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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | **Unquestioningly** seems to fit your request; it's one word that means exactly what you describe. In some contexts, **blindly** might also be appropriate.
>
> She agreed to follow, *unquestioningly*.
>
>
> She agreed to follow, *blindly*.
>
>
>
While neither of those words indicate the presence of agreement or acceptance on their own, they do express the lack of questions. Depending on context, you could do away with the "agree" part and say something like:
>
> She followed *unquestioningly*
>
>
>
However, if, say, the following is yet to come and the unquestioned act is actually just the agreement, then *agreed unquestioningly* is about as close as it gets without introducing positive/negative connotations or without introducing the possibility for questions.
If the context is about accepting or believing something, the idiom **take at face value** might be appropriate, but it doesn't fit the one or two word criterion. | Agreed [wholeheartedly](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wholehearted) might be the word:
>
> marked by complete earnest commitment; free from all reserve or hesitation. "gave the proposal *wholehearted* approval"
>
>
> |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | You can consider ***acquiesce***.
>
> to accept, agree, or allow something to happen by staying silent or by not arguing [[MW]](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquiesce)
>
>
>
The verb *acquiesce* comes from the Latin word *acquiescere*, meaning “to rest.” If you “rest” or become passive in the face of something to which you object, you are giving tacit agreement, you acquiesce. | "She agreed *unequivocally*" is another way that you could say the same thing as the (helpful) suggestions above. |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | The (dead?) metaphor **rubber-stamp** is often used in situations like this.
>
> *rubber-stamp* (verb) [with object] Approve automatically without proper
> consideration: [P]arliament merely rubber-stamped the decisions of the
> party
>
>
>
{[Oxford Dictionaries](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rubber-stamp)} | Agreed [wholeheartedly](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wholehearted) might be the word:
>
> marked by complete earnest commitment; free from all reserve or hesitation. "gave the proposal *wholehearted* approval"
>
>
> |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | >
> *She [concurred](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concur).*
>
>
>
It doesn't necessarily specify *without question* but is used in situations where brevity is desired to agree with a statement.
Another word is [acquiesce](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquiesce) which means agree without protest. | "She agreed *unequivocally*" is another way that you could say the same thing as the (helpful) suggestions above. |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | >
> *She [concurred](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concur).*
>
>
>
It doesn't necessarily specify *without question* but is used in situations where brevity is desired to agree with a statement.
Another word is [acquiesce](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquiesce) which means agree without protest. | **Unquestioningly** seems to fit your request; it's one word that means exactly what you describe. In some contexts, **blindly** might also be appropriate.
>
> She agreed to follow, *unquestioningly*.
>
>
> She agreed to follow, *blindly*.
>
>
>
While neither of those words indicate the presence of agreement or acceptance on their own, they do express the lack of questions. Depending on context, you could do away with the "agree" part and say something like:
>
> She followed *unquestioningly*
>
>
>
However, if, say, the following is yet to come and the unquestioned act is actually just the agreement, then *agreed unquestioningly* is about as close as it gets without introducing positive/negative connotations or without introducing the possibility for questions.
If the context is about accepting or believing something, the idiom **take at face value** might be appropriate, but it doesn't fit the one or two word criterion. |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | "She agreed *unequivocally*" is another way that you could say the same thing as the (helpful) suggestions above. | Agreed [wholeheartedly](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wholehearted) might be the word:
>
> marked by complete earnest commitment; free from all reserve or hesitation. "gave the proposal *wholehearted* approval"
>
>
> |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | **Unquestioningly** seems to fit your request; it's one word that means exactly what you describe. In some contexts, **blindly** might also be appropriate.
>
> She agreed to follow, *unquestioningly*.
>
>
> She agreed to follow, *blindly*.
>
>
>
While neither of those words indicate the presence of agreement or acceptance on their own, they do express the lack of questions. Depending on context, you could do away with the "agree" part and say something like:
>
> She followed *unquestioningly*
>
>
>
However, if, say, the following is yet to come and the unquestioned act is actually just the agreement, then *agreed unquestioningly* is about as close as it gets without introducing positive/negative connotations or without introducing the possibility for questions.
If the context is about accepting or believing something, the idiom **take at face value** might be appropriate, but it doesn't fit the one or two word criterion. | I think "she agreed doubtlessly" or "she agreed in a servile manner" fits what you are looking for. |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | Agreed [wholeheartedly](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wholehearted) might be the word:
>
> marked by complete earnest commitment; free from all reserve or hesitation. "gave the proposal *wholehearted* approval"
>
>
> | I think "she agreed doubtlessly" or "she agreed in a servile manner" fits what you are looking for. |
224,381 | I felt that maybe there is an alternate and concise way of saying **She agreed to follow without asking questions** in one(or two) word(s) ? | 2015/01/29 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/224381",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/107857/"
] | You can consider ***acquiesce***.
>
> to accept, agree, or allow something to happen by staying silent or by not arguing [[MW]](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquiesce)
>
>
>
The verb *acquiesce* comes from the Latin word *acquiescere*, meaning “to rest.” If you “rest” or become passive in the face of something to which you object, you are giving tacit agreement, you acquiesce. | Agreed [wholeheartedly](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wholehearted) might be the word:
>
> marked by complete earnest commitment; free from all reserve or hesitation. "gave the proposal *wholehearted* approval"
>
>
> |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | You don't need to dual boot with Windows. Just burn elementary to a USB using etcher or rufus and boot from the USB. Install elementary and choose to wipe the disc rather than install alongside.
I have a Dell Inspiron laptop and have never had any issues with any distribution. Dell have always been friends with Linux. Also Daniel Fore (elementary lead developer) uses a Lenovo Yoga with a HiDPI screen and they have been making great strides with HiDPI so you'll likely have a good experience with that as well. | Lenovo laptops work pretty good with Linux.
On the other hand, I don’t recommend HP - I have one of these and they claim that there’s Linux support, but they doesn’t support my model. |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | You don't need to dual boot with Windows. Just burn elementary to a USB using etcher or rufus and boot from the USB. Install elementary and choose to wipe the disc rather than install alongside.
I have a Dell Inspiron laptop and have never had any issues with any distribution. Dell have always been friends with Linux. Also Daniel Fore (elementary lead developer) uses a Lenovo Yoga with a HiDPI screen and they have been making great strides with HiDPI so you'll likely have a good experience with that as well. | I recently bought a Gigabyte Sabre 17. Almost everything works with eOS. The nVidia GPU seems to have a windows-detecting routine built-in - Nvidia's own Linux installer can't even find it. But if you are not a gamer or a heavy video editor, Intel Graphics are perfectly fine.
If you are looking for value for money rather than bragging rights, I can recommend Gigabyte. |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | >
> Any suggestions for a good laptop that runs well with Elementary?
>
>
>
Currently (2018), any new gen intel laptops have a good support with debian based distros (like Elementary), so it will run flawless.
The AMDs processors will run... well, the new ryzen is having a little trouble with debians distros [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ox31y/what_is_the_state_of_ryzen_on_linux/), but not something that would trouble (only if you are a dev or want go into advanced mode).
For video cards, **I have** a better experience with Nvidia (and it's drivers), but RADEON cards are [good too](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/use-amd-nvidia-gpus-linux/).
>
> Anywhere to purchase one with Elementary installed?
>
>
>
I [saw a laptop](https://itsfoss.com/elementary-litebook/) in the begin of the year, it was an Elementary OS powered laptop with some additional programs installed by default, but if I was you, I would buy something more powerful and plug it with a bootable elementary usb for a clean install.
>
> do I need to buy a Windows machine and dual boot?
>
>
>
No you don't, you can test it with a bootable USB drive without installing it OR you can install it in dual boot OR wipe it and make a full elementary os laptop. | You don't need to dual boot with Windows. Just burn elementary to a USB using etcher or rufus and boot from the USB. Install elementary and choose to wipe the disc rather than install alongside.
I have a Dell Inspiron laptop and have never had any issues with any distribution. Dell have always been friends with Linux. Also Daniel Fore (elementary lead developer) uses a Lenovo Yoga with a HiDPI screen and they have been making great strides with HiDPI so you'll likely have a good experience with that as well. |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | You don't need to dual boot with Windows. Just burn elementary to a USB using etcher or rufus and boot from the USB. Install elementary and choose to wipe the disc rather than install alongside.
I have a Dell Inspiron laptop and have never had any issues with any distribution. Dell have always been friends with Linux. Also Daniel Fore (elementary lead developer) uses a Lenovo Yoga with a HiDPI screen and they have been making great strides with HiDPI so you'll likely have a good experience with that as well. | Dell XPS 13 - Developer Edition - designed with Ubuntu in mind, hence elementary works OOB :) |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | >
> Any suggestions for a good laptop that runs well with Elementary?
>
>
>
Currently (2018), any new gen intel laptops have a good support with debian based distros (like Elementary), so it will run flawless.
The AMDs processors will run... well, the new ryzen is having a little trouble with debians distros [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ox31y/what_is_the_state_of_ryzen_on_linux/), but not something that would trouble (only if you are a dev or want go into advanced mode).
For video cards, **I have** a better experience with Nvidia (and it's drivers), but RADEON cards are [good too](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/use-amd-nvidia-gpus-linux/).
>
> Anywhere to purchase one with Elementary installed?
>
>
>
I [saw a laptop](https://itsfoss.com/elementary-litebook/) in the begin of the year, it was an Elementary OS powered laptop with some additional programs installed by default, but if I was you, I would buy something more powerful and plug it with a bootable elementary usb for a clean install.
>
> do I need to buy a Windows machine and dual boot?
>
>
>
No you don't, you can test it with a bootable USB drive without installing it OR you can install it in dual boot OR wipe it and make a full elementary os laptop. | Lenovo laptops work pretty good with Linux.
On the other hand, I don’t recommend HP - I have one of these and they claim that there’s Linux support, but they doesn’t support my model. |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | >
> Any suggestions for a good laptop that runs well with Elementary?
>
>
>
Currently (2018), any new gen intel laptops have a good support with debian based distros (like Elementary), so it will run flawless.
The AMDs processors will run... well, the new ryzen is having a little trouble with debians distros [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ox31y/what_is_the_state_of_ryzen_on_linux/), but not something that would trouble (only if you are a dev or want go into advanced mode).
For video cards, **I have** a better experience with Nvidia (and it's drivers), but RADEON cards are [good too](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/use-amd-nvidia-gpus-linux/).
>
> Anywhere to purchase one with Elementary installed?
>
>
>
I [saw a laptop](https://itsfoss.com/elementary-litebook/) in the begin of the year, it was an Elementary OS powered laptop with some additional programs installed by default, but if I was you, I would buy something more powerful and plug it with a bootable elementary usb for a clean install.
>
> do I need to buy a Windows machine and dual boot?
>
>
>
No you don't, you can test it with a bootable USB drive without installing it OR you can install it in dual boot OR wipe it and make a full elementary os laptop. | I recently bought a Gigabyte Sabre 17. Almost everything works with eOS. The nVidia GPU seems to have a windows-detecting routine built-in - Nvidia's own Linux installer can't even find it. But if you are not a gamer or a heavy video editor, Intel Graphics are perfectly fine.
If you are looking for value for money rather than bragging rights, I can recommend Gigabyte. |
15,552 | Experiencing odd behavior only in my Windows 10 Guest.
When I click the start menu, no keyboard output goes to the VM.
I can still click on applications with the mouse.
I've also seen this in the VPN creation screen.
I have a Windows 7 VM and have not had this happen.
I have the latest version of VirtualBox and Extensions.
I've also tried switching to full screen mode and enabling/disabling Auto Capture Keyboard. | 2018/05/15 | [
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/questions/15552",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com",
"https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/users/14141/"
] | >
> Any suggestions for a good laptop that runs well with Elementary?
>
>
>
Currently (2018), any new gen intel laptops have a good support with debian based distros (like Elementary), so it will run flawless.
The AMDs processors will run... well, the new ryzen is having a little trouble with debians distros [as you can see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ox31y/what_is_the_state_of_ryzen_on_linux/), but not something that would trouble (only if you are a dev or want go into advanced mode).
For video cards, **I have** a better experience with Nvidia (and it's drivers), but RADEON cards are [good too](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/use-amd-nvidia-gpus-linux/).
>
> Anywhere to purchase one with Elementary installed?
>
>
>
I [saw a laptop](https://itsfoss.com/elementary-litebook/) in the begin of the year, it was an Elementary OS powered laptop with some additional programs installed by default, but if I was you, I would buy something more powerful and plug it with a bootable elementary usb for a clean install.
>
> do I need to buy a Windows machine and dual boot?
>
>
>
No you don't, you can test it with a bootable USB drive without installing it OR you can install it in dual boot OR wipe it and make a full elementary os laptop. | Dell XPS 13 - Developer Edition - designed with Ubuntu in mind, hence elementary works OOB :) |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | Or, you might ask why isn't there a "paste as plain text" option, and the reason is because it won't be as frequently used as the paste with format option.
In Windows (I guess that other OSs do the same) when you copy something, it's set in the clipboard in different formats, to allow the paste step to choose the one that fits the most.
For example when you copy browser content, the browser loads multiple versions in the clipboard, like an HTML version, a plain text one, and maybe more.
If you paste into a Notepad window it puts the plain text, else the more formatted one.
I have noticed that copying from the browser and pasting in Office apps does a decent format preservation effort that years before it only happened between IE and Office.
Like for example when you copy a browser table and paste it in Excel. in this case one does not complain about format preservation.
If you want to get rid of the format you can paste in and cut from Notepad as an intermediate stage. Instead of cut & paste you cave copy & paste & cut & paste. | The formatting can provide semantic meaning to the copied text that is lost in plain text.
Bold, underlined and italic text can convey many meanings in text (e.g. titles, foreign language words and emphasis) that is lost if the formatting is discarded. What's more, this can have a profound impact on content written, for instance, in Word and pasted into a CMS for use on the web. Authors can't always tell that their copy has changed style just by looking at it.
Colour also has a similar use; how many times have we received an email saying something like "my comments are in red", only to find the email's formatting was removed somewhere along the way?
While typeface rarely conveys any special meaning for the text itself, symbol/dingbat fonts often repurpose existing characters to represent symbols. I receive emails from Outlook users ending in the letter "J" all the time because the sender used a smiley face, and Office automatically substitutes it with a character in Windings.
Tabular information especially can lose its meaning when it is converted to plain text. The spacial relationship between cells is lost removing a dimension of the data.
In general, preserving the formatting of copied text is required to adhere to the principle of least surprise (in most cases). Where formatting is likely to be surprising (e.g. in Notepad or in InDesign), it should be (and often is) suppressed. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | Or, you might ask why isn't there a "paste as plain text" option, and the reason is because it won't be as frequently used as the paste with format option.
In Windows (I guess that other OSs do the same) when you copy something, it's set in the clipboard in different formats, to allow the paste step to choose the one that fits the most.
For example when you copy browser content, the browser loads multiple versions in the clipboard, like an HTML version, a plain text one, and maybe more.
If you paste into a Notepad window it puts the plain text, else the more formatted one.
I have noticed that copying from the browser and pasting in Office apps does a decent format preservation effort that years before it only happened between IE and Office.
Like for example when you copy a browser table and paste it in Excel. in this case one does not complain about format preservation.
If you want to get rid of the format you can paste in and cut from Notepad as an intermediate stage. Instead of cut & paste you cave copy & paste & cut & paste. | As said above i believe it's because it is often assumed you will be copying and pasting in the same application and therefore you will want to keep the same formatting rather than having to do so yourself. I can see that it is designed to save the user but personally i would prefer to have it unformatted when i copy and paste and either select an option to keep the formatting or format it myself. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I believe it's because people assume you will copy/paste between the same app (or even the same document) often, so it's better to preserve the formatting and sometimes it's hard (or even impossible due to clipboard API, etc) to find out the source (i.e. copy from) app and decide whatever you should paste raw data or keep formatting untouched.
Personally, I hate this too sometimes (usually a copy/paste between two different apps, like web browser and e-mail client). | The formatting can provide semantic meaning to the copied text that is lost in plain text.
Bold, underlined and italic text can convey many meanings in text (e.g. titles, foreign language words and emphasis) that is lost if the formatting is discarded. What's more, this can have a profound impact on content written, for instance, in Word and pasted into a CMS for use on the web. Authors can't always tell that their copy has changed style just by looking at it.
Colour also has a similar use; how many times have we received an email saying something like "my comments are in red", only to find the email's formatting was removed somewhere along the way?
While typeface rarely conveys any special meaning for the text itself, symbol/dingbat fonts often repurpose existing characters to represent symbols. I receive emails from Outlook users ending in the letter "J" all the time because the sender used a smiley face, and Office automatically substitutes it with a character in Windings.
