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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
62,346 | Say that a person comes to confession and the priest gives bad advice or otherwise makes a major mistake during confession. To give a very clear example, say that a confession went like this:
>
> Penitent: Father, I've murdered someone.
>
>
> Priest: That's not a sin, don't worry about it.
>
>
> Penitent: Really? Thanks Father!
>
>
>
Only after reflection did the priest realize he misheard the penitent and didn't realize he was confessing a mortal sin. The dilemma here is that he is under the seal of confession, but he made a major mistake and now the person thinks that it's okay to commit a mortal sin.
A more subtle example might be a priest hearing a confession that he was unsure was sinful, but after reflection, research, and prayer, he realizes that his spur of the moment words was incorrect.
Would the priest be allowed to talk to the person after confession, or during future confessions, in order to correct himself? | 2018/02/23 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62346",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/16688/"
] | Is a priest permitted to talk about a person's confession to the penitent after the penitent's sacramental confession?
There is a lack of general information on this subject, but the short answer is **yes, but only after having received permission from the penitent himself** to do so.
>
> A priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?"
>
>
> Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret. - [The Seal of the Confessional](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html)
>
>
>
While there are now apps such as Confession that can assist during the examination of conscience, you cannot receive sacramental absolution via the internet or on the phone. Matters of conscience are forbidden by Rome over the phone, e-mail, internet and other forms of modern communication when the sacrament of confession is involved. This would apply to a priest talking to a penitent about any matter of conscience involving a past confession. The internet is never a safe place for such conversations.
>
> “It is essential to understand well the sacrament of penitence requires the personal dialogue between the penitent and the confessor and the absolution by the confessor,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told reporters on Wednesday. “This cannot in any way be substituted by a technology application.”
>
>
> “One cannot talk in any way about a ‘confession via iPhone,’ ” Lombardi said. - [Vatican issues warning for new Confession app](http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/vatican-issues-warning-for-new-confession-app/)
>
>
> | Have a look at Luke 16:28-31 (NRSVCE) in which the rich man in hell pleads with Abraham:
".. for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
The sinner comes to confession after reprenting on his sins, and is quite aware that he has broken the Commandment of God. He will not, and should not, take the inadvertent remark of the confessor, which cannot stand the test of the law, as a licence to kill again. Suppose the confessor dies just after hearing the confesion, and does not get a chance to correct himself . Will his pre-mortem advice supersede what is in the commandments of God ? No way .
Now, if the confessor is really worried about the future of the person whose confession he had heard, he has all the means of one-to-one communication like phone , e--mail or SMS provided he does not break the covenant of the confession . |
8,595,898 | For hobby I'm making a game. The game has a monster chasing the human (Pacman-like). When the Pacman is stuck, can eat the human or does some move; an event should be raised. This is because my program became not-oop because all the objects had to know eachother what did the cohesion no good.
There is a control like object (called Game) which should respond to the event; human-moved, monster-moved, human-eaten, monster-stuck and eventually let the view know something happened so it repaints. Whats also the point, that the view responds to the keypresses of the actor and that those events should reach the human in some way (also with an event).
1. Can someone help me with how I can best solve this issue? I've searched the internet for likewise problems but didn't came across one.
2. In MVC: does the controller know the view? If so: does the whole program begins with the controller or with the view? (what makes who) | 2011/12/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8595898",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/964780/"
] | Basically Event Handling mechanism is just a producer-consumer pattern, imagine you are producing some events(an action) and there are set of listeners who needs to be notified about your action.
whether you want to use to use the Java built-in event Handling depends on how much code you have already written, if refactoring your code to use the Java event Handling requires a lot of effort, and you have only limited set of events, then you can write your own message passing system. But obviously, using Java event handling mechanism should be preffered, since it takes cares of notifying all the listeners who are registered for that event, you dont need to worry about notifying each and every listener and later it will help you in debugging if anything goes wrong. I Hope it answers your first question
In short you can write your own events like HumanMovedEvent, MonsterMovedEvent etc.
Coming down to your 2nd question, yes in MVC, controller knows what all views it needs to trigger for any specific action. A controller can choose any specific view for any specific action, lets say if u do some action A, you can call view V.
and yes your program begins with sending a request from your UI to Controller. Controller then chooses what View it needs to render for that specific action.
I hope i made it clear :) | In MVC, the controller knows about both the model object and the view. The model object does not know who is controlling it, and likewise, the view does not know that either. Model and view typically communicated with the controller through callbacks: the model defines an interface for the various callback methods, and has a "delegate" instance variable holding a pointer to that interface. The controller sets itself as the delegate on the model. Likewise for the view.
Instead of callbacks, you can also use events as you suggest, which would add an extra layer of decoupling:
* the model can have multiple listeners to the events, not just the controller
* if the controller also uses events to communicate with the model, then the controller does not need to know about the model at all, just about the events.
Typically you would have one model-view-controller combination for each object in your program (one monster model, monster view, and monster controller). But you can also have one controller managing multiple model objects and/or views. It depends a bit on the UI framework you are using which approach is most practical.
You second question also depends on the UI framework you are using. Typically, the controller instantiates the view, but some frameworks do it differently.
For the keyboad keys you mentions: typically the view would inform the controller of the key that is pressed "ctrl-K", and the controller would translate that into commands for the model object "move 1 space up". |
52,203,565 | I read [this](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/configure-windows/configure-windows-service-accounts-and-permissions?view=sql-server-2017) article and concluded that the file system permissions needs to be manually set when I change the service account for my SQL server instance.
So I changed the service account for my SQL server instance to a brand new local account via SQL Server Configuration Manager and got surprised that the SQL server service can start, even though I haven't set any file or folder permissions for the new account yet. So the service now runs as the local user, but that user does not have access to the default SQL data folder when I check from Windows. I can also read and write to the default backup folder. Why does it work despite the missing permissions? | 2018/09/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/52203565",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7298038/"
] | It works because you used SQL Server Configuration Manager to change the service account. It does all the extra legwork with permissions so that you don't have to.
If, on the other hand, you would use the standard "Services" snap-in found in Control Panel -> Administrative Tools, then nothing would work out of the box, and it would be a truly harrowing experience to set it all up by hand. | From [this](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/configure-windows/configure-windows-service-accounts-and-permissions?view=sql-server-2017) article we get the answer:
SQL Server service accounts must have access to resources. Access control lists are set for the **per-service SID** or the **local Windows** group |
14,419 | I have a Monoprice MP10 with magnetic flexible paper coated build plate and I have just tried printing bed level test which is, of necessity, very thin on the build plate.
Watching the item print, I saw that the bed level was obviously way way off at the back left corner and down the left side. I was printing with PLA. There was no point in letting the print continue so I stopped it, let the build plate cool down and tried to remove the print.
The bottom line and right hand side came off cleanly but the top left corner and all down the left side stuck firmly. As it was so thin a layer there is no chance of getting something underneath an edge without damaging the paper surface. I tried acetone but this had no effect other than turning the surface white and thin cracks appearing in the paper surface. Wiped down with alcohol which toned down the white but was no help in getting the thin layer of PLA off.
I tried reheating surface, no joy. Does anyone have a foolproof way of getting this off as soap and water don't work either? | 2020/09/13 | [
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/14419",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23585/"
] | In my experience with the Creality magnetic textured build surface, it's easier to remove a thin print while the surface is still pretty warm -- probably between 35 °C and 40 °C -- as opposed to fully cooled to room temperature.
If the print is *very* thin, however (as when the nozzle is much too close to the build surface) printing over it may be the only sensible option. In fact, if the print residue is too thin to get a scraper under, it likely won't show in another print with the same color/type filament, so you can just ignore it unless you're changing color or material.
BTW, don't use acetone. For *anything*, unless nothing else will do the job. Too flammable, too toxic, and it dissolves stuff you don't want to dissolve (but won't do anything notable to PLA, which is why you can't do acetone vapor smoothing with PLA). | You could try freezing your bed with cooling spray around the print and then wait some seconds and try peel it off.
I had the problem once on my PEI sheet and it did help. I used this spray: [Spray](https://www.distrelec.ch/de/kuehlmittel-spray-prefix-prefix-200-suffix-suffix-ml-kontakt-chemie-freeze-75-200-ml-ml/p/30025851?channel=b2c&price_gs=17.51202&source=googleps&ext_cid=shgooaqchde-na&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyuGr5Ojy6wIVkuntCh2nawCXEAQYASABEgKQ5vD_BwE)
But make sure you don't break any electric parts on your printer. |
14,419 | I have a Monoprice MP10 with magnetic flexible paper coated build plate and I have just tried printing bed level test which is, of necessity, very thin on the build plate.
Watching the item print, I saw that the bed level was obviously way way off at the back left corner and down the left side. I was printing with PLA. There was no point in letting the print continue so I stopped it, let the build plate cool down and tried to remove the print.
The bottom line and right hand side came off cleanly but the top left corner and all down the left side stuck firmly. As it was so thin a layer there is no chance of getting something underneath an edge without damaging the paper surface. I tried acetone but this had no effect other than turning the surface white and thin cracks appearing in the paper surface. Wiped down with alcohol which toned down the white but was no help in getting the thin layer of PLA off.
I tried reheating surface, no joy. Does anyone have a foolproof way of getting this off as soap and water don't work either? | 2020/09/13 | [
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/14419",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23585/"
] | In my experience with the Creality magnetic textured build surface, it's easier to remove a thin print while the surface is still pretty warm -- probably between 35 °C and 40 °C -- as opposed to fully cooled to room temperature.
If the print is *very* thin, however (as when the nozzle is much too close to the build surface) printing over it may be the only sensible option. In fact, if the print residue is too thin to get a scraper under, it likely won't show in another print with the same color/type filament, so you can just ignore it unless you're changing color or material.
BTW, don't use acetone. For *anything*, unless nothing else will do the job. Too flammable, too toxic, and it dissolves stuff you don't want to dissolve (but won't do anything notable to PLA, which is why you can't do acetone vapor smoothing with PLA). | You could print something on top of it, like a giant square covering the whole affected area. You should use some slightly higher temperatures than usual to make it adhere good (e.g. 75 °C bed 210 °C hotend), make sure that you print several layers.
There are 2 options removing the new print when there is an elevated temperature in the bed left after printing, or removing after a complete cool down. |
9,341 | I would like to ask Prof. X, a distinguished scholar at a top school, for a recommendation for a tenure-track academic position. However, I only want him to write me a recommendation if he is going to write a *good* one. If he will write me a mediocre or just insufficiently positive recommendation, I would prefer to have someone less famous than X but more positive about me write the letter.
If I simply ask Prof. X for a letter, there is the possibility that he will agree and then write something that is not as positive as I would like. I want to avoid this.
One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter. If he does not wish to write me a strong letter, he can simply reply that he is not that familiar with the whole body of my work. By giving him an easy way to decline, this makes it more likely that he will write a strong letter if he accepts.
Unfortunately, in this case this little strategem will not work, as Prof. X and I have been working on the same questions for years, so there is little question of him being unfamiliar with my results.
Another possible solution would be to have someone else approach him to ask whether he can write me a strong letter. Sadly I have no one who could do this for me.
What would be a good strategy to use in this situation? More broadly, what are some general tips for asking people for recommendation letters which ensure you only get strong letters, besides the two I mentioned above?
**Edited**: Maybe I should mention a couple of other strategies that crossed my mind:
A. Mention to Prof. X that I'm going on the job market in unrelated conversation and see if he volunteers to write me a letter.
B. Ask him for a letter in an email and see how he responds. If he responds enthusiastically, e.g., "It would be my pleasure to write you a letter..." or "I'd be extremely happy to..." this is good. If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
Both of these strategies are decent, but they are not perfect. They might work, but they also might cause me to miss out on a good letter from a well-known scholar. Anyway, I'd welcome thoughts, corrections, additional strategies to use that I haven't thought of, etc. | 2013/04/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6786/"
] | >
> One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter.
>
>
>
**No. Do not play mind games.** The best approach is to be completely straightforward.
If you already *know* that he is *familiar* with your work, suggesting otherwise is dishonest and potentially insulting. What you really want to know is whether he's *impressed* by your work. **The only way to find out is to ask directly.** If possible, ask in person, preferably over coffee/beer or in some other informal neutral setting; conferences are really good for this. Be straightforward about your desire for a strong letter, but use the opportunity to develop a stronger collaborative relationship. Ask for honest feedback on your work. Ask about future opportunities to work together. Ask where he thinks you should apply. Be sincere in asking whether he can write you a **strong** recommendation letter; he knows what that means. Be sincerely ready to be turned down. Listen.
If you're not comfortable asking him directly, or you think that he might not be comfortable answering you, ask your advisor to informally sound out Prof X's opinion of you first. (Ideally, your advisor already has some idea what Prof X will say.) But the actual letter request must come directly from you.
>
> If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
>
>
>
**No. Do not play mind games.**
First, unless you already know Prof X *extremely* well, you should not attempt to read his mind through email. "Sure, I can write you a letter" says *nothing* about his level of enthusiasm. If his response to your request makes you hesitant to use his letter, ask him again. Second, if you decide, for *whatever* reason, that you don't need his letter after you've asked for it, you **must** tell him directly, so that he doesn't waste his time. | I assume here that Prof X knows you (and not only your work). I also assume that you work is strong enough to ensure that you are eligible for a tenure-track position somewhere.
One thing you can do is contacting Prof X, asking him for advice regarding your application. More specifically, you can ask him to read your research project and giving you some hints about what can be done to make it "sexier". That way, you will certainly have a good idea of his opinion on your work. Afterwards, you can decide to ask him for a letter (in the best case scenario, he will volunteer before you ask). If he doesn't even want to read your research project, this is a good clue that he will not write a very good letter. |
9,341 | I would like to ask Prof. X, a distinguished scholar at a top school, for a recommendation for a tenure-track academic position. However, I only want him to write me a recommendation if he is going to write a *good* one. If he will write me a mediocre or just insufficiently positive recommendation, I would prefer to have someone less famous than X but more positive about me write the letter.
If I simply ask Prof. X for a letter, there is the possibility that he will agree and then write something that is not as positive as I would like. I want to avoid this.
One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter. If he does not wish to write me a strong letter, he can simply reply that he is not that familiar with the whole body of my work. By giving him an easy way to decline, this makes it more likely that he will write a strong letter if he accepts.
Unfortunately, in this case this little strategem will not work, as Prof. X and I have been working on the same questions for years, so there is little question of him being unfamiliar with my results.
Another possible solution would be to have someone else approach him to ask whether he can write me a strong letter. Sadly I have no one who could do this for me.
What would be a good strategy to use in this situation? More broadly, what are some general tips for asking people for recommendation letters which ensure you only get strong letters, besides the two I mentioned above?
**Edited**: Maybe I should mention a couple of other strategies that crossed my mind:
A. Mention to Prof. X that I'm going on the job market in unrelated conversation and see if he volunteers to write me a letter.
B. Ask him for a letter in an email and see how he responds. If he responds enthusiastically, e.g., "It would be my pleasure to write you a letter..." or "I'd be extremely happy to..." this is good. If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
Both of these strategies are decent, but they are not perfect. They might work, but they also might cause me to miss out on a good letter from a well-known scholar. Anyway, I'd welcome thoughts, corrections, additional strategies to use that I haven't thought of, etc. | 2013/04/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6786/"
] | I assume here that Prof X knows you (and not only your work). I also assume that you work is strong enough to ensure that you are eligible for a tenure-track position somewhere.
One thing you can do is contacting Prof X, asking him for advice regarding your application. More specifically, you can ask him to read your research project and giving you some hints about what can be done to make it "sexier". That way, you will certainly have a good idea of his opinion on your work. Afterwards, you can decide to ask him for a letter (in the best case scenario, he will volunteer before you ask). If he doesn't even want to read your research project, this is a good clue that he will not write a very good letter. | Here's another variation: email prof X and tell him you are thinking of applying for faculty positions. Ask if he has any suggestions of who might be willing to write you a letter of recommendation to help you achieve your goal.
This is pretty straightforward. If he is willing to write a strong letter, he will offer. If he is not willing to write a strong letter, he will not offer. And he might have some good suggestions for other possible letter writers. |
9,341 | I would like to ask Prof. X, a distinguished scholar at a top school, for a recommendation for a tenure-track academic position. However, I only want him to write me a recommendation if he is going to write a *good* one. If he will write me a mediocre or just insufficiently positive recommendation, I would prefer to have someone less famous than X but more positive about me write the letter.
If I simply ask Prof. X for a letter, there is the possibility that he will agree and then write something that is not as positive as I would like. I want to avoid this.
One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter. If he does not wish to write me a strong letter, he can simply reply that he is not that familiar with the whole body of my work. By giving him an easy way to decline, this makes it more likely that he will write a strong letter if he accepts.
Unfortunately, in this case this little strategem will not work, as Prof. X and I have been working on the same questions for years, so there is little question of him being unfamiliar with my results.
Another possible solution would be to have someone else approach him to ask whether he can write me a strong letter. Sadly I have no one who could do this for me.
What would be a good strategy to use in this situation? More broadly, what are some general tips for asking people for recommendation letters which ensure you only get strong letters, besides the two I mentioned above?
**Edited**: Maybe I should mention a couple of other strategies that crossed my mind:
A. Mention to Prof. X that I'm going on the job market in unrelated conversation and see if he volunteers to write me a letter.
B. Ask him for a letter in an email and see how he responds. If he responds enthusiastically, e.g., "It would be my pleasure to write you a letter..." or "I'd be extremely happy to..." this is good. If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
Both of these strategies are decent, but they are not perfect. They might work, but they also might cause me to miss out on a good letter from a well-known scholar. Anyway, I'd welcome thoughts, corrections, additional strategies to use that I haven't thought of, etc. | 2013/04/13 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6786/"
] | >
> One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter.
>
>
>
**No. Do not play mind games.** The best approach is to be completely straightforward.
If you already *know* that he is *familiar* with your work, suggesting otherwise is dishonest and potentially insulting. What you really want to know is whether he's *impressed* by your work. **The only way to find out is to ask directly.** If possible, ask in person, preferably over coffee/beer or in some other informal neutral setting; conferences are really good for this. Be straightforward about your desire for a strong letter, but use the opportunity to develop a stronger collaborative relationship. Ask for honest feedback on your work. Ask about future opportunities to work together. Ask where he thinks you should apply. Be sincere in asking whether he can write you a **strong** recommendation letter; he knows what that means. Be sincerely ready to be turned down. Listen.
If you're not comfortable asking him directly, or you think that he might not be comfortable answering you, ask your advisor to informally sound out Prof X's opinion of you first. (Ideally, your advisor already has some idea what Prof X will say.) But the actual letter request must come directly from you.
>
> If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
>
>
>
**No. Do not play mind games.**
First, unless you already know Prof X *extremely* well, you should not attempt to read his mind through email. "Sure, I can write you a letter" says *nothing* about his level of enthusiasm. If his response to your request makes you hesitant to use his letter, ask him again. Second, if you decide, for *whatever* reason, that you don't need his letter after you've asked for it, you **must** tell him directly, so that he doesn't waste his time. | Here's another variation: email prof X and tell him you are thinking of applying for faculty positions. Ask if he has any suggestions of who might be willing to write you a letter of recommendation to help you achieve your goal.
This is pretty straightforward. If he is willing to write a strong letter, he will offer. If he is not willing to write a strong letter, he will not offer. And he might have some good suggestions for other possible letter writers. |
638,274 | How is the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM consistent with the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function (given by Born's interpretation)? For example, say a particle has a 90% chance of ending up in state 1 after a measurement, and a 10% chance of ending up in state 2. How does our consciousness "know" to end up in the universe where the particle is in state 1 much more often than the universe where it's in state 2? I mean, surely it should be completely random which world our experience happens to fall into, meaning that the probabilities should have been 50-50, corresponding to the two possible worlds? | 2021/05/22 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/638274",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/267796/"
] | Since my comment was a bit long, I'll post this as an answer.
Your point here is commonly brought up as a critique of MWI. If the wavefunction/quantum state is all that is needed to describe reality, then there must be a derivation of the Born rule from the dynamics of QM alone. No consensus has been reached as to whether the Born rule has been derived. This issue has sometimes been dubbed as the *incoherence problem.* See [this page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Probability_and_the_Born_rule) and [this page](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#6.4) for more info.
Also, you may be interested in Sean Carroll's idea of self-locating uncertainty, and David Deutsch's decision theory approach. These two approaches attempt to answer your question, so you should look into them. And again, not everyone agrees that these approaches are satisfactory. | One problem presented by your question is that there is not a single many worlds interpretation, but a variety, some of which are more open to criticism than others.
If you consider an extreme interpretation which assumes that there is a continual branching in which everything in every universe is repeatedly replicated in yet more universes, our consciousness included, then there will be instances of you in universes in which only the more improbable sequences of events have ever happened. Physicists conducting experiments in those branches must find very puzzling results.
The other problem is that the interpretations are just that- interpretations, and there are at present no decisive physical tests of their validity. |
8,300 | It is a cottered crank. Crank arms themselves don't seem to be bent. It is a non-cartridge style spindle. Any ideas as to why they are not lining up?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eFrVr.jpg) | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/8300",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/3540/"
] | Like you said, they are cottered, what makes them aligned is that pin through a hole, which at the same time tightens the crank arm around the axle.
If you google "cottered crank", you can see the spindle, which has a slot in each side.
My hypothesis would be: or the cottering bold got deformed, or the spindle slot itself got deformed, or both.
A bolder hypothesis would be twisting of the spindle due to deformation or cracking, but most probably the bearings would not spin freely (how are the cranks spinning, by the way?)
The side which appears on your photo looks OK from outside, the other side we cannot tell.
But for sure this is a VERY irregular situation, which demand a full disassembly of the system, and absolutely no use before that. | One of the cotter pins is in backwards. I did that once by accident when reassembling. It's easy to fix - take the nut off, tap the pin out with a hammer, then insert it in the opposite direction from what it was before. |
8,300 | It is a cottered crank. Crank arms themselves don't seem to be bent. It is a non-cartridge style spindle. Any ideas as to why they are not lining up?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eFrVr.jpg) | 2012/02/28 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/8300",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/3540/"
] | Looking at the photo I notice that the nut is missing,an indication that it has been worked on at some point. With the right side pedal in the 9 o'clock position the nut side of the pin will face up verify that the leftarm pin has the nut on the bottom.Several size pins were used and it is possible that you have two different sizes.I have several cottered cranks and it seems that there is no standard as far as which direction the pin goes on which side but they are always facing in opposite directions. | One of the cotter pins is in backwards. I did that once by accident when reassembling. It's easy to fix - take the nut off, tap the pin out with a hammer, then insert it in the opposite direction from what it was before. |
400,269 | I am working on a custom carrier board using a TI microcontroller as the master and an ADC IC as the slave. It appears that sometimes SCL will stay high when it shouldn't, almost like the master releases it. We only get this fault condition on a reset of the MCU (or total system power cycle) but it does not happen every time, maybe one out of ten on average.
Data transfer will be fine most of the time, until one of the unlucky resets causes the issues. You can see in the image below that after the address byte is sent SCL just goes high after a few clock pulses. Any ideas? [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O13Hj.png) | 2018/10/09 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/400269",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/80977/"
] | From recent comments:
>
> the microprocessor does return an arbitration lost flag
>
>
>
Thanks, that is *vital* new info and deserves to be added to the question. So does this info:
>
> I discovered this problem happens when the reset is pressed during activity on SDA. If the reset is pressed while SDA is high, the bus does not get messed up.
>
>
>
Based on the new info, I believe your problem is a duplicate of previous question "[I2C bus occupied](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/391839/101852)".
Your expectation that "*I would think the MCU would come back up in a known good state with I2C initialized*" is not true, because the MCU does not control the state of *all* devices on the I2C bus. The I2C Master only knows and controls its own state. It relies on other devices following the I2C protocol, to infer *their* state. Resetting only *some* devices on the bus can result in a mismatch between the internal states of the various devices on the bus, and lead to problems like yours.
When they restart, I2C Masters can be affected when they see that an I2C Slave is pulling SDA low, waiting for clock pulses from the I2C Master (which the Master won't send, as it was just reset) so the Slave waits, still pulling SDA low.
For example: After restarting, some I2C Masters (e.g. MCU), before they start the I2C SCL clock, will check the SDA signal. In your case, it sees that SDA is *already low*. This state can be interpreted as there being another I2C Master device driving the bus. Actually the cause of SDA being low is the I2C Slave, which was in mid-transmission before the MCU was reset. However now the Slave isn't receiving SCL pulses from the I2C Master and so it cannot complete its transmission. Most I2C Slaves don't timeout and release SDA in that situation, although a few do.
The fixes in the answer to the [above linked question](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/391839/101852) would apply here e.g. pulsing SCL manually, until the I2C Slave releases SDA, or resetting the I2C Slave (via a reset pin or local power switch to the I2C Slave(s)). Then restart I2C on the Master. The I2C master will see that SDA is no longer being held low, and so it will start to drive SCL again, as it won't be confused that there is another I2C Master on the bus. | Look closer: SDA is **low**.
This is the "arbitration lost" case, where the master wants to put a "1" on the bus but reads back a zero. In I²C terms, this would mean there is *another* master on the bus, an thus the original master ceases toggeling the SCL line.
Now you will have to look at *why* the ADC (or something else in on your I²C bus) exibits this behaviour - but that is a different and much more interesting question. |
400,269 | I am working on a custom carrier board using a TI microcontroller as the master and an ADC IC as the slave. It appears that sometimes SCL will stay high when it shouldn't, almost like the master releases it. We only get this fault condition on a reset of the MCU (or total system power cycle) but it does not happen every time, maybe one out of ten on average.
Data transfer will be fine most of the time, until one of the unlucky resets causes the issues. You can see in the image below that after the address byte is sent SCL just goes high after a few clock pulses. Any ideas? [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O13Hj.png) | 2018/10/09 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/400269",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/80977/"
] | From recent comments:
>
> the microprocessor does return an arbitration lost flag
>
>
>
Thanks, that is *vital* new info and deserves to be added to the question. So does this info:
>
> I discovered this problem happens when the reset is pressed during activity on SDA. If the reset is pressed while SDA is high, the bus does not get messed up.
>
>
>
Based on the new info, I believe your problem is a duplicate of previous question "[I2C bus occupied](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/391839/101852)".
Your expectation that "*I would think the MCU would come back up in a known good state with I2C initialized*" is not true, because the MCU does not control the state of *all* devices on the I2C bus. The I2C Master only knows and controls its own state. It relies on other devices following the I2C protocol, to infer *their* state. Resetting only *some* devices on the bus can result in a mismatch between the internal states of the various devices on the bus, and lead to problems like yours.
When they restart, I2C Masters can be affected when they see that an I2C Slave is pulling SDA low, waiting for clock pulses from the I2C Master (which the Master won't send, as it was just reset) so the Slave waits, still pulling SDA low.
For example: After restarting, some I2C Masters (e.g. MCU), before they start the I2C SCL clock, will check the SDA signal. In your case, it sees that SDA is *already low*. This state can be interpreted as there being another I2C Master device driving the bus. Actually the cause of SDA being low is the I2C Slave, which was in mid-transmission before the MCU was reset. However now the Slave isn't receiving SCL pulses from the I2C Master and so it cannot complete its transmission. Most I2C Slaves don't timeout and release SDA in that situation, although a few do.
