For example, one [website](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass) states,
>
> The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.
>
>
>
What is the biblical basis for this belief?
Note:
* "offering": προσφορά
* "sacrifice": θυσία | 2015/03/09 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38981",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In [1 Cor. 10:18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=18&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072018), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? **1**
>
>
> βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν
>
>
>
"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. [Deu. 18:1](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=18&v=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_171001); [Lev. 7:15-18](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=7&v=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_97015)).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In [1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020), he wrote,
>
> But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
>
>
> ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι
>
>
>
The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In *[Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice](https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf?id=D3YcA72rnqQC&hl=en&capid=AFLRE72d09rOGyCXRFrAhtTQelZNGWF5uiqMsCEUGdtbwv5QCfzWLz-wj5yqn0bBwRmUC84zkAdu_YQeio8DAbBgYXkpY5qb4A&continue=https://books.google.com/books/download/Synonyms_of_the_Old_Testament.pdf%3Fid%3DD3YcA72rnqQC%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den)*, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,
>
> The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (**which represented God**) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.
>
>
>
Finally, in [1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021), the apostle Paul wrote,
>
> You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
>
>
> οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων
>
>
>
The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,
>
> You offer polluted bread **2** upon My **altar**. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The **table** of Yahveh is contemptible."
>
>
> מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא
>
>
>
In his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1), Franz Delitzsch wrote,
>
> The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.
>
>
>
Likewise, in his [commentary on Mal. 1:7](http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=26&perek=1&mefaresh=radak), Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,
>
> "The table of Yahveh" - **It is the altar**, and so it said in [Eze. [41:22]](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=41&v=22&t=KJV#s=t_conc_843022) regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
>
>
> שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה
>
>
>
Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons ([1 Cor. 10:21](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072021))? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons ([1 Cor. 10:20](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=20&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072020)). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by **offering sacrifices to the Lord**.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier ([1 Cor. 10:16](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1072016)). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed **sacrifices** offered to God on His altar/table.
---
**Footnotes**
**1** [Henry Alford](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=45&ch=10): "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
**2** [Franz Delitzsch](http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=38&ch=1): לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in [Lev. 21:6](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=6&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111006), [21:8](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=8&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111008), [21:17](http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=21&v=17&t=KJV#s=t_conc_111017), the food (לֶחֶם) of God | The section ***Scriptural proof*** in [Sacrifice of the Mass | New Advent](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm) begins by noting that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established by both the Old and the New Testament. In *2. New Testament*, the section says
>
> **The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of
> consecration spoken over the chalice.** *(my emphasis)* For this
> reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to
> the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on
> the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For
> this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing
> to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown
> on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread.
> For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four
> passages in Greek and English:
>
>
> * Matthew 26:28: *Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion.* For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
> * Mark 14:24: *Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon.* This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
> * Luke 22:20: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon.* This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
> * 1 Corinthians 11:25: *Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati.* This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
>
>
> **The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing** *(my emphasis)*
>
>
> * that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
> * that it was a true and real sacrifice;
> * that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
---
Cf. [The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church CCC 1362-1372](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1362). |
51,893,312 | I need to know the difference between the SSD disk and the data disk. According to this capture, this virtual machine has a hard disk ssd 16gb, and 4 disks data. But these 4 disks, how much do they have? Are they ssd? what are they for?
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DnTml.png) | 2018/08/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51893312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6314559/"
] | data disks can be ssd or not, depending on how you set them up. they are used to store data :)
amount of data disks you can attach depends on the vm sku. you dont always have to attach 4 data disks (or whatever vm supports, you can have 0 - VM SKU maximum data disks).
The 16gb ssd is local ssd (local to the host machine hosting your vm) attached to the VM (not OS disk). its a temporary drive - meaning it can go away when you reboot vm, so content will be lost and you will get a new temporary drive. it can be used to store throw away logs, for example, or temporary files. IO operations on this disk do not count towards IO limit and this drive is completely free (you pay for the VM SKU and it is part of that cost).
you can learn about data disk prices here: <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/managed-disks/>. Storage prices do not take into account os or data disks. they just bill you for storage.
reference:
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/attach-managed-disk-portal>
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/attach-disk-ps> | It means in addition to the OS disk, you can connect 4 data disks to the VM.
It does not mean there are 4 disks, just that you can add 4 if you want. |
51,893,312 | I need to know the difference between the SSD disk and the data disk. According to this capture, this virtual machine has a hard disk ssd 16gb, and 4 disks data. But these 4 disks, how much do they have? Are they ssd? what are they for?
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DnTml.png) | 2018/08/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/51893312",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6314559/"
] | data disks can be ssd or not, depending on how you set them up. they are used to store data :)
amount of data disks you can attach depends on the vm sku. you dont always have to attach 4 data disks (or whatever vm supports, you can have 0 - VM SKU maximum data disks).