Tabular information especially can lose its meaning when it is converted to plain text. The spacial relationship between cells is lost removing a dimension of the data.
In general, preserving the formatting of copied text is required to adhere to the principle of least surprise (in most cases). Where formatting is likely to be surprising (e.g. in Notepad or in InDesign), it should be (and often is) suppressed. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I can think of a few reasons.
1. It's a simpler mental model. You copy something and you paste it. You don't paste the result of some transformation of the object you copied, you get the exact same object you picked up. Simpler actions are better in that they are more predictable and less confusing. It's called "paste", it's not called "remove formatting and paste". In the same way that the right-click menu in Google Chrome address bar has the action "paste" and the separate action "paste and go" (if you copied a URL), although there's hardly a reason to paste a URL into the address bar if you don't mean to go there. I can think of some cases, but they're pretty rare compared to the "go to" scenario.
2. It's a safe route to take. It's hard for us to anticipate the users' wishes. If you change what they copied, you may or may not get it right. And there is a lot of different use cases. "Assumption is the mother of all *\**\*-up", they say. And if you get it wrong, users get annoyed at you for thinking you know them. When you're making no changes to the item, you're making no assumptions, you let the user have exactly what he had in the first place.
3. Apps like Photoshop. A layer has many different properties. Would you remove any of those when you paste? Which ones? The same for Excel cells - do you default to the formula, the value or the formatting? An intuitive default for you may not be the intuitive default for someone else.
4. Not everyone understands the notion of copying a style, or just the formatting. It takes a certain level of technical understanding and of abstract thought. So when people want to use the same formatting they have on a piece of text, they'll copy it and then change the text. It's basically the layman's hack for reproducing a formatting that is difficult to define. | As said above i believe it's because it is often assumed you will be copying and pasting in the same application and therefore you will want to keep the same formatting rather than having to do so yourself. I can see that it is designed to save the user but personally i would prefer to have it unformatted when i copy and paste and either select an option to keep the formatting or format it myself. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | These are all valid UX centric answers. UX is not always the driver in technology decisions. It takes the least amount of engineering effort to copy everything and paste everything. I bet that was the driver in these decisions.
It's the UX folks that probably originated the paste special option you see in some applications... they probably had to fight for it. | The formatting can provide semantic meaning to the copied text that is lost in plain text.
Bold, underlined and italic text can convey many meanings in text (e.g. titles, foreign language words and emphasis) that is lost if the formatting is discarded. What's more, this can have a profound impact on content written, for instance, in Word and pasted into a CMS for use on the web. Authors can't always tell that their copy has changed style just by looking at it.
Colour also has a similar use; how many times have we received an email saying something like "my comments are in red", only to find the email's formatting was removed somewhere along the way?
While typeface rarely conveys any special meaning for the text itself, symbol/dingbat fonts often repurpose existing characters to represent symbols. I receive emails from Outlook users ending in the letter "J" all the time because the sender used a smiley face, and Office automatically substitutes it with a character in Windings.
Tabular information especially can lose its meaning when it is converted to plain text. The spacial relationship between cells is lost removing a dimension of the data.
In general, preserving the formatting of copied text is required to adhere to the principle of least surprise (in most cases). Where formatting is likely to be surprising (e.g. in Notepad or in InDesign), it should be (and often is) suppressed. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I believe it's because people assume you will copy/paste between the same app (or even the same document) often, so it's better to preserve the formatting and sometimes it's hard (or even impossible due to clipboard API, etc) to find out the source (i.e. copy from) app and decide whatever you should paste raw data or keep formatting untouched.
Personally, I hate this too sometimes (usually a copy/paste between two different apps, like web browser and e-mail client). | These are all valid UX centric answers. UX is not always the driver in technology decisions. It takes the least amount of engineering effort to copy everything and paste everything. I bet that was the driver in these decisions.
It's the UX folks that probably originated the paste special option you see in some applications... they probably had to fight for it. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | These are all valid UX centric answers. UX is not always the driver in technology decisions. It takes the least amount of engineering effort to copy everything and paste everything. I bet that was the driver in these decisions.
It's the UX folks that probably originated the paste special option you see in some applications... they probably had to fight for it. | As said above i believe it's because it is often assumed you will be copying and pasting in the same application and therefore you will want to keep the same formatting rather than having to do so yourself. I can see that it is designed to save the user but personally i would prefer to have it unformatted when i copy and paste and either select an option to keep the formatting or format it myself. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I can think of a few reasons.
1. It's a simpler mental model. You copy something and you paste it. You don't paste the result of some transformation of the object you copied, you get the exact same object you picked up. Simpler actions are better in that they are more predictable and less confusing. It's called "paste", it's not called "remove formatting and paste". In the same way that the right-click menu in Google Chrome address bar has the action "paste" and the separate action "paste and go" (if you copied a URL), although there's hardly a reason to paste a URL into the address bar if you don't mean to go there. I can think of some cases, but they're pretty rare compared to the "go to" scenario.
2. It's a safe route to take. It's hard for us to anticipate the users' wishes. If you change what they copied, you may or may not get it right. And there is a lot of different use cases. "Assumption is the mother of all *\**\*-up", they say. And if you get it wrong, users get annoyed at you for thinking you know them. When you're making no changes to the item, you're making no assumptions, you let the user have exactly what he had in the first place.
3. Apps like Photoshop. A layer has many different properties. Would you remove any of those when you paste? Which ones? The same for Excel cells - do you default to the formula, the value or the formatting? An intuitive default for you may not be the intuitive default for someone else.
4. Not everyone understands the notion of copying a style, or just the formatting. It takes a certain level of technical understanding and of abstract thought. So when people want to use the same formatting they have on a piece of text, they'll copy it and then change the text. It's basically the layman's hack for reproducing a formatting that is difficult to define. | I believe it's because people assume you will copy/paste between the same app (or even the same document) often, so it's better to preserve the formatting and sometimes it's hard (or even impossible due to clipboard API, etc) to find out the source (i.e. copy from) app and decide whatever you should paste raw data or keep formatting untouched.
Personally, I hate this too sometimes (usually a copy/paste between two different apps, like web browser and e-mail client). |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I can think of a few reasons.
1. It's a simpler mental model. You copy something and you paste it. You don't paste the result of some transformation of the object you copied, you get the exact same object you picked up. Simpler actions are better in that they are more predictable and less confusing. It's called "paste", it's not called "remove formatting and paste". In the same way that the right-click menu in Google Chrome address bar has the action "paste" and the separate action "paste and go" (if you copied a URL), although there's hardly a reason to paste a URL into the address bar if you don't mean to go there. I can think of some cases, but they're pretty rare compared to the "go to" scenario.
2. It's a safe route to take. It's hard for us to anticipate the users' wishes. If you change what they copied, you may or may not get it right. And there is a lot of different use cases. "Assumption is the mother of all *\**\*-up", they say. And if you get it wrong, users get annoyed at you for thinking you know them. When you're making no changes to the item, you're making no assumptions, you let the user have exactly what he had in the first place.
3. Apps like Photoshop. A layer has many different properties. Would you remove any of those when you paste? Which ones? The same for Excel cells - do you default to the formula, the value or the formatting? An intuitive default for you may not be the intuitive default for someone else.
4. Not everyone understands the notion of copying a style, or just the formatting. It takes a certain level of technical understanding and of abstract thought. So when people want to use the same formatting they have on a piece of text, they'll copy it and then change the text. It's basically the layman's hack for reproducing a formatting that is difficult to define. | Or, you might ask why isn't there a "paste as plain text" option, and the reason is because it won't be as frequently used as the paste with format option.
In Windows (I guess that other OSs do the same) when you copy something, it's set in the clipboard in different formats, to allow the paste step to choose the one that fits the most.
For example when you copy browser content, the browser loads multiple versions in the clipboard, like an HTML version, a plain text one, and maybe more.
If you paste into a Notepad window it puts the plain text, else the more formatted one.
I have noticed that copying from the browser and pasting in Office apps does a decent format preservation effort that years before it only happened between IE and Office.
Like for example when you copy a browser table and paste it in Excel. in this case one does not complain about format preservation.
If you want to get rid of the format you can paste in and cut from Notepad as an intermediate stage. Instead of cut & paste you cave copy & paste & cut & paste. |
30,821 | Like most people, I use copy and paste a lot in my day to day life, but I can't think of a single time that I have wanted to copy the formatting over with the content. Instead, I always seem to have to go through some paste special option that often doesn't have a keyboard shortcut.
**Why doesn't pasting (Ctrl-V or Command-V) default to unformatted text?** | 2012/12/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30821",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/4595/"
] | I can think of a few reasons.
1. It's a simpler mental model. You copy something and you paste it. You don't paste the result of some transformation of the object you copied, you get the exact same object you picked up. Simpler actions are better in that they are more predictable and less confusing. It's called "paste", it's not called "remove formatting and paste". In the same way that the right-click menu in Google Chrome address bar has the action "paste" and the separate action "paste and go" (if you copied a URL), although there's hardly a reason to paste a URL into the address bar if you don't mean to go there. I can think of some cases, but they're pretty rare compared to the "go to" scenario.
2. It's a safe route to take. It's hard for us to anticipate the users' wishes. If you change what they copied, you may or may not get it right. And there is a lot of different use cases. "Assumption is the mother of all *\**\*-up", they say. And if you get it wrong, users get annoyed at you for thinking you know them. When you're making no changes to the item, you're making no assumptions, you let the user have exactly what he had in the first place.
3. Apps like Photoshop. A layer has many different properties. Would you remove any of those when you paste? Which ones? The same for Excel cells - do you default to the formula, the value or the formatting? An intuitive default for you may not be the intuitive default for someone else.
4. Not everyone understands the notion of copying a style, or just the formatting. It takes a certain level of technical understanding and of abstract thought. So when people want to use the same formatting they have on a piece of text, they'll copy it and then change the text. It's basically the layman's hack for reproducing a formatting that is difficult to define. | These are all valid UX centric answers. UX is not always the driver in technology decisions. It takes the least amount of engineering effort to copy everything and paste everything. I bet that was the driver in these decisions.
It's the UX folks that probably originated the paste special option you see in some applications... they probably had to fight for it. |
2,939 | Fixing typos usually results in changing a character or very few.
When trying to fix such typos (on other people questions), I get a message that the change is too short.
I bypassed that problem by adding some more characters and deleting them in another edit but it seems like a hack.
It seems that I also cannot revert to the previous version so 3 rounds are needed.
How should typos be fixed? | 2016/02/03 | [
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2939",
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/users/81056/"
] | If you really can't see anything else that needs fixing, perhaps best to wait until you get 2000 reputation points & the privilege of making edits which don't need review, & can be of any length, rather than mess up the edit history with work-arounds. But if you look carefully, there's often something else. The idea behind the rule is to avoid the review queue's being filled with tiny edit suggestions (even though our queue's usually empty at the moment). | Please don't do minor changes, unless you can combine them with larger changes in the same post. Remember that [editing a question bumps it to the top of the "active questions" list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/178490/256777). Add this to people having to sign off on your edits until you reach the 2k rep threshold, and at some point changing "their" to "there" actually turns from signal into noise. |
2,939 | Fixing typos usually results in changing a character or very few.
When trying to fix such typos (on other people questions), I get a message that the change is too short.
I bypassed that problem by adding some more characters and deleting them in another edit but it seems like a hack.
It seems that I also cannot revert to the previous version so 3 rounds are needed.
How should typos be fixed? | 2016/02/03 | [
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2939",
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/users/81056/"
] | In general you should not fix a single letter typo; one exception would be if it's an important word in the title (since people search for those!). The fact that the system tries to prevent you from making very small edits is deliberate -- it tries to stop you because you probably shouldn't. The [editing-privilege page](https://stats.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit) says "Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged - try to make the post significantly better when you edit, correcting all problems that you observe." ... single letter edits are about as tiny as they come, so that's what it's asking you to avoid.
I posted some of those links in comments in order that you saw some of the discussion of edge cases and potential exceptions (e.g. many one-character changes in mathematics may be the opposite of trivial; the abovementioned issue with title keywords) | Please don't do minor changes, unless you can combine them with larger changes in the same post. Remember that [editing a question bumps it to the top of the "active questions" list](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/178490/256777). Add this to people having to sign off on your edits until you reach the 2k rep threshold, and at some point changing "their" to "there" actually turns from signal into noise. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | Dietary rules among Christians vary from sect to sect. The starting point for understanding the Christian views on food regulation is in the book of Acts, chapter 10, when Peter has a vision and is told that he may eat any kind of food, even unclean food that does not meet Jewish regulations, such as pork. This is symbolic: Peter was told that Gentiles who are "unclean" by Jewish custom may join the Church and become Christians. However, it is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.
However, there are circumstances in which a Christian should abstain from eating certain foods. This rule is binding on all small "o" orthodox Christians:
>
> 1 Corinthians 8:
>
>
> 8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess
> knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who
> think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But
> whoever loves God is known by God.[a]
>
>
> 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An
> idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but
> one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on
> earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us
> there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
> whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
> all things came and through whom we live.
>
>
> 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so
> accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of
> it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is
> weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are
> no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
>
>
> 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not
> become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak
> conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s
> temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to
> idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is
> destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way
> and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,
> if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will
> never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
>
>
>
Thus, if a Christian has a friend who is offended by something he eats, he should avoid eating it in their presence so as not to harm their friendship or confuse the person about what is right or wrong. The above prohibition is meant to keep Christians from openly participating in the rituals of other faiths and prevent syncretism. Also, since many people keep pets, it is frowned upon to eat animals kept as pets by people we know.
Many religions ban the consumption of alcohol. Some Christian denominations do, but most teach that so long as one does not become intoxicated, they are free to drink alcohol. My personal practice is to never drink in the presence of people I know are struggling with current or past alcoholism, so as not to cause them to stumble.
Some Christian denominations ban the use of tobacco, or the consumption of caffeine, but most permit it.
I was directed by one of the commenters to this passage from Matthew 15, which gives Jesus' opinion on the matter. He said that our speech and conduct is more important than our diet when it comes to pleasing God:
>
> 1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from
> Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of
> the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
>
>
> 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake
> of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’a and
> ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’b
> 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to
> help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to
> ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of
> God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right
> when he prophesied about you:
>
>
> “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far
> from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human
> rules.’ ” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and
> understand. 11 **What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them**, but
> what **comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them**.”
>
>
> | Christianity is broad in its beliefs of what may be eaten and what may not be eaten (see Acts 15, 1Co 8, and Gal 2:11-14 for a peek at early church debates on what foods may or may not be eaten).
Many Christians will point to Mark 7:19 or Acts 10:1-11:18 to indicate that God has declared all foods clean. Others recognize that Jesus did not abolish the law (Matt 5:17) and so the Old Testament requirements should still stand. Still others say that certain foods are still not allowed for health reasons (1Co 6:19).
In summary, there is no single "Christian" position on what foods are or are not allowed. However, I think your choosing to warn your friends about the particulars of a meat before sharing is a prudent choice. Then if their faith is such that it would hurt their conscience to discover afterwards that they have eaten horse meat, you have been a good friend to keep them from stumbling in their faith. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | Christianity is broad in its beliefs of what may be eaten and what may not be eaten (see Acts 15, 1Co 8, and Gal 2:11-14 for a peek at early church debates on what foods may or may not be eaten).
Many Christians will point to Mark 7:19 or Acts 10:1-11:18 to indicate that God has declared all foods clean. Others recognize that Jesus did not abolish the law (Matt 5:17) and so the Old Testament requirements should still stand. Still others say that certain foods are still not allowed for health reasons (1Co 6:19).
In summary, there is no single "Christian" position on what foods are or are not allowed. However, I think your choosing to warn your friends about the particulars of a meat before sharing is a prudent choice. Then if their faith is such that it would hurt their conscience to discover afterwards that they have eaten horse meat, you have been a good friend to keep them from stumbling in their faith. | I searched all the [statements of belief and catechisms published by the American Presbyterian Church](http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/) for the terms "food", "meat", "diet" and "kosher" and found no affirmation of the kosher diet specifically, or of Jewish law generally regarding allowed/disallowed foods or preparation standards.
So it would appear that at least the American Presbyterian Church has no official position on the matter. Anecdotally, I have not known American Presbyterians to follow the kosher standard. I would be surprised to learn that this was commonplace.
Nor do I find any statement regarding diet on what appears to be the official [Malaysian Presbyterian Church website](http://www.presbyterianmission.org/what-we-believe/theology/). If there is an official doctrine among them, it is not published there.
As to whether the wider Christian world beyond Presbyterianism is the same: @PaulChernoch answered:
>
> [Peter's vision in Acts c10] is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.