The fixes in the answer to the [above linked question](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/391839/101852) would apply here e.g. pulsing SCL manually, until the I2C Slave releases SDA, or resetting the I2C Slave (via a reset pin or local power switch to the I2C Slave(s)). Then restart I2C on the Master. The I2C master will see that SDA is no longer being held low, and so it will start to drive SCL again, as it won't be confused that there is another I2C Master on the bus. | This is a problem of the MCU being reset during a bus transaction and essentially forgetting what it was doing. The slave ADC has no idea the MCU was reset and still thinks they are communicating and it is waiting for the MCU to respond with more clock pulses. However since the MCU lost power it does not know where it left off, meanwhile its seeing the SDA line low and thinks there is arbitration. So it is an issue of the slave waiting to send all of its data, but the MCU doesn't know that, so actually it is the mcu's fault.
This white paper describes this completely. [Link](http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/54305147357414AN686_0.pdf) |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation.
Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine. | The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much "connected".
But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro.
Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal. | The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much "connected".
But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro.
Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal. | Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said:
>
> 1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month.
> 2. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany.
>
>
> 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to
> transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals.
>
>
> 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to
> keep the banks from collapsing.
>
>
> 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy
> and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give
> Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to
> hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to
> make relative price adjustment possible; or:
>
>
> 4b. End of the euro.
>
>
> And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out.
>
>
>
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/> |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this [website](http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm)). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.
I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation. | I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this [website](http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm)). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.
I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation. | The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much "connected".
But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro.
Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation.
Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine. | Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said:
>
> 1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month.
> 2. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany.
>
>
> 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to
> transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals.
>
>
> 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to
> keep the banks from collapsing.
>
>
> 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy
> and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give
> Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to
> hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to
> make relative price adjustment possible; or:
>
>
> 4b. End of the euro.
>
>
> And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out.
>
>
>
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/> |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal. | If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this [website](http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm)). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.
I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse. | The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much "connected".
But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro.
Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said:
>
> 1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month.
> 2. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany.
>
>
> 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to
> transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals.
>
>
> 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to
> keep the banks from collapsing.
>
>
> 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy
> and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give
> Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to
> hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to
> make relative price adjustment possible; or:
>
>
> 4b. End of the euro.
>
>
> And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out.
>
>
>
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/> | The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much "connected".
But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro.
Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite. |
5,388 | Seems to be a lot in the news recently (Google Business news UK) discussing that the euro currency may not survive. They suggested it has a 1/5 chance of surviving the next decade.
What would actually happen if it did collapse, would each country go back to using its old currency? Maybe its a good idea I didn't throw away those 20 German Marks I found in a recent clearout. | 2010/12/31 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/5388",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/1131/"
] | These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation.
Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine. | I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse. |
369 | 11 of the last 12 questions are on hold for being off topic.
What can we do to encourage users to stay on topic?
Is there any indication that the authors of these off topic questions are returning to make edits? Are we scaring new users away by closing questions quickly (in less than a minute in at least [one case](https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1180/driver-power-state-failure-every-nvidia-geforce-gtx-update#comment2463_1180)) | 2015/11/11 | [
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/369",
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/users/57/"
] | We sort of knew this would be an on-going challenge going into this. That's okay; there's really no way to avoid it completely, but we've pulled off some strange ["not what they seem"](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com) sites before, so stick to it.
The problem is, at the surface, this looks like a place where folks can request and write up "hardware recommendations". Sounds simple enough; right? — *"What monitor should I buy?", "Who makes the most reliable memory?"* Except that the Stack Exchange engine was ***not*** designed to host discussions that have [a strong component of personal opinion](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/) and brand preferences. Question are generally asked that have *one* correct answer (roughly speaking)… and the answer that is vetted by the community as "correct" would be voted to the top.
Then how did this site get created?
-----------------------------------
The story that created this site was a ***limited* use case** — where folks would ask about a hardware situation that was so singularly unique/rare/original/special… specific, that our collective experience would be a great resource to help someone find that "one solution" and stay within the precepts of a healthy Stack Exchange site.
Except that many questions I see here quite broad, soliciting a random list of brand preference that are being answered **by virtue of who happens to be reading the post.** Answers could offer dozens (sometimes hundreds) of different answers with no grounds but personal preference for choosing between them; that's not good. That's not a Stack Exchange site, and soliciting requirements like "it has to be cheap" or "must have USB port" doesn't generally mitigate that.
So what do we do?
-----------------
So this doesn't get deleted at *not an answer*, I have some specific suggestions about how to keep this site on the *healthy* side of what having a Stack Exchange site is about.
* **Consistent Moderation**
First, stick to your core premise. I know you want to help folks who ask. So when you have an answer (any answer), you are just *itching* to post it. I get it. But **your front page *is* the *de facto* definition of your site.** So when folks are a bit too eager to let a question slide because [they have one of those random recommendations](https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/186/214), no amount of documentation is going to undo that. You get the site you build, and moderation doesn't fall to just the *capital-M* Moderators♦ on this site; it takes the combined efforts of *everyone* in this community to see that the scope and purpose for having this site is upheld.
* ***Thoughtful* Moderation**
Remember that we're the *odd man out* here. Stack Exchange is somewhat unique among the on-going discussions and threaded forums around the Internet. So when someone comes to us with a question and doesn't quite get it right, you have to explain it patiently and thoughtfully… every time; explain what we do. That doesn't mean barking out one-liners from your FAQ, or huffing in derision because you've said it hundreds of times before… because for these users, **it is the first time**, and you are likely their first experience with a Stack Exchange Community. Don't shrink yourself down to the size of an insular community of insiders who actually went ahead and read all your faqs and meta posts. Because that's a pretty small site.
* **Look to Skeptics SE**
I would suggest exploring the makeup of the Skeptic site more than any other because — [Skeptic is Different](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/faq-welcome-to-new-users) — and somehow they managed to get it right. They have a similar problem to your scope in that it's not all that obvious what the site is about until you actually use it. But somehow they managed to stave off the glut of pseudoscience nonsense and random *"my uncle pete said"* questions. I'm sure they still get a good portion of it, but it's a high-quality site, and despite the up-hill battle they face(d), they stuck to their central premise… unwaveringly; and they are better off for the experience. | >
> Are we scaring new users away by closing questions quickly
>
>
>
I very highly doubt it. The kind of users the look at recently asked questions before asking are mostly the kind of users that would read [/help/on-topic](https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).
That said, I'd like to add something about our scope to the sidebar on the ask page:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vxNYC.png)
There would need to be minor wording changes, of course. |
369 | 11 of the last 12 questions are on hold for being off topic.
What can we do to encourage users to stay on topic?
Is there any indication that the authors of these off topic questions are returning to make edits? Are we scaring new users away by closing questions quickly (in less than a minute in at least [one case](https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1180/driver-power-state-failure-every-nvidia-geforce-gtx-update#comment2463_1180)) | 2015/11/11 | [
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/369",
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/users/57/"
] | We sort of knew this would be an on-going challenge going into this. That's okay; there's really no way to avoid it completely, but we've pulled off some strange ["not what they seem"](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com) sites before, so stick to it.
The problem is, at the surface, this looks like a place where folks can request and write up "hardware recommendations". Sounds simple enough; right? — *"What monitor should I buy?", "Who makes the most reliable memory?"* Except that the Stack Exchange engine was ***not*** designed to host discussions that have [a strong component of personal opinion](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/) and brand preferences. Question are generally asked that have *one* correct answer (roughly speaking)… and the answer that is vetted by the community as "correct" would be voted to the top.
Then how did this site get created?
-----------------------------------
The story that created this site was a ***limited* use case** — where folks would ask about a hardware situation that was so singularly unique/rare/original/special… specific, that our collective experience would be a great resource to help someone find that "one solution" and stay within the precepts of a healthy Stack Exchange site.
Except that many questions I see here quite broad, soliciting a random list of brand preference that are being answered **by virtue of who happens to be reading the post.** Answers could offer dozens (sometimes hundreds) of different answers with no grounds but personal preference for choosing between them; that's not good. That's not a Stack Exchange site, and soliciting requirements like "it has to be cheap" or "must have USB port" doesn't generally mitigate that.
So what do we do?
-----------------
So this doesn't get deleted at *not an answer*, I have some specific suggestions about how to keep this site on the *healthy* side of what having a Stack Exchange site is about.
* **Consistent Moderation**
First, stick to your core premise. I know you want to help folks who ask. So when you have an answer (any answer), you are just *itching* to post it. I get it. But **your front page *is* the *de facto* definition of your site.** So when folks are a bit too eager to let a question slide because [they have one of those random recommendations](https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/186/214), no amount of documentation is going to undo that. You get the site you build, and moderation doesn't fall to just the *capital-M* Moderators♦ on this site; it takes the combined efforts of *everyone* in this community to see that the scope and purpose for having this site is upheld.
* ***Thoughtful* Moderation**
Remember that we're the *odd man out* here. Stack Exchange is somewhat unique among the on-going discussions and threaded forums around the Internet. So when someone comes to us with a question and doesn't quite get it right, you have to explain it patiently and thoughtfully… every time; explain what we do. That doesn't mean barking out one-liners from your FAQ, or huffing in derision because you've said it hundreds of times before… because for these users, **it is the first time**, and you are likely their first experience with a Stack Exchange Community. Don't shrink yourself down to the size of an insular community of insiders who actually went ahead and read all your faqs and meta posts. Because that's a pretty small site.
* **Look to Skeptics SE**
I would suggest exploring the makeup of the Skeptic site more than any other because — [Skeptic is Different](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/faq-welcome-to-new-users) — and somehow they managed to get it right. They have a similar problem to your scope in that it's not all that obvious what the site is about until you actually use it. But somehow they managed to stave off the glut of pseudoscience nonsense and random *"my uncle pete said"* questions. I'm sure they still get a good portion of it, but it's a high-quality site, and despite the up-hill battle they face(d), they stuck to their central premise… unwaveringly; and they are better off for the experience. | I have to say we *are* scaring new users away by closing questions quickly.
As Robert briefly discussed in his answer, these new users (at least half of them so far) have never used this site before and usually do not yet understand how everything works and what is required of them. Having your first question immediately closed for whatever reason is never a great experience. Most people take that to mean they have failed and/or aren't accepted among the community.
Now that's not to say we should stop closing questions so fast; any question that doesn't fit the guidelines needs to be closed or edited, but that right there is the problem I find myself running into in most cases: **If closing the author's question so quickly will discourage them from participating any further, being as nice as possible and simply asking the author to edit the question with more info would be much more benficial.** If the author doesn't go on to edit the question, *then* it should be closed. Though following this rule leads to more gray areas we would have to sift through each time. Doing this can also fight off the bad image created by the front page being full of closed questions, another thing Robert mentioned.
So I think we can and should take a look at our question-closing habits; it has a big impact on the site as a whole. And as for how to encourage users to stay on topic, Robert's answer is spot on. |
111,667 | At the end of the fourth episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian, after talking with Cara Dune about being from Alderann, Captain Teva leaves some kind of medal or badge on a table for Cara. What is this item and what does it mean for Cara? | 2020/11/21 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111667",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/5733/"
] | It’s Captain Teva’s own Alliance badge.
---------------------------------------
### He most likely gave it to her as a show of respect for her loss as well as subtle invitation to her that states, “I respect you… You are always welcome to reconsider the offer…”
According [to Slash film](https://www.slashfilm.com/the-mandalorian-the-siege-review/); bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “This episode brings back Paul Sun-Hyung Lee as Captain Carson Teva and makes me wonder if the New Republic will have a larger role in future episodes and seasons. He talks to Cara Dune about her background as an Alderaanian, which is a touching moment, but also makes me wonder who the hell asks someone whose planet was destroyed if they ‘lost anyone.’ Of course she did. **After intruding on her pain and apologizing for her loss, he gives her a service medal with a Rebel symbol on it and walks away**. It’s unclear if this was *his* service medal to honor his time on Alderaan, or something else, but if that’s the case, it would make for a touching moment.”
>
>
>
And [here is what Wookiepedia says about the exchange](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Carson_Teva#Behind_the_scenes); again bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “After Dune silently denied his appeal, he then pointed out that she was from Alderaan, asking who she had lost during the planet's destruction. The marshal claimed she had lost everyone during the disaster, **and the captain gave his condolences before leaving his Alliance badge with her and going back to his X-wing**.”
>
>
>
Nothing solid past that at this point. But based on some of the cynicism expressed by Captain Teva and Trapper Wolf in the second episode of season two (“The Passenger”) — as well as Cara’s own dismissal of being invited to be a part of the New Republic — my guess would be that Captain Teva gave it to her as an acknowledgment of her own personal pain in the context of everything including his relatively minimal loss compared to hers.
Meaning, in this ABY (“After the Battle of Yavin”) world, a medal is just a medal. The Rebellion won the, but the war to keep order in the universe — as well as hunt down rogue pockets of Imperial hold-outs — still goes on. Why does he need that badge if she’s suffered worse than him?
It could also be a way of him saying, “Look… You are upset and sorry about reopening old wounds… This door is always open if you want to reconsider…”
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymb0F.jpg)
---
**UPDATE**: As of the 6th episode of the 2nd season — aka: [“Chapter 14: The Tragedy](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_14:_The_Tragedy#Seeking_out_an_ally)” — we learn that Cara Dune has now become a Marshal of the New Republic:
>
> “There, Djarin learns that Carasynthia Dune has become a Marshal of the New Republic, saying that he has heard rumors that she has gone legit.”
>
>
>
So one can assume that object was a New Republic Marshal’s badge and after some thought, she accepted Captain Teva’s badge and is now one of the few, the proud — and clearly overworked — Marshal’s attempting to keep order in the galaxy. | While the idea that it's a medal makes a lot of sense, another possible explanation that also fits the show's "space western" vibes is that it's the Star Wars equivalent of a "sheriff's badge". Note that he is depicted as a sort of cop on the beat, or a detective, and Cara herself is the town's Marshal.
Perhaps his gesture is a way of saying that she's doing his job better than he; or an offer to keep doing what she does not simply as someone, but as a representative of the New Republic.
edit: welp, looks like I guessed right =) |
111,667 | At the end of the fourth episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian, after talking with Cara Dune about being from Alderann, Captain Teva leaves some kind of medal or badge on a table for Cara. What is this item and what does it mean for Cara? | 2020/11/21 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111667",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/5733/"
] | It’s Captain Teva’s own Alliance badge.
---------------------------------------
### He most likely gave it to her as a show of respect for her loss as well as subtle invitation to her that states, “I respect you… You are always welcome to reconsider the offer…”
According [to Slash film](https://www.slashfilm.com/the-mandalorian-the-siege-review/); bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “This episode brings back Paul Sun-Hyung Lee as Captain Carson Teva and makes me wonder if the New Republic will have a larger role in future episodes and seasons. He talks to Cara Dune about her background as an Alderaanian, which is a touching moment, but also makes me wonder who the hell asks someone whose planet was destroyed if they ‘lost anyone.’ Of course she did. **After intruding on her pain and apologizing for her loss, he gives her a service medal with a Rebel symbol on it and walks away**. It’s unclear if this was *his* service medal to honor his time on Alderaan, or something else, but if that’s the case, it would make for a touching moment.”
>
>
>
And [here is what Wookiepedia says about the exchange](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Carson_Teva#Behind_the_scenes); again bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “After Dune silently denied his appeal, he then pointed out that she was from Alderaan, asking who she had lost during the planet's destruction. The marshal claimed she had lost everyone during the disaster, **and the captain gave his condolences before leaving his Alliance badge with her and going back to his X-wing**.”
>
>
>
Nothing solid past that at this point. But based on some of the cynicism expressed by Captain Teva and Trapper Wolf in the second episode of season two (“The Passenger”) — as well as Cara’s own dismissal of being invited to be a part of the New Republic — my guess would be that Captain Teva gave it to her as an acknowledgment of her own personal pain in the context of everything including his relatively minimal loss compared to hers.
Meaning, in this ABY (“After the Battle of Yavin”) world, a medal is just a medal. The Rebellion won the, but the war to keep order in the universe — as well as hunt down rogue pockets of Imperial hold-outs — still goes on. Why does he need that badge if she’s suffered worse than him?
It could also be a way of him saying, “Look… You are upset and sorry about reopening old wounds… This door is always open if you want to reconsider…”
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymb0F.jpg)
---
**UPDATE**: As of the 6th episode of the 2nd season — aka: [“Chapter 14: The Tragedy](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_14:_The_Tragedy#Seeking_out_an_ally)” — we learn that Cara Dune has now become a Marshal of the New Republic:
>
> “There, Djarin learns that Carasynthia Dune has become a Marshal of the New Republic, saying that he has heard rumors that she has gone legit.”
>
>
>
So one can assume that object was a New Republic Marshal’s badge and after some thought, she accepted Captain Teva’s badge and is now one of the few, the proud — and clearly overworked — Marshal’s attempting to keep order in the galaxy. | It gets explained in Season 2 Episode 6 - The Mandolorian visits Cara and is holding the badge:
>
> Cara Dune, Marshal of the New Republic
>
>
>
So, Captain Teva was basically investing as a marshal of the law for Navarro (or, at least, the town and its surrounds) |
111,667 | At the end of the fourth episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian, after talking with Cara Dune about being from Alderann, Captain Teva leaves some kind of medal or badge on a table for Cara. What is this item and what does it mean for Cara? | 2020/11/21 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111667",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/5733/"
] | It’s Captain Teva’s own Alliance badge.
---------------------------------------
### He most likely gave it to her as a show of respect for her loss as well as subtle invitation to her that states, “I respect you… You are always welcome to reconsider the offer…”
According [to Slash film](https://www.slashfilm.com/the-mandalorian-the-siege-review/); bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “This episode brings back Paul Sun-Hyung Lee as Captain Carson Teva and makes me wonder if the New Republic will have a larger role in future episodes and seasons. He talks to Cara Dune about her background as an Alderaanian, which is a touching moment, but also makes me wonder who the hell asks someone whose planet was destroyed if they ‘lost anyone.’ Of course she did. **After intruding on her pain and apologizing for her loss, he gives her a service medal with a Rebel symbol on it and walks away**. It’s unclear if this was *his* service medal to honor his time on Alderaan, or something else, but if that’s the case, it would make for a touching moment.”
>
>
>
And [here is what Wookiepedia says about the exchange](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Carson_Teva#Behind_the_scenes); again bold emphasis is mine:
>
> “After Dune silently denied his appeal, he then pointed out that she was from Alderaan, asking who she had lost during the planet's destruction. The marshal claimed she had lost everyone during the disaster, **and the captain gave his condolences before leaving his Alliance badge with her and going back to his X-wing**.”
>
>
>
Nothing solid past that at this point. But based on some of the cynicism expressed by Captain Teva and Trapper Wolf in the second episode of season two (“The Passenger”) — as well as Cara’s own dismissal of being invited to be a part of the New Republic — my guess would be that Captain Teva gave it to her as an acknowledgment of her own personal pain in the context of everything including his relatively minimal loss compared to hers.
Meaning, in this ABY (“After the Battle of Yavin”) world, a medal is just a medal. The Rebellion won the, but the war to keep order in the universe — as well as hunt down rogue pockets of Imperial hold-outs — still goes on. Why does he need that badge if she’s suffered worse than him?
It could also be a way of him saying, “Look… You are upset and sorry about reopening old wounds… This door is always open if you want to reconsider…”
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymb0F.jpg)
---
**UPDATE**: As of the 6th episode of the 2nd season — aka: [“Chapter 14: The Tragedy](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_14:_The_Tragedy#Seeking_out_an_ally)” — we learn that Cara Dune has now become a Marshal of the New Republic:
>
> “There, Djarin learns that Carasynthia Dune has become a Marshal of the New Republic, saying that he has heard rumors that she has gone legit.”
>
>
>
So one can assume that object was a New Republic Marshal’s badge and after some thought, she accepted Captain Teva’s badge and is now one of the few, the proud — and clearly overworked — Marshal’s attempting to keep order in the galaxy. | I think he brought up Alderaan for two reasons. The first being he knew she was from there. And the 2nd being that badge was given to the members of the strike force that took out the death star that destroyed Alderaan. Rebel emblem and below it red and white strips the same color as the red wing xwings that won the battle. |
111,667 | At the end of the fourth episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian, after talking with Cara Dune about being from Alderann, Captain Teva leaves some kind of medal or badge on a table for Cara. What is this item and what does it mean for Cara? | 2020/11/21 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111667",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/5733/"
] | While the idea that it's a medal makes a lot of sense, another possible explanation that also fits the show's "space western" vibes is that it's the Star Wars equivalent of a "sheriff's badge". Note that he is depicted as a sort of cop on the beat, or a detective, and Cara herself is the town's Marshal.
Perhaps his gesture is a way of saying that she's doing his job better than he; or an offer to keep doing what she does not simply as someone, but as a representative of the New Republic.
edit: welp, looks like I guessed right =) | It gets explained in Season 2 Episode 6 - The Mandolorian visits Cara and is holding the badge:
>
> Cara Dune, Marshal of the New Republic
>
>
>
So, Captain Teva was basically investing as a marshal of the law for Navarro (or, at least, the town and its surrounds) |
111,667 | At the end of the fourth episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian, after talking with Cara Dune about being from Alderann, Captain Teva leaves some kind of medal or badge on a table for Cara. What is this item and what does it mean for Cara? | 2020/11/21 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111667",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/5733/"
] | While the idea that it's a medal makes a lot of sense, another possible explanation that also fits the show's "space western" vibes is that it's the Star Wars equivalent of a "sheriff's badge". Note that he is depicted as a sort of cop on the beat, or a detective, and Cara herself is the town's Marshal.
Perhaps his gesture is a way of saying that she's doing his job better than he; or an offer to keep doing what she does not simply as someone, but as a representative of the New Republic.
edit: welp, looks like I guessed right =) | I think he brought up Alderaan for two reasons. The first being he knew she was from there. And the 2nd being that badge was given to the members of the strike force that took out the death star that destroyed Alderaan. Rebel emblem and below it red and white strips the same color as the red wing xwings that won the battle. |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | Since you are building predictive models from large datasets you might benefit from [Google's BigQuery](https://developers.google.com/bigquery/) (a hosted version of the technology from Google's research paper on massive dataset analysis with Dremel). You can export the query results as CSV for ingestion into a predictive classifier, for example.
BigQuery has a WebUI that allows you to run queries and export results. The beta (v1) version of BigQuery featured a R client, and the production version (v2) will eventually have an R client as well. | [RHIPE](http://www.datadr.org/) is a great solution, and I would probably choose this one, if having this issue! but have you considered NCSS? As far as I know, the newest version 10 can build these models. The full ver. is very expensive, but on several [remote desktop services](https://www.apponfly.com/en/application/ncss10) you can run the app only for a small fee but I dunno.. rather check that out |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | We trained 3.5M observations and 44 features using 64-bit R on an EC2 instance with 32GB ram and 4 cores. We used random forests and it worked well. Note that we had to preprocess/manipulate the data before training. | Can you look at ScaVis (<http://jwork.org/scavis>)? I did not look at 20M, but you may try to check it. |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | Since you are building predictive models from large datasets you might benefit from [Google's BigQuery](https://developers.google.com/bigquery/) (a hosted version of the technology from Google's research paper on massive dataset analysis with Dremel). You can export the query results as CSV for ingestion into a predictive classifier, for example.
BigQuery has a WebUI that allows you to run queries and export results. The beta (v1) version of BigQuery featured a R client, and the production version (v2) will eventually have an R client as well. | Can you look at ScaVis (<http://jwork.org/scavis>)? I did not look at 20M, but you may try to check it. |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | Most of the algorithms on [Apache Mahout](http://mahout.apache.org/) scale way beyond 20M records, even with high-dimensional data. If you only need to build a prediction model, there are specific tools like Vowpal Wabbit (http://hunch.net/~vw/) that can easily scale to billions of records on a single machine. | Since you are building predictive models from large datasets you might benefit from [Google's BigQuery](https://developers.google.com/bigquery/) (a hosted version of the technology from Google's research paper on massive dataset analysis with Dremel). You can export the query results as CSV for ingestion into a predictive classifier, for example.
BigQuery has a WebUI that allows you to run queries and export results. The beta (v1) version of BigQuery featured a R client, and the production version (v2) will eventually have an R client as well. |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | Most of the algorithms on [Apache Mahout](http://mahout.apache.org/) scale way beyond 20M records, even with high-dimensional data. If you only need to build a prediction model, there are specific tools like Vowpal Wabbit (http://hunch.net/~vw/) that can easily scale to billions of records on a single machine. | [RHIPE](http://www.datadr.org/) is a great solution, and I would probably choose this one, if having this issue! but have you considered NCSS? As far as I know, the newest version 10 can build these models. The full ver. is very expensive, but on several [remote desktop services](https://www.apponfly.com/en/application/ncss10) you can run the app only for a small fee but I dunno.. rather check that out |
3,595 | Currently I have to analyze approximately 20M records and build prediction models. So far I have tried out Statistica, SPSS, RapidMiner and R. Among these Statistica seems to be most suitable to deal with data mining and RapidMiner user interface is also very handy but it seems that Statistica, RapidMiner and SPSS are suitable just for smaller datasets.
Could anyone recommend a good tool for large datasets?
Thanks you! | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/315/"
] | There is the [RHIPE](http://www.rhipe.org/) package (R-Hadoop integration). It is can make it very easy (with exceptions) to analyze large amounts of data in R. | Since you are building predictive models from large datasets you might benefit from [Google's BigQuery](https://developers.google.com/bigquery/) (a hosted version of the technology from Google's research paper on massive dataset analysis with Dremel). You can export the query results as CSV for ingestion into a predictive classifier, for example.
BigQuery has a WebUI that allows you to run queries and export results. The beta (v1) version of BigQuery featured a R client, and the production version (v2) will eventually have an R client as well. |
50,220 | In a talk, given by someone whose name unfortunately escapes me, the speaker mentioned that the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine/East-Roman Empire did have quite an influence on students of biblical prophecy that lived at that time, because the new Ottoman Empire was seen as a fifth beast, of which Daniel did not foretell anything.
I am unable to find anything on that subject and would be grateful for any pointer that backs up or refutes that assertion. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50220",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/10164/"
] | The answer to this question is dependant on your view of eschatology - and there are several.
One difference in eschatological views is over whether the empire following the Grecian empire under Alexander the Great is the the Roman or the Ottoman empires. Most ascribe this to Rome - but not all. The Roman Empire had two distinct ‘branches’, the western centred on Rome, and the Eastern centred on Constantinople. This relates to the two ‘legs’ in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. And, the Eastern ‘leg’ outlasted the western by 100s of years.
So, the area of Turkey can be related to both the Ottoman Empire, and the Roman Empire. So the ‘coming world Empire’ which will be reconstituted out of this previous empire could be centred around that area, BUT could be seen to be associated with either the Roman or Ottoman empires - hence the debate.
However, one issue ( for non-Preterists) with fitting the Ottoman Empire (Caliphate) into the ‘picture’ is that this Empire sits well outside of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophesy - as the Ottoman Empire wasn’t established until well after Jesus death. (13th Century). (Although some present arguments around this.)
Like I said, there are many views, and the debate goes on. | This will not answer the question but provide a little information that may spark other lines of inquiry.