The 16gb ssd is local ssd (local to the host machine hosting your vm) attached to the VM (not OS disk). its a temporary drive - meaning it can go away when you reboot vm, so content will be lost and you will get a new temporary drive. it can be used to store throw away logs, for example, or temporary files. IO operations on this disk do not count towards IO limit and this drive is completely free (you pay for the VM SKU and it is part of that cost).
you can learn about data disk prices here: <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/managed-disks/>. Storage prices do not take into account os or data disks. they just bill you for storage.
reference:
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/attach-managed-disk-portal>
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/attach-disk-ps> | You should discuss the VM requirements with your client. Maybe he needs an additional data disk, maybe not.
The capture you posted, specifies that this VM can take up to 4 data disks. The price does not include them. Also, you should check the [Azure price calculator](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/) to generate more accurate offers. |
140,349 | Since cell phones can call 911 without a SIM card present, it is clear that they can connect to a cellular network to which they are not subscribed.
Is it possible to use this knowledge to do cell tower location triangulation on Android without having a SIM card present? The use case is location detection when the phone is unable to obtain a GPS lock e.g. while inside a building. | 2016/03/22 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/140349",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/157460/"
] | SIM cards are not required for cellular connection. They are just some sort of ID method.
For example: If a phone has AT&T SIMCard, the configuration in the SIMCard will let it connect to AT&T as an identified (with phone number) user and so the SIMCard can be billed for the usage of service.
However, even without a SIM, a phone will always try and connect to cellular networks. But it will be a, let's say, guest user who can't use any of the services since they can't be billed because they can't be ID'd.
911 however is an exception. All services allow 911 calls regardless if the client is identified or not.
I told all these so you can understand the conception better. Now for the actual question: **It probably can be traced without a SIM as well.** Why probably? Because I don't know for sure nor have I ever heard/seen such a case. But conceptually they should be able to do it since they can also access your phone's IMEI and therefore identify the device and triangulate its signal. It is not something you can do on your own though, it is FBI-class action.
It is completely unrelated to GPS because GPS uses satellite, triangulation uses cell. | Yes! The cellular radio is fully active with no SIM card. You can even use a cell tower triangulation mapping app like CellMapper ( <https://www.cellmapper.net/> ) with no SIM card or even an inactive SIM card.
The phone's location service uses multiple methods. Inside a building it will often rely on the signature from a nearby WiFi signal. |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | *Timestamp* is the word universally used for precisely that, especially in programming context. | "Moment" is a good word for a point in time. And it accepts adjectivals gracefully:
* beginning moment
* critical moment
* Moment of creation
* Moment of genesis |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | *Timestamp* is the word universally used for precisely that, especially in programming context. | You may be over-thinking this. If you feel like "Timestamp" is potentially confusing or don't want to reuse a type name, then just call it "TimePoint"
**Time point** — [ODO](https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/time-point)
>
> *noun* A precise moment in time
>
> *"we compared the groups at each time point"*
>
>
> |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | *Timestamp* is the word universally used for precisely that, especially in programming context. | The web framework Ruby On Rails uses a "Xed\_at" convention for this: "updated\_at", "created\_at", "started\_at" etc. Fields with this type of name are intuitively expected to be datetime fields. |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | *Timestamp* is the word universally used for precisely that, especially in programming context. | Instant
At this instant there are no doughnuts |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | "Moment" is a good word for a point in time. And it accepts adjectivals gracefully:
* beginning moment
* critical moment
* Moment of creation
* Moment of genesis | You may be over-thinking this. If you feel like "Timestamp" is potentially confusing or don't want to reuse a type name, then just call it "TimePoint"
**Time point** — [ODO](https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/time-point)
>
> *noun* A precise moment in time
>
> *"we compared the groups at each time point"*
>
>
> |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | "Moment" is a good word for a point in time. And it accepts adjectivals gracefully:
* beginning moment
* critical moment
* Moment of creation
* Moment of genesis | The web framework Ruby On Rails uses a "Xed\_at" convention for this: "updated\_at", "created\_at", "started\_at" etc. Fields with this type of name are intuitively expected to be datetime fields. |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | "Moment" is a good word for a point in time. And it accepts adjectivals gracefully:
* beginning moment
* critical moment
* Moment of creation
* Moment of genesis | Instant
At this instant there are no doughnuts |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | The web framework Ruby On Rails uses a "Xed\_at" convention for this: "updated\_at", "created\_at", "started\_at" etc. Fields with this type of name are intuitively expected to be datetime fields. | You may be over-thinking this. If you feel like "Timestamp" is potentially confusing or don't want to reuse a type name, then just call it "TimePoint"
**Time point** — [ODO](https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/time-point)
>
> *noun* A precise moment in time
>
> *"we compared the groups at each time point"*
>
>
> |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | Instant
At this instant there are no doughnuts | You may be over-thinking this. If you feel like "Timestamp" is potentially confusing or don't want to reuse a type name, then just call it "TimePoint"
**Time point** — [ODO](https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/time-point)
>
> *noun* A precise moment in time
>
> *"we compared the groups at each time point"*
>
>
> |
112,214 | I'm looking for a simple word for a point in time for the name of a database column. The column is for "datetime" objects and it feels wrong to call the column "date", since that implies that the column only contains dates, and similarly it feels wrong to call the column "time". General programming principles dictate that it's also a bad idea to name a column simply by the value type it contains, so I don't want to name it "datetime".