>
>
>
I have no doubt this is the prevailing view, at least in the West. (With @Piomicron's answer as anecdotal confirmation.) In this answer I present a contrasting view: that God expects all Christians to obey the kosher standard, that Jesus and the apostles taught exactly this, and that wide sections of Christendom have defied God for centuries in not doing so.
There is at least one Protestant denomination that respects the kosher standard: the [Seventh Day Adventists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet) uphold the kosher diet in compliance with the Torah. For them, it is not merely a good health practice, it is an imperative. (I am not a 7th Day Adventist.)
I have a few points in support of this position (not speaking specifically of 7th Day Adventism any more, but regarding the Bible text itself).
First, Jesus taught ([Matthew 5:17-19](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/matthew/5.html), link is a bit different):
>
> Do not think that I have come to loosen Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to loosen but to **fulfill** them through proper meaning. For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from Torah until everything happens. All who loosen, therefore, from one (of) these small commandments and teach thus to the sons of man, will be called little in the Kingdom of Heaven, but all who do and teach this will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
>
>
Some translations have "destroy" instead of "loosen". But the point is, "destroy" and "fulfill" cannot possibly be the same thing! But if the Torah does not have to be followed any more, at least at meal time, wouldn't that mean it was "loosened"? Therefore, by *modus potens*, Jesus affirms the kosher standard by this statement.
Also, this word "fulfill" has the same root in Aramaic ("D'MALA"), the vernacular language of that time and place, in the above teaching as in this proclamation ([John 19:30](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/john/19.html), link is a bit different):
>
> And when he had taken that vinegar Y'shua said, "Behold, it is finished!" And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
>
>
>
(The phrase "behold, it is finished" here would be Aramaic "HA MESHALAM". Same root word, according to [my study guide](https://www.aent.org/).) This statement is one of profound importance to the Christian faith generally, as it declares that by being crucified, Jesus has "finished" the reconciliation of mankind to God. The use of the same word makes a strong case that in "fulfilling" the law, Jesus does not intend for us to disregard it; rather the opposite.
My second point is to counter the other arguments offered here, all commonly discussed in my experience, that Christians are not expected to follow the kosher standard.
* As @PaulChernoch states, it is clear that Peter's vision described in Acts chapter 10 is not about food at all. It is about the visitation of the Holy Spirit upon Gentile people, not only Jews. This vision was a critical event in history. If not for this vision, non-Jews would never have been welcomed fully into the faith that later became known as Christianity. And if the vision is not about food, we should not pretend that it is.
* [This commentary](https://www.aent.org/) remarks on the passage from First Corinthians 8, quoted in the other answer: "In Torah and in Jewish culture, only kosher animals count as 'food'." Therefore the discussion in that chapter is solely about preparation methods, not about which species of meat are acceptable. Also: "The contrast Paul is drawing here is between eating kosher meat and worrying that said meat may have originally come from an unkosher place specifically as he says, 'the sacrifices of idols,' or pagan altars, but if such cannot be proven with certainty. In that situation, Paul is saying he would rather not eat meat at all rather than create division." Pork is off the radar here.
* The passage quoted in @EvanDonovan's answer in Acts 15, contrary to what is argued, *reinforces* the mandate to respect the kosher standard. Paraphrasing, the apostles specifically instruct new converts to respect the preparation requirements of kosher (do not eat blood, do not eat animals that have been strangled or sacrificed to idols). *Because that is required by Moses' law.* They do not mention what species are acceptable because Moses already clearly explains that. In this passage the apostles are deciding to emphasize these few simple points of direct instruction for new Gentile converts to the faith, who may feel overwhelmed by all there is to learn, leaving them to learn the Torah through normal study in synagogue beyond that. They are not issuing [indulgences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses).
Third and finally, I discuss Mark 7:18-20 at length. It is a very interesting and important passage, particularly regarding this issue, and I have spent a good amount of time studying it. I am not an academic, but I have decided for myself that this passage is also not actually about food at all. Rather it is about the treatment of *law* versus *tradition* by the Pharisees. There is more radical variation than normal between English translations. [King James (1769 edition)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=KJV) has a rather scatological interpretation:
>
> Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, **and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats**? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
>
>
>
[New International Version](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=NIV) has something *completely different*:
>
> "... For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, **and then out of the body**.” (In saying this, Jesus **declared all foods clean**.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. ..."
>
>
>
My [Greek New Testament](http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/mark/7.asp) has this phrase, corresponding to King James "purging the meats" and NIV "declared all foods clean":
>
> ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, **καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα**.
>
>
>
The bold phrase Romanized as "katharizon panta ta broumata". The *rendering* of the Greek text is not controversial, being found in the fourth-century [Codex Sinaiticus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) and other very old sources in identical form, according to my Greek New Testament edition. How to correctly *translate* it I find highly interesting. "Broumata" is "meat", I think in the plural. [Vine's Dictionary](http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved.html) has the verb "katharizo" as "purge" or "cleanse", and "pantos" as "altogether". This clause is just tacked on to the end of the sentence, which seemingly would also be grammatical without it.
However, my [Peshitta](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/mark/7.html) has (link is a bit different):
>
> ... You do not know that everything which enters into a man from the outside is not able to defile him. Because it does not enter into his heart, rather into his belly **and is cast out by excretion, which purifies all the food**. But anything that goes out from a man is that which defiles a man.
>
>
>
So we may have a fair amount of agreement between King James and the Peshitta here; both of them seeming to say something to the effect of, "you eat food and poop it out again, so what". Whereas the recent English translations from Greek (not just NIV but many translations from the past 50 or so years) seem to treat "katharizon panta ta broumata" as being a parenthetical waiver on eating whatever we feel like.
In order to make their translation grammatical in English, the NIV translators had to throw in the words "In saying this, Jesus ..." which have no corresponding noun or verb in the Greek. Clearly multiple scholars with degrees think this is OK; and what do I know after all. But I must wonder, if this really was the intended meaning, would it not have been written in Greek just that way? For example, John 21:19 has such a parenthetical remark explicitly written in Greek, and English translations seem to agree much more closely on it:
>
> τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν Θεόν.
>
>
> Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.
>
>
>
Another big difference between Mark 7:19 and John 21:19 is that even if John had not explained it to us, Jesus' words would still mean the same thing. He refers to Peter's death whether we realize it or not. Without John's parenthetical, the remark perhaps becomes more cryptic (unless you know how Peter was martyred), but it doesn't *change meaning*. But as translated in the NIV, Mark 7:19 actually means something *different* with vs without the parenthetical. With it, he is declaring all foods clean to eat. Without it, he is saying that eating without first washing hands does not corrupt you.
So in order to prefer the NIV to the King James / Peshitta here, we have to accept a similar English rendering to John 21:19 when the Greek is actually quite different. And when the plain meaning of Jesus' words probably changes without Mark explaining it to us! (Who is teaching, Jesus or Mark?) And we have to accept that "katharizon panta ta broumata" is not part of what Jesus actually said, even though it might be, even though it is part of a sentence that is otherwise a complete and direct quotation, even though it is immediately followed by further direct quotation (in fairness, restarting the quotation with an initial ἔλεγε "he was saying"). All this despite a plausible, less problematic (not requiring us to believe the writer to be presumptuous), and more plain alternate English translation on offer.
Now let's look to context. This passage follows an accusation that Jesus and his discples broke *tradition* (distinct from *law*) by eating without first properly washing hands in the ritual manner. This accusation was rebutted by calling the accusers hypocrites whose traditions led to a cultural, if not institutional, dishonoring of parents, contrary to Torah.
So diet is not even at issue in this passage, but rather preparation for the meal, specifically whether this type of ritual hand-washing is really required or not.
These factors together lead me to side with the King James and Peshitta translations of Mark 7:19, rather than the others. I believe it is right to expect a *compelling* argument for the "declared all foods clean" translation, given the huge ramifications. And I find only a weak case for it. It also does not make sense to me that Jesus' words would carry a different and even wrong meaning, without Mark explaining them to us.
I understand the verse as follows. Ritual hand-washing established by human tradition (and not by the Torah) is not that important, because whatever we eat we digest and poop out, and it does not corrupt us. What does corrupt us is to nullify the Torah through tortured interpretation and substituting human tradition in its place, as the Pharisees apparently did. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | I searched all the [statements of belief and catechisms published by the American Presbyterian Church](http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/) for the terms "food", "meat", "diet" and "kosher" and found no affirmation of the kosher diet specifically, or of Jewish law generally regarding allowed/disallowed foods or preparation standards.
So it would appear that at least the American Presbyterian Church has no official position on the matter. Anecdotally, I have not known American Presbyterians to follow the kosher standard. I would be surprised to learn that this was commonplace.
Nor do I find any statement regarding diet on what appears to be the official [Malaysian Presbyterian Church website](http://www.presbyterianmission.org/what-we-believe/theology/). If there is an official doctrine among them, it is not published there.
As to whether the wider Christian world beyond Presbyterianism is the same: @PaulChernoch answered:
>
> [Peter's vision in Acts c10] is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.
>
>
>
I have no doubt this is the prevailing view, at least in the West. (With @Piomicron's answer as anecdotal confirmation.) In this answer I present a contrasting view: that God expects all Christians to obey the kosher standard, that Jesus and the apostles taught exactly this, and that wide sections of Christendom have defied God for centuries in not doing so.
There is at least one Protestant denomination that respects the kosher standard: the [Seventh Day Adventists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet) uphold the kosher diet in compliance with the Torah. For them, it is not merely a good health practice, it is an imperative. (I am not a 7th Day Adventist.)
I have a few points in support of this position (not speaking specifically of 7th Day Adventism any more, but regarding the Bible text itself).
First, Jesus taught ([Matthew 5:17-19](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/matthew/5.html), link is a bit different):
>
> Do not think that I have come to loosen Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to loosen but to **fulfill** them through proper meaning. For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from Torah until everything happens. All who loosen, therefore, from one (of) these small commandments and teach thus to the sons of man, will be called little in the Kingdom of Heaven, but all who do and teach this will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
>
>
Some translations have "destroy" instead of "loosen". But the point is, "destroy" and "fulfill" cannot possibly be the same thing! But if the Torah does not have to be followed any more, at least at meal time, wouldn't that mean it was "loosened"? Therefore, by *modus potens*, Jesus affirms the kosher standard by this statement.
Also, this word "fulfill" has the same root in Aramaic ("D'MALA"), the vernacular language of that time and place, in the above teaching as in this proclamation ([John 19:30](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/john/19.html), link is a bit different):
>
> And when he had taken that vinegar Y'shua said, "Behold, it is finished!" And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
>
>
>
(The phrase "behold, it is finished" here would be Aramaic "HA MESHALAM". Same root word, according to [my study guide](https://www.aent.org/).) This statement is one of profound importance to the Christian faith generally, as it declares that by being crucified, Jesus has "finished" the reconciliation of mankind to God. The use of the same word makes a strong case that in "fulfilling" the law, Jesus does not intend for us to disregard it; rather the opposite.
My second point is to counter the other arguments offered here, all commonly discussed in my experience, that Christians are not expected to follow the kosher standard.
* As @PaulChernoch states, it is clear that Peter's vision described in Acts chapter 10 is not about food at all. It is about the visitation of the Holy Spirit upon Gentile people, not only Jews. This vision was a critical event in history. If not for this vision, non-Jews would never have been welcomed fully into the faith that later became known as Christianity. And if the vision is not about food, we should not pretend that it is.
* [This commentary](https://www.aent.org/) remarks on the passage from First Corinthians 8, quoted in the other answer: "In Torah and in Jewish culture, only kosher animals count as 'food'." Therefore the discussion in that chapter is solely about preparation methods, not about which species of meat are acceptable. Also: "The contrast Paul is drawing here is between eating kosher meat and worrying that said meat may have originally come from an unkosher place specifically as he says, 'the sacrifices of idols,' or pagan altars, but if such cannot be proven with certainty. In that situation, Paul is saying he would rather not eat meat at all rather than create division." Pork is off the radar here.
* The passage quoted in @EvanDonovan's answer in Acts 15, contrary to what is argued, *reinforces* the mandate to respect the kosher standard. Paraphrasing, the apostles specifically instruct new converts to respect the preparation requirements of kosher (do not eat blood, do not eat animals that have been strangled or sacrificed to idols). *Because that is required by Moses' law.* They do not mention what species are acceptable because Moses already clearly explains that. In this passage the apostles are deciding to emphasize these few simple points of direct instruction for new Gentile converts to the faith, who may feel overwhelmed by all there is to learn, leaving them to learn the Torah through normal study in synagogue beyond that. They are not issuing [indulgences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses).
Third and finally, I discuss Mark 7:18-20 at length. It is a very interesting and important passage, particularly regarding this issue, and I have spent a good amount of time studying it. I am not an academic, but I have decided for myself that this passage is also not actually about food at all. Rather it is about the treatment of *law* versus *tradition* by the Pharisees. There is more radical variation than normal between English translations. [King James (1769 edition)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=KJV) has a rather scatological interpretation:
>
> Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, **and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats**? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
>
>
>
[New International Version](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=NIV) has something *completely different*:
>
> "... For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, **and then out of the body**.” (In saying this, Jesus **declared all foods clean**.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. ..."
>
>
>
My [Greek New Testament](http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/mark/7.asp) has this phrase, corresponding to King James "purging the meats" and NIV "declared all foods clean":
>
> ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, **καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα**.
>
>
>
The bold phrase Romanized as "katharizon panta ta broumata". The *rendering* of the Greek text is not controversial, being found in the fourth-century [Codex Sinaiticus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) and other very old sources in identical form, according to my Greek New Testament edition. How to correctly *translate* it I find highly interesting. "Broumata" is "meat", I think in the plural. [Vine's Dictionary](http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved.html) has the verb "katharizo" as "purge" or "cleanse", and "pantos" as "altogether". This clause is just tacked on to the end of the sentence, which seemingly would also be grammatical without it.
However, my [Peshitta](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/mark/7.html) has (link is a bit different):
>
> ... You do not know that everything which enters into a man from the outside is not able to defile him. Because it does not enter into his heart, rather into his belly **and is cast out by excretion, which purifies all the food**. But anything that goes out from a man is that which defiles a man.
>
>
>
So we may have a fair amount of agreement between King James and the Peshitta here; both of them seeming to say something to the effect of, "you eat food and poop it out again, so what". Whereas the recent English translations from Greek (not just NIV but many translations from the past 50 or so years) seem to treat "katharizon panta ta broumata" as being a parenthetical waiver on eating whatever we feel like.
In order to make their translation grammatical in English, the NIV translators had to throw in the words "In saying this, Jesus ..." which have no corresponding noun or verb in the Greek. Clearly multiple scholars with degrees think this is OK; and what do I know after all. But I must wonder, if this really was the intended meaning, would it not have been written in Greek just that way? For example, John 21:19 has such a parenthetical remark explicitly written in Greek, and English translations seem to agree much more closely on it:
>
> τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν Θεόν.
>
>
> Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.
>
>
>
Another big difference between Mark 7:19 and John 21:19 is that even if John had not explained it to us, Jesus' words would still mean the same thing. He refers to Peter's death whether we realize it or not. Without John's parenthetical, the remark perhaps becomes more cryptic (unless you know how Peter was martyred), but it doesn't *change meaning*. But as translated in the NIV, Mark 7:19 actually means something *different* with vs without the parenthetical. With it, he is declaring all foods clean to eat. Without it, he is saying that eating without first washing hands does not corrupt you.
So in order to prefer the NIV to the King James / Peshitta here, we have to accept a similar English rendering to John 21:19 when the Greek is actually quite different. And when the plain meaning of Jesus' words probably changes without Mark explaining it to us! (Who is teaching, Jesus or Mark?) And we have to accept that "katharizon panta ta broumata" is not part of what Jesus actually said, even though it might be, even though it is part of a sentence that is otherwise a complete and direct quotation, even though it is immediately followed by further direct quotation (in fairness, restarting the quotation with an initial ἔλεγε "he was saying"). All this despite a plausible, less problematic (not requiring us to believe the writer to be presumptuous), and more plain alternate English translation on offer.
Now let's look to context. This passage follows an accusation that Jesus and his discples broke *tradition* (distinct from *law*) by eating without first properly washing hands in the ritual manner. This accusation was rebutted by calling the accusers hypocrites whose traditions led to a cultural, if not institutional, dishonoring of parents, contrary to Torah.
So diet is not even at issue in this passage, but rather preparation for the meal, specifically whether this type of ritual hand-washing is really required or not.
These factors together lead me to side with the King James and Peshitta translations of Mark 7:19, rather than the others. I believe it is right to expect a *compelling* argument for the "declared all foods clean" translation, given the huge ramifications. And I find only a weak case for it. It also does not make sense to me that Jesus' words would carry a different and even wrong meaning, without Mark explaining them to us.