I note that just 81 years after the fall of Constantinople, when the first complete German bible was published by Luther in 1534 complete with magnificent illustrations by Lucas Cranach. Here I reproduce just two of these from my personal copy of the 1534 Luther Bible.
The first is Luther's illustration of the Daniel 7 prophecy which shows "Army sermon against the Turks" in the form of a world map.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gYbWd.jpg)
The second is Luther's illustration of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Rev 6) which shows the first horseman depicted as a Turk complete with scimitar.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hwrwU.jpg)
[By reproducing these images I offer no endorsement of the implied interpretation.] Given the time of history, it was somewhat expected as the Ottoman Turks were an extremely menacing threat in eastern Europe and during the early 18th were almost "knocking on the door" of Vienna. |
419,829 | If some developer asks a question with relevant code, and if we couldn't able to figure out the issue in code, is it okay to ask them to provide Git links of the project or a Git link of a minimal reproducible example so that we can try it, figure out the issue and post the answer to Git as an accepted answer? Is it that worth it to spend time to get some reputation?
The reason I asked is that when I tried to answer in comments a user opened a chat room. So I asked for a Git link. He asked for my [Telegram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)) or Facebook contact, I haven’t responded yet. | 2022/08/14 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/419829",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/9248098/"
] | You're asking the wrong question.
The relevant issue isn't, "is it worth to spend time to get some reputation?" but rather, "will the question and answer, as presented, be helpful to future visitors?". If it requires an off-site code repository to answer well, then the likelihood of the Q&A being helpful to the site is lowered greatly. Much better to ask them to create and post a valid [Minimal Runnable Example program](https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example), one that is small enough so that the code can be posted in the question as code-formatted text.
Regarding your addition:
>
> The reason I asked is that when I tried to answer in comments a user opened a chat room. So I asked for a git link. He asked for my telegram or facebook contact, I havent responded yet.
>
>
>
It is certainly reasonable to use chat to ask for question clarification and code, and I have used this to coach a new user through the steps in their creating a decent MRE (although this can be very time consuming and not always worth it). It is usually not best for the original poster to ask for help outside of this site, especially if they are trying to use the site as a personal help site, something which it most definitely is not, since doing so, can cheat the site out of a better question and possibly better answers for future visitors (which ***is*** the main purpose of this site).
See [Is it OK to offer a user help on another platform?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/415812/is-it-ok-to-offer-a-user-help-on-another-platform) for some of the nuances on this. | Code should be in the question, not just available via a link. The same applies for answers.
So sure, ask for a minimum reproducable example if the question needs it but not as a link.
Links can rot, the code they show can change, the linked site may go away or change location, all with no real way for us to check that the question or answer still make sense.
Only you can judge whether you think it's worth it to try to clarify a question or whether to move on to a different question that's already clear and answer that instead. Wasting time on something when you could be doing something more worthwhile instead is called [Opportunity cost](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp) |
36,270,900 | I have created a project by duplicating an existing project and renaming the project and schema. Can I rename the .app file from within Xcode?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FjAh0.png)
I already have try this [RENAMING TUTORIAL](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/recipes/xcode_help-project_editor/RenamingaProject/RenamingaProject.html) from Apple but it didn't rename my folders and my .app file. | 2016/03/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36270900",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4378949/"
] | I finally found the solution:
**Build Settings -> Packaging -> Release Name** | Double click your Project name and rename your project. Note that it will rename your application name and product name not folder name on physical drive.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rEeIr.png) |
182,890 | When I was a PhD student, I would sign up for 15 minute slots with my advisor, power through the meeting and be out quickly. Sometimes they ran 5-10 minutes over but generally they were highly efficient. Now I'm a new jr faculty member with undergrads and PhD students. So far I rarely finish talking with a student in less than 45 minutes. How the heck can I make these meetings more efficient? | 2022/03/01 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/182890",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7934/"
] | Three principles I found useful:
1. Always have an agenda (including outcomes) beforehand. What does the student need help with? What needs to be decided for the project to move forward etc.?
2. Ask the student to submit something in writing before the meeting, even as short as a paragraph or bullet point list. Use this to define the agenda (and outcomes).
3. Stick to the agenda if possible. If new points come up that can't be resolved impromptu, schedule a new meeting and possibly ask for some preparation by the student beforehand (and of course do your own preparation).
15 minutes seems short though. | I wonder whether a lot of very short meetings is "more efficient" than fewer, longer, ones. You have to keep changing focus.
What a lot of us did was schedule office hours for (non doctoral) students and let them come during those slots. Some number of hours per week was required. I didn't plan on being "productive" in research during those hours. If only one or two show up you can let them fill the time. If a lot show up you can have a group discussion. I've had a group of five or so sitting at my feet in a general exchange. You probably have to reserve some of the time available for more personal issues (grades, health, ...) that can't be done as a group but those sorts of things can be short in any case.
This may not work for doctoral students, however, and you may need to use an individual plan. I'm surprised that you say that 10-15 minutes was ok for doctoral students. Somehow the scale seems wrong. And the scale is very different in any case. It actually feels like the advisor was micromanaging, though you don't say it was a large lab in which that might occur.
For someone who has a lot of doctoral students at the same time (never my bad luck) it might be worth organizing them so that they can collectively answer their own question. Perhaps the more senior students can mentor the newer ones. That isn't a bad thing in any case. |
182,890 | When I was a PhD student, I would sign up for 15 minute slots with my advisor, power through the meeting and be out quickly. Sometimes they ran 5-10 minutes over but generally they were highly efficient. Now I'm a new jr faculty member with undergrads and PhD students. So far I rarely finish talking with a student in less than 45 minutes. How the heck can I make these meetings more efficient? | 2022/03/01 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/182890",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7934/"
] | Some years ago, when I often had several PhD students at the same time (though at different stages of their projects), I would run a seminar meeting at least one day a week, and in the summertime five days a week, for perhaps two hours. This was aimed at addressing *common* issues my people would have.
It would also help them refine their own *specific* questions, for our weekly one-hour one-on-one meetings.
(I've found that in many cases there is an inescapable "human inefficiency" in PhD-student meetings, insofar as there is "life interfering with mathematics", and, in my opinion, it is important for an advisor to lend a sympathetic ear... before talking about the mostly-more-solvable problems of mathematics.) | I wonder whether a lot of very short meetings is "more efficient" than fewer, longer, ones. You have to keep changing focus.
What a lot of us did was schedule office hours for (non doctoral) students and let them come during those slots. Some number of hours per week was required. I didn't plan on being "productive" in research during those hours. If only one or two show up you can let them fill the time. If a lot show up you can have a group discussion. I've had a group of five or so sitting at my feet in a general exchange. You probably have to reserve some of the time available for more personal issues (grades, health, ...) that can't be done as a group but those sorts of things can be short in any case.
This may not work for doctoral students, however, and you may need to use an individual plan. I'm surprised that you say that 10-15 minutes was ok for doctoral students. Somehow the scale seems wrong. And the scale is very different in any case. It actually feels like the advisor was micromanaging, though you don't say it was a large lab in which that might occur.
For someone who has a lot of doctoral students at the same time (never my bad luck) it might be worth organizing them so that they can collectively answer their own question. Perhaps the more senior students can mentor the newer ones. That isn't a bad thing in any case. |
1,603,952 | I keep seeing [documentation](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms702030(VS.85).aspx) saying that its not possible to send to a remote transactional msmq queue, outside the scope of a transaction. I'm finding this hard to believe because I *think* I've been doing exactly that for weeks now. I have a small app that posts messages to a remote queue that is transactional. Just to experiment with performance, various versions of the client have either used a TransactionScope to wrap the send operation or not. Ultimately, using some compensating transaction logic seemed a lot smarter and faster, so use of TransactionScope on both client and server were dropped. The thing is, messages still seem to show up on the queue, and get processed by the service without any problem.
Can anybody explain to me what it is that I'm missing here? Am I just being thick? Feel free to say so (it certainly won't be the first time). | 2009/10/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1603952",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/97091/"
] | The transaction you refer to with the TransactionScope are implemented by the dtc ( distributed transaction coordinator). msmq (like sql) have its internal transaction engine. There is a property in the message that states that its a transactional message. And you probably set it somewhere in you code. | It depends which version of MSMQ you're using. Only MSMQ 4.0 and above (Vista, 7, Server 2008) can do remote transactional reads. And you're using the TransactionScope correctly, as DTC must be used. |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | I don't see the benefit of trying to do everything the same unless you're willing to turn-down projects that don't fit your particular model. Otherwise, you get a bad fit and the client isn't going to be happy either way.
If you're so sure you know the specs in one case and are very confident they won't change, you can still run it as an agile project. Just because Agile is better when specs are vague, doesn't mean it is useless when they are solid.
Keep things as consistent as possible so you can have members work on different projects without too much adaptation of the general method. People are better at making adaptations when they fully understand what it is they are adapting; otherwise, it's just chaos. Of course, this assumes all your clients are willing to work under an agile methodology. | Agile vs Waterfall its not only about have a set requirements up front. There are other agile values aside from responding to change, for example:
* People more important than process.
* Deploy software that works in short iterations.
If your company is agile i cannot see how you can abandon this agility for one project, agile its much more about a mindset and core values than about concrete practiques. If for a project do you have solid requirements that don't change you can still work on this projects with your agile values and mindset. Go in small iterations, empower your team, show software that works frequently... with agile you are prepared to change, if change don't appears you are off course prepared to this too. |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | I don't see the benefit of trying to do everything the same unless you're willing to turn-down projects that don't fit your particular model. Otherwise, you get a bad fit and the client isn't going to be happy either way.
If you're so sure you know the specs in one case and are very confident they won't change, you can still run it as an agile project. Just because Agile is better when specs are vague, doesn't mean it is useless when they are solid.
Keep things as consistent as possible so you can have members work on different projects without too much adaptation of the general method. People are better at making adaptations when they fully understand what it is they are adapting; otherwise, it's just chaos. Of course, this assumes all your clients are willing to work under an agile methodology. | In my experience, most organizations use a mix of the processes that work best for it and its customers (business). While Agility is an organizational goal, that does not mean ALL its software projects need to be run using an Agile method (Scrum or others). Agility means being able to respond to change quickly and still deliver quality products and services that meet the customers' requirements and thus organizational goals. That can be achieved with a variety of methods and approaches by the organization.
I would rather ask the question - what is the problem that you are trying to solve? Is there a problem? Does the solution require changing or examining your software development processes? Is the solution to that problem to get everyone on the same methodology?
Even so, I can assure you that most organizations today have 'agility' as a business goal in some fashion or the other - AND work with a variety of software development methods depending on the needs of the customer, the nature of the project and the skills and maturity of the team involved.
Hope that helps! |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | There's a *very serious* problem with choosing a methodology on a "per-project" basis, which is that most Agile methodologies **reject the notion of projects**.
A project implies fixed scope and fixed time, and for many of the more dysfunctional organizations, also a fixed budget. This is anathema to every methodology out there.
Every role, every tool and every ritual in a process like Scrum centers around the **product** - not a "project". You have a product backlog which states what must be done and in what order (but not when or how). You have a product owner who chooses what goes on the backlog. You have product demos or showcases to inform the business of progress. You have product releases and iterations. Even your very first release is called the "Minimum Viable Product", and it's not intended to be the final release.
The closest analogy to a traditional "project" would probably be a single sprint/iteration/cycle, because at the end of a sprint, your team should have come up with one or several meaningful improvements to the product that deliver some measurable business value. If your team isn't doing this, your team isn't Agile in the capital-A sense of the word. If your team isn't dedicated to a single product (or maybe a small suite) then it isn't Agile. If people outside your team dictate requirements or deadlines to your team, then your business isn't Agile.
I am not saying that you *have* to be Agile. What I *am* saying, however, is that you can't really pick and choose. Most of the "good" Agile methodologies like Scrum include process improvement as part of the process itself (i.e. retrospectives and post-mortems), thus I am also not saying that your process should be static. To the contrary, unless everything went absolutely perfectly during your last few sprints, you should probably be tweaking the process. But Agile processes are processes for *continuous delivery*, and if you switch to "project" mode at any point, then you're throwing away the *continuous* part and you might as well just stick to a more traditional project-management process. Not waterfall, which was broken even according to Royce, but something more formal like the RUP.
In general I would say it's OK to have some Agile teams and some non-Agile teams/projects **if they are different teams**. I've seen what happens when businesses try to shoehorn waterfall projects into an Agile team/process, and rest assured it's not pretty; at best it seriously hurts the quality and timeline of both goals, at worst it will drive the team members so crazy that half of them quit. Avoid, if possible. | I don't see the benefit of trying to do everything the same unless you're willing to turn-down projects that don't fit your particular model. Otherwise, you get a bad fit and the client isn't going to be happy either way.
If you're so sure you know the specs in one case and are very confident they won't change, you can still run it as an agile project. Just because Agile is better when specs are vague, doesn't mean it is useless when they are solid.
Keep things as consistent as possible so you can have members work on different projects without too much adaptation of the general method. People are better at making adaptations when they fully understand what it is they are adapting; otherwise, it's just chaos. Of course, this assumes all your clients are willing to work under an agile methodology. |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | Agile vs Waterfall its not only about have a set requirements up front. There are other agile values aside from responding to change, for example:
* People more important than process.
* Deploy software that works in short iterations.
If your company is agile i cannot see how you can abandon this agility for one project, agile its much more about a mindset and core values than about concrete practiques. If for a project do you have solid requirements that don't change you can still work on this projects with your agile values and mindset. Go in small iterations, empower your team, show software that works frequently... with agile you are prepared to change, if change don't appears you are off course prepared to this too. | In my experience, most organizations use a mix of the processes that work best for it and its customers (business). While Agility is an organizational goal, that does not mean ALL its software projects need to be run using an Agile method (Scrum or others). Agility means being able to respond to change quickly and still deliver quality products and services that meet the customers' requirements and thus organizational goals. That can be achieved with a variety of methods and approaches by the organization.
I would rather ask the question - what is the problem that you are trying to solve? Is there a problem? Does the solution require changing or examining your software development processes? Is the solution to that problem to get everyone on the same methodology?
Even so, I can assure you that most organizations today have 'agility' as a business goal in some fashion or the other - AND work with a variety of software development methods depending on the needs of the customer, the nature of the project and the skills and maturity of the team involved.
Hope that helps! |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | There's a *very serious* problem with choosing a methodology on a "per-project" basis, which is that most Agile methodologies **reject the notion of projects**.
A project implies fixed scope and fixed time, and for many of the more dysfunctional organizations, also a fixed budget. This is anathema to every methodology out there.
Every role, every tool and every ritual in a process like Scrum centers around the **product** - not a "project". You have a product backlog which states what must be done and in what order (but not when or how). You have a product owner who chooses what goes on the backlog. You have product demos or showcases to inform the business of progress. You have product releases and iterations. Even your very first release is called the "Minimum Viable Product", and it's not intended to be the final release.
The closest analogy to a traditional "project" would probably be a single sprint/iteration/cycle, because at the end of a sprint, your team should have come up with one or several meaningful improvements to the product that deliver some measurable business value. If your team isn't doing this, your team isn't Agile in the capital-A sense of the word. If your team isn't dedicated to a single product (or maybe a small suite) then it isn't Agile. If people outside your team dictate requirements or deadlines to your team, then your business isn't Agile.
I am not saying that you *have* to be Agile. What I *am* saying, however, is that you can't really pick and choose. Most of the "good" Agile methodologies like Scrum include process improvement as part of the process itself (i.e. retrospectives and post-mortems), thus I am also not saying that your process should be static. To the contrary, unless everything went absolutely perfectly during your last few sprints, you should probably be tweaking the process. But Agile processes are processes for *continuous delivery*, and if you switch to "project" mode at any point, then you're throwing away the *continuous* part and you might as well just stick to a more traditional project-management process. Not waterfall, which was broken even according to Royce, but something more formal like the RUP.
In general I would say it's OK to have some Agile teams and some non-Agile teams/projects **if they are different teams**. I've seen what happens when businesses try to shoehorn waterfall projects into an Agile team/process, and rest assured it's not pretty; at best it seriously hurts the quality and timeline of both goals, at worst it will drive the team members so crazy that half of them quit. Avoid, if possible. | Agile vs Waterfall its not only about have a set requirements up front. There are other agile values aside from responding to change, for example:
* People more important than process.
* Deploy software that works in short iterations.
If your company is agile i cannot see how you can abandon this agility for one project, agile its much more about a mindset and core values than about concrete practiques. If for a project do you have solid requirements that don't change you can still work on this projects with your agile values and mindset. Go in small iterations, empower your team, show software that works frequently... with agile you are prepared to change, if change don't appears you are off course prepared to this too. |
251,464 | I work for a company that, in my opinion, should be doing all of it's web development work in a fully agile manner. We have vague, competing ideas about the product at any given time. And we have strict deadlines. So, in the web arena it seems to make sense to operate in as agile a manner as possible.
However, I could conceive of projects on the business apps side -- or even a complex sub-project on the web side (integrating with a pre-existent 3rd party app?) that, at least for the sake of argument, isn't at all changeable in scope. The scope of the integration piece would, for all intents and purposes, be fully specifiable up-front with zero chance for change.
In general, is it acceptable to take project X in an organization that is normally attempting to achieve agility and work through it in a waterfall manner? Does it somehow compromise the agility of the organization on a whole? If the organization is truly trying to be agile, should the "rigid" project still be "managed" in an agile manner? | 2014/07/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/251464",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/94768/"
] | There's a *very serious* problem with choosing a methodology on a "per-project" basis, which is that most Agile methodologies **reject the notion of projects**.
A project implies fixed scope and fixed time, and for many of the more dysfunctional organizations, also a fixed budget. This is anathema to every methodology out there.
Every role, every tool and every ritual in a process like Scrum centers around the **product** - not a "project". You have a product backlog which states what must be done and in what order (but not when or how). You have a product owner who chooses what goes on the backlog. You have product demos or showcases to inform the business of progress. You have product releases and iterations. Even your very first release is called the "Minimum Viable Product", and it's not intended to be the final release.
The closest analogy to a traditional "project" would probably be a single sprint/iteration/cycle, because at the end of a sprint, your team should have come up with one or several meaningful improvements to the product that deliver some measurable business value. If your team isn't doing this, your team isn't Agile in the capital-A sense of the word. If your team isn't dedicated to a single product (or maybe a small suite) then it isn't Agile. If people outside your team dictate requirements or deadlines to your team, then your business isn't Agile.
I am not saying that you *have* to be Agile. What I *am* saying, however, is that you can't really pick and choose. Most of the "good" Agile methodologies like Scrum include process improvement as part of the process itself (i.e. retrospectives and post-mortems), thus I am also not saying that your process should be static. To the contrary, unless everything went absolutely perfectly during your last few sprints, you should probably be tweaking the process. But Agile processes are processes for *continuous delivery*, and if you switch to "project" mode at any point, then you're throwing away the *continuous* part and you might as well just stick to a more traditional project-management process. Not waterfall, which was broken even according to Royce, but something more formal like the RUP.
In general I would say it's OK to have some Agile teams and some non-Agile teams/projects **if they are different teams**. I've seen what happens when businesses try to shoehorn waterfall projects into an Agile team/process, and rest assured it's not pretty; at best it seriously hurts the quality and timeline of both goals, at worst it will drive the team members so crazy that half of them quit. Avoid, if possible. | In my experience, most organizations use a mix of the processes that work best for it and its customers (business). While Agility is an organizational goal, that does not mean ALL its software projects need to be run using an Agile method (Scrum or others). Agility means being able to respond to change quickly and still deliver quality products and services that meet the customers' requirements and thus organizational goals. That can be achieved with a variety of methods and approaches by the organization.
I would rather ask the question - what is the problem that you are trying to solve? Is there a problem? Does the solution require changing or examining your software development processes? Is the solution to that problem to get everyone on the same methodology?
Even so, I can assure you that most organizations today have 'agility' as a business goal in some fashion or the other - AND work with a variety of software development methods depending on the needs of the customer, the nature of the project and the skills and maturity of the team involved.
Hope that helps! |
170,873 | The Issue
=========
So, it is well known that the [Dual Wielder feat is bad](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/106162/43856). Even if you are building a Two-Weapon Fighting character, the feat is still worse than simply getting straight-forward ASI. Unlike Polearm Master which is a go-to for someone using a Polearm, or Crossbow Expert for someone using a Crossbow, or GWM/Sharpshooter as good increase in DPR against low-AC enemies, plus some nice utilities (extra attack with bonus action, or almost-infinite range), the Dual Wielder is the last thing you are getting as a Two-Weapon Fighter (although you are probably still getting it, at least).
Furthermore, the Dual Wielder feat as is, for me, is boring. If I am playing a dual wielder I probably want to be dealing lots of damage, not have a +1 AC. And finally, Dual Wielder pretty much assumes Two Weapon Fighting, which is known to be subpar as Extra Attacks get into the game, since the benefits of +1 attack get diminished when you are already able to make 3 attacks anyway.
To summarize, the issue I have is:
* Two weapon fighting is already subpar.
* The feat that should make this style more viable is near useless.
The Proposal
============
With that in mind, I decided to change the Dual Wielder feat for something more in line with the glass canon damage dealer I have in mind.
>
> **Dual Wielder**
>
>
> *Prerequisite: Two-weapon fighting (Fighting Style)*
>
>
> When you take the Attack action and attack exclusively with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand (i.e., all attacks are made with the same light melee weapon, with the same hand), you can use a bonus action to take another Attack action in order to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand (again, all attacks should be made with the *other* weapon and *other* hand, respective to the previous attacks). If you do so, Attack Rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.
>
>
>
So, the idea here is that now, if you have Extra Attack, your bonus action actually can use them.
Comparisons
===========
As baselines, I have used the following Pure Fighter builds:
* Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting and +1 ASI.
* Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon Master.
* Two-weapon Fighting, +1 ASI.
After getting the feat, all levels are +ASI.
Obviously, at 4th level, TWF with +1 ASI is better (since you don't get extra attacks yet), as well as the GS+GWM. At 5th level, it is still worse than GS + ASI for all ACs.
At 6th level, it starts getting interesting as we get +ASI in our primary attribute and that is used in each of our attacks. However, GS + GWM still outdamages this feat for low ACS (AC <= 13), GS + ASI outdamages for high ACs (AC >= 19), and the feat is the best option for mid-range ACs (13 <= AC <= 19). Note that this still comes at the cost of being vulnerable to enemy attacks with advantage. An example figure for better visualization.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rbmjN.png)
At 8th level, we get a +5 modifier in our main attribute and the feat starts to shine. It can only be outdamaged by GS + GWM for low ACs (<= 11), and shines for anything higher than that.
As we get higher proficiency bonuses and GWM starts to hit more often at higher ACs, GWM comes back against enemies up to 14 AC, however, the new feat still shines against high ACs - which are arguably more common at higher levels.
Trade-offs and concerns
=======================
So, basically, the feat gives a good damage potential (from my point-of-view), at the cost of being vulnerable. My concerns are:
* I can see this being quite overpowered for a Fighter 17/Barbarian 2, exploiting the Rage Damage for +2\*8 extra damage and Reckless Attack basically giving advantage with no cost, as the enemies are already getting advantage in their attacks anyway. One way to solve this is simply not allowing both features to be used.
* I am not sure how this will impact Rangers with Hunter's Mark. Rangers are quite bad in 5e in my opinion, but this could be a game changer for them. Would they get too strong?
* Is simply giving advantage to attacks made from enemies enough to compensate for the considerable damage potential?
* On the other hand, is this as good as it seems? Are my baselines good baselines, or am I using subpar damage dealers anyway and outdamaging them is no big deal?
Additionally, there are a few trade-offs that are not obvious on how to evaluate and depend on the campaign:
* Getting one magic weapon is easier than getting two magic weapons.
* Forcing 8 Concentration saving throws is better than forcing 4 concentration saving throws.
* Having your bonus action for something else is better than not having your bonus action for something else (although it's hard for me to figure out what would be better than using it to considerably increase your damage).
So, for example, if we take into account a +3 Magic Weapon at 20th level, the GS + GWM build outdamages the new feat up to 20 AC, and loses by less than 10% above that, without costing the bonus action and without costing advantage for the enemies.
So, for now, I think this is decently balanced, but am I missing something? This is a very simple change and I would assume someone has already tried it out, if this is the case, I would love to get an answer from actually testing it.
In the case it is overpowered, is there some way to balance it through making it "cost" more, but maintaining the idea of attacking twice the number of usual attacks?
If it is underpowered... Well, then dual wielding seems to have no hope other than for flavor haha. | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/170873",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/43856/"
] | There are potential issues with certain ranger features
=======================================================
Your analysis convinces me that this feat is balanced against GWM for fighters. However, having played a TWF (revised) ranger from level 1-15 before ultimately respeccing, I see some potential issues there.
The most egregious example is the Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher feature. This grants an additional attack on the first turn of combat at level 3, which is already quite powerful. Your feat would allow a TWF Gloom Stalker to make 4 attacks on the first round at level 3 and 6 at level 5, which is too much. There are also a number of optimized "first round nova" builds that involve a three level Gloom Stalker dip, which all become even more powerful with your feat.
Your feat also creates problems for Horizon Walkers and Monster Slayers. Both sublcasses have level three features that allow them to use their bonus action for extra damage, either on a single attack or on one attack per turn against a single target. However, neither feature adds enough damage to be worth giving up two weapon attacks, so these features will be rendered obsolute for TWF rangers after level 5 (admittedly the Horizon Walker feature was already uncompetitive with a single offhand attack, but this makes it much worse). On the other hand, the Horizon Walker's 11th level feature will become considerably more powerful, allowing for 6 attacks per turn against 3 different enemies plus 60 total feet of teleportation. Overall, I don't think this feat would be unbalancing for either of these subclasses, but allowing a minor-moderate damage boost in exchange for rendering certain features useless will make them less fun to play.
Beyond specific subclass features, my frustration with the TWF ranger wasn't that I was too weak, it was that I had all these cool options for my bonus action but usually just wound up taking an offhand attack. You mention Hunter's Mark as a possible concern, and it's true that your feat would enable a lot of extra Hunter's Mark damage, but only if you are able to maintain concentration and attack the same target over multiple rounds. My experience was that I usually wound up needing to recast or move my Hunter's Mark every round or two, meaning it was almost never actually worth foregoing the offhand attack, and so an extra offhand attack would have meant I cast it even less frequently. Again, this probably isn't badly unbalancing, but it would make a character that I already found frustrating to play even more so.
Based on my experience, **the way to make TWF more fun and more viable for rangers is to allow a single extra weapon attack without using a bonus action, rather than allowing multiple extra attacks as part of the bonus action**. I don't know exactly how to balance this as a feat or fighting style, but that's the direction I would explore.
There are potential issues with other classes
=============================================
Requiring the TWF Fighting Style means that this feat will mostly just be taken by figthers and rangers (and swords bards, I guess), but it's also worth considering other class features that may interact with this feat, most likely through multiclassing. I'm less confident that these will be big issues than the ones I raised above, but you should still keep them in mind.
* As you noted, this feat synergizes well with rage and reckless attack on barbarian/fighter multiclass characters.
* Paladin/fighter multiclass characters with this feat will be able to use Divine Smite four times per turn, and benefit from 4 Improved Divine Smite dice at level 12.