Is there an English word for a "point in time", independent of whether we're talking about time of day, date of year or millennia? I want the word (X) to fit into the column name "creation\_X". If you have another idea of a good naming choice I'd love to hear that too.
---
Edit: The table column in question should specify when the data was recorded. Think of it as a data point for Google Analytics. A row contains, for instance, site visits for 12:00 to 13:00 on 2013-01-01, so the field "time\_span" is set to "hour", and the field for column X should be set to "2013-01-01 12:00:00". I can't figure out what to call the column though. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/112214",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/7532/"
] | Instant
At this instant there are no doughnuts | The web framework Ruby On Rails uses a "Xed\_at" convention for this: "updated\_at", "created\_at", "started\_at" etc. Fields with this type of name are intuitively expected to be datetime fields. |
3,180,873 | I have just restarted my apache server which is running ruby on rails. Now it isn't serving any web pages because I think that some of the Rails related services are not working.
Does anyone know how to sort this out? Any help greatly appreciated.
More info: error says "Ruby on Rails application could not be started" with Phusion Passenger on the front page.
The application was working before the restart and I have changed some javascript on one of the ruby generated html pages. No major config changes. | 2010/07/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3180873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/213216/"
] | No.
According to the [documentation for SqlConnection](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.sqlconnection.aspx):
>
> Any public static (Shared in Visual Basic) members of this type are thread safe. Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe.
>
>
>
Since your different web methods could be called simultaneously from different threads, you'd better not share the same connection instance between them.
The typical pattern is that every time you need a database connection, you create a new instance, and Dispose it as soon as you're done. Threading is one of the reasons. Connection pooling makes sure it's not too expensive to create all those connection instances. | What if you ever need a second connection ?
I'd suggest passing the variable around between classes/functions optionally putting it as class members. |
3,180,873 | I have just restarted my apache server which is running ruby on rails. Now it isn't serving any web pages because I think that some of the Rails related services are not working.
Does anyone know how to sort this out? Any help greatly appreciated.
More info: error says "Ruby on Rails application could not be started" with Phusion Passenger on the front page.
The application was working before the restart and I have changed some javascript on one of the ruby generated html pages. No major config changes. | 2010/07/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3180873",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/213216/"
] | No.
According to the [documentation for SqlConnection](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.sqlconnection.aspx):
>
> Any public static (Shared in Visual Basic) members of this type are thread safe. Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe.
>
>
>
Since your different web methods could be called simultaneously from different threads, you'd better not share the same connection instance between them.
The typical pattern is that every time you need a database connection, you create a new instance, and Dispose it as soon as you're done. Threading is one of the reasons. Connection pooling makes sure it's not too expensive to create all those connection instances. | Unless you need very high performance, open and close each connection at each use. The IIS or system does the rest for you. Simple and efficient. |
315,385 | I want to move the 'change desktop' icon to the bottom of he unity bar, next to the trash (I'd actually like to get rid of the trash, too...), but I can't find any options for that anywhere. How would I do this?
I am running Ubuntu 13.04 (Raring Ringtail) 64-bit. | 2013/07/02 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/315385",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/113148/"
] | Currently you can't remove the trash icon from the launcher. [Here](https://askubuntu.com/questions/37776/how-can-i-remove-the-trash-icon-from-the-unity-launcher/80399#80399) is the rationale behind that. So I don't think you can move any other icon to the bottom also. | Have you tried Gnome?
<http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/>
You could update from what you currently have:
go to Ubuntu Software Center (or Synaptic, if that's what you use) find Gnome Shell, and install. You'll have to choose Gnome after your next reboot. Notice that moving the mouse towards the upper left makes the program bar appear. You can drag icons to this bar in any order you want, or delete from too, if that's your desire.
Or, you could install
<http://ubuntugnome.org/>
13.04 |
1,906 | The 2011 Community Moderator Election is now underway!
Community moderator elections have three phases:
1. Nomination phase
2. Primary phase
3. Election phase
Most elections take between two and three weeks, but this depends how many candidates there are.
Please visit the official election page at
<https://superuser.com/election>
for more detail, and to participate!
If you have general questions about the election process, or questions for moderator candidates, feel free to ask them here on meta -- just make sure your questions are tagged [election](/questions/tagged/election "show questions tagged 'election'"). | 2011/01/18 | [
"https://meta.superuser.com/questions/1906",
"https://meta.superuser.com",
"https://meta.superuser.com/users/-1/"
] | Edit: Everyone getting nervous yet? :D
======================================
I think it's rather disappointing you only get to (And are allowed to in the first place) nominate yourself. I think such a nomination should be done by the community. Especially because you'll get a lot of nice sales talks when individual contribution should be evaluated.
Furthermore, I think nominations should be kept invisible to prevent community nominees in such a system to suddenly start working their butts off to get elected.
To be honest, I wouldn't have nominated myself if there was any other way to get nominated... | At The Stack Overflow Blog:
>
> Trilogy 2011 Elections Begin
>
>
> <http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/01/trilogy-2011-elections-begin/>
>
>
>
*Contains more info on the election process, etc. Check it out!* |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.