I understand the verse as follows. Ritual hand-washing established by human tradition (and not by the Torah) is not that important, because whatever we eat we digest and poop out, and it does not corrupt us. What does corrupt us is to nullify the Torah through tortured interpretation and substituting human tradition in its place, as the Pharisees apparently did. | Some Christian denominations forbid the eating of pork meat, but I unaware of any denomination forbidding the use of horse meat in their diets:
>
> The Ethiopian Church places a heavier emphasis on Old Testament teachings than one might find in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, and its followers adhere to certain practices that one finds in Orthodox or Conservative Judaism. Ethiopian Christians, like some other Eastern Christians, traditionally follow dietary rules that are similar to Jewish Kashrut, specifically with regard to how an animal is slaughtered. Similarly, **pork is prohibited,** though unlike Rabbinical Kashrut, Ethiopian cuisine does mix dairy products with meat. - [Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church)
>
>
> |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | Dietary rules among Christians vary from sect to sect. The starting point for understanding the Christian views on food regulation is in the book of Acts, chapter 10, when Peter has a vision and is told that he may eat any kind of food, even unclean food that does not meet Jewish regulations, such as pork. This is symbolic: Peter was told that Gentiles who are "unclean" by Jewish custom may join the Church and become Christians. However, it is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.
However, there are circumstances in which a Christian should abstain from eating certain foods. This rule is binding on all small "o" orthodox Christians:
>
> 1 Corinthians 8:
>
>
> 8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess
> knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who
> think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But
> whoever loves God is known by God.[a]
>
>
> 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An
> idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but
> one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on
> earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us
> there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
> whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
> all things came and through whom we live.
>
>
> 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so
> accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of
> it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is
> weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are
> no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
>
>
> 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not
> become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak
> conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s
> temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to
> idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is
> destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way
> and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,
> if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will
> never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
>
>
>
Thus, if a Christian has a friend who is offended by something he eats, he should avoid eating it in their presence so as not to harm their friendship or confuse the person about what is right or wrong. The above prohibition is meant to keep Christians from openly participating in the rituals of other faiths and prevent syncretism. Also, since many people keep pets, it is frowned upon to eat animals kept as pets by people we know.
Many religions ban the consumption of alcohol. Some Christian denominations do, but most teach that so long as one does not become intoxicated, they are free to drink alcohol. My personal practice is to never drink in the presence of people I know are struggling with current or past alcoholism, so as not to cause them to stumble.
Some Christian denominations ban the use of tobacco, or the consumption of caffeine, but most permit it.
I was directed by one of the commenters to this passage from Matthew 15, which gives Jesus' opinion on the matter. He said that our speech and conduct is more important than our diet when it comes to pleasing God:
>
> 1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from
> Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of
> the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
>
>
> 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake
> of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’a and
> ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’b
> 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to
> help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to
> ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of
> God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right
> when he prophesied about you:
>
>
> “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far
> from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human
> rules.’ ” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and
> understand. 11 **What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them**, but
> what **comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them**.”
>
>
> | Some Christian denominations forbid the eating of pork meat, but I unaware of any denomination forbidding the use of horse meat in their diets:
>
> The Ethiopian Church places a heavier emphasis on Old Testament teachings than one might find in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, and its followers adhere to certain practices that one finds in Orthodox or Conservative Judaism. Ethiopian Christians, like some other Eastern Christians, traditionally follow dietary rules that are similar to Jewish Kashrut, specifically with regard to how an animal is slaughtered. Similarly, **pork is prohibited,** though unlike Rabbinical Kashrut, Ethiopian cuisine does mix dairy products with meat. - [Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church)
>
>
> |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | Orthodox Christianity allows consumption of these things, but is governed by rules concerning when one may consume any sort of meat. Abstinence from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays is a very ancient custom in the Church, dating from the 1st century (as testified to in the [*Didache*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)). To my knowledge, however, Orthodox Christians are the only Christians that still follow these customs.
Canon 69 of the [Apostolic Canons](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm) called for the deposition of any bishop, presbyter, deacon, reader or singer who did not observe the Lenten fast and the excommunication of any layperson who did not observe the Lenten fast. The Apostolic Canons were understood to have originated in the 1st century, but were adopted and reinforced at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680/681. This canon still applies within the Eastern Orthodox Church; I believe it also is (or should be) recognized within the Roman Catholic Church. (Note: "Excommunication" in the Orthodox Christian understanding does not mean expulsion from the Church, but rather being excluded from the Eucharist for a time.)
There is a description of fasting/abstinence from certain foods in the Orthodox Christian tradition [here](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting). There is also a description of fasting by a Malaysian Orthodox Christian [on this page](https://orthodoxinmalaysia.wordpress.com/page/2/).
(Aside: there are many traditions within Islam which actually came out of Christianity, including prostration and facing the east during prayer. Interestingly, these practices have been abandoned by the vast majority of Christians, but continue within Islam.) | Some Christian denominations forbid the eating of pork meat, but I unaware of any denomination forbidding the use of horse meat in their diets:
>
> The Ethiopian Church places a heavier emphasis on Old Testament teachings than one might find in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, and its followers adhere to certain practices that one finds in Orthodox or Conservative Judaism. Ethiopian Christians, like some other Eastern Christians, traditionally follow dietary rules that are similar to Jewish Kashrut, specifically with regard to how an animal is slaughtered. Similarly, **pork is prohibited,** though unlike Rabbinical Kashrut, Ethiopian cuisine does mix dairy products with meat. - [Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church)
>
>
> |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | Orthodox Christianity allows consumption of these things, but is governed by rules concerning when one may consume any sort of meat. Abstinence from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays is a very ancient custom in the Church, dating from the 1st century (as testified to in the [*Didache*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)). To my knowledge, however, Orthodox Christians are the only Christians that still follow these customs.
Canon 69 of the [Apostolic Canons](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm) called for the deposition of any bishop, presbyter, deacon, reader or singer who did not observe the Lenten fast and the excommunication of any layperson who did not observe the Lenten fast. The Apostolic Canons were understood to have originated in the 1st century, but were adopted and reinforced at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680/681. This canon still applies within the Eastern Orthodox Church; I believe it also is (or should be) recognized within the Roman Catholic Church. (Note: "Excommunication" in the Orthodox Christian understanding does not mean expulsion from the Church, but rather being excluded from the Eucharist for a time.)
There is a description of fasting/abstinence from certain foods in the Orthodox Christian tradition [here](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting). There is also a description of fasting by a Malaysian Orthodox Christian [on this page](https://orthodoxinmalaysia.wordpress.com/page/2/).
(Aside: there are many traditions within Islam which actually came out of Christianity, including prostration and facing the east during prayer. Interestingly, these practices have been abandoned by the vast majority of Christians, but continue within Islam.) | Although eating certain meat was prohibited by jewish law, this was part of the old covenant between man and God. A covenant traditionally ends when either participant dies, (in this case the jewish people and God) since Jesus died this covenant then came to an end.
As per Acts 10:9-15 it is made clear that this is no longer the case.
9The next day at about the sixth hour, as the men were approaching the city on their journey, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11He saw heaven open and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air. 13Then a voice spoke to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”
14“No, Lord!” Peter answered, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
However, some denominations still do not eat meat. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | The [answer which focuses on Acts 10](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/55423/14775) is excellent, but this statement from the Jerusalem Council, also recorded in the book of Acts, is also pertinent:
>
> It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
>
>
>
Basically, the issue was that Jewish Christians had wanted Gentile Christians to conform to the OT food laws, but the Apostles decided that was not necessary, in light of what was described in Acts 10 (and an interpretation of some of Jesus' own words, such as [what Neil Meyer quoted (Matt. 15:11)](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419/does-christianity-allow-eating-pork-and-horse-meat-which-is-prohibited-in-juda#comment152871_55423) and his claim to have fulfilled the OT law (Matt. 5:17)).
Christian denominations and sects vary quite widely in their beliefs regarding diet, but nearly all would hold to these words from Acts 15 indicating that the OT dietary laws are no longer binding. However, most Christians in practice are not necessarily concerned to avoid eating blood, strangled animals, or food sacrificed to idols. It may be that the later writings of Paul, also in the New Testament, are the reason for that - such as 1 Cor. 8.
It is correct that most Christians probably do not follow the teachings of the Didache explicitly, since it is not part of the New Testament. However, many non-Orthodox Christians (large "o") such as Catholics and some Anglicans, do follow a cycle of fast days.
To more specifically answer your original question, though, I can imagine that any practicing Christian would appreciate your efforts to show respect for their religious beliefs, even if they are not actually required not to eat horse meat.
I live in the US so I personally would not eat horse meat, but for me that is simply a cultural preference, since I didn't grow up eating it. | Christianity is broad in its beliefs of what may be eaten and what may not be eaten (see Acts 15, 1Co 8, and Gal 2:11-14 for a peek at early church debates on what foods may or may not be eaten).
Many Christians will point to Mark 7:19 or Acts 10:1-11:18 to indicate that God has declared all foods clean. Others recognize that Jesus did not abolish the law (Matt 5:17) and so the Old Testament requirements should still stand. Still others say that certain foods are still not allowed for health reasons (1Co 6:19).
In summary, there is no single "Christian" position on what foods are or are not allowed. However, I think your choosing to warn your friends about the particulars of a meat before sharing is a prudent choice. Then if their faith is such that it would hurt their conscience to discover afterwards that they have eaten horse meat, you have been a good friend to keep them from stumbling in their faith. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | The [answer which focuses on Acts 10](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/55423/14775) is excellent, but this statement from the Jerusalem Council, also recorded in the book of Acts, is also pertinent:
>
> It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
>
>
>
Basically, the issue was that Jewish Christians had wanted Gentile Christians to conform to the OT food laws, but the Apostles decided that was not necessary, in light of what was described in Acts 10 (and an interpretation of some of Jesus' own words, such as [what Neil Meyer quoted (Matt. 15:11)](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419/does-christianity-allow-eating-pork-and-horse-meat-which-is-prohibited-in-juda#comment152871_55423) and his claim to have fulfilled the OT law (Matt. 5:17)).
Christian denominations and sects vary quite widely in their beliefs regarding diet, but nearly all would hold to these words from Acts 15 indicating that the OT dietary laws are no longer binding. However, most Christians in practice are not necessarily concerned to avoid eating blood, strangled animals, or food sacrificed to idols. It may be that the later writings of Paul, also in the New Testament, are the reason for that - such as 1 Cor. 8.
It is correct that most Christians probably do not follow the teachings of the Didache explicitly, since it is not part of the New Testament. However, many non-Orthodox Christians (large "o") such as Catholics and some Anglicans, do follow a cycle of fast days.
To more specifically answer your original question, though, I can imagine that any practicing Christian would appreciate your efforts to show respect for their religious beliefs, even if they are not actually required not to eat horse meat.
I live in the US so I personally would not eat horse meat, but for me that is simply a cultural preference, since I didn't grow up eating it. | Although eating certain meat was prohibited by jewish law, this was part of the old covenant between man and God. A covenant traditionally ends when either participant dies, (in this case the jewish people and God) since Jesus died this covenant then came to an end.
As per Acts 10:9-15 it is made clear that this is no longer the case.
9The next day at about the sixth hour, as the men were approaching the city on their journey, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11He saw heaven open and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air. 13Then a voice spoke to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”
14“No, Lord!” Peter answered, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
However, some denominations still do not eat meat. |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | The [answer which focuses on Acts 10](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/55423/14775) is excellent, but this statement from the Jerusalem Council, also recorded in the book of Acts, is also pertinent:
>
> It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
>
>
>
Basically, the issue was that Jewish Christians had wanted Gentile Christians to conform to the OT food laws, but the Apostles decided that was not necessary, in light of what was described in Acts 10 (and an interpretation of some of Jesus' own words, such as [what Neil Meyer quoted (Matt. 15:11)](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419/does-christianity-allow-eating-pork-and-horse-meat-which-is-prohibited-in-juda#comment152871_55423) and his claim to have fulfilled the OT law (Matt. 5:17)).
Christian denominations and sects vary quite widely in their beliefs regarding diet, but nearly all would hold to these words from Acts 15 indicating that the OT dietary laws are no longer binding. However, most Christians in practice are not necessarily concerned to avoid eating blood, strangled animals, or food sacrificed to idols. It may be that the later writings of Paul, also in the New Testament, are the reason for that - such as 1 Cor. 8.
It is correct that most Christians probably do not follow the teachings of the Didache explicitly, since it is not part of the New Testament. However, many non-Orthodox Christians (large "o") such as Catholics and some Anglicans, do follow a cycle of fast days.
To more specifically answer your original question, though, I can imagine that any practicing Christian would appreciate your efforts to show respect for their religious beliefs, even if they are not actually required not to eat horse meat.
I live in the US so I personally would not eat horse meat, but for me that is simply a cultural preference, since I didn't grow up eating it. | Orthodox Christianity allows consumption of these things, but is governed by rules concerning when one may consume any sort of meat. Abstinence from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays is a very ancient custom in the Church, dating from the 1st century (as testified to in the [*Didache*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)). To my knowledge, however, Orthodox Christians are the only Christians that still follow these customs.
Canon 69 of the [Apostolic Canons](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm) called for the deposition of any bishop, presbyter, deacon, reader or singer who did not observe the Lenten fast and the excommunication of any layperson who did not observe the Lenten fast. The Apostolic Canons were understood to have originated in the 1st century, but were adopted and reinforced at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680/681. This canon still applies within the Eastern Orthodox Church; I believe it also is (or should be) recognized within the Roman Catholic Church. (Note: "Excommunication" in the Orthodox Christian understanding does not mean expulsion from the Church, but rather being excluded from the Eucharist for a time.)
There is a description of fasting/abstinence from certain foods in the Orthodox Christian tradition [here](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting). There is also a description of fasting by a Malaysian Orthodox Christian [on this page](https://orthodoxinmalaysia.wordpress.com/page/2/).
(Aside: there are many traditions within Islam which actually came out of Christianity, including prostration and facing the east during prayer. Interestingly, these practices have been abandoned by the vast majority of Christians, but continue within Islam.) |
55,419 | I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school? As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my **Presbyterian Christian** classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this. | 2017/02/22 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/33730/"
] | The [answer which focuses on Acts 10](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/55423/14775) is excellent, but this statement from the Jerusalem Council, also recorded in the book of Acts, is also pertinent:
>
> It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
>
>
>
Basically, the issue was that Jewish Christians had wanted Gentile Christians to conform to the OT food laws, but the Apostles decided that was not necessary, in light of what was described in Acts 10 (and an interpretation of some of Jesus' own words, such as [what Neil Meyer quoted (Matt. 15:11)](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/55419/does-christianity-allow-eating-pork-and-horse-meat-which-is-prohibited-in-juda#comment152871_55423) and his claim to have fulfilled the OT law (Matt. 5:17)).
Christian denominations and sects vary quite widely in their beliefs regarding diet, but nearly all would hold to these words from Acts 15 indicating that the OT dietary laws are no longer binding. However, most Christians in practice are not necessarily concerned to avoid eating blood, strangled animals, or food sacrificed to idols. It may be that the later writings of Paul, also in the New Testament, are the reason for that - such as 1 Cor. 8.
It is correct that most Christians probably do not follow the teachings of the Didache explicitly, since it is not part of the New Testament. However, many non-Orthodox Christians (large "o") such as Catholics and some Anglicans, do follow a cycle of fast days.
To more specifically answer your original question, though, I can imagine that any practicing Christian would appreciate your efforts to show respect for their religious beliefs, even if they are not actually required not to eat horse meat.
I live in the US so I personally would not eat horse meat, but for me that is simply a cultural preference, since I didn't grow up eating it. | I searched all the [statements of belief and catechisms published by the American Presbyterian Church](http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/) for the terms "food", "meat", "diet" and "kosher" and found no affirmation of the kosher diet specifically, or of Jewish law generally regarding allowed/disallowed foods or preparation standards.
So it would appear that at least the American Presbyterian Church has no official position on the matter. Anecdotally, I have not known American Presbyterians to follow the kosher standard. I would be surprised to learn that this was commonplace.
Nor do I find any statement regarding diet on what appears to be the official [Malaysian Presbyterian Church website](http://www.presbyterianmission.org/what-we-believe/theology/). If there is an official doctrine among them, it is not published there.
As to whether the wider Christian world beyond Presbyterianism is the same: @PaulChernoch answered:
>
> [Peter's vision in Acts c10] is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.
>
>
>
I have no doubt this is the prevailing view, at least in the West. (With @Piomicron's answer as anecdotal confirmation.) In this answer I present a contrasting view: that God expects all Christians to obey the kosher standard, that Jesus and the apostles taught exactly this, and that wide sections of Christendom have defied God for centuries in not doing so.