* An artificer or their friend could dual-wield throwing weapons infused with Returning Weapon and make 4 ranged attacks per turn.
* Martials that don't rely on Extra Attack (eg rogues) will get no benefit from this feat, so I would recommend including it as an addition rather than a replacement of the original.
Lots of attacks means slower combat
===================================
This isn't a balance consideration, but worth bearing in mind. A level 11 TWF fighter will make 6 attacks per turn, or 9 with Action Surge. I am currently playing a Gloom Stalker/Fighter multiclass which can make 6-7 attacks on just the first turn, and I find that takes a long time to play out. If I were doing it every turn I think it would become frustrating for everyone else at the table.
**TL;DR: If this feat is intended to support a player who wants to build a dual-wielding fighter, it's probably okay although it may slow down combat. But if this is intended to replace the original for any and all TWF builds, it may still need work** | As written it won't terribly unbalance your game
------------------------------------------------
with the exception of the Barbarian Reckless Attack exploit that you noted and for Gloomstalkers as mentioned by [Joe](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/170903/60913). It is a damage boost and it can make but generally it remains within regular limits.
With regards to damage output it appears to stay just above the expected damage of GWM for ACs 14+ with the greatest gains at lower levels and higher ACs. Against AC 20 at level 20 it does 20% more damage whereas against AC 14 it does 0.4% more damage. Against AC 13 it ranges from 1% worse at very low and very high levels and up to 5% better during middle levels. Overall the damage ranges from marginally worse to significantly better. If I only cared about maximizing average damage I would probably be best served by your Dual Wielder feature over GWM. Your improvement directly helps Fighters the most because of all of the additional attacks. For Rangers it creates benefits with the Extra Attack and with Hunter's Mark. This gives Rangers a more significant boost from the style below level 11 but creates some different issues discussed below.
Regarding Hunters Mark: Your feat boosts the potential damage of Hunters Mark but it also creates increased risk of concentration checks. It takes a round to set up since the bonus actions conflict so you will have at least 1 round when enemies can target you before you can use the extra attacks.
Round 1: Draw sword, cast Hunters Mark, Attack
Round 2: Draw 2nd sword, Use Dual Wielder, Attack \* 2
Before level 5 this gives potentially 3d6 damage if the ranger keeps concentration. After reaching level 5 this increases to 6d6.
Alternatively
Round 1: Cast Hunter's Mark, Attack with bow, stow bow
Round 2: Draw Sword, Attack
Round 3: Draw 2nd sword, Use Dual Wielder, Attack x 2
At higher levels, Hunter's Mark also becomes a less useful usage of concentration. Since attack against you have advantage and monsters generally have multi-attack it will be much harder to use Hunter's Mark effectively.
I recommend including the "You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one" aspect of the original because it makes dual wielding less finicky and lets players feel stylish. This will, however, boost the utility of Hunter's mark.
Some things to consider about the damage that you didn't mention:
* Multiple attacks can target multiple enemies. Unlike with GWM you will be able to essentially split the damage between targets if the first one dies.
* Consistent damage is better than volatile damage. GWM increases the overall miss chance so even though average DPR is boosted there will be a lot more attacks of 0 damage. This is mitigated by extra attacks but it does increase the chances that some bad luck will cause you to lose the fight. It also makes resource planning more difficult because caster might not know whether a fight will be easy or hard (and so whether it is the right time for a higher level spell) because the dice have greater weight.
I would recommend using a static penalty of -4 or -5 to AC rather than advantage on being hit. -5 to AC tends to be marginally worse than advantage to be hit (with AC 17 at most 4% worse with a +9 hit bonus). This solves the issue of the Barbarian multiclass and creates additional risk if the enemies already have advantage.
An alternative to your suggested feat is to instead replace the Two Weapon Fighting style. The style grants a major bonus to damage before level 5 but swiftly becomes worse than Great Weapon Fighting style.
I would recommend the following:
>
> *Two Weapon Fighting Style*
>
> Every time you attack with a melee weapon you are holding in one hand as part of an Attack Action can make an additional attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in your other hand. Doing so consumes your bonus action for the turn. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the additional attack, unless that modifier is negative.
>
>
>
If you can't add your damage modifier to the additional attacks then the average damage output is only .67 more per attack than using Great Weapon Fighting. You get the ability to hit more enemies (better split damage) and get more reliable damage because you will do 0 damage less often but you will still have worse opportunity attacks and readied actions. This also removes the low level advantage of dual wielding. This still synergizes terribly well with Hunters Mark but it takes a round before you can use both. The Gloom Stalker does break this but this can be solved by making the Gloom stalker's extra attack on the first round of combat independent from the Attack Action. This is a minor buff but likely will not change anything because Gloom Stalkers are already likely to Attack on the first round regardless.
If you want a feat for dual wielders you could then have the feat give the ability add your attack modifier to the additional attacks for a -4 to AC. Since this is about a +5 per attack it is similar in average output to GWM including the reduced chance to hit. The reduction in AC balances out the advantages of being able to split the damage and having more reliable damage.
This would read something like this:
>
> *Dual Wielder*
>
> When you engage in two-weapon fighting your weapons do not need to be light. You can also add your ability modifier to the damage of attacks with your offhand weapon.
>
>
>
This also gives a benefit for rogues but they also will frequently be tempted to disengage/dodge if they hit with the first attack so the benefit will be less frequent. At higher levels the benefit will become negligible because it won't scale. |
590,078 | This is from a 1951 edition of Kipling’s *Kim*.
I’m fascinated by the punctuation conventions
used: quotation marks, exclamation and question marks, all with leading spaces; long punctuation dashes without leading or trailing space; single, rather than double quotation marks around
speech.
Although the book was reset for this edition
(Macmillan 1951, the first after the end of WWII)
this page is identical to a copy of the 1908 edition reprinted in 1923 in the possession of @David.
I’ve seen similar conventions used in the
typography of a pre-war Agatha Christie novel.
This is from page seventy:
(**Please note**: These paragraphs are justified text (flush left and right), so they have many tiny spaces within each line to make sure the ends of each all line up at the same column. These lines here, however, although ending at the same word as in the original, have a ragged, not a flush right, margin here because markdown syntax used by Stack Exchange does not allow full justification.)
>
> that ? And, as thou canst see, he is mad. But it
>
> serves me while I learn the road at least.’
>
>
> He knew what the *fakirs* of the Taksali Gate
>
> were like when they talked among themselves, and
>
> copied the very inflection of their lewd disciples.
>
>
> ‘ Is his Search, then, truth or a cloak to other
>
> ends ? It may be treasure.’
>
>
> ‘ He is mad—many times mad. There is nothing else.’
>
>
> Here the old soldier hobbled up and asked if
>
> Kim would accept his hospitality for the night.
>
> The priest recommended him to do so, but in‐
>
> sisted that the honour of entertaining the lama
>
> belonged to the temple—at which the lama smiled
>
> guilelessly. Kim glanced from one face to the
>
> other, and drew his own conclusions.
>
>
> ‘ Where is the money ? ’ he whispered, beckon‐
>
> ing the old man off into the darkness.
>
>
> ‘ In my bosom. Where else ? ’
>
>
> ‘ Give it me. Quietly and swiftly give it me.’
>
>
> ‘ But why ? Here is no ticket to buy.’
>
>
> ‘ Am I thy *chela*, or am I not ? Do I not safe‐
>
> guard thy old feet about the ways ? Give me the money
>
> and at dawn I will return it.’ He slipped
>
> his hand above the lama’s girdle and brought away
>
> the purse.
>
>
> ‘ Be it so—be it so.’ The old man nodded
>
> his head. ‘ This is a great and terrible world. I
>
> never knew there were so many men alive in it.’
>
>
> Next morning the priest was in a very bad
>
> temper, but the lama was quite happy ; and Kim
>
> had enjoyed a most interesting evening with the
>
> old man, who brought out his cavalry sabre and,
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0PMR.jpg) | 2022/06/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/590078",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/454830/"
] | An interesting question. The additional spaces certainly stem from at least the Victorian era, and were used by the Boy's Own Paper from 1879 until at least 1936 (the latest volume I have). Sampling my bookcase I find that John Buchan's *Sick Heart River* (Hodder and Stoughton, 1941) follows the earlier practice closely, whereas David Attenborough's *Zoo Quest to Guiana* (The Reprint Society, 1958) conforms to modern usage without the spaces.
My copy of *Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press Oxford* (Oxford Univerity Press, 38th edition, completely revised 1978) makes no mention but conforms to the modern usage in its examples. My best guess is that the change took place gradually during the 1950s as different publishers revised their house styles. | It is an interesting question and Duckspindle’s answer aligns with my doodling. It’s normal to assume that the punctuation rules we first learned are chiseled in stone. In my case, that was double quote marks and no spaces. It was only later I discovered that, for folk a couple of generations earlier (and now later), it’s the opposites that are chiseled in stone. All this is easily cited so I won’t bother to do so here. Formatting practices - these being close relatives to punctuation - are subject to even more frequent turnover: correspondence norms, for example, with indents and spacing and so on is an obvious example. And should there be just three stops after a sentence like this or can there be more…? Bottom line is that all these things go around and around (or round and round?), and that folk say the new ways are wrong when they are just a revival of equally wrong (or right?) old ways. |
590,078 | This is from a 1951 edition of Kipling’s *Kim*.
I’m fascinated by the punctuation conventions
used: quotation marks, exclamation and question marks, all with leading spaces; long punctuation dashes without leading or trailing space; single, rather than double quotation marks around
speech.
Although the book was reset for this edition
(Macmillan 1951, the first after the end of WWII)
this page is identical to a copy of the 1908 edition reprinted in 1923 in the possession of @David.
I’ve seen similar conventions used in the
typography of a pre-war Agatha Christie novel.
This is from page seventy:
(**Please note**: These paragraphs are justified text (flush left and right), so they have many tiny spaces within each line to make sure the ends of each all line up at the same column. These lines here, however, although ending at the same word as in the original, have a ragged, not a flush right, margin here because markdown syntax used by Stack Exchange does not allow full justification.)
>
> that ? And, as thou canst see, he is mad. But it
>
> serves me while I learn the road at least.’
>
>
> He knew what the *fakirs* of the Taksali Gate
>
> were like when they talked among themselves, and
>
> copied the very inflection of their lewd disciples.
>
>
> ‘ Is his Search, then, truth or a cloak to other
>
> ends ? It may be treasure.’
>
>
> ‘ He is mad—many times mad. There is nothing else.’
>
>
> Here the old soldier hobbled up and asked if
>
> Kim would accept his hospitality for the night.
>
> The priest recommended him to do so, but in‐
>
> sisted that the honour of entertaining the lama
>
> belonged to the temple—at which the lama smiled
>
> guilelessly. Kim glanced from one face to the
>
> other, and drew his own conclusions.
>
>
> ‘ Where is the money ? ’ he whispered, beckon‐
>
> ing the old man off into the darkness.
>
>
> ‘ In my bosom. Where else ? ’
>
>
> ‘ Give it me. Quietly and swiftly give it me.’
>
>
> ‘ But why ? Here is no ticket to buy.’
>
>
> ‘ Am I thy *chela*, or am I not ? Do I not safe‐
>
> guard thy old feet about the ways ? Give me the money
>
> and at dawn I will return it.’ He slipped
>
> his hand above the lama’s girdle and brought away
>
> the purse.
>
>
> ‘ Be it so—be it so.’ The old man nodded
>
> his head. ‘ This is a great and terrible world. I
>
> never knew there were so many men alive in it.’
>
>
> Next morning the priest was in a very bad
>
> temper, but the lama was quite happy ; and Kim
>
> had enjoyed a most interesting evening with the
>
> old man, who brought out his cavalry sabre and,
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0PMR.jpg) | 2022/06/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/590078",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/454830/"
] | An interesting question. The additional spaces certainly stem from at least the Victorian era, and were used by the Boy's Own Paper from 1879 until at least 1936 (the latest volume I have). Sampling my bookcase I find that John Buchan's *Sick Heart River* (Hodder and Stoughton, 1941) follows the earlier practice closely, whereas David Attenborough's *Zoo Quest to Guiana* (The Reprint Society, 1958) conforms to modern usage without the spaces.
My copy of *Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press Oxford* (Oxford Univerity Press, 38th edition, completely revised 1978) makes no mention but conforms to the modern usage in its examples. My best guess is that the change took place gradually during the 1950s as different publishers revised their house styles. | I find this intriguing, honestly, specifically because at the age of 40, I have ***never*** seen, heard, or been instructed to leave whitespace before the ending punctuation to a sentence. I would have to assume this is a practice in other cultures. At the risk of triggering negative feelings from other nationalities towards the United States (which with an objective point-of-view, I understand) this isn't a practice I've ever seen in my 4 decades. |
590,078 | This is from a 1951 edition of Kipling’s *Kim*.
I’m fascinated by the punctuation conventions
used: quotation marks, exclamation and question marks, all with leading spaces; long punctuation dashes without leading or trailing space; single, rather than double quotation marks around
speech.
Although the book was reset for this edition
(Macmillan 1951, the first after the end of WWII)
this page is identical to a copy of the 1908 edition reprinted in 1923 in the possession of @David.
I’ve seen similar conventions used in the
typography of a pre-war Agatha Christie novel.
This is from page seventy:
(**Please note**: These paragraphs are justified text (flush left and right), so they have many tiny spaces within each line to make sure the ends of each all line up at the same column. These lines here, however, although ending at the same word as in the original, have a ragged, not a flush right, margin here because markdown syntax used by Stack Exchange does not allow full justification.)
>
> that ? And, as thou canst see, he is mad. But it
>
> serves me while I learn the road at least.’
>
>
> He knew what the *fakirs* of the Taksali Gate
>
> were like when they talked among themselves, and
>
> copied the very inflection of their lewd disciples.
>
>
> ‘ Is his Search, then, truth or a cloak to other
>
> ends ? It may be treasure.’
>
>
> ‘ He is mad—many times mad. There is nothing else.’
>
>
> Here the old soldier hobbled up and asked if
>
> Kim would accept his hospitality for the night.
>
> The priest recommended him to do so, but in‐
>
> sisted that the honour of entertaining the lama
>
> belonged to the temple—at which the lama smiled
>
> guilelessly. Kim glanced from one face to the
>
> other, and drew his own conclusions.
>
>
> ‘ Where is the money ? ’ he whispered, beckon‐
>
> ing the old man off into the darkness.
>
>
> ‘ In my bosom. Where else ? ’
>
>
> ‘ Give it me. Quietly and swiftly give it me.’
>
>
> ‘ But why ? Here is no ticket to buy.’
>
>
> ‘ Am I thy *chela*, or am I not ? Do I not safe‐
>
> guard thy old feet about the ways ? Give me the money
>
> and at dawn I will return it.’ He slipped
>
> his hand above the lama’s girdle and brought away
>
> the purse.
>
>
> ‘ Be it so—be it so.’ The old man nodded
>
> his head. ‘ This is a great and terrible world. I
>
> never knew there were so many men alive in it.’
>
>
> Next morning the priest was in a very bad
>
> temper, but the lama was quite happy ; and Kim
>
> had enjoyed a most interesting evening with the
>
> old man, who brought out his cavalry sabre and,
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0PMR.jpg) | 2022/06/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/590078",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/454830/"
] | **Approach to the Question**
The question addresses historical changes in typesetting\* conventions, particularly in Britain. The primary concern is spaces associated with the following punctuation marks: ? ! ; : (“ ” or ‘ ’), to which I have added the extra space associated with the full stop or point (.) which the poster does not mention, but appears in his example. The subsidiary questions are the style of the punctuation dash or rule and the choice of single or double quotation marks. I shall deal with these, but only incidentally.
\*I use the term *typesetting*, rather than *typography*, because the question is mainly about the space between the type elements, rather than the elements themselves. Of course, the two are closely associated in the overall design of the page, and the choice of single or double quotation marks and the length of rules is typography.
**Summary**
* Printed work from as early as Shakespeare until the middle of the
twentieth century was typeset in Britain with a space preceding the marks ? ! ; : and with two spaces following a full stop / period. A space followed the opening quotation mark and preceded the closing
quotation mark, and both single and double quotation marks were used, the latter being more common. Long dashes or lines without spaces were used for punctuation.
* I would suggest two technical developments provided the conditions for the overthrow of the conventions of three centuries: the replacement of manual by mechanical typesetting in the late 19th century, and the explosion in publishing in the paper-back format in the first half of the twentieth century.
* A landmark was the introduction of new house rules in 1947 by Jan
Tschichold at the *Penguin* publishing house, replacing the standard spaces associated with punctuation marks by thin and hairline spaces, the double-space following a full stop by a single space, and the long dash or line by an en-line with a space at either side. He also stipulated single, rather than double quotation marks.
* By the mid 1970s the thin and hair space had generally disappeared at *Penguin* and elsewhere.
* Other British publishing houses (some of which had already made departure from the older conventions), adopted these changes, although in a piecemeal fashion, and not in their entirety. (Thin and hair spaces were ignored or soon abandoned.) An example of such a historical development in a single general science journal is presented.
* The single quotation mark has a long history, but was much less common than the double quotation mark until Tschichold’s making it Penguin’s standard. It probably now predominates, although the double quotation mark is still widely used in British publishing.
* The spaced en- or em-line that differentiates British and US practice seems to be the one introduction that can be attributed to Tschichold and that transformed British style. Although the spaced en-line is still used by *Penguin* and others, some publications (*The Financial Times* for example) adopted and still use the longer em-line.
**17th to 19th Century**
The table below employed two online sources to examine original or contemporary editions of some classic works of literature. These were the [British Library](https://www.bl.uk) and [Raptis Rare Books](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/vanity-fair-william-thackeray-first-edition-rare/). Links are provided to allow the reader to verify entries in the table below.
| Date | Author | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1601? | Shakespeare | [Hamlet](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126637.html) | yes | yes | yes | yes | — | — |
| 1742 | Richardson | [Pamela](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126703.html) | — | yes | yes | yes | — | — |
| 1773? | Goldsmith | [She stoops to conquer](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126711.html) | yes | yes | yes | — | — | yes |
| 1792? | Wolstencraft | [Rights of Women](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126748.html) | yes | yes | yes | — | — | yes |
| 1813 | Jane Austen | [Persuasion](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/pride-and-prejudice-jane-austen-first-edition-rare-book/) | yes | yes | yes | — | yes | yes |
| 1817? | Walter Scott | [Rob Roy](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126944.html) | yes | yes | — | — | yes | yes |
| 1848 | Thackeray | [Vanity Fair](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/vanity-fair-william-thackeray-first-edition-rare/) | yes | — | yes | — | yes | yes |
EXPLANATION & KEY
The dates of original publication are given. ‘?’ indicates uncertainty whether the example is a first edition.
The presence of a leading or following space for the particular punctuation mark (as appropriate) is indicated by *yes* or *no*. A ‘—’ indicates the punctuation mark is not present in the page(s) shown.
qu = quotation marks (single or, in most cases, double), with *yes* indicating enclosing spaces.
ds = double space after a full stop / period. (Contemporary single space would be *no*).
It can be seen that the additional spaces observed by the poster in his edition of *Kim* adhered to a long-established standard. The size of the spaces within quotation marks varied, and (as found subsequently) there was often less space left between the final stop and the closing quotation mark for optical balance. What was atypical of the time was the use of single quotation marks — almost all the other contemporary books I have examined used *double quotation marks*!
**Jan Tschichold, 1947**
The predominant historical style, described above, is to be found in all of the dozen or so hard-backed books I have inherited from the first half of the 20th century. Three examples of these — all from different publishers — are tabulated below. (Key as in previous table, but in this case the thinner *hair* spaces are indicated.)
| Published | Publisher | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1911 | Everyman | Crime & Punishment | yes | yes | yes | yes | hair | yes |
| 1927 | Nelson | The Mill on the Floss | — | yes | yes | yes | hair | — |
| 1947 | Constable | Wax Fruit | yes | yes | yes | yes | hair | yes |
Although examples of more modern typsetting *are* to be found in this period in paperbacks and periodicals, I shall defer discussion of them until after describing the changes introduced by the German emigré designer and typographer, [Jan Tschichold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tschichold), when he was given free rein by [Penguin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Books) to redesign their paperbacks. These are documented in his “Penguin Composition Rules” 1947, relevant extracts of which I quote from the volume *Jan Tschichold, A Life in Typography by Ruari McLean (Lund Humphries, 1997)*. (The numbering of the ‘rules’ is mine, so I can refer to them.)
>
> 1. “All major punctuation marks — full point, colon… should be followed by the same spacing as is used throughout the rest of the line.”
> 2. “If this can be done on the keyboard, use thin spaces before question marks, exclamation marks, colons and semi-colons.”
> 3. “Instead of em-rules without spaces, use en-rules preceeded and followed by the word space of the line…”
> 4. “Use single quotes for the first quotation and double quotes for quotations within quotations.”
> 5. “Opening quotes should be followed by a hairspace, except before A, and J. Closing quotes should be preceeded by a hairspace except after
> a comma or a full point.”
>
>
>
Thus:
Rule 1 eliminated the double space after full stop.
Rule 2 eliminated the full space after the punctuation marks shown in the table.
Rule 3 introduced a completely new style for rules, which has become distinctively British.
Rule 4, although with historical precedent, rejected the predominant contemporary style.
Rule 5 eliminated the full space inside quotation marks.
*Penguin Books* was established in 1935, and I can only find a couple of pre-Tschichold examples in our collection. With this disclaimer, I present the table below as example of ‘before’ and ‘after’:
| Date | Author | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1940 | David Low | Europe since Versailles | — | — | yes | — | yes | yes |
| 1950 | Ivan Turgenev | On the Eve | yes | yes | thin | thin | no | no |
| 1954 | Josephine Tey | The Daughter of Time | thin | thin | thin | thin | hair | no |
| 1956 | CP Snow | The Masters | thin | — | thin | thin | no | no |
It should be mentioned that only the 1940 text had double quotes, and the three later ones had the spaced en-rule.
**Early 20th Century Developments before Tschichold**
As already mentioned, changes in typesetting were occurring in the early 20th century before 1947, perhaps influenced by the introduction of paperbacks and by the [demise of manual typesetting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typesetting). Indeed in *Penguin* itself, different styles were to be found — I have a wartime edition of Thornton Wilder in modern US style.
However examples of a move to a more compact style, as regards space, can be found in designers of quite a different philosophy from Tschichold, who had worked at the Bauhaus and published a [declaration](https://design.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/book_rnd_6.pdf) that the only modern typefaces were sans serif faces. These were the members of the Arts and Crafts movement, who certainly rejected modern mechanical typography. Thus, in John Ruskin’s [*The Nature of Gothic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Type#/media/File:Kelmscott_Press_-_The_Nature_of_Gothic_by_John_Ruskin_(first_page).jpg), despite imitatiing a page of an illuminated manuscript, one can clearly observe only single spaces after a full stop, and hair spaces before a semi-colon. In a similar vein, my wife has in her possession a small hard-backed lace instuction book published by *Dryad Handicrafts* in 1928. It is replete with anachronistic st and ct ligatures in the body text, but nevertheless has abandoned spaces within quotation marks (double, incidentally) or before semi-colons or question marks.
**Influence on other Publishers and Further Evolution**
I am unable to document the changes in other paperback publishing houses, but the small sample from the fifties and sixties shown below indicates a change from the traditional typesetting was occuring then. The single quotation mark was not found in any of these four, and the abandonment of full spaces did not necessarily go via thin and hair spaces.
| Published | Publisher | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1953 | Pan | The Man in the Queue | thin | yes | — | yes | no | no |
| 1961 | Faber | The Inheritors | no | no | thin | — | no | no |
| 1963 | Fontana | The Leopard | thin | yes | no | yes | yes | yes |
| 1966 | Panther | Our Lady of the Flowers | no | thin | no | no | no | no |
Indeed, Penguin itself abandoned thin and hair spaces in the 1970s — The first part (*The Great Fortune*) of the 1974 edition of Olivia Manning’s Balkan trilogy retains all the thin spaces, the second part (*The Spoilt City*), lacks some before question marks but retains others, whereas in the third part (*Friends and Heros*) none remain.
As a more scientific approach to the development of typesetting in Britain in the 20th century, I examined a single publication: the weekly general scientific journal, *Nature*, published by Macmillan for the period in question. All issues of the journal are available in the [archive](https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes) as scans of the originals if you have access through a University library etc. The graph below shows that after the early abondonment of spaces within quotation marks, changes occurred in four distinct phases between 1960 and 1980, when the unspaced rule was finally adopted, albeit as an em-rule, rather than an en-rule. (Images and examples of em- and en-rules can be found in [this answer](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/322442/em-dash-and-quotes/325920#325920) to a question specifically on such rules, which I have recently updated in light of Tschichold’s description.)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8aSu.png)
*Yellow and orange represent the traditional typesetting, blue and purple the modern typesetting, as described above. The graph for Science lacks the rule, as it did not change, and information for the exclamation mark, which is uncommon in the publication.*
**Our American Cousins**
It is hardly surprising to discover that 19th century typesetting conventions in the US were similar to those in Britain, as these continued the tradition current at the time of colonization. This is illustrated by pages from the first edition (1882) of [Mark Twain’s *The Prince and the Pauper*](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/prince-and-the-pauper-first-edition-mark-twain-rare-original-cloth-book/), viewable on the website of an auction house at the time of writing.
I am not able to say when the punctuation spaces disappeared from books published in the US (certainly by 1970 when I lived there). An auction-house 1932 first edition of [Hemingway’s “Death in the Afternoon”](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/death-in-the-afternoon-ernest-hemingway-first-edition-juan-gris-wallace-stegner/) has lost the double-space following a period, but retains a thin space before a colon or semi-colon. I leave a more extensive investigation of books to others, but was able to perform an analysis using the [archive](https://www.science.org/loi/science) of the US journal, *Science*, similar to that for *Nature* (above). It can be seen that the transformation was earlier in the US, but occuring after 1950 for the most part.
To what extent changes in the US were influenced by changes in Britain is unclear. It seems unlikely that Tschichold was influenced by American practice as his immediate background before coming to *Penguin* was in Switzerland, working in a language, German, with quite different typesetting conventions. | It is an interesting question and Duckspindle’s answer aligns with my doodling. It’s normal to assume that the punctuation rules we first learned are chiseled in stone. In my case, that was double quote marks and no spaces. It was only later I discovered that, for folk a couple of generations earlier (and now later), it’s the opposites that are chiseled in stone. All this is easily cited so I won’t bother to do so here. Formatting practices - these being close relatives to punctuation - are subject to even more frequent turnover: correspondence norms, for example, with indents and spacing and so on is an obvious example. And should there be just three stops after a sentence like this or can there be more…? Bottom line is that all these things go around and around (or round and round?), and that folk say the new ways are wrong when they are just a revival of equally wrong (or right?) old ways. |
590,078 | This is from a 1951 edition of Kipling’s *Kim*.
I’m fascinated by the punctuation conventions
used: quotation marks, exclamation and question marks, all with leading spaces; long punctuation dashes without leading or trailing space; single, rather than double quotation marks around
speech.
Although the book was reset for this edition
(Macmillan 1951, the first after the end of WWII)
this page is identical to a copy of the 1908 edition reprinted in 1923 in the possession of @David.
I’ve seen similar conventions used in the
typography of a pre-war Agatha Christie novel.