There is at least one Protestant denomination that respects the kosher standard: the [Seventh Day Adventists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet) uphold the kosher diet in compliance with the Torah. For them, it is not merely a good health practice, it is an imperative. (I am not a 7th Day Adventist.)
I have a few points in support of this position (not speaking specifically of 7th Day Adventism any more, but regarding the Bible text itself).
First, Jesus taught ([Matthew 5:17-19](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/matthew/5.html), link is a bit different):
>
> Do not think that I have come to loosen Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to loosen but to **fulfill** them through proper meaning. For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from Torah until everything happens. All who loosen, therefore, from one (of) these small commandments and teach thus to the sons of man, will be called little in the Kingdom of Heaven, but all who do and teach this will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
>
>
Some translations have "destroy" instead of "loosen". But the point is, "destroy" and "fulfill" cannot possibly be the same thing! But if the Torah does not have to be followed any more, at least at meal time, wouldn't that mean it was "loosened"? Therefore, by *modus potens*, Jesus affirms the kosher standard by this statement.
Also, this word "fulfill" has the same root in Aramaic ("D'MALA"), the vernacular language of that time and place, in the above teaching as in this proclamation ([John 19:30](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/john/19.html), link is a bit different):
>
> And when he had taken that vinegar Y'shua said, "Behold, it is finished!" And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
>
>
>
(The phrase "behold, it is finished" here would be Aramaic "HA MESHALAM". Same root word, according to [my study guide](https://www.aent.org/).) This statement is one of profound importance to the Christian faith generally, as it declares that by being crucified, Jesus has "finished" the reconciliation of mankind to God. The use of the same word makes a strong case that in "fulfilling" the law, Jesus does not intend for us to disregard it; rather the opposite.
My second point is to counter the other arguments offered here, all commonly discussed in my experience, that Christians are not expected to follow the kosher standard.
* As @PaulChernoch states, it is clear that Peter's vision described in Acts chapter 10 is not about food at all. It is about the visitation of the Holy Spirit upon Gentile people, not only Jews. This vision was a critical event in history. If not for this vision, non-Jews would never have been welcomed fully into the faith that later became known as Christianity. And if the vision is not about food, we should not pretend that it is.
* [This commentary](https://www.aent.org/) remarks on the passage from First Corinthians 8, quoted in the other answer: "In Torah and in Jewish culture, only kosher animals count as 'food'." Therefore the discussion in that chapter is solely about preparation methods, not about which species of meat are acceptable. Also: "The contrast Paul is drawing here is between eating kosher meat and worrying that said meat may have originally come from an unkosher place specifically as he says, 'the sacrifices of idols,' or pagan altars, but if such cannot be proven with certainty. In that situation, Paul is saying he would rather not eat meat at all rather than create division." Pork is off the radar here.
* The passage quoted in @EvanDonovan's answer in Acts 15, contrary to what is argued, *reinforces* the mandate to respect the kosher standard. Paraphrasing, the apostles specifically instruct new converts to respect the preparation requirements of kosher (do not eat blood, do not eat animals that have been strangled or sacrificed to idols). *Because that is required by Moses' law.* They do not mention what species are acceptable because Moses already clearly explains that. In this passage the apostles are deciding to emphasize these few simple points of direct instruction for new Gentile converts to the faith, who may feel overwhelmed by all there is to learn, leaving them to learn the Torah through normal study in synagogue beyond that. They are not issuing [indulgences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Late_medieval_abuses).
Third and finally, I discuss Mark 7:18-20 at length. It is a very interesting and important passage, particularly regarding this issue, and I have spent a good amount of time studying it. I am not an academic, but I have decided for myself that this passage is also not actually about food at all. Rather it is about the treatment of *law* versus *tradition* by the Pharisees. There is more radical variation than normal between English translations. [King James (1769 edition)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=KJV) has a rather scatological interpretation:
>
> Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, **and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats**? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
>
>
>
[New International Version](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207&version=NIV) has something *completely different*:
>
> "... For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, **and then out of the body**.” (In saying this, Jesus **declared all foods clean**.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. ..."
>
>
>
My [Greek New Testament](http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/mark/7.asp) has this phrase, corresponding to King James "purging the meats" and NIV "declared all foods clean":
>
> ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, **καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα**.
>
>
>
The bold phrase Romanized as "katharizon panta ta broumata". The *rendering* of the Greek text is not controversial, being found in the fourth-century [Codex Sinaiticus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) and other very old sources in identical form, according to my Greek New Testament edition. How to correctly *translate* it I find highly interesting. "Broumata" is "meat", I think in the plural. [Vine's Dictionary](http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved.html) has the verb "katharizo" as "purge" or "cleanse", and "pantos" as "altogether". This clause is just tacked on to the end of the sentence, which seemingly would also be grammatical without it.
However, my [Peshitta](http://qbible.com/aramaic-new-testament/mark/7.html) has (link is a bit different):
>
> ... You do not know that everything which enters into a man from the outside is not able to defile him. Because it does not enter into his heart, rather into his belly **and is cast out by excretion, which purifies all the food**. But anything that goes out from a man is that which defiles a man.
>
>
>
So we may have a fair amount of agreement between King James and the Peshitta here; both of them seeming to say something to the effect of, "you eat food and poop it out again, so what". Whereas the recent English translations from Greek (not just NIV but many translations from the past 50 or so years) seem to treat "katharizon panta ta broumata" as being a parenthetical waiver on eating whatever we feel like.
In order to make their translation grammatical in English, the NIV translators had to throw in the words "In saying this, Jesus ..." which have no corresponding noun or verb in the Greek. Clearly multiple scholars with degrees think this is OK; and what do I know after all. But I must wonder, if this really was the intended meaning, would it not have been written in Greek just that way? For example, John 21:19 has such a parenthetical remark explicitly written in Greek, and English translations seem to agree much more closely on it:
>
> τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν Θεόν.
>
>
> Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.
>
>
>
Another big difference between Mark 7:19 and John 21:19 is that even if John had not explained it to us, Jesus' words would still mean the same thing. He refers to Peter's death whether we realize it or not. Without John's parenthetical, the remark perhaps becomes more cryptic (unless you know how Peter was martyred), but it doesn't *change meaning*. But as translated in the NIV, Mark 7:19 actually means something *different* with vs without the parenthetical. With it, he is declaring all foods clean to eat. Without it, he is saying that eating without first washing hands does not corrupt you.
So in order to prefer the NIV to the King James / Peshitta here, we have to accept a similar English rendering to John 21:19 when the Greek is actually quite different. And when the plain meaning of Jesus' words probably changes without Mark explaining it to us! (Who is teaching, Jesus or Mark?) And we have to accept that "katharizon panta ta broumata" is not part of what Jesus actually said, even though it might be, even though it is part of a sentence that is otherwise a complete and direct quotation, even though it is immediately followed by further direct quotation (in fairness, restarting the quotation with an initial ἔλεγε "he was saying"). All this despite a plausible, less problematic (not requiring us to believe the writer to be presumptuous), and more plain alternate English translation on offer.
Now let's look to context. This passage follows an accusation that Jesus and his discples broke *tradition* (distinct from *law*) by eating without first properly washing hands in the ritual manner. This accusation was rebutted by calling the accusers hypocrites whose traditions led to a cultural, if not institutional, dishonoring of parents, contrary to Torah.
So diet is not even at issue in this passage, but rather preparation for the meal, specifically whether this type of ritual hand-washing is really required or not.
These factors together lead me to side with the King James and Peshitta translations of Mark 7:19, rather than the others. I believe it is right to expect a *compelling* argument for the "declared all foods clean" translation, given the huge ramifications. And I find only a weak case for it. It also does not make sense to me that Jesus' words would carry a different and even wrong meaning, without Mark explaining them to us.
I understand the verse as follows. Ritual hand-washing established by human tradition (and not by the Torah) is not that important, because whatever we eat we digest and poop out, and it does not corrupt us. What does corrupt us is to nullify the Torah through tortured interpretation and substituting human tradition in its place, as the Pharisees apparently did. |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | ***down-to-earth***, defined by [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/down%E2%80%93to%E2%80%93earth)
>
> informal and easy to talk to
>
>
> practical and sensible
>
>
> unpretentious -- Example: surprised to find the movie star so down–to–earth
>
>
> | [unaffected](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unaffected) (dictionary.com) -
>
> 1.
> free from affectation; sincere; genuine:
>
>
> The man showed unaffected grief at the death of his former opponent.
>
>
> 2.
> unpretentious, as a personality or literary style.
>
>
> |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | **Genuine** ([M-W](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine)) is mentioned by the OP, but there is an alternate definition which makes it more appropriate than other dismissed terms:
>
> free from hypocrisy or pretense
>
>
> | Unaffected has the most attractive flavor as the opposite of pretentious, just as "free from affectation" would counter "drenched in pretense." Of course, "unpretentious" is an exact opposite, but its use could come across as staid or boring, or lazy, should one have occasion to express both characteristics next to or too near each other. Then again. there's always "humilitous" which is itself a very pretentious word to use to express unpretentiousness. |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | **Genuine** ([M-W](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine)) is mentioned by the OP, but there is an alternate definition which makes it more appropriate than other dismissed terms:
>
> free from hypocrisy or pretense
>
>
> | >
> [**upfront**](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/upfront)
>
>
> 1. *straightforward; frank*
>
>
>
Fits your second sentence as "...refreshingly upfront."
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | [self-deprecating](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-deprecating)
adjective
1.
belittling or undervaluing oneself; excessively modest. | Given its frequent usage of late, I'm surprised [authentic](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic) (Merriam-Webster.com) hasn't been mentioned.
>
> 5 : true to one's own personality, spirit, or character
>
>
> |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | [unaffected](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unaffected) (dictionary.com) -
>
> 1.
> free from affectation; sincere; genuine:
>
>
> The man showed unaffected grief at the death of his former opponent.
>
>
> 2.
> unpretentious, as a personality or literary style.
>
>
> | Given its frequent usage of late, I'm surprised [authentic](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic) (Merriam-Webster.com) hasn't been mentioned.
>
> 5 : true to one's own personality, spirit, or character
>
>
> |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | ***down-to-earth***, defined by [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/down%E2%80%93to%E2%80%93earth)
>
> informal and easy to talk to
>
>
> practical and sensible
>
>
> unpretentious -- Example: surprised to find the movie star so down–to–earth
>
>
> | Unaffected has the most attractive flavor as the opposite of pretentious, just as "free from affectation" would counter "drenched in pretense." Of course, "unpretentious" is an exact opposite, but its use could come across as staid or boring, or lazy, should one have occasion to express both characteristics next to or too near each other. Then again. there's always "humilitous" which is itself a very pretentious word to use to express unpretentiousness. |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | >
> [**upfront**](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/upfront)
>
>
> 1. *straightforward; frank*
>
>
>
Fits your second sentence as "...refreshingly upfront."
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary | Though an answer has already been accepted (and Princeton University's Cognitive Science Lab interface, "WordNet," agrees with the choice of *unpretentious* as an antonym of pretentious), I would offer the following for those who might prefer to avoid the use of the prefix *-un* in this context for stylistic reasons:
Because *pretentious* involves claiming a typically unmerited importance for the purpose of being *noticed* in that regard, it seems reasonable that the opposite of that behavior might be *reticent* or *self-effacing*, i.e., *reluctant to draw attention to oneself* and therefore behaving in such a way as to avoid undue notice even if it was perhaps merited.
The antonym in this sense applies more to a *person* than the *production of a person*, as in the example added in the original question ("found the film pretentious"). |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | Perhaps **easygoing** [(MW)](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/easygoing)
>
> *adjective* relaxed and informal
>
>
>
It could work with your example sentence: The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly easygoing. | **self-effacing**
Meaning of self-effacing as stated by [Google dictionary](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-effacing?s=t) :
>
> tending to make oneself, one's actions, etc, inconspicuous, esp
> because of humility or timidity; modest
>
>
> |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | Unaffected has the most attractive flavor as the opposite of pretentious, just as "free from affectation" would counter "drenched in pretense." Of course, "unpretentious" is an exact opposite, but its use could come across as staid or boring, or lazy, should one have occasion to express both characteristics next to or too near each other. Then again. there's always "humilitous" which is itself a very pretentious word to use to express unpretentiousness. | **self-effacing**
Meaning of self-effacing as stated by [Google dictionary](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-effacing?s=t) :
>
> tending to make oneself, one's actions, etc, inconspicuous, esp
> because of humility or timidity; modest
>
>
> |
331,737 | Q: What is a good opposite of pretentious?
---
The dictionary definition is:
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."
To which I can think of:
Humility: "The quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance."
Honest/Sincere/Genuine/Truthful: "Free of deceit; truthful and sincere.", "Free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.", "Truly what something is said to be; authentic.", "of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.", "Telling or expressing the truth; honest."
Unassuming: "Not pretentious or arrogant; modest."
Perhaps instead a short phrase like, "Humble and Honest".
---
However for the commonly understood or vernacular definition, which seems to have a significantly different meaning, perhaps a good opposite would be:
Artless: Without effort or pretentiousness; natural and simple.
Although it's unfortunate that "artless" is defined as being "natural".
---
An example: "I couldn't follow the film, I found it pretentious.", the opposite could be "The film lacked nuance and was refreshingly ..." | 2016/06/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331737",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/6335/"
] | **Genuine** ([M-W](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine)) is mentioned by the OP, but there is an alternate definition which makes it more appropriate than other dismissed terms:
>
> free from hypocrisy or pretense
>
>
> | [self-deprecating](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-deprecating)
adjective
1.
belittling or undervaluing oneself; excessively modest. |
6,060 | [A question](//codereview.stackexchange.com/q/106927/9357) asks to have a [Samba configuration file](https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html) reviewed. Do we consider a configuration file to be code? It's certainly not a Turing-complete language. Is Turing completeness a defining criterion?
Note that we can address many of our usual concerns, such as security, correctness in unexpected cases, formatting, comments, etc.
We already have many [.htaccess](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/.htaccess "show questions tagged '.htaccess'") questions, most (all?) of which deal with mod\_rewrite rulesets. We clearly haven't objected to those questions. But would we allow [.htaccess](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/.htaccess "show questions tagged '.htaccess'") files that are not mod\_rewrite rulesets? (If not, then the programming language is really [mod\_rewrite] rather than [.htaccess](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/.htaccess "show questions tagged '.htaccess'").)
Where do we draw the line? | 2015/10/08 | [
"https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6060",
"https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/users/9357/"
] | Programming, Administering, and Using are different aspects to computing.
* A programmer builds an application - and exposes configuration hooks that can cause the program to execute different paths.
* An administrator reads the program's documentation, and alters the configuration to suit their environmental needs.
* The user is oblivious to these aspects, and is not relevant to this discussion.
Changing the configuration of the program does not actually change the program's behaviour, it just changes the parts of the program that are exercised, and, thus, the configuration is not actually code.
So, in my opinion, the config file is not code, and thus is not on-topic on Code Review.
The counter-argument about `.htaccess` files, is that the regular expressions really are micro-programs, that are embedded in a containing system. The regular expressions are compiled, and changing the regular expression changes the bahaviour of the regex engine. The rest of the .htaccess fill is just 'context' for the regex program.
The bulk of the specific question would best be answered on [Server Fault](https://serverfault.com/) for systems in a business environments, or on [Super User](https://superuser.com/) for hobby/single user systems. | >
> Do we consider a configuration file to be code?
>
>
>
I would say code is short hand for [source code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code):
>
> In computing, source code is any collection of computer instructions (possibly with comments) written using some human-readable computer language, usually as text.
>
>
>
I would say since Sambas configuration file is not a programming language it should be off topic.
This would make .htaccess files off-topic too.
But I agree with [rolfl](https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6061/42401) here.
They should be on topic as they contain micro-program(s) in the form of regex(s).
>
> Where do we draw the line?
>
>
>
Does the question contain programming language(s) or micro-program(s)? If so it's on-topic.
This would also raise no concern as to whether I'm allowed to post an Awesome or xmonad config, which are written in Lua and Haskell respectively.
---
As [RubberDuck](https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6060/42401#comment13726_6061) said we review HTML,
there may be an edge case if we allow [html](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/html "show questions tagged 'html'")/[html](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/html "show questions tagged 'html'")[css](https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/css "show questions tagged 'css'") only questions.
As Hyper Text *Markup Language* is not a programming language.
But this is out of scope for the question. |
88,658 | I bought a Pathfinder Adventure Path, but the store only had second chapters (presumably everyone only buys the first and never finishes the campaign), which means my PCs are starting at level 4.
I haven't DM'ed in about a year, and I have two new players, so I'd like **a step-by-step guide to jumping all of my PCs directly to level 4**. I know to add a feat and an ability score, but I don't want to miss anything crucial. They want to create their own characters so, premade level 4s won't work. | 2016/10/01 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/88658",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/31673/"
] | It's really not that different from creating a character.