This is from page seventy:
(**Please note**: These paragraphs are justified text (flush left and right), so they have many tiny spaces within each line to make sure the ends of each all line up at the same column. These lines here, however, although ending at the same word as in the original, have a ragged, not a flush right, margin here because markdown syntax used by Stack Exchange does not allow full justification.)
>
> that ? And, as thou canst see, he is mad. But it
>
> serves me while I learn the road at least.’
>
>
> He knew what the *fakirs* of the Taksali Gate
>
> were like when they talked among themselves, and
>
> copied the very inflection of their lewd disciples.
>
>
> ‘ Is his Search, then, truth or a cloak to other
>
> ends ? It may be treasure.’
>
>
> ‘ He is mad—many times mad. There is nothing else.’
>
>
> Here the old soldier hobbled up and asked if
>
> Kim would accept his hospitality for the night.
>
> The priest recommended him to do so, but in‐
>
> sisted that the honour of entertaining the lama
>
> belonged to the temple—at which the lama smiled
>
> guilelessly. Kim glanced from one face to the
>
> other, and drew his own conclusions.
>
>
> ‘ Where is the money ? ’ he whispered, beckon‐
>
> ing the old man off into the darkness.
>
>
> ‘ In my bosom. Where else ? ’
>
>
> ‘ Give it me. Quietly and swiftly give it me.’
>
>
> ‘ But why ? Here is no ticket to buy.’
>
>
> ‘ Am I thy *chela*, or am I not ? Do I not safe‐
>
> guard thy old feet about the ways ? Give me the money
>
> and at dawn I will return it.’ He slipped
>
> his hand above the lama’s girdle and brought away
>
> the purse.
>
>
> ‘ Be it so—be it so.’ The old man nodded
>
> his head. ‘ This is a great and terrible world. I
>
> never knew there were so many men alive in it.’
>
>
> Next morning the priest was in a very bad
>
> temper, but the lama was quite happy ; and Kim
>
> had enjoyed a most interesting evening with the
>
> old man, who brought out his cavalry sabre and,
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0PMR.jpg) | 2022/06/08 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/590078",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/454830/"
] | **Approach to the Question**
The question addresses historical changes in typesetting\* conventions, particularly in Britain. The primary concern is spaces associated with the following punctuation marks: ? ! ; : (“ ” or ‘ ’), to which I have added the extra space associated with the full stop or point (.) which the poster does not mention, but appears in his example. The subsidiary questions are the style of the punctuation dash or rule and the choice of single or double quotation marks. I shall deal with these, but only incidentally.
\*I use the term *typesetting*, rather than *typography*, because the question is mainly about the space between the type elements, rather than the elements themselves. Of course, the two are closely associated in the overall design of the page, and the choice of single or double quotation marks and the length of rules is typography.
**Summary**
* Printed work from as early as Shakespeare until the middle of the
twentieth century was typeset in Britain with a space preceding the marks ? ! ; : and with two spaces following a full stop / period. A space followed the opening quotation mark and preceded the closing
quotation mark, and both single and double quotation marks were used, the latter being more common. Long dashes or lines without spaces were used for punctuation.
* I would suggest two technical developments provided the conditions for the overthrow of the conventions of three centuries: the replacement of manual by mechanical typesetting in the late 19th century, and the explosion in publishing in the paper-back format in the first half of the twentieth century.
* A landmark was the introduction of new house rules in 1947 by Jan
Tschichold at the *Penguin* publishing house, replacing the standard spaces associated with punctuation marks by thin and hairline spaces, the double-space following a full stop by a single space, and the long dash or line by an en-line with a space at either side. He also stipulated single, rather than double quotation marks.
* By the mid 1970s the thin and hair space had generally disappeared at *Penguin* and elsewhere.
* Other British publishing houses (some of which had already made departure from the older conventions), adopted these changes, although in a piecemeal fashion, and not in their entirety. (Thin and hair spaces were ignored or soon abandoned.) An example of such a historical development in a single general science journal is presented.
* The single quotation mark has a long history, but was much less common than the double quotation mark until Tschichold’s making it Penguin’s standard. It probably now predominates, although the double quotation mark is still widely used in British publishing.
* The spaced en- or em-line that differentiates British and US practice seems to be the one introduction that can be attributed to Tschichold and that transformed British style. Although the spaced en-line is still used by *Penguin* and others, some publications (*The Financial Times* for example) adopted and still use the longer em-line.
**17th to 19th Century**
The table below employed two online sources to examine original or contemporary editions of some classic works of literature. These were the [British Library](https://www.bl.uk) and [Raptis Rare Books](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/vanity-fair-william-thackeray-first-edition-rare/). Links are provided to allow the reader to verify entries in the table below.
| Date | Author | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1601? | Shakespeare | [Hamlet](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126637.html) | yes | yes | yes | yes | — | — |
| 1742 | Richardson | [Pamela](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126703.html) | — | yes | yes | yes | — | — |
| 1773? | Goldsmith | [She stoops to conquer](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126711.html) | yes | yes | yes | — | — | yes |
| 1792? | Wolstencraft | [Rights of Women](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126748.html) | yes | yes | yes | — | — | yes |
| 1813 | Jane Austen | [Persuasion](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/pride-and-prejudice-jane-austen-first-edition-rare-book/) | yes | yes | yes | — | yes | yes |
| 1817? | Walter Scott | [Rob Roy](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126944.html) | yes | yes | — | — | yes | yes |
| 1848 | Thackeray | [Vanity Fair](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/vanity-fair-william-thackeray-first-edition-rare/) | yes | — | yes | — | yes | yes |
EXPLANATION & KEY
The dates of original publication are given. ‘?’ indicates uncertainty whether the example is a first edition.
The presence of a leading or following space for the particular punctuation mark (as appropriate) is indicated by *yes* or *no*. A ‘—’ indicates the punctuation mark is not present in the page(s) shown.
qu = quotation marks (single or, in most cases, double), with *yes* indicating enclosing spaces.
ds = double space after a full stop / period. (Contemporary single space would be *no*).
It can be seen that the additional spaces observed by the poster in his edition of *Kim* adhered to a long-established standard. The size of the spaces within quotation marks varied, and (as found subsequently) there was often less space left between the final stop and the closing quotation mark for optical balance. What was atypical of the time was the use of single quotation marks — almost all the other contemporary books I have examined used *double quotation marks*!
**Jan Tschichold, 1947**
The predominant historical style, described above, is to be found in all of the dozen or so hard-backed books I have inherited from the first half of the 20th century. Three examples of these — all from different publishers — are tabulated below. (Key as in previous table, but in this case the thinner *hair* spaces are indicated.)
| Published | Publisher | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1911 | Everyman | Crime & Punishment | yes | yes | yes | yes | hair | yes |
| 1927 | Nelson | The Mill on the Floss | — | yes | yes | yes | hair | — |
| 1947 | Constable | Wax Fruit | yes | yes | yes | yes | hair | yes |
Although examples of more modern typsetting *are* to be found in this period in paperbacks and periodicals, I shall defer discussion of them until after describing the changes introduced by the German emigré designer and typographer, [Jan Tschichold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tschichold), when he was given free rein by [Penguin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Books) to redesign their paperbacks. These are documented in his “Penguin Composition Rules” 1947, relevant extracts of which I quote from the volume *Jan Tschichold, A Life in Typography by Ruari McLean (Lund Humphries, 1997)*. (The numbering of the ‘rules’ is mine, so I can refer to them.)
>
> 1. “All major punctuation marks — full point, colon… should be followed by the same spacing as is used throughout the rest of the line.”
> 2. “If this can be done on the keyboard, use thin spaces before question marks, exclamation marks, colons and semi-colons.”
> 3. “Instead of em-rules without spaces, use en-rules preceeded and followed by the word space of the line…”
> 4. “Use single quotes for the first quotation and double quotes for quotations within quotations.”
> 5. “Opening quotes should be followed by a hairspace, except before A, and J. Closing quotes should be preceeded by a hairspace except after
> a comma or a full point.”
>
>
>
Thus:
Rule 1 eliminated the double space after full stop.
Rule 2 eliminated the full space after the punctuation marks shown in the table.
Rule 3 introduced a completely new style for rules, which has become distinctively British.
Rule 4, although with historical precedent, rejected the predominant contemporary style.
Rule 5 eliminated the full space inside quotation marks.
*Penguin Books* was established in 1935, and I can only find a couple of pre-Tschichold examples in our collection. With this disclaimer, I present the table below as example of ‘before’ and ‘after’:
| Date | Author | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1940 | David Low | Europe since Versailles | — | — | yes | — | yes | yes |
| 1950 | Ivan Turgenev | On the Eve | yes | yes | thin | thin | no | no |
| 1954 | Josephine Tey | The Daughter of Time | thin | thin | thin | thin | hair | no |
| 1956 | CP Snow | The Masters | thin | — | thin | thin | no | no |
It should be mentioned that only the 1940 text had double quotes, and the three later ones had the spaced en-rule.
**Early 20th Century Developments before Tschichold**
As already mentioned, changes in typesetting were occurring in the early 20th century before 1947, perhaps influenced by the introduction of paperbacks and by the [demise of manual typesetting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typesetting). Indeed in *Penguin* itself, different styles were to be found — I have a wartime edition of Thornton Wilder in modern US style.
However examples of a move to a more compact style, as regards space, can be found in designers of quite a different philosophy from Tschichold, who had worked at the Bauhaus and published a [declaration](https://design.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/book_rnd_6.pdf) that the only modern typefaces were sans serif faces. These were the members of the Arts and Crafts movement, who certainly rejected modern mechanical typography. Thus, in John Ruskin’s [*The Nature of Gothic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Type#/media/File:Kelmscott_Press_-_The_Nature_of_Gothic_by_John_Ruskin_(first_page).jpg), despite imitatiing a page of an illuminated manuscript, one can clearly observe only single spaces after a full stop, and hair spaces before a semi-colon. In a similar vein, my wife has in her possession a small hard-backed lace instuction book published by *Dryad Handicrafts* in 1928. It is replete with anachronistic st and ct ligatures in the body text, but nevertheless has abandoned spaces within quotation marks (double, incidentally) or before semi-colons or question marks.
**Influence on other Publishers and Further Evolution**
I am unable to document the changes in other paperback publishing houses, but the small sample from the fifties and sixties shown below indicates a change from the traditional typesetting was occuring then. The single quotation mark was not found in any of these four, and the abandonment of full spaces did not necessarily go via thin and hair spaces.
| Published | Publisher | Title | ? | ! | ; | : | qu | ds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1953 | Pan | The Man in the Queue | thin | yes | — | yes | no | no |
| 1961 | Faber | The Inheritors | no | no | thin | — | no | no |
| 1963 | Fontana | The Leopard | thin | yes | no | yes | yes | yes |
| 1966 | Panther | Our Lady of the Flowers | no | thin | no | no | no | no |
Indeed, Penguin itself abandoned thin and hair spaces in the 1970s — The first part (*The Great Fortune*) of the 1974 edition of Olivia Manning’s Balkan trilogy retains all the thin spaces, the second part (*The Spoilt City*), lacks some before question marks but retains others, whereas in the third part (*Friends and Heros*) none remain.
As a more scientific approach to the development of typesetting in Britain in the 20th century, I examined a single publication: the weekly general scientific journal, *Nature*, published by Macmillan for the period in question. All issues of the journal are available in the [archive](https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes) as scans of the originals if you have access through a University library etc. The graph below shows that after the early abondonment of spaces within quotation marks, changes occurred in four distinct phases between 1960 and 1980, when the unspaced rule was finally adopted, albeit as an em-rule, rather than an en-rule. (Images and examples of em- and en-rules can be found in [this answer](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/322442/em-dash-and-quotes/325920#325920) to a question specifically on such rules, which I have recently updated in light of Tschichold’s description.)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8aSu.png)
*Yellow and orange represent the traditional typesetting, blue and purple the modern typesetting, as described above. The graph for Science lacks the rule, as it did not change, and information for the exclamation mark, which is uncommon in the publication.*
**Our American Cousins**
It is hardly surprising to discover that 19th century typesetting conventions in the US were similar to those in Britain, as these continued the tradition current at the time of colonization. This is illustrated by pages from the first edition (1882) of [Mark Twain’s *The Prince and the Pauper*](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/prince-and-the-pauper-first-edition-mark-twain-rare-original-cloth-book/), viewable on the website of an auction house at the time of writing.
I am not able to say when the punctuation spaces disappeared from books published in the US (certainly by 1970 when I lived there). An auction-house 1932 first edition of [Hemingway’s “Death in the Afternoon”](https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/death-in-the-afternoon-ernest-hemingway-first-edition-juan-gris-wallace-stegner/) has lost the double-space following a period, but retains a thin space before a colon or semi-colon. I leave a more extensive investigation of books to others, but was able to perform an analysis using the [archive](https://www.science.org/loi/science) of the US journal, *Science*, similar to that for *Nature* (above). It can be seen that the transformation was earlier in the US, but occuring after 1950 for the most part.
To what extent changes in the US were influenced by changes in Britain is unclear. It seems unlikely that Tschichold was influenced by American practice as his immediate background before coming to *Penguin* was in Switzerland, working in a language, German, with quite different typesetting conventions. | I find this intriguing, honestly, specifically because at the age of 40, I have ***never*** seen, heard, or been instructed to leave whitespace before the ending punctuation to a sentence. I would have to assume this is a practice in other cultures. At the risk of triggering negative feelings from other nationalities towards the United States (which with an objective point-of-view, I understand) this isn't a practice I've ever seen in my 4 decades. |
44,643,254 | If i understood the whole concept correctly, the "serverless" architecture assumes that instead of using own servers or containers, one should use bunch of aws services. Usually such architecture includes Amazon API Gateway, bunch of Lambda functions and DynamoDB (or alternative) for storing data and state, as Lambda can't keep state. And such services as EC2 is not participating in all this, well, because this is a virtual server and it diminish all the benefits of serverless architecture.
All this looks really cool, but i feel like i'm missing something important, because right now this seems to be not applicable for such cases as real time applications.
Say, i have 2 users online. One of them performs an action in an app, which triggers changes in database, which in turn, should trigger changes in the second user app.
The conventional way to send some data or command from server to client is websocket connection. But with serverless architecture there seem to be no way to establish and maintain websocket connection. So... where did i misunderstood the concept? Or, if i understood everything correctly, then how do i implement the interactions between 2 users as described above? | 2017/06/20 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/44643254",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4845952/"
] | >
> where did i misunderstood the concept?
>
>
>
Your observation is correct. It doesn't work out of the box using API Gateway and Lambda.
Applicable solution as described [here](https://serverless.com/blog/serverless-notifications-on-aws/) is to use AWS IoT - yes, another AWS Service. | You might want to look at SNS (simple notification service). In your example, if app user 2 is a a subscriber to an SNS topic, then when app user 1 makes a change that triggers an SNS message, it will be pushed to the subscriber (app user 2). The message can be pushed over several supported protocols (Amazon, Apple, Google, MS, Baidu) in addition to SMTP or SMS. The SNS message can be triggered by a lambda function or directly from a DynamoDB stream after an update (a database trigger). It's up to the app developer to select a message protocol and format. The app only has to receive messages through its native channels. This may not exactly be millisecond-latency 'real-time', but it's fast enough for all but the most latency-sensitive applications.
I've been working on an AWS serverless application for several months now, and am amazed at the variety of services available. The rate of improvement and new features being added is enough to leave you out-of-breath. |
7,163,865 | I am using Windows 7 and i installed TFS Server and connected to it from my VS 2010 install. It prompted me for a password so I entered the admin password.
All went well, now i added myself as a user but i can't get it to ask me to login again. It is remembering (caching) the password. Hence it always logs me in as Administrator.
I search the Internet and some people recommend ClearCred.exe which ships with VS SDK but it doesn't anymore ...
And then checking the managed credentials in windows 7, i have also checked this and i see nothing with regards to my cached TFS password.
I also tried removing the TFS server connection from VS 2010 and readding it .. but it remembers me as Administrator.
Can anyone help? | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7163865",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/457172/"
] | Open the Start Menu and type "Manage Network Passwords" and open the control panel applet that shows up in the results. Then, you should see the credentials in the list where you can expand the item and "Remove from vault." | I had the same problem and after much googling found this link which fixed my problem i hope it works for you aswell.
<http://www.richard-banks.org/2010/07/how-to-remember-my-password-with-tfs.html> |
7,163,865 | I am using Windows 7 and i installed TFS Server and connected to it from my VS 2010 install. It prompted me for a password so I entered the admin password.
All went well, now i added myself as a user but i can't get it to ask me to login again. It is remembering (caching) the password. Hence it always logs me in as Administrator.
I search the Internet and some people recommend ClearCred.exe which ships with VS SDK but it doesn't anymore ...
And then checking the managed credentials in windows 7, i have also checked this and i see nothing with regards to my cached TFS password.
I also tried removing the TFS server connection from VS 2010 and readding it .. but it remembers me as Administrator.
Can anyone help? | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7163865",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/457172/"
] | Open the Start Menu and type "Manage Network Passwords" and open the control panel applet that shows up in the results. Then, you should see the credentials in the list where you can expand the item and "Remove from vault." | You need to remove TFS credentials from **Windows Vault** to clear and force to ask new TFS credentials in Visual Studio
1. Go to **Control Panel** (**Start -> Control Panel**).
2. Click **User Accounts** ( or **User Accounts and Family Safety->User Accounts** in **Windows 7** Machine)
3. Click **Credential Manager** (or **Manage your credentials**)
4. In **Credential Manager** page, you can see the two type of credentials
i. Windows Credentials
ii. Generic Credentials
5. Click on two credentials modify link, click the link **Remove from vault** to remove stored TFS credentials.
Now, When you login into Visual Studio you will be asked to give credentials to connect TFS.
**Note**: Don't forgot to uncheck the option **Remember my credentials** to force to ask credentials for every TFS connections. |
7,163,865 | I am using Windows 7 and i installed TFS Server and connected to it from my VS 2010 install. It prompted me for a password so I entered the admin password.
All went well, now i added myself as a user but i can't get it to ask me to login again. It is remembering (caching) the password. Hence it always logs me in as Administrator.
I search the Internet and some people recommend ClearCred.exe which ships with VS SDK but it doesn't anymore ...
And then checking the managed credentials in windows 7, i have also checked this and i see nothing with regards to my cached TFS password.
I also tried removing the TFS server connection from VS 2010 and readding it .. but it remembers me as Administrator.
Can anyone help? | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7163865",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/457172/"
] | You need to remove TFS credentials from **Windows Vault** to clear and force to ask new TFS credentials in Visual Studio
1. Go to **Control Panel** (**Start -> Control Panel**).
2. Click **User Accounts** ( or **User Accounts and Family Safety->User Accounts** in **Windows 7** Machine)
3. Click **Credential Manager** (or **Manage your credentials**)
4. In **Credential Manager** page, you can see the two type of credentials
i. Windows Credentials
ii. Generic Credentials
5. Click on two credentials modify link, click the link **Remove from vault** to remove stored TFS credentials.
Now, When you login into Visual Studio you will be asked to give credentials to connect TFS.
**Note**: Don't forgot to uncheck the option **Remember my credentials** to force to ask credentials for every TFS connections. | I had the same problem and after much googling found this link which fixed my problem i hope it works for you aswell.
<http://www.richard-banks.org/2010/07/how-to-remember-my-password-with-tfs.html> |
61,644 | As has been recently advertised ([in here](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-british-airways-flight-lands-in-edinburgh-scli-gbr-intl/index.html), [here](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/25/british-airways-flight-dusseldorf-lands-edinburgh--mistake), [here also](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47691478)), a recent British Airways flight from London City Airport destined for Düsseldorf mistakenly flew its passengers to Edinburgh instead.
I'm a layman in terms of aviation, but I (and I'm sure many more do) do see aviation as a strictly regulated area full of double-checks, double instruments (even 2 pilots!) to make sure an airplane is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Perhaps mine is a rather car-centric view, but I can't imagine starting the engine of the car without knowing clearly where I'm heading, which landmarks, roads (and so on) I'm supposed to pass by during the route.
**TL;DR:**
Must (or should) both pilots know where he airplane they are flying is going to? Or do they simply follow an approved flight path? | 2019/03/26 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61644",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/38282/"
] | The pilots in this case *did* know where they were going: Edinburgh.
[BA said a paperwork error was to blame, with the pilot following orders from Germany, where WDL’s head office had filed the incorrect flight plan.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/25/british-airways-flight-dusseldorf-lands-edinburgh--mistake) The pilots flew according to the flight plan they were given, and ATC happily routed their plane along that flight plan as well. The pilots had no reason to suspect the flight plan was incorrect, and safety was never compromised.
The dispatchers involved could use improvement, though. | For commercial flying, yes both pilots should know where they are going and the general direction/course they are flying but they do in-fact follow an approved path and are subject to ATC vectors. The reality is that pilots who fly short haul may fly numerous flights in a day to various destinations with limited time in between flights to regroup. Flight plans, load sheets and planning may very well be done by a dispatcher and simply handed to the crew when they arrive at the aircraft. It is possible to get confused, typically there is some navigational programing or FMS input that would force the pilot to review the path. However confusion like this has occurred before as was the case with [Varig Flight 254](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254) which simply entered the wrong heading into the autopilot and ended up lost and low on fuel.
In the case of general aviation this may be less of the case. While generally you take a small plane up to go from one place to another there are those that pull [the old cub out on the weekend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub) and just go fly around the area to do some sightseeing. This is more just for the joy of flying... |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | Just as in "ten foot *tall*" the word **tall** means "in height", and in the phrase "six feet *deep*" the word **deep** means "in depth", in the phrase "an army ten-thousand *strong*" the word **strong** means "in strength".
**Strong** is misused in your second example. | It seems like everyone kind of beat this to the ground.
If you can put 'the' in front of a word, it is a NOUN.
If you can say that he/she/it is \_\_\_. Then it is an ADJECTIVE. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | Just as in "ten foot *tall*" the word **tall** means "in height", and in the phrase "six feet *deep*" the word **deep** means "in depth", in the phrase "an army ten-thousand *strong*" the word **strong** means "in strength".
**Strong** is misused in your second example. | **Yes, it can be used as a noun, but not in the examples you give.**
In instances like "the strong eat the weak" or "only the strong survive" it is a [nominalized adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalized_adjective). As wikipedia notes, this is "an adjective that has undergone nominalization, and is thus used as a noun." Nominalized adjectives are commonly used to indicate a specific group of people, such as the rich, the poor, the weak, or the strong.
The entry for [nominalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization) explains a bit about the process and includes more examples if you'd like further reading. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | In the first example, "of six hundred thousand strong" is *incorrect.* It should be
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand.
>
>
>
It could also be
>
> We're now a sub that is nearly six hundred thousand strong
>
>
>
The construction "of 600,000 strong" is becoming more common because the idiom itself is somewhat uncommon, but it is not the traditional form of this expression.
I also note that you seem to have overlooked something in your Oxford dictionaries link, namely sense four:
>
> Used after a number to indicate the size of a group.
>
>
> *‘a hostile crowd several thousands strong’*
>
>
> | **Yes, it can be used as a noun, but not in the examples you give.**
In instances like "the strong eat the weak" or "only the strong survive" it is a [nominalized adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalized_adjective). As wikipedia notes, this is "an adjective that has undergone nominalization, and is thus used as a noun." Nominalized adjectives are commonly used to indicate a specific group of people, such as the rich, the poor, the weak, or the strong.
The entry for [nominalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization) explains a bit about the process and includes more examples if you'd like further reading. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | In the first example, "of six hundred thousand strong" is *incorrect.* It should be
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand.
>
>
>
It could also be
>
> We're now a sub that is nearly six hundred thousand strong
>
>
>
The construction "of 600,000 strong" is becoming more common because the idiom itself is somewhat uncommon, but it is not the traditional form of this expression.
I also note that you seem to have overlooked something in your Oxford dictionaries link, namely sense four:
>
> Used after a number to indicate the size of a group.
>
>
> *‘a hostile crowd several thousands strong’*
>
>
> | It seems like everyone kind of beat this to the ground.
If you can put 'the' in front of a word, it is a NOUN.
If you can say that he/she/it is \_\_\_. Then it is an ADJECTIVE. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | I'm not able to comment, so I'm putting this in an answer.
In your second source, the caster actually says "loading up for a huge DROP". A drop being a piece of jargon referring to the fact that these units will shortly be dropped into the opponent's base. I can see how if you are primed to hear strong, you might hear strong instead. | Just as in "ten foot *tall*" the word **tall** means "in height", and in the phrase "six feet *deep*" the word **deep** means "in depth", in the phrase "an army ten-thousand *strong*" the word **strong** means "in strength".
**Strong** is misused in your second example. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | Although "strong" may look like a noun in "... a hundred thousand *strong*", it still acts as an adjective phrase modifying "sub". This idiomatic expression is much the same as any other adjective such as "many" or "large":
>
> The khan's army was **large**
>
>
> The khan's army was **a hundred thousand strong**.
>
>
>
"Strong" does sound like a noun in the second sentence, but if so is probably jargon specific to players of Starcraft. That being said, it's possible the commentator misspoke and meant to say ["throng"](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/throng), or that it's a slang abbreviation for "a *strong* counterattack".
Or (as choster mentions) it could be "drop" -- the video is edited at that point so the word is garbled. That sounds more reasonable for the context.
Otherwise I can think of no common use of "strong" as a noun, although of course you can always make up your own if it fits the context. | In the second example, it seems that it is actually "huge drop". The "huge" is stressed so /g/ combines with /d/ to become an /s/. Meanwhile, "drop" is spoken fleetingly, so maybe the /p/ sound is swallowed.
Just my guess. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | **Yes.**
It is common for the two halves of the length of a sword's blade to be described as the 'forte' and the 'foible', or the 'strong' and the 'weak'. When parrying, the strong of your own blade should be used against the opponent's weak.
Fencers of all stripes will as happily refer to a sword's 'forte' or 'strong' as an actual thing as they would it's grip or guard. (Grip and guard, interestingly, being both nouns and verbs.)
Use of the English or not depends on whether the individual prefers their turn of phrase at that moment to be functional or flowery. But, yes - if grip, guard, or pommel can be a noun then so can strong. | **Yes, it can be used as a noun, but not in the examples you give.**
In instances like "the strong eat the weak" or "only the strong survive" it is a [nominalized adjective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalized_adjective). As wikipedia notes, this is "an adjective that has undergone nominalization, and is thus used as a noun." Nominalized adjectives are commonly used to indicate a specific group of people, such as the rich, the poor, the weak, or the strong.
The entry for [nominalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization) explains a bit about the process and includes more examples if you'd like further reading. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | In your first example, "strong" is an adjective. The writer is not saying that the "sub" is made up of 600,000 "strongs". He's saying that it is strong. How strong? 600,000 strong. It's like saying "Bob is six feet tall" or "The river is 20 miles long." He is attaching a number to an adjective.
I have no idea what the writer in the second example is trying to say. Perhaps he didn't finish the sentence; he meant "loading up for a huge strong ATTACK" or some such. As given, the quote is not grammatically correct and doesn't make sense.
I don't recall ever reading or hearing "strong" used as a noun in a coherent sentence. | Just as in "ten foot *tall*" the word **tall** means "in height", and in the phrase "six feet *deep*" the word **deep** means "in depth", in the phrase "an army ten-thousand *strong*" the word **strong** means "in strength".