* You add the stats from both your class and Race.
* You fill in your attibutes.
* You give them feats and skills.
* You give them gold according to the level, which is 6,000gp in your case.
* You buy equipment with said gold.
* You add additional stats according to what you would get in level 4 from class skills and scores.
The only real difference between starting at 1 and startin at 4 is that you get better equipment and higher stats. You can also use the d20pfsrd's [Character creation](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/character-creation) page to help. | The steps for creating a character in Pathfinder are outlined [here](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/character-creation).
There is also a very handy table [here](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement#TOC-Advancing-Your-Character) that outlines the XP needed for each level, lays out the levels at which a character gains *Feats* and *Ability Score* increases, and indicates the expected starting wealth for a character of that level. In your case, the characters will have 2 *Feats* (not counting bonuses from *Class* or *Race*) 1 *Ability Score* increase, and 6,000 GP starting wealth.
In Pathfinder, equipment and magic items are a very important aspect of the game's expected balance. This starting wealth is essentially "spent" on starting items and gear for the character to simulate the gear and equipment those characters would have gained through adventuring if they had been created at level 1 and played up to their current level.
The Core Rule Book also has suggestions for how to help your players allocate this starting wealth:
>
> Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on
> any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that
> are built after 1st level should spend no more than
> 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and
> protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on
> disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and
> 10% on ordinary gear and coins.
>
>
>
These should not be interpreted as hard and fast rules, but more as guidelines to the GM to keep the players at the expected power level. Feel free to deviate from this, but do so knowing that your players may be stronger or weaker than the module you are running expects them to be. |
178,180 | I have a data intensive iOS app that is not using CoreData nor does it support iCloud synching (yet). All of my objects are created with unique keys. I use a simple `long long` initialized with the current time. Then as I need a new key I increment the value by 1. This has all worked well for a few years with the app running isolated on a single device.
Now I want to add support for automatic data sync across devices using iCloud. As my app is written, there is the possibility that two objects created on two different devices could end up with the same key. I need to avoid this possibility.
I'm looking for ideas for solving this issue. I have a few requirements that the solution must meet:
1) The key needs to remain a single integral data type. Converting all existing keys to a compound key or to a string or other type would affect the entire code base and likely result in more bugs than it's worth.
2) The solution can't depend on an Internet connection. A user must be able to run the app and add data even with no Internet connection. The data should still resolve properly later when the data syncs through iCloud once a connection is available. I'll accept one exception to this rule. If no other option is available, I may be open to requiring an Internet connection the first time the app's data is initialized.
One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits. This should be viable since I don't need to deal will millions of devices. I just need to deal with the few devices that would be shared by a given iCloud account.
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks.
Update:
After giving this some more thought, I've decided to take the short term hit and do this the right way. Using a GUID is definitely the best long term option for this. Using this approach eliminates the need to do any of the various options to deal with handing out key ranges or translating keys once an Internet connection is made.
My original requirement prevented the GUID option because neither SQLite nor iOS support a simple, 128-bit integer type. Since I have a large existing code base that is written such that my keys are simple integer types, it will require a major refactoring of both the code and the database schema.
In the end, I've decided that the short term pain of doing this refactoring out weighs the long term issues of dealing with a klunky solution. Taking the hit now gives me a much simpler and less error prone solution that will last the long term. | 2012/12/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178180",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/74286/"
] | As [Lars Viklund](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/42752/lars-viklund) points out in his comment, you might [look into UUIDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier) -- they're 128-bit numbers used for unique IDs and have good stats for uniqueness. If you can't find a function to generate one (though I'm sure Apple has one), Version 4 is pretty easy to implement. | It really depends on how the keys are used, and the consequences of accidental duplicates.
Some obvious choices:
(1) the exact time (down to nanosecond if possible) is statistically certain to be unique among a few devices. Just using a sufficiently precise time as the key is likely to have an overall reliability greater than a more complicated scheme.
(2) Make every key a per-device key, and assign a real unique key when the device synchs to the cloud. Maintain a dictionary in the cloud.
(2a) generate temporary keys serially. When you first synch, aquire a block of permanant keys and renumber.
(3) issue blocks of a billion of so keys to devices the the first time they attach, let the devices subissue keys as needed. |
178,180 | I have a data intensive iOS app that is not using CoreData nor does it support iCloud synching (yet). All of my objects are created with unique keys. I use a simple `long long` initialized with the current time. Then as I need a new key I increment the value by 1. This has all worked well for a few years with the app running isolated on a single device.
Now I want to add support for automatic data sync across devices using iCloud. As my app is written, there is the possibility that two objects created on two different devices could end up with the same key. I need to avoid this possibility.
I'm looking for ideas for solving this issue. I have a few requirements that the solution must meet:
1) The key needs to remain a single integral data type. Converting all existing keys to a compound key or to a string or other type would affect the entire code base and likely result in more bugs than it's worth.
2) The solution can't depend on an Internet connection. A user must be able to run the app and add data even with no Internet connection. The data should still resolve properly later when the data syncs through iCloud once a connection is available. I'll accept one exception to this rule. If no other option is available, I may be open to requiring an Internet connection the first time the app's data is initialized.
One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits. This should be viable since I don't need to deal will millions of devices. I just need to deal with the few devices that would be shared by a given iCloud account.
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks.
Update:
After giving this some more thought, I've decided to take the short term hit and do this the right way. Using a GUID is definitely the best long term option for this. Using this approach eliminates the need to do any of the various options to deal with handing out key ranges or translating keys once an Internet connection is made.
My original requirement prevented the GUID option because neither SQLite nor iOS support a simple, 128-bit integer type. Since I have a large existing code base that is written such that my keys are simple integer types, it will require a major refactoring of both the code and the database schema.
In the end, I've decided that the short term pain of doing this refactoring out weighs the long term issues of dealing with a klunky solution. Taking the hit now gives me a much simpler and less error prone solution that will last the long term. | 2012/12/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178180",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/74286/"
] | It really depends on how the keys are used, and the consequences of accidental duplicates.
Some obvious choices:
(1) the exact time (down to nanosecond if possible) is statistically certain to be unique among a few devices. Just using a sufficiently precise time as the key is likely to have an overall reliability greater than a more complicated scheme.
(2) Make every key a per-device key, and assign a real unique key when the device synchs to the cloud. Maintain a dictionary in the cloud.
(2a) generate temporary keys serially. When you first synch, aquire a block of permanant keys and renumber.
(3) issue blocks of a billion of so keys to devices the the first time they attach, let the devices subissue keys as needed. | Your other option would be to continue assigning keys on the client as you currently do but then when you sync, you re-generate the key on the server which makes it unique. You will have to remember to update the key on any child entities to make sure they link back up correctly. |
178,180 | I have a data intensive iOS app that is not using CoreData nor does it support iCloud synching (yet). All of my objects are created with unique keys. I use a simple `long long` initialized with the current time. Then as I need a new key I increment the value by 1. This has all worked well for a few years with the app running isolated on a single device.
Now I want to add support for automatic data sync across devices using iCloud. As my app is written, there is the possibility that two objects created on two different devices could end up with the same key. I need to avoid this possibility.
I'm looking for ideas for solving this issue. I have a few requirements that the solution must meet:
1) The key needs to remain a single integral data type. Converting all existing keys to a compound key or to a string or other type would affect the entire code base and likely result in more bugs than it's worth.
2) The solution can't depend on an Internet connection. A user must be able to run the app and add data even with no Internet connection. The data should still resolve properly later when the data syncs through iCloud once a connection is available. I'll accept one exception to this rule. If no other option is available, I may be open to requiring an Internet connection the first time the app's data is initialized.
One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits. This should be viable since I don't need to deal will millions of devices. I just need to deal with the few devices that would be shared by a given iCloud account.
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks.
Update:
After giving this some more thought, I've decided to take the short term hit and do this the right way. Using a GUID is definitely the best long term option for this. Using this approach eliminates the need to do any of the various options to deal with handing out key ranges or translating keys once an Internet connection is made.
My original requirement prevented the GUID option because neither SQLite nor iOS support a simple, 128-bit integer type. Since I have a large existing code base that is written such that my keys are simple integer types, it will require a major refactoring of both the code and the database schema.
In the end, I've decided that the short term pain of doing this refactoring out weighs the long term issues of dealing with a klunky solution. Taking the hit now gives me a much simpler and less error prone solution that will last the long term. | 2012/12/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178180",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/74286/"
] | As [Lars Viklund](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/42752/lars-viklund) points out in his comment, you might [look into UUIDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier) -- they're 128-bit numbers used for unique IDs and have good stats for uniqueness. If you can't find a function to generate one (though I'm sure Apple has one), Version 4 is pretty easy to implement. | >
>
> >
> > One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
IMO This is the best Option. (I like having the device ID tied to the data)
**My second Option would be to have the server Issue a block of ID to the client on sync.**
So when the client syncs to the Server the server tells the Client Id's 10000-20000 are yours. The next time the client syncs if there it has less then 5k Ids left, the server gives it and additional 5k id's.. If the client runs out of Ids it MUST sync.. (Its a good idea to not let the Client build up an infinite amount of data without syncing anyhow) |
178,180 | I have a data intensive iOS app that is not using CoreData nor does it support iCloud synching (yet). All of my objects are created with unique keys. I use a simple `long long` initialized with the current time. Then as I need a new key I increment the value by 1. This has all worked well for a few years with the app running isolated on a single device.
Now I want to add support for automatic data sync across devices using iCloud. As my app is written, there is the possibility that two objects created on two different devices could end up with the same key. I need to avoid this possibility.
I'm looking for ideas for solving this issue. I have a few requirements that the solution must meet:
1) The key needs to remain a single integral data type. Converting all existing keys to a compound key or to a string or other type would affect the entire code base and likely result in more bugs than it's worth.
2) The solution can't depend on an Internet connection. A user must be able to run the app and add data even with no Internet connection. The data should still resolve properly later when the data syncs through iCloud once a connection is available. I'll accept one exception to this rule. If no other option is available, I may be open to requiring an Internet connection the first time the app's data is initialized.
One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits. This should be viable since I don't need to deal will millions of devices. I just need to deal with the few devices that would be shared by a given iCloud account.
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks.
Update:
After giving this some more thought, I've decided to take the short term hit and do this the right way. Using a GUID is definitely the best long term option for this. Using this approach eliminates the need to do any of the various options to deal with handing out key ranges or translating keys once an Internet connection is made.
My original requirement prevented the GUID option because neither SQLite nor iOS support a simple, 128-bit integer type. Since I have a large existing code base that is written such that my keys are simple integer types, it will require a major refactoring of both the code and the database schema.
In the end, I've decided that the short term pain of doing this refactoring out weighs the long term issues of dealing with a klunky solution. Taking the hit now gives me a much simpler and less error prone solution that will last the long term. | 2012/12/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178180",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/74286/"
] | As [Lars Viklund](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/42752/lars-viklund) points out in his comment, you might [look into UUIDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier) -- they're 128-bit numbers used for unique IDs and have good stats for uniqueness. If you can't find a function to generate one (though I'm sure Apple has one), Version 4 is pretty easy to implement. | Your other option would be to continue assigning keys on the client as you currently do but then when you sync, you re-generate the key on the server which makes it unique. You will have to remember to update the key on any child entities to make sure they link back up correctly. |
178,180 | I have a data intensive iOS app that is not using CoreData nor does it support iCloud synching (yet). All of my objects are created with unique keys. I use a simple `long long` initialized with the current time. Then as I need a new key I increment the value by 1. This has all worked well for a few years with the app running isolated on a single device.
Now I want to add support for automatic data sync across devices using iCloud. As my app is written, there is the possibility that two objects created on two different devices could end up with the same key. I need to avoid this possibility.
I'm looking for ideas for solving this issue. I have a few requirements that the solution must meet:
1) The key needs to remain a single integral data type. Converting all existing keys to a compound key or to a string or other type would affect the entire code base and likely result in more bugs than it's worth.
2) The solution can't depend on an Internet connection. A user must be able to run the app and add data even with no Internet connection. The data should still resolve properly later when the data syncs through iCloud once a connection is available. I'll accept one exception to this rule. If no other option is available, I may be open to requiring an Internet connection the first time the app's data is initialized.
One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits. This should be viable since I don't need to deal will millions of devices. I just need to deal with the few devices that would be shared by a given iCloud account.
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks.
Update:
After giving this some more thought, I've decided to take the short term hit and do this the right way. Using a GUID is definitely the best long term option for this. Using this approach eliminates the need to do any of the various options to deal with handing out key ranges or translating keys once an Internet connection is made.
My original requirement prevented the GUID option because neither SQLite nor iOS support a simple, 128-bit integer type. Since I have a large existing code base that is written such that my keys are simple integer types, it will require a major refactoring of both the code and the database schema.
In the end, I've decided that the short term pain of doing this refactoring out weighs the long term issues of dealing with a klunky solution. Taking the hit now gives me a much simpler and less error prone solution that will last the long term. | 2012/12/03 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178180",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/74286/"
] | >
>
> >
> > One idea I have been toying around with in my head is logically splitting the integer key into two parts. The high 4 or 5 bits could be used as some sort of device id while the rest represents the actual key. The fuzzy part is figuring out how to come up with non-conflicting device ids that fit in a few bits
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
IMO This is the best Option. (I like having the device ID tied to the data)
**My second Option would be to have the server Issue a block of ID to the client on sync.**
So when the client syncs to the Server the server tells the Client Id's 10000-20000 are yours. The next time the client syncs if there it has less then 5k Ids left, the server gives it and additional 5k id's.. If the client runs out of Ids it MUST sync.. (Its a good idea to not let the Client build up an infinite amount of data without syncing anyhow) | Your other option would be to continue assigning keys on the client as you currently do but then when you sync, you re-generate the key on the server which makes it unique. You will have to remember to update the key on any child entities to make sure they link back up correctly. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | I would try adding the path to SQLite in PATH.
Supplemental: SQLite 3 is not "installed". It's a DLL, usually unregistered. Most software using SQLite 3 will rely on a local copy or one referenced in an environment variable. | Just tried this on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Didn't like it when I put it in the ruby/bin folder. Didn't like the \Winodws\System32 either... put it in the \Windows\system and it ran... go figure... anyway fyi for 64bit. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | I would try adding the path to SQLite in PATH.
Supplemental: SQLite 3 is not "installed". It's a DLL, usually unregistered. Most software using SQLite 3 will rely on a local copy or one referenced in an environment variable. | Windows 7 64 bit here as well, putting them in \Windows\system did it for me.
Actually I was installing this for HDBC and Haskell following the instructions at <http://wiki.github.com/jgoerzen/hdbc/frequentlyaskedquestions>
The only difference for Windows 7 64 bit is in the below instruction -
"Put “sqlite3.dll” from sqlitedll-3\*.zip into ghc --print-libdir and into %windir%\system32."
The file should be copied into the \Windows\system instead of the %windir%\system32 folder. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | I would try adding the path to SQLite in PATH.
Supplemental: SQLite 3 is not "installed". It's a DLL, usually unregistered. Most software using SQLite 3 will rely on a local copy or one referenced in an environment variable. | I had this problem when trying to run Rake (bundle exec rake db:migrate).
I tried setting the PATH, and copying the SqlLite binaries to C:\Windows\System32 but to no avail.
Finally solved it by copying the binaries to my Ruby bin directory (C:\Ruby192\bin), based on advice from this post: <http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/216270#977959>. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | Just tried this on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Didn't like it when I put it in the ruby/bin folder. Didn't like the \Winodws\System32 either... put it in the \Windows\system and it ran... go figure... anyway fyi for 64bit. | Windows 7 64 bit here as well, putting them in \Windows\system did it for me.
Actually I was installing this for HDBC and Haskell following the instructions at <http://wiki.github.com/jgoerzen/hdbc/frequentlyaskedquestions>
The only difference for Windows 7 64 bit is in the below instruction -
"Put “sqlite3.dll” from sqlitedll-3\*.zip into ghc --print-libdir and into %windir%\system32."
The file should be copied into the \Windows\system instead of the %windir%\system32 folder. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | Just tried this on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Didn't like it when I put it in the ruby/bin folder. Didn't like the \Winodws\System32 either... put it in the \Windows\system and it ran... go figure... anyway fyi for 64bit. | I had this problem when trying to run Rake (bundle exec rake db:migrate).
I tried setting the PATH, and copying the SqlLite binaries to C:\Windows\System32 but to no avail.
Finally solved it by copying the binaries to my Ruby bin directory (C:\Ruby192\bin), based on advice from this post: <http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/216270#977959>. |
1,734,629 | How do I install [SQLite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite) 3.6 on Windows 7?
I extracted sqlite3.exe, sqlite3.dll, and sqlite3.def to C:\Windows\System32 but when I try to run a Ruby program that requires the use of sqlite3, I get this error:
>
> The program can't start because sqlite3.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
>
>
> | 2009/11/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1734629",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/139089/"
] | Windows 7 64 bit here as well, putting them in \Windows\system did it for me.
Actually I was installing this for HDBC and Haskell following the instructions at <http://wiki.github.com/jgoerzen/hdbc/frequentlyaskedquestions>
The only difference for Windows 7 64 bit is in the below instruction -
"Put “sqlite3.dll” from sqlitedll-3\*.zip into ghc --print-libdir and into %windir%\system32."
The file should be copied into the \Windows\system instead of the %windir%\system32 folder. | I had this problem when trying to run Rake (bundle exec rake db:migrate).
I tried setting the PATH, and copying the SqlLite binaries to C:\Windows\System32 but to no avail.
Finally solved it by copying the binaries to my Ruby bin directory (C:\Ruby192\bin), based on advice from this post: <http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/216270#977959>. |
107,281 | Today I noticed a spam link (from a website with a fake-news-sounding name) on my Google News feed. My first thought was to flag this as not news or as unwanted, but I wasn't able to find any option to do this.
How can I report spam or fake news to Google so they can filter it from Google News?
---
*Post-script:*
I feel the need to clarify because "fake news" in my post seems to be inviting misinterpretation. I do NOT mean "fake news" in the Trumpian sense. That is, my goal is not to flag news stories that run counter to my personal beliefs.
Rather, I mean "fake news" quite literally. Spam purveyors masquerading as news outlets.
I was getting a flurry of spam "stories" on my feed from sites with names like "West Cost Newz" (I don't remember the exact names -- there were several). The headlines would be along the lines of "Payday Loans Hot Pensacola Low Interest Save". The news-like name of the site was leading Google to include this spam in the news content it aggregates for Google News. | 2017/06/27 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/107281",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/10213/"
] | You can report sites that violate Google News' quality guidelines for spam here:
<https://support.google.com/news/contact/report_news> | If the article is labeled as "Fact Check", then yes, there is.
From [Fix settings & report problems in Google News](https://support.google.com/news/answer/6085445?hl=en&ref_topic=2428811)
>
> Other problems might include:
>
>
> * An outdated article
> * A wrong headline
> * An article in the wrong section
> * Problems with page appearance or navigation
> * A blog or press release without a label
> * An article incorrectly labeled "Fact Check"
>
>
> If you find one of these problems, [contact us](https://support.google.com/news/publisher/contact/report_issue_content).
>
>
> |
107,281 | Today I noticed a spam link (from a website with a fake-news-sounding name) on my Google News feed. My first thought was to flag this as not news or as unwanted, but I wasn't able to find any option to do this.
How can I report spam or fake news to Google so they can filter it from Google News?
---
*Post-script:*
I feel the need to clarify because "fake news" in my post seems to be inviting misinterpretation. I do NOT mean "fake news" in the Trumpian sense. That is, my goal is not to flag news stories that run counter to my personal beliefs.
Rather, I mean "fake news" quite literally. Spam purveyors masquerading as news outlets.
I was getting a flurry of spam "stories" on my feed from sites with names like "West Cost Newz" (I don't remember the exact names -- there were several). The headlines would be along the lines of "Payday Loans Hot Pensacola Low Interest Save". The news-like name of the site was leading Google to include this spam in the news content it aggregates for Google News. | 2017/06/27 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/107281",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/10213/"
] | If the article is labeled as "Fact Check", then yes, there is.
From [Fix settings & report problems in Google News](https://support.google.com/news/answer/6085445?hl=en&ref_topic=2428811)
>
> Other problems might include:
>
>
> * An outdated article
> * A wrong headline
> * An article in the wrong section
> * Problems with page appearance or navigation
> * A blog or press release without a label
> * An article incorrectly labeled "Fact Check"
>
>
> If you find one of these problems, [contact us](https://support.google.com/news/publisher/contact/report_issue_content).
>
>
> | According to [this help page](https://support.google.com/googlenews/answer/7689843?hl=en&ref_topic=7689701), the current way is to click the "Send feedback" link at the lower left of the Google News page. Or in the app, there is a "Send feedback" option in the user menu. |
107,281 | Today I noticed a spam link (from a website with a fake-news-sounding name) on my Google News feed. My first thought was to flag this as not news or as unwanted, but I wasn't able to find any option to do this.
How can I report spam or fake news to Google so they can filter it from Google News?
---
*Post-script:*
I feel the need to clarify because "fake news" in my post seems to be inviting misinterpretation. I do NOT mean "fake news" in the Trumpian sense. That is, my goal is not to flag news stories that run counter to my personal beliefs.
Rather, I mean "fake news" quite literally. Spam purveyors masquerading as news outlets.
I was getting a flurry of spam "stories" on my feed from sites with names like "West Cost Newz" (I don't remember the exact names -- there were several). The headlines would be along the lines of "Payday Loans Hot Pensacola Low Interest Save". The news-like name of the site was leading Google to include this spam in the news content it aggregates for Google News. | 2017/06/27 | [
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/107281",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com",
"https://webapps.stackexchange.com/users/10213/"
] | You can report sites that violate Google News' quality guidelines for spam here:
<https://support.google.com/news/contact/report_news> | According to [this help page](https://support.google.com/googlenews/answer/7689843?hl=en&ref_topic=7689701), the current way is to click the "Send feedback" link at the lower left of the Google News page. Or in the app, there is a "Send feedback" option in the user menu. |
2,553 | I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.
Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do? | 2010/08/09 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2553",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/952/"
] | Do NOT cancel old cards.
The higher your total credit line, the older your credit accounts, the higher your credit score is.
It's OK to apply for new cards if you get good offers, your credit score might be negatively affected in the short term, but it will recover in a couple of years. However try not to apply for too may credit accounts when you need to apply for a new mortgage or refinance your current mortgage.
Other things that can affect your credit score:
* Lower overall utilization (good)
* On a particular credit account, lower than 50% if you can, and must stay under 90% utilization. (good if keep utilization low)
* Never go over credit limit
* Certain cards (e.g. Amex) allow you to increase your credit limit online without pull your credit report, take advantage this to increase your overall credit line.
Ultimately, the higher your credit score, the cheaper it is for you to borrow money. Even you are a disciplined consumer who pays off your credit cards every month, who knows? Maybe sometime in the future you will need to borrow money. | Don't open another credit card account just for cash back. The Visa you currently have is all you need. The only reason I can think of for opening another account is if some place you shop regularly doesn't accept Visa. I have an American Express charge card because Costco doesn't take other credit cards.
Credit scores depend on more than just total credit. Here's the Wikipedia entry on [credit scores](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_%28United_States%29). Your actual score may differ between TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. |
2,553 | I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.
Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do? | 2010/08/09 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2553",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/952/"
] | Do NOT cancel old cards.
The higher your total credit line, the older your credit accounts, the higher your credit score is.
It's OK to apply for new cards if you get good offers, your credit score might be negatively affected in the short term, but it will recover in a couple of years. However try not to apply for too may credit accounts when you need to apply for a new mortgage or refinance your current mortgage.
Other things that can affect your credit score:
* Lower overall utilization (good)
* On a particular credit account, lower than 50% if you can, and must stay under 90% utilization. (good if keep utilization low)
* Never go over credit limit
* Certain cards (e.g. Amex) allow you to increase your credit limit online without pull your credit report, take advantage this to increase your overall credit line.
Ultimately, the higher your credit score, the cheaper it is for you to borrow money. Even you are a disciplined consumer who pays off your credit cards every month, who knows? Maybe sometime in the future you will need to borrow money. | Two or Three credit cards are a reasonable number (if you are responsible enough to pay them off every month\*). An extra card or two at home can work as a backup if your wallet is lost or stolen. This amount will give you more options on closing the account if you have problems with the card issuer in the future, or if you find a much better deal, without hurting your credit score.
You might as well take the bonuses from an awards card, because everyone subsidizes the people who use them. Just check the 5% category on the card and see if you already spend a significant amount of money there in your budget.
\*If you can't pay it off monthly, you can't afford it, and you're paying more for everything in the long term to the issuer, along with the least responsible and the most responsible people. |
2,553 | I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.
Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do? | 2010/08/09 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2553",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/952/"
] | Do NOT cancel old cards.
The higher your total credit line, the older your credit accounts, the higher your credit score is.
It's OK to apply for new cards if you get good offers, your credit score might be negatively affected in the short term, but it will recover in a couple of years. However try not to apply for too may credit accounts when you need to apply for a new mortgage or refinance your current mortgage.
Other things that can affect your credit score:
* Lower overall utilization (good)
* On a particular credit account, lower than 50% if you can, and must stay under 90% utilization. (good if keep utilization low)
* Never go over credit limit
* Certain cards (e.g. Amex) allow you to increase your credit limit online without pull your credit report, take advantage this to increase your overall credit line.
Ultimately, the higher your credit score, the cheaper it is for you to borrow money. Even you are a disciplined consumer who pays off your credit cards every month, who knows? Maybe sometime in the future you will need to borrow money. | One reason to have two credit cards that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you have a backup in case one card is lost/stolen. This can be especially helpful in a pinch while you're away from home.
In your case, you might keep the new card as your "backup", store it separately from the primary card (i.e. so they don't both get lost at once), and maybe use it for some nominal monthly bill (Netflix or something) to avoid inactivity fees.
FWIW, Discover might not be my first choice as a backup, Visa/MC are accepted at more places. |
2,553 | I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.
Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do? | 2010/08/09 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2553",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/952/"
] | One reason to have two credit cards that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you have a backup in case one card is lost/stolen. This can be especially helpful in a pinch while you're away from home.
In your case, you might keep the new card as your "backup", store it separately from the primary card (i.e. so they don't both get lost at once), and maybe use it for some nominal monthly bill (Netflix or something) to avoid inactivity fees.
FWIW, Discover might not be my first choice as a backup, Visa/MC are accepted at more places. | Don't open another credit card account just for cash back. The Visa you currently have is all you need. The only reason I can think of for opening another account is if some place you shop regularly doesn't accept Visa. I have an American Express charge card because Costco doesn't take other credit cards.
Credit scores depend on more than just total credit. Here's the Wikipedia entry on [credit scores](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_%28United_States%29). Your actual score may differ between TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. |
2,553 | I just got a mailer from Discover offering a new card, with 5% back on some items and 1% back on everything else. However, I already have a Visa which I have had for a few years.
Does it make any sense to open another account, just to get the cash back? Would it be smart to cancel the Visa if I do? | 2010/08/09 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/2553",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/952/"
] | One reason to have two credit cards that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you have a backup in case one card is lost/stolen. This can be especially helpful in a pinch while you're away from home.
In your case, you might keep the new card as your "backup", store it separately from the primary card (i.e. so they don't both get lost at once), and maybe use it for some nominal monthly bill (Netflix or something) to avoid inactivity fees.
FWIW, Discover might not be my first choice as a backup, Visa/MC are accepted at more places. | Two or Three credit cards are a reasonable number (if you are responsible enough to pay them off every month\*). An extra card or two at home can work as a backup if your wallet is lost or stolen. This amount will give you more options on closing the account if you have problems with the card issuer in the future, or if you find a much better deal, without hurting your credit score.
You might as well take the bonuses from an awards card, because everyone subsidizes the people who use them. Just check the 5% category on the card and see if you already spend a significant amount of money there in your budget.
\*If you can't pay it off monthly, you can't afford it, and you're paying more for everything in the long term to the issuer, along with the least responsible and the most responsible people. |
119,683 | We first come to truly hate Umbridge when we discover that her idea of a punishment for students sentenced to detention is a quill that carves the message on the back of the student's hand. This punishment is obviously quite unusual due to the fact that it causes permanent physical harm (if I recall correctly, it's mentioned in later books that Harry still has scars from the punishment).
Now, obviously when Umbridge became headmaster, it's a bad idea to refuse the detention punishment because she presumably has power to expel you. But prior to that, I find no evidence that she'd be able to expel a student for refusing to do what's arguably a cruel and unusual punishment (and if she could, it begs the question of just how much she could force a student to do before the student is allowed to refuse).
So how come all the students begrudgingly put up with the punishment? How come nobody simply put their foot down and said "I'm not doing that" to her? Surely there's a limit to how much she can magically force people to do (and it seems like most students accepted the punishment). | 2016/02/16 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/119683",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/51437/"
] | Actually, apart from Harry, no one else seemed to be getting detention from Umbridge (at least until she became Headmistress). As mentioned by @rand al'thor, Harry refused to complain about her even though he was urged to do so by Ron, seen in *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix*, Chapter 13: *Detention with Dolores*
>
> “Yeah, so do — Harry, what’s that on the back of your hand?” Harry, who had just scratched his nose with his free right hand, tried to hide it, but had as much success as Ron with his Cleansweep.
>
>
> “It’s just a cut — it’s nothing — it’s —” But Ron had grabbed Harry’s fore
> arm and pulled the back of Harry’s hand up level with his eyes. There was a pause, during which he stared at the words carved into the skin, then he released Harry, looking sick.
>
>
> “I thought you said she was giving you lines?”
>
>
> Harry hesitated, but after all, Ron had been honest with him, so he
> told Ron the truth about the hours he had been spending in Umbridge’s office.
>
>
> “The old hag!” Ron said in a revolted whisper as they came to a halt
> in front of the Fat Lady, who was dozing peacefully with her head
> against her frame. “She’s sick! Go to McGonagall, say something!”
>
>
> “No,” said Harry at once. “I’m not giving her the satisfaction of
> knowing she’s got to me.”
>
>
> “Got to you? You can’t let her get away with this!”
>
>
> “I don’t know how much power McGonagall’s got over her,” said Harry.
>
>
> “Dumbledore, then, tell Dumbledore!”
>
>
> “No,” said Harry flatly.
>
>
> “Why not?”
>
>
> “He’s got enough on his mind,” said Harry, but that was not the true reason. He was not going to go to Dumbledore for help when Dumbledore had not spoken to him once since last June.
>
>
>
These are the reasons Harry didn't mention it to anyone. The only time the book mentions anyone else getting this sort of similar detention is Lee Jordan, and by then Umbridge (though not Headmistress yet), could only be superceded by Dumbledore and even upon his intervention might have just brought in another Educational Decree that stated she was in complete control of all detentions.
To be fair, once Dumbledore was gone and she became Headmistress, the students were much more rebellious and she seemed to have less control than ever. | In addition to what ʀ \_ ɪʟ226 said, my experience tells me that even in unjust situations people can be very hesitant to do something against the person causing it because of fear.
In my sixth degree at school I had a teacher who used to be quite authoritarian against us, and we also had far too much homework. Even if I tried to convince my classmates to do something against that situation, they were too afraid to be "punished" if we all together spoke up! That the situation was punishment itself didn't mater. |
1,393,106 | Our company has a lot of agreements and appendixes lying on a mutual drive, almost everyone can access. Being human we make mistakes once in a while, and sometimes results in saving on top of a standard document.
I would like to know, without using code, that users may only save as.
Is there by any chance this is possible, or do you have another way to do this?
The essential goal, is to have a standard document, which no one can edit, but whenever saved as, it is okay. I once saved a file, which resulted in whenever it is opened, it must be saved as first. I don't know how, but this is a great solution, if possible to recreate.
Thank you in advance :) | 2019/01/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1393106",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/860149/"
] | You could first merge & center one column by hand (in your example M4:M7), and then use "format painter" on the other columns (N4:O7). This is probably the best way to do it. | You have probably found the answer by now, but in case someone else asks.
The Merging rows option is right there in front of you in your screen dump. Just select the cells downwards (rows) that you want to merge (in your case M4:M7) and click the **Merge & Center** button. Or if you want to use the dropdown as shown, select the **Merge Cells** option.
You will then repeat the process for cells N4:N7 and O4:O7
[Edit: I guess there is not a ONE CLICK solution, but this is not that hard]
[5 second solution](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AoCnR.gif) |
185,528 | I was looking at a house and the bathrooms appear to have no exhaust fans. It does have these little things that look like they might be vents of some sort. Could they be sufficient for ventilation to remove moisture, with no apparent fans? The house is from the 80s. There are no windows in the bathrooms.
[](https://i.imgur.com/DwlCvEU.png) | 2020/02/26 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/185528",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/86667/"
] | Sure, could be an exhaust fan...but it could be a supply fan too.
To check, tape a piece of paper over about half the vent opening and wait for the fan to come on. Does it blow or suck?
Btw, look under the toe kick of the cabinet to see if there’s another vent. | That appears to be a standard air conditioning register. Code changes over the years may mean that the home wasn't required to have the vent fans when it was built. |
55,829 | I am applying for a PhD. There is a professor at my undergraduate institution I would like to ask for a LOR. I emailed him, but after a full week he has not replied.