**Strong** is misused in your second example. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | I'm not able to comment, so I'm putting this in an answer.
In your second source, the caster actually says "loading up for a huge DROP". A drop being a piece of jargon referring to the fact that these units will shortly be dropped into the opponent's base. I can see how if you are primed to hear strong, you might hear strong instead. | It seems like everyone kind of beat this to the ground.
If you can put 'the' in front of a word, it is a NOUN.
If you can say that he/she/it is \_\_\_. Then it is an ADJECTIVE. |
194,710 | I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts:
* In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/77cda0/what_is_a_loop_a_primer_on_increasing_the/?st=jrjd4a2u&sh=e9885a96):
>
> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand **strong**
>
>
>
In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit.
* In [this game](https://youtu.be/p6MdBOQHnDs?t=2315):
>
> Here we go loading up for a huge **strong**
>
>
>
Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base.
But [Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strong) doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194710",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11458/"
] | In your first example, "strong" is an adjective. The writer is not saying that the "sub" is made up of 600,000 "strongs". He's saying that it is strong. How strong? 600,000 strong. It's like saying "Bob is six feet tall" or "The river is 20 miles long." He is attaching a number to an adjective.
I have no idea what the writer in the second example is trying to say. Perhaps he didn't finish the sentence; he meant "loading up for a huge strong ATTACK" or some such. As given, the quote is not grammatically correct and doesn't make sense.
I don't recall ever reading or hearing "strong" used as a noun in a coherent sentence. | In the second example, it seems that it is actually "huge drop". The "huge" is stressed so /g/ combines with /d/ to become an /s/. Meanwhile, "drop" is spoken fleetingly, so maybe the /p/ sound is swallowed.
Just my guess. |
61,053,154 | I found that PHP INI is located in C:\UwAmp\bin\apache\php.ini
If I edit this file, and restart apache server, the file is restored automatically to the last version
any ideas? I am using UWAMP
thank you | 2020/04/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/61053154",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/13233817/"
] | The php in the apache directory is dynamically created at every run of uwamp
You need to edit the bin/php/php\_[version]/php\_uwamp.ini
You can do this manually with the textedit or just run the uwamp gui and select the icon next to the phpconfig button .
This should open your notepad with the correct php\_uwamp.ini file
Then when it detects changes apache restarts and creates a php.ini from the above file | You need to open notepad as "Run as administrator" then locate the below path and open php.ini, edit and save, restart apache server. |
14,030,762 | I'm planning to crawl a specific site. I have 3000 specific pages that I want to crawl once every few months. I've created a crawler, but I don't want to be banned from the site.
Is there a way to reduce the aggressiveness of the crawler or hide it in some way so not to be "noticed" or cause issues for the provider/website that I'm crawling?
A delay is possible, but if I set it to random 10-30 second delay per page then it will take forever.
ANy tips or guidelines to make an acceptable crawler? | 2012/12/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14030762",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1814864/"
] | One more solution is to use **PROXY server provider** (*like [this one](http://seo-proxies.com) for example*) and rotate IP address every *X* requests. This particular provider has an *API* to retrieve IPs on the fly. *cURL* can be used for this purpose easily if speaking about *PHP*.
This technique works in most cases, but it requires a bit more planning and tuning. Anyway you will face some limitations. It can be as time issue as well as the number of requests per period what is almost the same issue as time ones. Or you will need more proxy servers to satisfy your time requirements.
And read attentively *TOS* of providers. This particular provider doesn't allow you to be banned by Google and some other sites. Otherwise your account will be banned also. | "Acceptable" is a relative term. Some site owners have enough processing power and bandwidth that they don't think scanning 3000 pages per hour is "aggressive". Some site owners struggle for bandwidth or processing power and can't keep up with 3000 page reads per day.
If you want to read pages and get current contents, then you must read the pages. There's no shortcut to that. |
5,579 | Our team's resources are limited, still we need to make sure our site is accessible (government site, EU). Manual testing includes a lot of fiddling around with [JAWS](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp), sometimes other screen readers, [Lunar Plus](http://www.indexbrailleaccessibility.com/products/dolphin/lunar.htm) for visually constrained users etc. We would like to automate as many of those tasks as possible.
While automating semantic checks (like `for` attribute on labels or correct heading order) is pretty trivial with Selenium or [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/), getting correct output from JAWS is a completely different matter. Is there any way to actually write a test script and verify the output of a screen reader? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5579",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/406/"
] | Actually using a screen reader is a difficult skill to master. It is unlikely that you would be able to get a QA resource who is expert enough in using a screen reader to know whether a problem using the tool is actually a bug or not. In my experience, you would be much better off focusing on ensuring you are following best practices than by trying to simulate the use of accessibility tools.
IE's developer tools include a "Validate | Accessibility" menu option.
There are tons of other free tools that will validate HTML for you with a focus on accessibility and most do a pretty good job. Many are listed here: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete.html>
Edit:
After reading a few of the other answers, I wanted to expand on my answer. Let's suppose you do use Jaws to test the accessibility of your web site. Let's say that Jaws has a bug, a flaw in the way it uses the accessibility data on your site. You see that there is a problem, assume it is a bug with your web site's accessibility and "fix it" for Jaws, thereby breaking it for all other screen readers. Jaws has flaws, just like any other software, especially with the HTML 5 changes being rolled out and implemented differently in different browsers. Accessibility tools are currently undergoing a lot of churn and change and will definitely have bugs that need to be addressed.
So, I will again stick with my assertion that ensuring you are following accessibility best practices is more cost efficient, more reliable and simpler. | If you need to support a screen reader for accessibility issues, **make sure that the web site support is baked in early on and not bolted on later.** As far as I know there are no available off the shelf tools for testing the output (computer generated words). Sometimes you really need to hear what sounds are being generated by JAWS because at times the text used can come out pretty garbled or may even sound like a different word all together.
I tested a JAWS (Job Access With Speech) implementation for a major web site frequently for well over a year. Once you get past the first few hours of listening to the computer generated voice and learn the navigation keys, JAWS testing can be quite easy and quick.
Good luck with your implementation, someone out there will appreciate it! |
5,579 | Our team's resources are limited, still we need to make sure our site is accessible (government site, EU). Manual testing includes a lot of fiddling around with [JAWS](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp), sometimes other screen readers, [Lunar Plus](http://www.indexbrailleaccessibility.com/products/dolphin/lunar.htm) for visually constrained users etc. We would like to automate as many of those tasks as possible.
While automating semantic checks (like `for` attribute on labels or correct heading order) is pretty trivial with Selenium or [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/), getting correct output from JAWS is a completely different matter. Is there any way to actually write a test script and verify the output of a screen reader? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5579",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/406/"
] | Actually using a screen reader is a difficult skill to master. It is unlikely that you would be able to get a QA resource who is expert enough in using a screen reader to know whether a problem using the tool is actually a bug or not. In my experience, you would be much better off focusing on ensuring you are following best practices than by trying to simulate the use of accessibility tools.
IE's developer tools include a "Validate | Accessibility" menu option.
There are tons of other free tools that will validate HTML for you with a focus on accessibility and most do a pretty good job. Many are listed here: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete.html>
Edit:
After reading a few of the other answers, I wanted to expand on my answer. Let's suppose you do use Jaws to test the accessibility of your web site. Let's say that Jaws has a bug, a flaw in the way it uses the accessibility data on your site. You see that there is a problem, assume it is a bug with your web site's accessibility and "fix it" for Jaws, thereby breaking it for all other screen readers. Jaws has flaws, just like any other software, especially with the HTML 5 changes being rolled out and implemented differently in different browsers. Accessibility tools are currently undergoing a lot of churn and change and will definitely have bugs that need to be addressed.
So, I will again stick with my assertion that ensuring you are following accessibility best practices is more cost efficient, more reliable and simpler. | A website become modern face of business for many companies but not many of them know on how they have been read by users with disabilities.
Banks and Governments spend billions on Digital Transformation but they don't give a damn about adhering to accessibility guidelines of WCAG at all.
It is hurting and painful when a customer struggling to book medical appointments in hospital website using screen reader.
Best practices:
Attended a wonderful program that teach screen reader automation testing best practices at:
<https://engineers-hub.teachable.com/p/istqb-usability-testing-certification-training>
Some points I noted recently from the classes:
-Use JAWS or NVDA for every journey being built on web
-Test color contrast
-Test Keyboard Shortcuts compulsory
-Test A,AA level WCAG guidelines bare minimum!
Honestly in my opinion, following points are missing in many famous websites:
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y5Lvn.png)
key notes:
You can not automate screen readers. But you can automate objects that read by screen readers.
Reference:
<https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Advanced_Selenium_Web_Accessibility_Test.html?id=pTCPDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y> |
5,579 | Our team's resources are limited, still we need to make sure our site is accessible (government site, EU). Manual testing includes a lot of fiddling around with [JAWS](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp), sometimes other screen readers, [Lunar Plus](http://www.indexbrailleaccessibility.com/products/dolphin/lunar.htm) for visually constrained users etc. We would like to automate as many of those tasks as possible.
While automating semantic checks (like `for` attribute on labels or correct heading order) is pretty trivial with Selenium or [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/), getting correct output from JAWS is a completely different matter. Is there any way to actually write a test script and verify the output of a screen reader? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5579",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/406/"
] | Actually using a screen reader is a difficult skill to master. It is unlikely that you would be able to get a QA resource who is expert enough in using a screen reader to know whether a problem using the tool is actually a bug or not. In my experience, you would be much better off focusing on ensuring you are following best practices than by trying to simulate the use of accessibility tools.
IE's developer tools include a "Validate | Accessibility" menu option.
There are tons of other free tools that will validate HTML for you with a focus on accessibility and most do a pretty good job. Many are listed here: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete.html>
Edit:
After reading a few of the other answers, I wanted to expand on my answer. Let's suppose you do use Jaws to test the accessibility of your web site. Let's say that Jaws has a bug, a flaw in the way it uses the accessibility data on your site. You see that there is a problem, assume it is a bug with your web site's accessibility and "fix it" for Jaws, thereby breaking it for all other screen readers. Jaws has flaws, just like any other software, especially with the HTML 5 changes being rolled out and implemented differently in different browsers. Accessibility tools are currently undergoing a lot of churn and change and will definitely have bugs that need to be addressed.
So, I will again stick with my assertion that ensuring you are following accessibility best practices is more cost efficient, more reliable and simpler. | [Screen Reader Types](https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey8/):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NVF1x.png)
If we need to automate the screen reader types, it has the complexity of automating the UI of those readers which is not required if we need to focus on testing the test object which is Website (rather then screen reader)
So we need to focus on the below:
* Elements such as title,alt-text,aria-label which are read by screen readers
* Links, Texts,Navigations which are followed by screen readers
How to Automate?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bK104.png)
Use Selenium to automate them. Please see the example taken from a text book:
>
> driver.find\_element\_by\_xpath(""" //div\*[@aria-label='Text Box of User Name']
> """).click()
>
>
>
Reference: [Toolsets such as ZoomText,Selenium,WAT, Pa11y,Axe,JAWS,NVDA used for Test Automation](https://engineers-hub.teachable.com/p/web-accessibility-testing-tools-jaws-nvda-wat-pa11y-axe-zoomtext-selenium)
If you want to try xpath which uses aria-label:
>
> driver.find\_element\_by\_xpath("//div[@aria-label='Main
> Link for the button ABC']/div[@class='mn-hd-txt' and text()='Any time']");
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gK7yM.png)
If you want to write similar scripts in cypressIO,use the below:
>
> cy.get('div[aria-label="Main Link for the button
> ABC"]').first().click()
>
>
> |
5,579 | Our team's resources are limited, still we need to make sure our site is accessible (government site, EU). Manual testing includes a lot of fiddling around with [JAWS](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp), sometimes other screen readers, [Lunar Plus](http://www.indexbrailleaccessibility.com/products/dolphin/lunar.htm) for visually constrained users etc. We would like to automate as many of those tasks as possible.
While automating semantic checks (like `for` attribute on labels or correct heading order) is pretty trivial with Selenium or [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/), getting correct output from JAWS is a completely different matter. Is there any way to actually write a test script and verify the output of a screen reader? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5579",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/406/"
] | A website become modern face of business for many companies but not many of them know on how they have been read by users with disabilities.
Banks and Governments spend billions on Digital Transformation but they don't give a damn about adhering to accessibility guidelines of WCAG at all.
It is hurting and painful when a customer struggling to book medical appointments in hospital website using screen reader.
Best practices:
Attended a wonderful program that teach screen reader automation testing best practices at:
<https://engineers-hub.teachable.com/p/istqb-usability-testing-certification-training>
Some points I noted recently from the classes:
-Use JAWS or NVDA for every journey being built on web
-Test color contrast
-Test Keyboard Shortcuts compulsory
-Test A,AA level WCAG guidelines bare minimum!
Honestly in my opinion, following points are missing in many famous websites:
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y5Lvn.png)
key notes:
You can not automate screen readers. But you can automate objects that read by screen readers.
Reference:
<https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Advanced_Selenium_Web_Accessibility_Test.html?id=pTCPDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y> | If you need to support a screen reader for accessibility issues, **make sure that the web site support is baked in early on and not bolted on later.** As far as I know there are no available off the shelf tools for testing the output (computer generated words). Sometimes you really need to hear what sounds are being generated by JAWS because at times the text used can come out pretty garbled or may even sound like a different word all together.
I tested a JAWS (Job Access With Speech) implementation for a major web site frequently for well over a year. Once you get past the first few hours of listening to the computer generated voice and learn the navigation keys, JAWS testing can be quite easy and quick.
Good luck with your implementation, someone out there will appreciate it! |
5,579 | Our team's resources are limited, still we need to make sure our site is accessible (government site, EU). Manual testing includes a lot of fiddling around with [JAWS](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp), sometimes other screen readers, [Lunar Plus](http://www.indexbrailleaccessibility.com/products/dolphin/lunar.htm) for visually constrained users etc. We would like to automate as many of those tasks as possible.
While automating semantic checks (like `for` attribute on labels or correct heading order) is pretty trivial with Selenium or [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/), getting correct output from JAWS is a completely different matter. Is there any way to actually write a test script and verify the output of a screen reader? | 2013/01/23 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/5579",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/406/"
] | A website become modern face of business for many companies but not many of them know on how they have been read by users with disabilities.
Banks and Governments spend billions on Digital Transformation but they don't give a damn about adhering to accessibility guidelines of WCAG at all.
It is hurting and painful when a customer struggling to book medical appointments in hospital website using screen reader.
Best practices:
Attended a wonderful program that teach screen reader automation testing best practices at:
<https://engineers-hub.teachable.com/p/istqb-usability-testing-certification-training>
Some points I noted recently from the classes:
-Use JAWS or NVDA for every journey being built on web
-Test color contrast
-Test Keyboard Shortcuts compulsory
-Test A,AA level WCAG guidelines bare minimum!
Honestly in my opinion, following points are missing in many famous websites:
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y5Lvn.png)
key notes:
You can not automate screen readers. But you can automate objects that read by screen readers.
Reference:
<https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Advanced_Selenium_Web_Accessibility_Test.html?id=pTCPDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y> | [Screen Reader Types](https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey8/):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NVF1x.png)
If we need to automate the screen reader types, it has the complexity of automating the UI of those readers which is not required if we need to focus on testing the test object which is Website (rather then screen reader)
So we need to focus on the below:
* Elements such as title,alt-text,aria-label which are read by screen readers
* Links, Texts,Navigations which are followed by screen readers
How to Automate?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bK104.png)
Use Selenium to automate them. Please see the example taken from a text book:
>
> driver.find\_element\_by\_xpath(""" //div\*[@aria-label='Text Box of User Name']
> """).click()
>
>
>
Reference: [Toolsets such as ZoomText,Selenium,WAT, Pa11y,Axe,JAWS,NVDA used for Test Automation](https://engineers-hub.teachable.com/p/web-accessibility-testing-tools-jaws-nvda-wat-pa11y-axe-zoomtext-selenium)
If you want to try xpath which uses aria-label:
>
> driver.find\_element\_by\_xpath("//div[@aria-label='Main
> Link for the button ABC']/div[@class='mn-hd-txt' and text()='Any time']");
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gK7yM.png)
If you want to write similar scripts in cypressIO,use the below:
>
> cy.get('div[aria-label="Main Link for the button
> ABC"]').first().click()
>
>
> |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | **Different zombie killing tanks, gas, biological weapons, fire and INFINITE POWER**
There's plenty of answers already that tell you a big tank isn't cost effective. Lets focus on what would work.
Lets say zombies can use the maximum strength and speed of a human at all times. Their attacks are still swing, kick and bite. Secondary is simply throw enough weight against something with thousands to damage it.
*Tanks*
First we need not to be overrun. We can make an armoured vehicle with speed and that is high enough you need to climb before reaching the top. Add some spikes aiming down (possibly retractable). Now you have a machine that zombies can throw themselves onto, killing themselves and sliding off again. Simply drive away from the horde that the fastest can catch up, killing themselves. Add a lot of solar panels for recharging and you can go on a long time. Just go into a safe place every so often to recharge. Only long time wear will destroy your vehicle and you can kill lots without firing.
*Gas*
But why do so much trouble? Chain swarms are a thing! Make a mega mob by provoking a chain swarm. They go to this specific location you have rigged with traps and kill them there. Literal meat grinders, bombs all around or atomic bombs. All can kill a lot. But you can kill so much more with gas. If you get the right one, flesh can practically melt off the bone (fluorine!). You can gas thousands to millions this way.
*Biological weapons*
Biological weapons are in extent of this. Bacteria or parasites can simply start eating away at the flesh, eventually removing the zombie remains.
**Fire**
All that meat represents a huge amount if potential energy. Potential energy can be released with a spark. Drop a bit of napalm or just set them alight with a match. With a mega swarm trap this can spread quickly, consuming a large host with barely any effort. You can just ast Bert to go to a big tower or a big open depression. Set off a siren. Have Bert set a torch alight. Bert will just stand there to be devoured. Thank you Bert. Torch will light a zombie or two on fire, which then can merrily spread to hundreds, thousands or millions. Low cost, low technology, low risk (for most).
**INFINITE ENERGY**
But why not cost effective, but wasteful? Why not if you have *infinite energy*. Teslacoils all around the edge of your cities, literally vaporising zombies if they get too close.
How you ask? You have *perpetual moving, strong and fast zombies*. You know what that means!? Big hamster wheels with zombies perpetually going after prey! Or something less ridiculous, but the point stands. You can create clean, stable energy if you capture enough of these zombies and use them in inventive ways to produce power. Power you can store in batteries for tesla coils or highly flammable hydrogen for example! Electrical fire from the electrified fences and the tesla coils will do the rest. Or maybe from the hydrogen flame throwers. The zombies will create a wall of bodies that is on fire. Remove much mass over time thanks to the fire, pose a difficult to extinguish fire that is immediately a difficult obstacle to overcome. The zombies might never reach your building and the bodies will disappear in the incredible heat of fire.
That is how you get the most efficient killing machines. After a bit of investment, you have a potential *infinite* return. Mathematically there are few things more efficient than an infinite return. | No, I doubt it is efficient to build an über-tank
-------------------------------------------------
I'll take your own arguments against you :
* This über-tank is slow, but it doesn't matter; Niet, the slower your tank is, the more time the infected will have to pile on it. Moreover, you will always get an harder time moving again if you get stuck. Stopping is really risky therefore.
* If you are not pressured into fighting such as when in safe environment, one bullet - one kill is not the most economic way of killing1. Also, a rifle is not accurate on the move due to the vibrations you'll constantly take. But moving is essential, too, so...
* The last pin to the story is that you do need roads and/or stable, flat environment. If you don't, you lose accuracy with rifles, you have an higher chance of getting jammed. An issue which has been brought up just before :).
To reorganize these points : You need to be not moving to shoot accurately, but at the same time you need to be constantly moving to avoid first the horde. You might think that you can go on a stop, hit then run strategy, but your tank is moving slowly; The Ratte was suspected to move at up to 40 km/h (not accounting terrain!), but such heavy tank will get very long accelerations and slowdowns, meaning your effective speed is lower than that. So you're most probably shooting at most half of the time.
Also, beginning a movement is a precarious step on these kind of heavy duty apparels. It's a common problem with trucks that get bogged in mud in the wild, so imagine with something much bigger, which on top is a prototype which will contain flaws.
More (zombies) over...
----------------------
And here comes a part frame-challenge answer :
Remember, the Ratte was a project brought up only as a plan, an idea that never got finished. It was moreover designed to be built into a shipyard refurbished for this purpose, not a regular factory, increasing even further its cost in a context of resource scarcity. Because, let's face it, in the new context after a Z-war, you could have at most 1 or 2 running in after 2 years of development *at the very minimum*. One or two killing not that much every day, and having a chance of getting overrun and lost. Also, since it's a prototype made in a hurry, you will most likely get a failure at some point, especially on any moving parts... Such as tracks! And to repair those tracks you'd need to be outside the tank, which doesn't seem the best place to be :p.
So, is your plan all about having a few key structures that can be brought down after 2-3 years into the war? Ones that could break, be stuck or ineffective?
**But most importantly, what do you do with the horde in the meantime? Do you really hope they won't move in any of your towns, including the facilities you brought on to make your tank?**
Until the first tank get out of the factory, what do you do? I've seen many people in strategy games focus on what is called the late-game, ie building big weaponries and big troops. This kind of strategy is very inefficient against rush tactics, such as "[hyper-aggressive and moving in mobs](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZergRush)" enemies are. Here, your generals are having very high hopes that the zombies won't move outside the region as a horde. So high it is surprising that the countries managed to rebuild and have the resources to defend AND build their tank factories while letting one million zombies roaming freely in the lands. This while still having big concerns about those ones to afford to build a mega-tank prototype.
Efficiency comes along with how many risks you take on your investment and how fast you can take your earnings from. Spending several years on a project dreaming that nothing "too" bad happens in the meantime doesn't seem good at all on this point.
Conclusion
----------
That's a lot of conditions, which makes me think that making simpler things like digging pit traps, walls or moats2 outside the areas, or crafting lures a few kilometers away and burn everything once done (which is even more efficient cost and time-wise than bullets) are much more practical, faster and safer ways than building on a conjecture.
---
1 *: Quick example : Spears are almost free apart from the initial costs and could be used from the safety of the vehicle (just let the zombies come!). That's just one of many, of course.*
2 *: Yes, they can climb moats and out of pit traps, but if you watch WWZ movie, they do so by using the others as ladders more so than climbing on the micro-asperities of the wall. This means that you still get zombies down there in the end. Ones that you can safely dispose of and reuse the trap after.* |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | **Blimps**
* A large blimp costs [a few million](https://askinglot.com/how-much-does-it-cost-for-a-blimp), similar to [a tank](https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=cost+of+tank), and surely less than your super-tank.
* The zombies won't be shooting it down. They can't swarm it or gum up its wheels.
* Blimps are unaffected by terrain and can travel much farther than a tank. They can loiter around in an area killing zombies without spending much fuel.
* The crew in the blimp are probably safe from ground-based CBRN hazards even if no other precautions are taken. It's unlikely that radiation or chemicals on the ground would harm them hundreds of feet up in the air. For extra protection, the blimp could be plastic-sealed except for the gun ports.
* The blimp crew can be armed with rifles. At 10 cents a shot, this is a resource-efficient way of taking out zombies. It could also be a platform to deploy [noisemaking bombs](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/210133/82546) as suggested in another answer. The bombs could be lowered from the blimp into the heart of the zone, left on the ground to make noise and attract zombies for a while, and then explode on a timer.
**Or just don't go in**
If these are normal zombies that can't reproduce, their numbers are going to do nothing but diminish as time goes on and they wander out of the zone and are killed. A single soldier with a rifle can probably take out dozens of zombies. Just maintain a rapid-response system with cars or trucks so that every time a group of zombies comes out of the zone and attacks, a bunch of soldiers can get there quickly to wipe it out. This would be much more cost-efficient than tanks or blimps, though it would not give peace of mind as quickly. | **No, your tank will not be an efficient vehicle.**
The reason tanks are heavy and even tank shaped is how they are optimized to survive against heavy weapons. Requirements like a low target silhouette or even being heavy due to all the armour fall away once there is no enemy anti-tank weaponry.
You probably want something truck-shaped, maximizing internal volume. High sides are harder to climb, and there is plenty of experience and production capacity to produce trucks, even to custom specifications.
The easier solution however will be to drop crews entirely, and stick to drones. Most of the mass you are carrying around will be for protection systems, which you can all dropped with unmanned vehicles. You may possibly need some radiation hardened electronics, but it is much easier to shield a computer than a person.
Given that zombies don't have any electronic warfare capabilities, there is no chance of them jamming any connections. Using remote controlled vehicles keeps the control crews safe, and flying drones can go in and out of the zone, while being completely safe.
At altitude they can even keep away from most of the contamination, making them easier to decontaminate and service.
Ground based drones can be remotely resupplied with ammo and fuel, only requiring decon for full service, and if they are too heavily contaminated, you can still just abandon them.
As a rule of thumb, if you are going for efficiency, look for the smallest possible tool that can get the job done. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | Agricultural Machines:
----------------------
What you really need isn't a traditional tank. It's an [autonomous agricultural combine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wowPihsf3kU). Admittedly, they will need to be specialized, with a broad base to prevent tipping. Large "roadside mower" attachments with spinning blades to chew through zombies on the sides might help too. The large harvesting implement on the front might need some optimizing for humans vs. crops. Ultimately, it's a giant robotic lawn mower on steroids.
Fundamentally, getting rid of zombies is an industrial process. You need a large, robust fully robotic machine that chews through zombies on a regular route through zombie territory. The outside should be fire-resistant, so a stopped vehicle can be appropriately napalmed and recovered. The zombies will be drawn to the machine noise, ground up and spit out in a stream through the back of the harvester (if disposing of zombie bodies is important, a trailer can be dragged behind to collect the remains).
For simplicity, I'd make them electric with a backup quiet, efficient electrical generator. With the choppers running it would be incredibly noisy, but just running otherwise, it could be extremely quiet on a road. If the vehicle was mobbed, it could simply shut down until the zombies lost interest and wandered away. If it was short of fuel, drone refueling craft (form to be selected as desired) could refuel it in field. But the routes would be short enough so it should be able to run on batteries alone. When the vehicle returned to it's base, it could drive into a sealed building and disinfected in a way you wouldn't want to with a live crew.
You would establish routes through zombie territory and start out with your biggest, nastiest machine you can muster. But once the overburden of zombies began to go down, lighter, more efficient ones could run through systematically chewing up and spitting out zombies until no more come out. Then you set a new route and repeat the process. It may not get all the zombies, but it keeps grinding them up until they are quite manageable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wGnsD.jpg) | "These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine."
This is just a gross underestimation of tanks. Tanks can drive through buildings. Zombies or zombie corpses won't even be felt by the people inside the tanks. Further, most of the armor can be stripped off these tanks since the zombies are just meat; they're not shooting back. So your anti-zombie tanks can have an even better thrust to weight ratio, so you will have even less trouble.
But I think you're going about this all wrong if you're actively attacking the zombies. "Chain swarms" mean they can be easily herded around. [Lure them to one of these industrial shredders](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh8j_N0OUSE), and then just watch them get chewed up. [Industrial shredders easily eat engine blocks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-7N67eTiE), they'll go through zombies like tissue paper. And they're really loud, and thus very attractive zombie bait. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | ### Rifles aren't the most resource efficient way of killing zombies. Bombs are.
In short, bullets are a really inefficient way of killing large numbers of people. One bullet can only kill one person, at best, but it's much more likely that you'll be spending dozens or hundreds of bullets for each kill instead, simply because of how inaccurate the humans pulling the trigger are.
The best way to kill zombies would be artillery, for the same reasons that artillery is the most efficient way to kill humans: one artillery shell can kill every zombie (or human) within dozens of meters of its impact point. There's a reason why artillery is called "the queen of the battlefield".
If the zombies naturally tend to clump up in swarms in response to loud noises, that just makes artillery even more efficient a method of exterminating them; you just plant a loudspeaker to draw them in, then shell the crap out of the resulting horde to wipe them out by the hundreds or thousands. | Why Bother Protecting a Crew?
-----------------------------
* Take a standard car or pickup
* Setup a drive-by-wire system (cameras, steering control, etc)
* Strap some chain saws to it
* Put a bomb on board
Remote control your vehicle into the disaster zone, moving slowly, and periodically buzz the chain saws to gather a horde to your vehicle.
Eventually the car will run out of gas, or the horde of Zs will bog it down in spite of the judicious use of the chain saws to thin the crowd.
Now you set off the bomb.
If you use junk vehicles, this whole setup is pretty cheap. You can probably off a few hundred Zs per vehicle, between those you run over, the ones hit by the chain saws, and the ones you eventually get with the bomb itself.
If you think you need meat inside to keep the zombies engaged, I'd recommend livestock. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | No
==
You already have answered this yourself:
*These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses.*
All your mega-tank does is require a larger number of zombies. However, as you've already provided - zombies have the requisite numbers: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU0DNCV22dU&t=3s>
This is worsened by the extremely limited armaments you've listed: "CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time." This is essentially useless given the foe you are facing - they'll probably kill more of themselves in the attack than your rifles will.
***TL;DR:** the solution to fast, aggressive swarming enemies isn't to sit in a metal box, with no exit, and try to pot-shot them at a distance. You've just made a very expensive coffin.* | I don't believe that anyone has claimed that a tank is a resource-effective solution for *any* problem. They're designed to complete objectives quickly and effectively, but efficiency is not really one of their design criteria (it rarely is in wartime). In your particular case, you have many solutions that are much more efficient.
Forming chain swarms is only a short-term advantage for the zombies. In the long term, it's the key to defeating them.
People that hunt ducks, moose, or many other types of game locate their prey by using a call that mimics that animal's natural call. It attracts the prey into the open where the hunter can fire on it or ensnare it in a trap. You kill your zombies the same way. Record the sound of their call and use a network of speakers (plant them in advance or hang them from drones) to direct groups of zombies wherever you want them to go. Prevent the swarms from growing too large by using a wall of white noise or nature sounds to drown out the sound of their call beyond a certain point. Any sound generated by a human body's vocal system is completely inaudible at a range of 20-30m in the presence of even modest background noise. With a bit of practice, you should easily be able to pull a small group of zombies at will and separate them from the pack by breaking the call chain.
At this point, you're simply herding cattle to slaughter. Pull them off in small groups and lead them into static traps that you've set up ahead of time. Lead them into a narrow gallery where automated blades and hammers destroy anything that moves. Lead them into a fully-enclosed area, shut the door, and destroy them trash-compactor style. Lead them down a steep slope that causes them to tumble down into the large bark chipper below. The point is, you don't need military-grade equipment or even human operators. The entire thing can be an automated slaughterhouse that's operated remotely. Killing via mechanical methods or melee weapons means you don't have consumable ammunition that needs to be constantly replenished. Humans only need to get involved if something breaks. You can fabricate everything from existing farm or industrial equipment. If you're extremely clever, you can generate power for the whole enterprise by burning the bodies of the zombies that it kills. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | Agricultural Machines:
----------------------
What you really need isn't a traditional tank. It's an [autonomous agricultural combine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wowPihsf3kU). Admittedly, they will need to be specialized, with a broad base to prevent tipping. Large "roadside mower" attachments with spinning blades to chew through zombies on the sides might help too. The large harvesting implement on the front might need some optimizing for humans vs. crops. Ultimately, it's a giant robotic lawn mower on steroids.
Fundamentally, getting rid of zombies is an industrial process. You need a large, robust fully robotic machine that chews through zombies on a regular route through zombie territory. The outside should be fire-resistant, so a stopped vehicle can be appropriately napalmed and recovered. The zombies will be drawn to the machine noise, ground up and spit out in a stream through the back of the harvester (if disposing of zombie bodies is important, a trailer can be dragged behind to collect the remains).
For simplicity, I'd make them electric with a backup quiet, efficient electrical generator. With the choppers running it would be incredibly noisy, but just running otherwise, it could be extremely quiet on a road. If the vehicle was mobbed, it could simply shut down until the zombies lost interest and wandered away. If it was short of fuel, drone refueling craft (form to be selected as desired) could refuel it in field. But the routes would be short enough so it should be able to run on batteries alone. When the vehicle returned to it's base, it could drive into a sealed building and disinfected in a way you wouldn't want to with a live crew.
You would establish routes through zombie territory and start out with your biggest, nastiest machine you can muster. But once the overburden of zombies began to go down, lighter, more efficient ones could run through systematically chewing up and spitting out zombies until no more come out. Then you set a new route and repeat the process. It may not get all the zombies, but it keeps grinding them up until they are quite manageable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wGnsD.jpg) | **Regular tanks are not the best weapons, but they will do**
Tanks are not expeditionary forces on they own. They act within a limited range from a base or a depot. Turning your depot into a huge tank normally would be cost prohibitive.
Think through a few points:
1. Even if zombies can swarm a tank, they can't do anything to it or the crew inside. Just make sure tanks have emergency oxygen supply;
2. The biggest problem of killing zombies is finding them. Swarming zombies are ripe for killing using any kind of weapons. When one tank is being swarmed, make sure there is another one nearby that should make a short work of the first swarm.
3. Set up an "impregnable" base near the infested territory. Use a tank battalion to draw out all nearby zombies and destroy them. After local territory is cleared, move the base and repeat process. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | **Blimps**
* A large blimp costs [a few million](https://askinglot.com/how-much-does-it-cost-for-a-blimp), similar to [a tank](https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=cost+of+tank), and surely less than your super-tank.
* The zombies won't be shooting it down. They can't swarm it or gum up its wheels.
* Blimps are unaffected by terrain and can travel much farther than a tank. They can loiter around in an area killing zombies without spending much fuel.
* The crew in the blimp are probably safe from ground-based CBRN hazards even if no other precautions are taken. It's unlikely that radiation or chemicals on the ground would harm them hundreds of feet up in the air. For extra protection, the blimp could be plastic-sealed except for the gun ports.
* The blimp crew can be armed with rifles. At 10 cents a shot, this is a resource-efficient way of taking out zombies. It could also be a platform to deploy [noisemaking bombs](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/210133/82546) as suggested in another answer. The bombs could be lowered from the blimp into the heart of the zone, left on the ground to make noise and attract zombies for a while, and then explode on a timer.
**Or just don't go in**
If these are normal zombies that can't reproduce, their numbers are going to do nothing but diminish as time goes on and they wander out of the zone and are killed. A single soldier with a rifle can probably take out dozens of zombies. Just maintain a rapid-response system with cars or trucks so that every time a group of zombies comes out of the zone and attacks, a bunch of soldiers can get there quickly to wipe it out. This would be much more cost-efficient than tanks or blimps, though it would not give peace of mind as quickly. | ### Rifles aren't the most resource efficient way of killing zombies. Bombs are.
In short, bullets are a really inefficient way of killing large numbers of people. One bullet can only kill one person, at best, but it's much more likely that you'll be spending dozens or hundreds of bullets for each kill instead, simply because of how inaccurate the humans pulling the trigger are.
The best way to kill zombies would be artillery, for the same reasons that artillery is the most efficient way to kill humans: one artillery shell can kill every zombie (or human) within dozens of meters of its impact point. There's a reason why artillery is called "the queen of the battlefield".
If the zombies naturally tend to clump up in swarms in response to loud noises, that just makes artillery even more efficient a method of exterminating them; you just plant a loudspeaker to draw them in, then shell the crap out of the resulting horde to wipe them out by the hundreds or thousands. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | No
==
Your tank is a very expensive coffin.
1. The tank is not a submarine. Enough zombies will literally form a fluid around it, preventing it from moving.
2. All tanks require maintenance. Maintenance free tanks don't exist, they break down. You cannot exit the tank to fix something with zombies swarming around it.
3. Guns, and tanks in general, are great for killing things far away from you. Your tank has a failure state of "zombies are not far away from you".
Solve it in phases
==================
Each phase's goal is to kill 90% of the zombies in the region.
Phase 1:
========
Sort of already complete. You used chemical and nuclear weaponry. This will have reduced the zombie density. You can complete this by identifying remaining high-zombie density areas, and doing saturation bombing with conventional explosives/napalm/etc.
Goal: Kill 90% of the zombies.
Phase 2
=======
Bombs with speakers. In areas where there are zombies, but not enough to pay for carpet bombing, drop in a parachute a loud speaker and an hardened high explosive device. Zombies are attracted by the loud speaker. Then the explosive device goes off, shredding almost everything in 100 meters.
Goal: Kill 99% of the zombies.
Phase 3:
========
Just speakers. Your goal is to find out where the zombies are. Drop solar powered loud speakers with zombie detectors. Vary the sound played (not just the same frequency range) to deal with zombies that are hard of hearing.
Ideally you can use a remote to turn on and off specific speakers, allowing remaining zombies to be moved using audio-based paths to concentrated kill zones.
Then clean up the resulting kill zones.
Goal: 99.9% of zombies dead.
Phase 4:
========
Active hunting. Send blimps over the area with sharp shooters. Build kill-towers in the no-mans land near the edge (or a bit inside) of the contaminated area that attract zombies, kill them, and act as warnings if a swarm is leaving the area.
Use swarm tactics on the zombies. Volunteer patrols in medium-scale CBRN hardened all terrain vehicles search the area, clearing out zombies and provoking zombie attacks. If they can't handle it, they attempt to hunker down as relief is sent, or they flag the attack and just die. Higher intensity solutions (see above) can be used, like a large bomb (possibly they carry a large bomb in their ATV for just such a purpose).
CBRN hardened construction vehicles rebuild roads and flatten remaining human construction (possible hiding places), possibly even rebuilding bridges to make access by humans easier.
Visual-ofactory decoys (for the zombies whose ears are missing) with zombie-detection sensors (solar powered webcams!) are deployed to draw out zombies. These are air dropped into inaccessible areas and deployed by the patrols.
Goal: 99.99% of zombies dead
This still leaves a huge problem. If the area originally had 100 million people all of whom became zombies, 99.99% dead means you still have 10000 zombies in the area.
But those zombies will hopefully be unable to swarm and will decay over time.
An example would be a sealed bomb shelter with a few 100 zombies in it. If these zombies are magically immune to decay, that bomb shelter might stay full of functional zombies for many many years before erosion occurs and lets the zombies out a hole. At which point they go and start a new swarm.
Phase 5:
========
Passive, permanent defenses. In the long term, it won't just be zombies inside the contaminated zone that are a problem. Zombie outbreaks will happen in "safe" areas. So you'll want to build zombie swarm barriers and safety bunkers to slow swarm spread throughout the safe areas and preserve some of the population when a swarm occurs.
Then you deploy active defences (soldiers with rifles or whatever you find effective) to clean out the swarm and rebuild.
In safe zones, you'll be spending decades or centuries digging up *everything* to a decent depth and looking for buried zombies to prevent future swarms and make them more safe.
The CBRN contaminated areas will make that harder. You'll end up wanting to build walls around it and patrol them. Even if it doesn't stop every zombie, stopping ones whose arms or legs are missing is a win.
But none of these steps involves building a giant metal super tank. | >
> Replacing gasoline-powered engines with small modular reactors, batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
>
>
>
An SMR, from as far as I can tell, is still fairly large. We're talking hundreds of feet in one dimension and a few dozen in the other two. The 'small' doesn't mean "compared to a human" it means "compared to how big reactors normally are".
Batteries don't help you either. [To power the behemoth you talk about, it would need a shocking amount of batteries.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hatav_Rdnno) Batteries, compared to electricity, is not very energy dense. To recharge it would also be a long task too. |
210,128 | **The question, before you get into the rest of this textual abomination: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned below, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?**
Let's say that, in the near future, there's a zombie apocalypse in the vein of [World War Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z): perpetual-motion, fast-moving, and hyper-aggressive zombies (long story).
Important note: they form [chain swarms](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm) when they hear loud noises. This is relevant later.
People have retreated, re-established their industrial and technological base, and have mostly systemically exterminated the zombies infesting their country. They came up with the concept of the [resource-to-kill ratio](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_during_World_War_Z#:%7E:text=The%20new%20name%20of%20the,of%20the%20undead%20as%20possible.); essentially, how do we minimize the resource and/or dollar cost of killing an individual zombie? Their solution to that was to use infantry with bolt-action rifles, as that's about as efficient as you can get without endangering your soldiers: one bullet, one kill.
However, there's a massive area of the country that was sterilized with every nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapon known to mankind in an attempt to destroy the zombie horde in it. Unfortunately, it didn't destroy many of them. There are still millions of the things left.
Normally, the society in question would not want to take back such a godforsaken wasteland, but the sheer number of zombies in it means that it's a threat to anything and anyone nearby, as hordes constantly march out of it to attack the living.
Building a wall around the place and making the zombies pay for it was dismissed as a waste of resources, given the scale of such a project, and the fact that the zombies climb walls like ants.
They can't be met outside the wasteland in a resource-efficient way, either - doing so means mass civilian evacuations in the path of the horde, as well as pulling hundreds of thousands off-duty (say, building new homes, or performing mass burials, or having babies - people who would generally be rebuilding after an apocalypse) in order to meet it, as well as to operate the supply lines keeping the front line fighting.
Since these zombies are both extremely fast and extremely coordinated (for instance, look at [this example](https://youtu.be/uU0DNCV22dU?t=3) of World War Z zombies climbing a wall like a horde of ants), sending in armed personnel into the zone in bulky hazmat suits, CBRN-proof vehicles, and mobile decontamination bases means that they're not mobile enough to avoid getting overrun and torn to shreds. A specific vulnerability is that suit or base breaches are guaranteed death even if the zombies don't get you; the nightmarish, radioactive chemical soup the area is saturated with *will* kill you soon after a suit breach.
Now, fighting the zombies from within an CBRN-sealed armored vehicle helps negate the problem of a suit or base breach: the entire thing is armored, and zombie bites and/or environmental debris will not get through it.
However, fighting the zombies from inside a CBRN-sealed armored vehicle fails due to two major and two minor factors:
**MAJOR**:
* These zombies pile up on you - potentially by the thousand. Even if you somehow manage to kill a shit-ton of them, your vehicle is going to be buried in their corpses. The odds are that its wheels just aren't going to get enough grip to be able to move. Now, you might negate that by replacing wheels with tracks, but those get clogged with zombie parts relatively easily. Hell, they might even be able to smother your engine.
* It's hard to live inside a tank. Yes, I recognize that people have done it in the past, but if you're on a patrol in the Northeastern American Dead Zone for a month on end inside a sealed metal can with nothing but death around it, you're going to go nuts eventually. Even submariners have more room per person than there is per person inside, say, an Abrams or a Bradley; the only occupation I can think of that involves less room to move around is being an astronaut on the earliest space capsules.
**MINOR**:
* You're going to run out of fuel eventually. Obstinately, you can go back to base for more, but that's only if you can avoid getting bogged down by the hordes of sprinting, dog-piling zombies - and if you run out of fuel, tough luck.
* Eventually, you will run out of ammunition; there is only so much room for the stuff inside a tank or an armored personnel carrier. Again, you can technically go back for more, but, again, if you run out you're hosed, and it's not like it's easy to fit an airlock onto a tank.
Moreover, going back for fuel and ammunition limits the amount an extermination team can penetrate into this massive dead zone; even if they set up fuel dumps inside it, they are liable to be contaminated and/or overrun.
Enter my solution: the ultra-heavy tank. If you want an example of a vehicle on such a scale, look at the Nazi [Landkreuzer P-1000 *Ratte*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte), or NASA's [crawler-transporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter). I'm not saying "build a Ratte" or "build a crawler-transporter"; I'm just providing an example of what vehicles on this scale look like.
Now, there are many glaring flaws with ultra-heavy tanks that preclude their use against human enemies:
* They require truly gargantuan amounts of fuel.
* They're basically a gigantic "kick me" sign for aircraft and artillery.
* Their ground pressure is off the charts, and they destroy any bridges they cross over, meaning that follow-up forces can't use them.
* They're slow.
However, in a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape, these problems are negated.
* Replacing gasoline-powered engines with [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor), batteries, and electrically-driven motors negates the fuel problem - fuel-wise, the thing can operate for years on end.
* Zombies have neither aircraft nor artillery.
* We'll get to my way around the ground-pressure problem eventually. Moreover, destroying bridges is not a problem, because:
~ the odds are that they're gone already
~ it's not like anyone will be using them anyway; they're in a toxic, irradiated
moonscape unsuitable for human life
* Being slow is not a problem, for reasons I will get into.
Moreover, such a vehicle has several advantages as part of a near-future war against World War Z-style zombies set in a chemical hellscape:
* Despite its low speed, its great mass gives it incredible kinetic energy once it starts moving. It can flatten houses, fences, most land vehicles - actually, most obstacles that would impede a lesser vehicle in general, of which there are going to be a lot of post-apocalypse - and woe betide the pile of zombies that tries to climb onto it: the thing *just keeps moving*. It doesn't have to move *quickly*, like it would against a human adversary who's attempting to get bombs into it - it just needs to avoid getting piled up on, so that it can constantly bring its weapons to bear on the zombies.
* Unlike a pack of lighter vehicles and semi-mobile, pre-fabricated bases, an ultra-heavy tank is one gigantic thing. There are no vulnerable airlock tubes in-between vehicles, no lengthy decontamination procedures, and no need to climb into a hazmat suit to go to the messroom, or go to the toilet, or to load new munitions into the thing: everything is already inside the vehicle. The *Ratte*, for instance, was designed with a motorcycle bay, an infirmary, several storage rooms, and its own self-contained lavatory system. Essentially, such massive vehicles have [interior supply lines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_lines) on a tiny scale.
* Unlike lesser vehicles, an ultra-heavy tank is large enough to carry that nuclear reactor I mentioned previously, meaning that fuel is a non-problem for years.
* It's a propaganda symbol: what's better for the spirits of a crushed and depleted people:
~ a bunch of hazmat-suited, faceless goons with rifles, in the same tanks that failed
to stop the zombies the first time
~ a majestic, invincible land battleship and its brave, intrepid crew
* Ammunition is less of a problem, because the square-cube law works in the favor of ammunition storage here; since the tank has more inside volume, it can carry a lot more ammunition.
* The crew go insane less quickly; since this thing is, in terms of accommodations, more comparable to a submarine than a tank, longer zombie-extermination trips can be undertaken.
However, there are a number of features that could be incorporated in order to make the thing more efficient:
* No armor. Zombies don't have armor-penetrating weapons, meaning armor is as much of an instance of dead weight as the zombies.
* No artillery weapons. A high-explosive shell is not the most resource-efficient way of killing zombies. Instead, replace the main turret and the entire top of the hull with a superstructure; in it are armored, CBRN-sealed ports with integrated semi-automatic rifles, so that the crew can pop the heads off of zombies one at a time.
* Instead of two tracks, add as many as possible - preferably, mounted next to one another, and using the space in between where the tracks would be on a conventional tank. This ensures redundancy, as well as reducing the vehicle's ground pressure. While this would make it very difficult for the vehicle to turn, turning is not really an issue, since it can be accomplished over long periods of time.
* Add a plow on the front, for getting obstacles out of the way of the tracks.
* Give it cheap, disposable drone scout support for finding and navigating towards large hordes of zombies.
* Add [mine flails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail) between the ground and the firing ports, so that zombies attempting to climb it get mulched.
* Add airlocks on the dorsal superstructure, so that cheap, expendable cargo drones can slowly but steadily resupply the vehicle's ammunition reserves.
The standard *modus operandi* for one of these vehicles would be:
1. Drone locates zombie horde.
2. Vehicle drives to horde to intercept it before it exits the dead zone.
3. Vehicle begins playing loud music, horns, whatever have you, forming a [chain swarm](https://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Chain_swarm)
4. Chain swarm follows vehicle as vehicle leads chain swarm away from populated areas
5. As (4) is carried out, sharpshooters inside vehicle terminate zombies.
Eventually, they'll run out of swarms near the dead zone border, and begin pushing further into it. Other than that, no major changes in that plan, other than a return for crew change-out/repairs every 6 months.
**Again, the question: with all of the context, objectives, and design features mentioned above, is an ultra-heavy tank a resource-efficient means of killing zombies in an [CBRN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense) (nuclear/biological/chemical/radiological contamination) environment inhospitable to human life?** | 2021/08/16 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/210128",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/87100/"
] | ### Rifles aren't the most resource efficient way of killing zombies. Bombs are.
In short, bullets are a really inefficient way of killing large numbers of people. One bullet can only kill one person, at best, but it's much more likely that you'll be spending dozens or hundreds of bullets for each kill instead, simply because of how inaccurate the humans pulling the trigger are.
The best way to kill zombies would be artillery, for the same reasons that artillery is the most efficient way to kill humans: one artillery shell can kill every zombie (or human) within dozens of meters of its impact point. There's a reason why artillery is called "the queen of the battlefield".
If the zombies naturally tend to clump up in swarms in response to loud noises, that just makes artillery even more efficient a method of exterminating them; you just plant a loudspeaker to draw them in, then shell the crap out of the resulting horde to wipe them out by the hundreds or thousands. | Agricultural Machines:
----------------------
What you really need isn't a traditional tank. It's an [autonomous agricultural combine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wowPihsf3kU). Admittedly, they will need to be specialized, with a broad base to prevent tipping. Large "roadside mower" attachments with spinning blades to chew through zombies on the sides might help too. The large harvesting implement on the front might need some optimizing for humans vs. crops. Ultimately, it's a giant robotic lawn mower on steroids.
Fundamentally, getting rid of zombies is an industrial process. You need a large, robust fully robotic machine that chews through zombies on a regular route through zombie territory. The outside should be fire-resistant, so a stopped vehicle can be appropriately napalmed and recovered. The zombies will be drawn to the machine noise, ground up and spit out in a stream through the back of the harvester (if disposing of zombie bodies is important, a trailer can be dragged behind to collect the remains).
For simplicity, I'd make them electric with a backup quiet, efficient electrical generator. With the choppers running it would be incredibly noisy, but just running otherwise, it could be extremely quiet on a road. If the vehicle was mobbed, it could simply shut down until the zombies lost interest and wandered away. If it was short of fuel, drone refueling craft (form to be selected as desired) could refuel it in field. But the routes would be short enough so it should be able to run on batteries alone. When the vehicle returned to it's base, it could drive into a sealed building and disinfected in a way you wouldn't want to with a live crew.
You would establish routes through zombie territory and start out with your biggest, nastiest machine you can muster. But once the overburden of zombies began to go down, lighter, more efficient ones could run through systematically chewing up and spitting out zombies until no more come out. Then you set a new route and repeat the process. It may not get all the zombies, but it keeps grinding them up until they are quite manageable.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wGnsD.jpg) |
13,632,093 | I am looking into using an ORM (Objection Relational Mapper) to allow me to persist my C++ objects into an SQLite database. I'm currently considering ODB by CodeSynthesis.
See: <http://www.codesynthesis.com/products/odb/>
Looking at the docs for ODB, I don't see an answer to a nagging question I have, which is:
What happens if I create a class, persist it to the DB, but then in a later version of my product change the class. When the user gets the new version of my software, how will the old data get loaded properly into the new version of the class?
I've looked at boost::serialize before and it has mechanisms to handle this kind of "upgrading", but I'm wondering:
1. How is this handled in ORM tools generally speaking?
2. How to do this with ODB specifically
3. Is there a better ORM tool than ODB for handling this problem? | 2012/11/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13632093",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/214974/"
] | From the outset, full disclosure: I work on ODB. And to answer your third question, no, there aren't any ;-).
Seriously, though, schema evolution is a hard problem and it is one of the three big items on our TODO list (the other two are multi-database support and SQL-to-C++ compiler). The good news is that we are pretty much done with multi-database support and the next one in line is schema evolution.
Generally, it seems the best approach is to bring your schema (and the data, if necessary) to the latest version. The alternative of making the application capable of reading multiple different versions just doesn't seem to scale in the real world.
As an example, let's say we added a data member to the class which in the database schema level translates to adding a column to the corresponding table. The way to handle this is to make this new column NULL-able (with, say, odb::nullable or boost::optional). The idea here is that old data that doesn't have a value for this column will be NULL (which the application can detect and handle).
Next we need to upgrade the schema in the database. In this case we will need to execute the ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN statement which will add the new column. Once ODB supports schema evolution, it will generate these migration statements automatically. Right now you will have to write them yourself (pain in the ass, I know). All the existing rows in the table will be automatically assigned NULL value for this column.
So normally an application will contain sets of such statements that upgrade the schema from one version to the next. E.g., from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3, etc. The database will store the schema version and the application will know its latest schema version. Immediately after
opening the database, the application will check the database version and if it is below the application schema version, it will start running these migration sets to upgrade the schema to the latest version. | If you're still open to an altenative to ODB, you might consider quince: <http://quince-lib.com> (and full disclosure: I wrote it).
On the specific issue of upgrading your data type: quince doesn't automatically detect the need to evolve, or design a strategy for evolution, or anything like that. What it gives you is a C++ interface to ALTER TABLE. But on the positive side: it is all at the C++ level: you describe your alteration in terms of your C++ data types, and it's all statically type-checked. |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | If I were you, I would use [jQuery UI Tabs](http://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/) instead of my own solution. | it looks like your website is not static, so i don't see why you're doing it with bare HTML.
I'd use [ASP.NET](http://www.asp.net/) and CustomUserControl as each of your tabs, that they all the tab would be truly independent and you can reuse them anywhere in your application |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | 1. Yes, all major desktop browsers support iframes. So do many mobile browsers, including IEMobile, Opera Mobile, and Safari on the iPhone. The only major browser I know of that *doesn't* support iframes is the BlackBerry Browser.
2. The object tag is supported by most browsers, but the implementation is extremely inconsistent across the various browsers.
3. What's wrong with just having a flat page with an ordinary navigation menu? If you are only displaying one page at a time, and the only interface element being placed outside of the iframe is a tab menu, then why not just integrate the tabs into the page layout and do away with the frames?
Frames of any sort tend to break the familiar browser behaviors that people are used--like the forward and back navigation buttons. And they completely disable the use of bookmarks. When building a website, you should try not to restrict or dictate to visitors how they're allowed to browse your site. If the user wants to open a link a new tab, they should not be left without a navigation menu. If they make their browser window a particular size, the page content should fill that area, not a predetermined area specified by the dimensions of the iframe.
Frames are inherently user-unfriendly, which, unsurprisingly, makes them search-engine-unfriendly; which is why so few professional websites use frames/iframes. Cheap broadband is widespread enough these days that reloading a few extra kilobytes of navigational data makes no difference to the overall user experience. | it looks like your website is not static, so i don't see why you're doing it with bare HTML.
I'd use [ASP.NET](http://www.asp.net/) and CustomUserControl as each of your tabs, that they all the tab would be truly independent and you can reuse them anywhere in your application |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | If I were you, I would use [jQuery UI Tabs](http://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/) instead of my own solution. | For the separate pages in each tab, you can as well use server includes. |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | If I were you, I would use [jQuery UI Tabs](http://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/) instead of my own solution. | To answer your first 2 questions:
1. iframe is supported across all the latest web browsers however i am not sure about mobile browsers. Opera mobile yes, dont now about iPhone.
2. the next major iteration of html is being led by [WHATWG](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-iframe-element) and the iFrame will be supported. It is also supported in [xhtml](http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_iframe.asp)
As far as different approaches, that very much depends on what you are going to be doing with the tabs. if each tab is going to have a lot of information on it or take a while to load then separate iFrames is probably best. Also, if you are going to reuse the code as independent pages else where then iFrames are also a good option. |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | 1. Yes, all major desktop browsers support iframes. So do many mobile browsers, including IEMobile, Opera Mobile, and Safari on the iPhone. The only major browser I know of that *doesn't* support iframes is the BlackBerry Browser.
2. The object tag is supported by most browsers, but the implementation is extremely inconsistent across the various browsers.
3. What's wrong with just having a flat page with an ordinary navigation menu? If you are only displaying one page at a time, and the only interface element being placed outside of the iframe is a tab menu, then why not just integrate the tabs into the page layout and do away with the frames?
Frames of any sort tend to break the familiar browser behaviors that people are used--like the forward and back navigation buttons. And they completely disable the use of bookmarks. When building a website, you should try not to restrict or dictate to visitors how they're allowed to browse your site. If the user wants to open a link a new tab, they should not be left without a navigation menu. If they make their browser window a particular size, the page content should fill that area, not a predetermined area specified by the dimensions of the iframe.
Frames are inherently user-unfriendly, which, unsurprisingly, makes them search-engine-unfriendly; which is why so few professional websites use frames/iframes. Cheap broadband is widespread enough these days that reloading a few extra kilobytes of navigational data makes no difference to the overall user experience. | If I were you, I would use [jQuery UI Tabs](http://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/) instead of my own solution. |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | 1. Yes, all major desktop browsers support iframes. So do many mobile browsers, including IEMobile, Opera Mobile, and Safari on the iPhone. The only major browser I know of that *doesn't* support iframes is the BlackBerry Browser.
2. The object tag is supported by most browsers, but the implementation is extremely inconsistent across the various browsers.
3. What's wrong with just having a flat page with an ordinary navigation menu? If you are only displaying one page at a time, and the only interface element being placed outside of the iframe is a tab menu, then why not just integrate the tabs into the page layout and do away with the frames?
Frames of any sort tend to break the familiar browser behaviors that people are used--like the forward and back navigation buttons. And they completely disable the use of bookmarks. When building a website, you should try not to restrict or dictate to visitors how they're allowed to browse your site. If the user wants to open a link a new tab, they should not be left without a navigation menu. If they make their browser window a particular size, the page content should fill that area, not a predetermined area specified by the dimensions of the iframe.
Frames are inherently user-unfriendly, which, unsurprisingly, makes them search-engine-unfriendly; which is why so few professional websites use frames/iframes. Cheap broadband is widespread enough these days that reloading a few extra kilobytes of navigational data makes no difference to the overall user experience. | For the separate pages in each tab, you can as well use server includes. |
750,220 | I am writing a complex tab based web application where each tab is unrelated to each other in the sense that there is no interaction. So for ease of development i want I want each tab to be a separate html page viewable on its own and at later stage I can assemble them via tabs or may be menus or trees
so question or questions are:
1. I am planning to use iframes, does all major browser support them?
2. Are iframes going to be deprecated, so what are alternatives e.g. is object tag supported by all major browsers?
3. May be i can use some better strategy instead of iframe/object?
But what I love about iframes is that it can be totally modular, so each page doesn't know about other.
Note: i selected the answer which explain well but still i am not sure why not iframes
question [iframes vs ajax](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/768222/iframes-vs-ajax) may answer that. | 2009/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/750220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6946/"
] | 1. Yes, all major desktop browsers support iframes. So do many mobile browsers, including IEMobile, Opera Mobile, and Safari on the iPhone. The only major browser I know of that *doesn't* support iframes is the BlackBerry Browser.
2. The object tag is supported by most browsers, but the implementation is extremely inconsistent across the various browsers.
3. What's wrong with just having a flat page with an ordinary navigation menu? If you are only displaying one page at a time, and the only interface element being placed outside of the iframe is a tab menu, then why not just integrate the tabs into the page layout and do away with the frames?
Frames of any sort tend to break the familiar browser behaviors that people are used--like the forward and back navigation buttons. And they completely disable the use of bookmarks. When building a website, you should try not to restrict or dictate to visitors how they're allowed to browse your site. If the user wants to open a link a new tab, they should not be left without a navigation menu. If they make their browser window a particular size, the page content should fill that area, not a predetermined area specified by the dimensions of the iframe.
Frames are inherently user-unfriendly, which, unsurprisingly, makes them search-engine-unfriendly; which is why so few professional websites use frames/iframes. Cheap broadband is widespread enough these days that reloading a few extra kilobytes of navigational data makes no difference to the overall user experience. | To answer your first 2 questions:
1. iframe is supported across all the latest web browsers however i am not sure about mobile browsers. Opera mobile yes, dont now about iPhone.
2. the next major iteration of html is being led by [WHATWG](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-iframe-element) and the iFrame will be supported. It is also supported in [xhtml](http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_iframe.asp)
As far as different approaches, that very much depends on what you are going to be doing with the tabs. if each tab is going to have a lot of information on it or take a while to load then separate iFrames is probably best. Also, if you are going to reuse the code as independent pages else where then iFrames are also a good option. |
5,626,747 | We have a problem which is embarrassingly parallel - we run a large number of instances of a single program with a different data set for each; we do this simply by submitting the application many times to the batch queue with different parameters each time.
However with a large number of jobs, not all of them complete. It does not appear to be a problem in the queue - all of the jobs are started.
The issue appears to be that with a large number of instances of the application running, lots of jobs finish at roughly the same time and thus all try to write out their data to the parallel file-system at pretty much the same time.
The issue then seems to be that either the program is unable to write to the file-system and crashes in some manner, or just sits there waiting to write and the batch queue system kills the job after it's been sat waiting too long. (From what I have gathered on the problem, most of the jobs that fail to complete, if not all, do not leave core files)
What is the best way to schedule disk-writes to avoid this problem? I mention our program is embarrassingly parallel to highlight the fact the each process is not aware of the others - they cannot talk to each other to schedule their writes in some manner.
Although I have the source-code for the program, we'd like to solve the problem without having to modify this if possible as we don't maintain or develop it (plus most of the comments are in Italian).
I have had some thoughts on the matter:
1. Each job write to the local (scratch) disk of the node at first. We can then run another job which checks every now and then what jobs have completed and moves the files from the local disks to the parallel file-system.
2. Use an MPI wrapper around the program in master/slave system, where the master manages a queue of jobs and farms these off to each slave; and the slave wrapper runs the applications and catches the exception (could I do this reliably for a file-system timeout in C++, or possibly Java?), and sends a message back to the master to re-run the job
In the meantime I need to pester my supervisors for more information on the error itself - I've never run into it personally, but I haven't had to use the program for a very large number of datasets (yet).
In case it's useful: we run Solaris on our HPC system with the SGE (Sun GridEngine) batch queue system. The file-system is NFS4, and the storage servers also run Solaris. The HPC nodes and storage servers communicate over fibre channel links. | 2011/04/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5626747",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/290028/"
] | Most parallel file systems, particularly those at supercomputing centres, are targetted for HPC applications, rather than serial-farm type stuff. As a result, they're painstakingly optimized for bandwidth, not for IOPs (I/O operations per sec) - that is, they are aimed at big (1000+ process) jobs writing a handful of mammoth files, rather than zillions of little jobs outputting octillions of tiny little files. It is all to easy for users to run something that runs fine(ish) on their desktop and naively scale up to hundreds of simultaneous jobs to starve the system of IOPs, hanging their jobs and typically others on the same systems.
The main thing you can do here is aggregate, aggregate, aggregate. It would be best if you could tell us where you're running so we can get more information on the system. But some tried-and-true strategies:
1. If you are outputting many files per job, change your output strategy so that each job writes out one file which contains all the others. If you have local ramdisk, you can do something as simple as writing them to ramdisk, then tar-gzing them out to the real filesystem.
2. Write in binary, not in ascii. Big data *never* goes in ascii. Binary formats are ~10x faster to write, somewhat smaller, and you can write big chunks at a time rather than a few numbers in a loop, which leads to:
3. Big writes are better than little writes. Every IO operation is something the file system has to do. Make few, big, writes rather than looping over tiny writes.
4. Similarly, don't write in formats which require you to seek around to write in different parts of the file at different times. Seeks are slow and useless.
5. If you're running many jobs on a node, you can use the same ramdisk trick as above (or local disk) to tar up all the jobs' outputs and send them all out to the parallel file system at once.
The above suggestions will benefit the I/O performance of your code *everywhere*, not juston parallel file systems. IO is slow everywhere, and the more you can do in memory and the fewer actual IO operations you execute, the faster it will go. Some systems may be more sensitive than others, so you may not notice it so much on your laptop, but it will help.
Similarly, having fewer big files rather than many small files will speed up everything from directory listings to backups on your filesystem; it is good all around. | It is hard to decide if you don't know what exactly causes the crash. If you think it is an error related to the filesystem performance, you can try an distributed filesystem: <http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r0.20.0/hdfs_user_guide.html>
If you want to implement Master/Slave system, maybe Hadoop can be the answer.
But first of all I would try to find out what causes the crash... |
5,626,747 | We have a problem which is embarrassingly parallel - we run a large number of instances of a single program with a different data set for each; we do this simply by submitting the application many times to the batch queue with different parameters each time.
However with a large number of jobs, not all of them complete. It does not appear to be a problem in the queue - all of the jobs are started.
The issue appears to be that with a large number of instances of the application running, lots of jobs finish at roughly the same time and thus all try to write out their data to the parallel file-system at pretty much the same time.
The issue then seems to be that either the program is unable to write to the file-system and crashes in some manner, or just sits there waiting to write and the batch queue system kills the job after it's been sat waiting too long. (From what I have gathered on the problem, most of the jobs that fail to complete, if not all, do not leave core files)
What is the best way to schedule disk-writes to avoid this problem? I mention our program is embarrassingly parallel to highlight the fact the each process is not aware of the others - they cannot talk to each other to schedule their writes in some manner.
Although I have the source-code for the program, we'd like to solve the problem without having to modify this if possible as we don't maintain or develop it (plus most of the comments are in Italian).
I have had some thoughts on the matter:
1. Each job write to the local (scratch) disk of the node at first. We can then run another job which checks every now and then what jobs have completed and moves the files from the local disks to the parallel file-system.
2. Use an MPI wrapper around the program in master/slave system, where the master manages a queue of jobs and farms these off to each slave; and the slave wrapper runs the applications and catches the exception (could I do this reliably for a file-system timeout in C++, or possibly Java?), and sends a message back to the master to re-run the job
In the meantime I need to pester my supervisors for more information on the error itself - I've never run into it personally, but I haven't had to use the program for a very large number of datasets (yet).
In case it's useful: we run Solaris on our HPC system with the SGE (Sun GridEngine) batch queue system. The file-system is NFS4, and the storage servers also run Solaris. The HPC nodes and storage servers communicate over fibre channel links. | 2011/04/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5626747",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/290028/"
] | It is hard to decide if you don't know what exactly causes the crash. If you think it is an error related to the filesystem performance, you can try an distributed filesystem: <http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r0.20.0/hdfs_user_guide.html>
If you want to implement Master/Slave system, maybe Hadoop can be the answer.
But first of all I would try to find out what causes the crash... | OSes don't alway behave nicely when they run out of resources; sometimes they simply abort the process that asks for the first unit of resource the OS can't provide. Many OSes have file handle resource limits (Windows I think has a several-thousand handle resource, which you can bump up against in circumstances like yours), and failure to find a free handle usually means the OS does bad things to the requesting process.
One simple solution requiring a program change, is to agree that no more than N of your many jobs can be writing at once. You'll need a shared semaphore that all jobs can see; most OSes will provide you with facilities for one, often as a named resource (!). Initialize the semaphore to N before you launch any job.
Have each writing job acquire a resource unit from the semaphore when the job is about to write, and release that resource unit when it is done. The amount of code to accomplish this should be a handful of lines inserted once into your highly parallel application. Then you tune N until you no longer have the problem. N==1 will surely solve it, and you can presumably do lots better than that. |
5,626,747 | We have a problem which is embarrassingly parallel - we run a large number of instances of a single program with a different data set for each; we do this simply by submitting the application many times to the batch queue with different parameters each time.
However with a large number of jobs, not all of them complete. It does not appear to be a problem in the queue - all of the jobs are started.
The issue appears to be that with a large number of instances of the application running, lots of jobs finish at roughly the same time and thus all try to write out their data to the parallel file-system at pretty much the same time.
The issue then seems to be that either the program is unable to write to the file-system and crashes in some manner, or just sits there waiting to write and the batch queue system kills the job after it's been sat waiting too long. (From what I have gathered on the problem, most of the jobs that fail to complete, if not all, do not leave core files)
What is the best way to schedule disk-writes to avoid this problem? I mention our program is embarrassingly parallel to highlight the fact the each process is not aware of the others - they cannot talk to each other to schedule their writes in some manner.
Although I have the source-code for the program, we'd like to solve the problem without having to modify this if possible as we don't maintain or develop it (plus most of the comments are in Italian).
I have had some thoughts on the matter:
1. Each job write to the local (scratch) disk of the node at first. We can then run another job which checks every now and then what jobs have completed and moves the files from the local disks to the parallel file-system.
2. Use an MPI wrapper around the program in master/slave system, where the master manages a queue of jobs and farms these off to each slave; and the slave wrapper runs the applications and catches the exception (could I do this reliably for a file-system timeout in C++, or possibly Java?), and sends a message back to the master to re-run the job
In the meantime I need to pester my supervisors for more information on the error itself - I've never run into it personally, but I haven't had to use the program for a very large number of datasets (yet).
In case it's useful: we run Solaris on our HPC system with the SGE (Sun GridEngine) batch queue system. The file-system is NFS4, and the storage servers also run Solaris. The HPC nodes and storage servers communicate over fibre channel links. | 2011/04/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5626747",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/290028/"
] | Most parallel file systems, particularly those at supercomputing centres, are targetted for HPC applications, rather than serial-farm type stuff. As a result, they're painstakingly optimized for bandwidth, not for IOPs (I/O operations per sec) - that is, they are aimed at big (1000+ process) jobs writing a handful of mammoth files, rather than zillions of little jobs outputting octillions of tiny little files. It is all to easy for users to run something that runs fine(ish) on their desktop and naively scale up to hundreds of simultaneous jobs to starve the system of IOPs, hanging their jobs and typically others on the same systems.
The main thing you can do here is aggregate, aggregate, aggregate. It would be best if you could tell us where you're running so we can get more information on the system. But some tried-and-true strategies:
1. If you are outputting many files per job, change your output strategy so that each job writes out one file which contains all the others. If you have local ramdisk, you can do something as simple as writing them to ramdisk, then tar-gzing them out to the real filesystem.
2. Write in binary, not in ascii. Big data *never* goes in ascii. Binary formats are ~10x faster to write, somewhat smaller, and you can write big chunks at a time rather than a few numbers in a loop, which leads to:
3. Big writes are better than little writes. Every IO operation is something the file system has to do. Make few, big, writes rather than looping over tiny writes.
4. Similarly, don't write in formats which require you to seek around to write in different parts of the file at different times. Seeks are slow and useless.
5. If you're running many jobs on a node, you can use the same ramdisk trick as above (or local disk) to tar up all the jobs' outputs and send them all out to the parallel file system at once.
The above suggestions will benefit the I/O performance of your code *everywhere*, not juston parallel file systems. IO is slow everywhere, and the more you can do in memory and the fewer actual IO operations you execute, the faster it will go. Some systems may be more sensitive than others, so you may not notice it so much on your laptop, but it will help.
Similarly, having fewer big files rather than many small files will speed up everything from directory listings to backups on your filesystem; it is good all around. | OSes don't alway behave nicely when they run out of resources; sometimes they simply abort the process that asks for the first unit of resource the OS can't provide. Many OSes have file handle resource limits (Windows I think has a several-thousand handle resource, which you can bump up against in circumstances like yours), and failure to find a free handle usually means the OS does bad things to the requesting process.
One simple solution requiring a program change, is to agree that no more than N of your many jobs can be writing at once. You'll need a shared semaphore that all jobs can see; most OSes will provide you with facilities for one, often as a named resource (!). Initialize the semaphore to N before you launch any job.
Have each writing job acquire a resource unit from the semaphore when the job is about to write, and release that resource unit when it is done. The amount of code to accomplish this should be a handful of lines inserted once into your highly parallel application. Then you tune N until you no longer have the problem. N==1 will surely solve it, and you can presumably do lots better than that. |
84,865 | Many action verbs have been used for confirmation or to pass information from one place to another especially for a social or forum-like website or app that people have options to comment.
So my question is this: **Which is best to use on a forum or social site for users to commit the message they have typed in a comment box for other forum users to see Post, share , send , okay or apply?**
EDIT: Also any usability study on this will be super helpful too | 2015/09/22 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/84865",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/39393/"
] | Best is something that makes completely clear what happens when you press the button.
It is good pratice to appoint the action and the subject while keeping it concise. A good example is right on this page: **"Post Your Answer"** is used instead of just **"Post"**. If you apply to something use **"Apply To …"**.
Be careful with terms like **"Share Your Comment"**, as it has to be commonly understood what sharing means on your site (think of Facebook and the consequences it has when you “share” something). Same counts for something like **"Send Your Feedback"**, because is it send to the server or by email and to who, and is this information really necessary? Keep it clear and simple. | The ideal one is **Post** or **Share**.
Commit refers to a Final change which one can rollback to as a Checkpoint.
Apply refers to a change they have recently made.
Send is often used in Messaging.
Okay is an affirmative action but doesn't convey what is going to happen unless you ask a question before.
**Posting a comment** makes most sense. But since it's a community, it's also sensible to **Share your thoughts** as a Comment. |
77,045 | Quite a few train stations have "Shin" in their name, then the name of the city. For example, Shin-Osaka, Shin-Sapporo, Shin-Kobe.
What does it mean, and does it indicate the station is for shinkansen (which in Japanese means "New trunk line"), Japanese bullet trains? | 2016/08/20 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/77045",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/324/"
] | What usually happens is that originally, there is a station named X (which may or may not be named after the city where it is located). At some point it is decided that the area needs a new station, and that the new station shall just be named "Shin-X", which should be understood as meaning "the new X".
Sometimes the reason why a new station is necessary is that a new Shinkansen line to the area is planned and it is determined that the existing station is not suitable to accomodate it. This is what happened in Shin-Osaka for example: the area around Osaka station did not have enough room for the necessary developments.
There can be many other reasons why a new station is needed, however. In the case of Shin-Sapporo, it was to serve a new urban development (which incidentally was also named Shin-Sapporo). An interesting one is Shin-Rifu (in Rifu town, near Sendai) which was established when the Tohoku Shinkansen started operating, not because the Shinkansen actually goes to this station, but to accomodate employees and visitors of the neighbouring Shinkansen rail yard. The Japanese wikipedia page of a station usually has a "History" section where some background information about its establishment is given.
And sometimes Shin is just part of the "actual" name of the station, as with Shintoku station (in Shintoku city, Hokkaido). | If you read the Wikipedia articles on the stations and the Shinkansen, you will learn that "shin" means *new.* Stations with "shin" in their names may be Shinkansen stations, as with Shin-Osaka, or not, as with Shin-Sapporo. |
830,785 | The UIKit reference says UIView is a superclass of UIWindow, but despite of this parentage, a UIWindow actually manages UIViews. This sounds so unusual to me.
Does anyone know what the significants of this are in terms of software design?
Many thanks.
EDIT:
I read the related paragraph in the iPhone programming guide. Yet I couldn't see why they do the reverse: let UIWindow be the parent of UIView. There must have been some thing that forced Apple to design the class hierarchy this way. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/830785",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8203/"
] | from <http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/WindowsandViews/WindowsandViews.html>
>
> One thing that experienced Mac OS X developers may find unusual about the UIWindow class is its inheritance. In Mac OS X, the parent class of NSWindow is NSResponder. In iPhone OS, the parent class of UIWindow is UIView. Thus, in iPhone OS, a window is also a view object. Despite its parentage, you typically treat windows in iPhone OS the same as you would in Mac OS X. That is, you typically do not manipulate the view-related properties of a UIWindow object directly.
>
>
>
EDIT:
the UIView is something generic (provides common methods you use to create all types of views and access their properties. ) while UIWindow is more concrete (class defines objects that manage and coordinate the windows an application displays on the screen.)
I know is a little vague and I think only apple would know the exact reason for this hierarchy.
<http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIWindow_Class/UIWindowClassReference/UIWindowClassReference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/UIWindow>
>
> The UIWindow class defines objects (known as windows ) that manage and coordinate the windows an application displays on the screen. The two principal functions of a window are to provide an area for displaying its views and to distribute events to the views.
>
>
>
and
<http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIView_Class/UIView/UIView.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/UIView>
>
> The UIView class provides common methods you use to create all types of views and access their properties. For example, unless a subclass has its own designated initializer, you use the initWithFrame: method to create a view. The frame property specifies the origin and size of a view in superview coordinates. The origin of the coordinate system for all views is in the upper-left corner.
>
>
> UIView objects are arranged within an UIWindow object, in a nested hierarchy of subviews. Parent objects in the view hierarchy are called superviews, and children are called subviews. A view object claims a rectangular region of its enclosing superview, is responsible for all drawing within that region, and is eligible to receive events occurring in it as well. Sibling views are able to overlap without any issues, allowing complex view placement.
>
>
> | Because then every UIView would have (inherited) properties and behavior that only makes sense for windows. That's just wrong.
The other way around makes more sense: a window adds behavior on top of views. So it can draw, have bounds, contain other views, etc. But it extends this with, e.g., knowing how to render to the display.
In MacOS X, NSWindows are not views. They contain a "root view", called the contentView. iOS windows are a composition of NSWindow + its root view. |
830,785 | The UIKit reference says UIView is a superclass of UIWindow, but despite of this parentage, a UIWindow actually manages UIViews. This sounds so unusual to me.
Does anyone know what the significants of this are in terms of software design?
Many thanks.
EDIT:
I read the related paragraph in the iPhone programming guide. Yet I couldn't see why they do the reverse: let UIWindow be the parent of UIView. There must have been some thing that forced Apple to design the class hierarchy this way. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/830785",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8203/"
] | from <http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/WindowsandViews/WindowsandViews.html>
>
> One thing that experienced Mac OS X developers may find unusual about the UIWindow class is its inheritance. In Mac OS X, the parent class of NSWindow is NSResponder. In iPhone OS, the parent class of UIWindow is UIView. Thus, in iPhone OS, a window is also a view object. Despite its parentage, you typically treat windows in iPhone OS the same as you would in Mac OS X. That is, you typically do not manipulate the view-related properties of a UIWindow object directly.
>
>
>
EDIT:
the UIView is something generic (provides common methods you use to create all types of views and access their properties. ) while UIWindow is more concrete (class defines objects that manage and coordinate the windows an application displays on the screen.)
I know is a little vague and I think only apple would know the exact reason for this hierarchy.
<http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIWindow_Class/UIWindowClassReference/UIWindowClassReference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/UIWindow>
>
> The UIWindow class defines objects (known as windows ) that manage and coordinate the windows an application displays on the screen. The two principal functions of a window are to provide an area for displaying its views and to distribute events to the views.
>
>
>
and
<http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIView_Class/UIView/UIView.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/UIView>
>
> The UIView class provides common methods you use to create all types of views and access their properties. For example, unless a subclass has its own designated initializer, you use the initWithFrame: method to create a view. The frame property specifies the origin and size of a view in superview coordinates. The origin of the coordinate system for all views is in the upper-left corner.
>
>
> UIView objects are arranged within an UIWindow object, in a nested hierarchy of subviews. Parent objects in the view hierarchy are called superviews, and children are called subviews. A view object claims a rectangular region of its enclosing superview, is responsible for all drawing within that region, and is eligible to receive events occurring in it as well. Sibling views are able to overlap without any issues, allowing complex view placement.
>
>
> | Each regular UIView including the main window’s root view should have a parent view. UIWindow inherits UIView to perform duties of a parent view in a view hierarchy.
UIWindow is not regular view and has its own implementations of methods from UIView's interface. |
302,991 | Do the prepositions have different meanings? I don't exactly know their meanings. Let me know the meanings if you have the time. Please help me. | 2016/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/302991",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/156841/"
] | The preposition *with* has some basic meaning of association or accompaniment, but it is a versatile word: the *OED* records forty separate senses (some of which are obsolete). It can signify conflict, as in
>
> I argued **with you**
>
>
>
or it can express an amicable exchange, as in
>
> I traded pleasantries **with you**.
>
>
>
The preposition *to* is just as flexible as *with*, finding basic meanings in movement towards or proximity in time and space:
>
> At ten **to** six, I ran **to you** so I could stand next **to you**.
>
>
>
But it has many uses in expressing association:
>
> If I'm not your cousin, what is my relationship **to you**?
>
>
>
Notice that this is a genealogical usage, but in a more general sense, I could also say
>
> I have a good relationship **with you**.
>
>
>
These words come to us from Old English. The *OED* traces their uses back over one thousand years, giving them a complicated semantic history. Thus which one to use when is a matter of idiomatic context and cannot be determined without that context. There are no simple definitions that will encompass their entire meaning and no simple rules to tell you which to use. | The short answer is, "it depends". And what it depends upon is largely context. It is possible that "with you" and "to you' mean the same thing, but also that they could mean different things -- the verb in each case is probably going to govern how they are understood.
In the case of the verb "To Do":
* What can I do to you?
* What can I do with you?
In the first case, I am going to act upon you, possibly without your consent and probably in a negative sense. In the second, it is possibly without your consent, but the action is more ambiguous. It might be good, it might be bad, but the sentence alone doesn't make this clear.
The verb "To Talk":
* I will talk to you.
* I will talk with you.
In the first case I am going to speak to you and I'm not necessarily going to listen to your response, but I might, and the implication is that this will be a monolog or a speech. In the second, it implies that we will have a conversation or a dialog.
The problem is, so much is determined by context and the verb used with the preposition that it is impractical for us to give you an exhaustive answer.
You might have better luck on the [English Language Learners](https://ell.stackexchange.com/) stack exchange, or read the definitions of "with" and "to" in an English language dictionary. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.