From this I can infer that either he doesn't want to write the letter, or he is behind on email. I have to hope it is the latter, since he is the only professor I did research with, therefore my application would be much weaker without his letter. If he is behind on email, I have no way to tell how long it might be before he will see my email.
I would have gone in person, but I live very far away and cannot easily visit his office. Should I phone his office and:
* leave a message?
* phone during his office hours so I know he'll be there?
Applications are not due for approximately another two months; should I just wait a few more weeks before asking someone else for a (weaker) letter? | 2015/10/10 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42340/"
] | In general you should not call a professor unless they are expecting your call, or have a very close relationship with you (if they did, you would know). The social convention is to send him a followup email reminding him of your request. | I fully agree with Ben Bitdiddle's answer, but therre is an other option: You might have worked with other staff (PhD candidates, post-docs, ...) in this lab. You might ask them, whether the professor is actually in the lab / office (there are things like conferences, vacations, ...). In some cases, you might find someone who will ask the professor on your behalf and this could speed up the process.
It's up to you to judge whether such an approach would fit into the institute's culture. For me, it would work (I would tell the assistant to send me a draft of the letter), but some other professors might not like it.
One additional remark: Did you send a draft for the LOR? For a professor, it takes a while to write such a letter, since you have to remember the student, remember the tasks (s)he did, write things suitable for the new position, etc. If you could send a little draft containing the main topics to be covered, together with the remark that this is just for convenience and should not influence the professors opinion, you might get a much faster reply. If it's well wirtten, you might get it back as is with some minor revisions and a signature in very little time. |
55,829 | I am applying for a PhD. There is a professor at my undergraduate institution I would like to ask for a LOR. I emailed him, but after a full week he has not replied.
From this I can infer that either he doesn't want to write the letter, or he is behind on email. I have to hope it is the latter, since he is the only professor I did research with, therefore my application would be much weaker without his letter. If he is behind on email, I have no way to tell how long it might be before he will see my email.
I would have gone in person, but I live very far away and cannot easily visit his office. Should I phone his office and:
* leave a message?
* phone during his office hours so I know he'll be there?
Applications are not due for approximately another two months; should I just wait a few more weeks before asking someone else for a (weaker) letter? | 2015/10/10 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42340/"
] | You should first send a followup e-mail. If that does not get a response, you can try calling the department office and politely explain that you are a recent student who has been trying to ask Professor X for a letter of recommendation by e-mail and haven't heard back, and are wondering if something is going on that would make him unable to write for you. (For all you know, he might be on medical leave!) | I fully agree with Ben Bitdiddle's answer, but therre is an other option: You might have worked with other staff (PhD candidates, post-docs, ...) in this lab. You might ask them, whether the professor is actually in the lab / office (there are things like conferences, vacations, ...). In some cases, you might find someone who will ask the professor on your behalf and this could speed up the process.
It's up to you to judge whether such an approach would fit into the institute's culture. For me, it would work (I would tell the assistant to send me a draft of the letter), but some other professors might not like it.
One additional remark: Did you send a draft for the LOR? For a professor, it takes a while to write such a letter, since you have to remember the student, remember the tasks (s)he did, write things suitable for the new position, etc. If you could send a little draft containing the main topics to be covered, together with the remark that this is just for convenience and should not influence the professors opinion, you might get a much faster reply. If it's well wirtten, you might get it back as is with some minor revisions and a signature in very little time. |
487,862 | I'm doing a bit of research on ULP processors.
In a few papers (e.g. ["Energy-Efficient Near-Threshold Parallel Computing: The PULPv2 Cluster"](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8065010)) I found a figure of merit called "power density" and defined as Pdens = uW/MHz, so basically it is energy.
The thing is I don't understand what it means, I'm not sure when this would be useful either.
From my understanding:
A circuit consuming 10 W @ 25 MHz has a Pdens1 = 10/25 W/MHz = 0.4 W/MHz. If it was running @ 50 MHz but still consuming 10 W then it would be Pdens2 = 0.2 W/MHz.
To me, Pdens2 is better than Pdens1 since the goal is to minimize power consumption.
Any hints? Or good introductions books/article to ULP which better explains figure of merit like this and Energy Efficiency (MOPS/mw), for example. | 2020/03/24 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/487862",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/46579/"
] | The higher the frequency, the more the power dissipation will be. All else equal, a processor that consumes 10 W at 25 MHz will need 20 W at 50 MHz\*.
The power density (I'm not familiar with this name for it, but I'll assume you have it correct) is roughly constant for a given processor, so if you have a power density of 0.4 W/MHz, you can predict how much power it will consume for different clock speeds.
It helps you to compare the relative performance of different processors; if one processor you're considering using is rated to consume 10 W at 20 MHz, and another one consumes 20 W at 50 MHz, but you only need to clock the processor at 10 MHz, you'd have to do the math yourself to find which one would consume more power at that clock speed. But if instead they were rated at 0.5 W/MHz and 0.4 W/MHz, you can clearly see that no matter the clock speed, the second processor will consume less power than the first.
\*note: It's not exactly linear, but it's a good approximation. At very low frequencies especially, though, don't expect the relation to hold. Actually, don't expect your processor to *work*; most processors have a minimum frequency below which they won't work. | >
> In a few papers I found a figure of merith called power density and defined as Pdens = uW/MHz, so basically it is energy.
>
>
>
"Power density" in this case is just energy required to do one cycle of computation. If you multiplied by how much work per cycle the processor did, you would have computational efficiency.
>
> The thing is I don't understand what it means, I'm not sure when this would be useful either.
>
>
>
It is an easy to measure parameter that is roughly proportional to efficiency. It isn't the same as efficiency itself, but measuring that would be hard since how much work per cycle a processor can do depends on the specific thing it is doing. Having an easy to measure figure of merit is very useful.
>
> To me, Pdens2 is better than Pdens1 since the goal is to minimize power consumption. Any hints?
>
>
>
That is correct. The processor that is more efficient is better according to this metric. |
487,862 | I'm doing a bit of research on ULP processors.
In a few papers (e.g. ["Energy-Efficient Near-Threshold Parallel Computing: The PULPv2 Cluster"](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8065010)) I found a figure of merit called "power density" and defined as Pdens = uW/MHz, so basically it is energy.
The thing is I don't understand what it means, I'm not sure when this would be useful either.
From my understanding:
A circuit consuming 10 W @ 25 MHz has a Pdens1 = 10/25 W/MHz = 0.4 W/MHz. If it was running @ 50 MHz but still consuming 10 W then it would be Pdens2 = 0.2 W/MHz.
To me, Pdens2 is better than Pdens1 since the goal is to minimize power consumption.
Any hints? Or good introductions books/article to ULP which better explains figure of merit like this and Energy Efficiency (MOPS/mw), for example. | 2020/03/24 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/487862",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/46579/"
] | The higher the frequency, the more the power dissipation will be. All else equal, a processor that consumes 10 W at 25 MHz will need 20 W at 50 MHz\*.
The power density (I'm not familiar with this name for it, but I'll assume you have it correct) is roughly constant for a given processor, so if you have a power density of 0.4 W/MHz, you can predict how much power it will consume for different clock speeds.
It helps you to compare the relative performance of different processors; if one processor you're considering using is rated to consume 10 W at 20 MHz, and another one consumes 20 W at 50 MHz, but you only need to clock the processor at 10 MHz, you'd have to do the math yourself to find which one would consume more power at that clock speed. But if instead they were rated at 0.5 W/MHz and 0.4 W/MHz, you can clearly see that no matter the clock speed, the second processor will consume less power than the first.
\*note: It's not exactly linear, but it's a good approximation. At very low frequencies especially, though, don't expect the relation to hold. Actually, don't expect your processor to *work*; most processors have a minimum frequency below which they won't work. | This figure is used to compare power efficiency of different processors. The lower the number, the better is power efficiency. |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | (It's worth noting that by "continuous integration" I mean **automated** integration with an **automated** build process and **automatically** runs tests and **automatically** detects failure of each piece.
It's also worth noting that "continuous integration" just means to a trunk or test server. It does not mean "push every change live".
There are plenty of ways to do continuous integration wrong.)
---
I can't think of any reason not to do continuous integration testing. I guess I'm assuming that "continuous integration" includes testing. Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works.
If your build and/or tests take a long time then continuous integration can get expensive. In that case, run the tests obviously related to your change before the commit (coverage analysis tools, like [Devel::CoverX::Covered](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Devel::CoverX::Covered) can help discover what tests go with what code), do your integration testing after the commit using something like [SVN::Notify](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify), and alert the developers if it fails. Archive the test results using something like [Smolder](http://sourceforge.net/projects/smolder). That allows developers to work quickly without having to sit around watching test suites run, while still catching mistakes early.
That said, with a little work you can often you can speed up your build and test process. Many times slow tests are the result of each test having to do too much setup and teardown pointing at a system that's far too coupled requiring the whole system to be setup just to test a small piece.
Decoupling often helps, breaking out sub-systems into independent projects. The smaller scope makes for easier understanding and faster builds and tests. Each commit can do a full build and test without inconveniencing the programmer. Then all the sub-projects can be collected together to do integration testing.
One of the major advantages of running the test suite on every commit, even if it's after the commit, is you know just what broke the build. Rather than "something we did yesterday broke the build", or worse "four things we did yesterday broke the build in different ways and now we have to untangle it" it's "revision 1234 broke the build". You only have to examine that one revision to find the problem.
The advantage of doing a daily build is that at least you know there's a complete, clean build and test run happening every day. But you should be doing that anyway. | When starting, it takes a while to set everything up.
If you add tests, coverage, static code inspections, duplicate search, documentation build and deploys, it can take a long time (weeks) to get it right. After that, maintaining the build can be a problem.
e.g, if you add tests to solution, you can have the build detect them automatically based on some criteria or you have to manualy update build settings. Auto detection is much harder to get right. Same for coverage. Same of documentation generation... |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | (It's worth noting that by "continuous integration" I mean **automated** integration with an **automated** build process and **automatically** runs tests and **automatically** detects failure of each piece.
It's also worth noting that "continuous integration" just means to a trunk or test server. It does not mean "push every change live".
There are plenty of ways to do continuous integration wrong.)
---
I can't think of any reason not to do continuous integration testing. I guess I'm assuming that "continuous integration" includes testing. Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works.
If your build and/or tests take a long time then continuous integration can get expensive. In that case, run the tests obviously related to your change before the commit (coverage analysis tools, like [Devel::CoverX::Covered](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Devel::CoverX::Covered) can help discover what tests go with what code), do your integration testing after the commit using something like [SVN::Notify](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify), and alert the developers if it fails. Archive the test results using something like [Smolder](http://sourceforge.net/projects/smolder). That allows developers to work quickly without having to sit around watching test suites run, while still catching mistakes early.
That said, with a little work you can often you can speed up your build and test process. Many times slow tests are the result of each test having to do too much setup and teardown pointing at a system that's far too coupled requiring the whole system to be setup just to test a small piece.
Decoupling often helps, breaking out sub-systems into independent projects. The smaller scope makes for easier understanding and faster builds and tests. Each commit can do a full build and test without inconveniencing the programmer. Then all the sub-projects can be collected together to do integration testing.
One of the major advantages of running the test suite on every commit, even if it's after the commit, is you know just what broke the build. Rather than "something we did yesterday broke the build", or worse "four things we did yesterday broke the build in different ways and now we have to untangle it" it's "revision 1234 broke the build". You only have to examine that one revision to find the problem.
The advantage of doing a daily build is that at least you know there's a complete, clean build and test run happening every day. But you should be doing that anyway. | The only good reason not to do continuous integration comes when you've gotten your project working to the point where your integration tests hadn't identified any defect in a good long while and they're taking too much time to run every time you do a build. In other words: you've done enough continuous integration that you've proven to yourself that you no longer need it. |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | (It's worth noting that by "continuous integration" I mean **automated** integration with an **automated** build process and **automatically** runs tests and **automatically** detects failure of each piece.
It's also worth noting that "continuous integration" just means to a trunk or test server. It does not mean "push every change live".
There are plenty of ways to do continuous integration wrong.)
---
I can't think of any reason not to do continuous integration testing. I guess I'm assuming that "continuous integration" includes testing. Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works.
If your build and/or tests take a long time then continuous integration can get expensive. In that case, run the tests obviously related to your change before the commit (coverage analysis tools, like [Devel::CoverX::Covered](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Devel::CoverX::Covered) can help discover what tests go with what code), do your integration testing after the commit using something like [SVN::Notify](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify), and alert the developers if it fails. Archive the test results using something like [Smolder](http://sourceforge.net/projects/smolder). That allows developers to work quickly without having to sit around watching test suites run, while still catching mistakes early.
That said, with a little work you can often you can speed up your build and test process. Many times slow tests are the result of each test having to do too much setup and teardown pointing at a system that's far too coupled requiring the whole system to be setup just to test a small piece.
Decoupling often helps, breaking out sub-systems into independent projects. The smaller scope makes for easier understanding and faster builds and tests. Each commit can do a full build and test without inconveniencing the programmer. Then all the sub-projects can be collected together to do integration testing.
One of the major advantages of running the test suite on every commit, even if it's after the commit, is you know just what broke the build. Rather than "something we did yesterday broke the build", or worse "four things we did yesterday broke the build in different ways and now we have to untangle it" it's "revision 1234 broke the build". You only have to examine that one revision to find the problem.
The advantage of doing a daily build is that at least you know there's a complete, clean build and test run happening every day. But you should be doing that anyway. | I don't think there are any downsides to it. But for the sake of the argument, here is [Eric Minick's article on UrbanCode](http://www.anthillpro.com/blogs/anthillpro-blog/2008/07/14/1216083300000.html) *("It's about tests not builds.")* He criticises the tools that are based on [Martin Fowler's work](http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html) saying that they don't let enough time for tests.
*"To be truly successful in CI, Fowler asserts that the build should be self-testing and that these tests include both unit and end-to-end testing. At the same time, the build should be very fast - ideally less than ten minutes - because it should run on every commit. If there are a significant number of end-to-end tests, executing them at build time while keeping the whole process under ten minutes is unrealistic.
Add in the demand for a build on every commit, and the requirements start to feel improbable. The options are either slower feedback or the removal of some tests."* |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | I don't think there are any downsides to it. But for the sake of the argument, here is [Eric Minick's article on UrbanCode](http://www.anthillpro.com/blogs/anthillpro-blog/2008/07/14/1216083300000.html) *("It's about tests not builds.")* He criticises the tools that are based on [Martin Fowler's work](http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html) saying that they don't let enough time for tests.
*"To be truly successful in CI, Fowler asserts that the build should be self-testing and that these tests include both unit and end-to-end testing. At the same time, the build should be very fast - ideally less than ten minutes - because it should run on every commit. If there are a significant number of end-to-end tests, executing them at build time while keeping the whole process under ten minutes is unrealistic.
Add in the demand for a build on every commit, and the requirements start to feel improbable. The options are either slower feedback or the removal of some tests."* | When starting, it takes a while to set everything up.
If you add tests, coverage, static code inspections, duplicate search, documentation build and deploys, it can take a long time (weeks) to get it right. After that, maintaining the build can be a problem.
e.g, if you add tests to solution, you can have the build detect them automatically based on some criteria or you have to manualy update build settings. Auto detection is much harder to get right. Same for coverage. Same of documentation generation... |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | (It's worth noting that by "continuous integration" I mean **automated** integration with an **automated** build process and **automatically** runs tests and **automatically** detects failure of each piece.
It's also worth noting that "continuous integration" just means to a trunk or test server. It does not mean "push every change live".
There are plenty of ways to do continuous integration wrong.)
---
I can't think of any reason not to do continuous integration testing. I guess I'm assuming that "continuous integration" includes testing. Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works.
If your build and/or tests take a long time then continuous integration can get expensive. In that case, run the tests obviously related to your change before the commit (coverage analysis tools, like [Devel::CoverX::Covered](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Devel::CoverX::Covered) can help discover what tests go with what code), do your integration testing after the commit using something like [SVN::Notify](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify), and alert the developers if it fails. Archive the test results using something like [Smolder](http://sourceforge.net/projects/smolder). That allows developers to work quickly without having to sit around watching test suites run, while still catching mistakes early.
That said, with a little work you can often you can speed up your build and test process. Many times slow tests are the result of each test having to do too much setup and teardown pointing at a system that's far too coupled requiring the whole system to be setup just to test a small piece.
Decoupling often helps, breaking out sub-systems into independent projects. The smaller scope makes for easier understanding and faster builds and tests. Each commit can do a full build and test without inconveniencing the programmer. Then all the sub-projects can be collected together to do integration testing.
One of the major advantages of running the test suite on every commit, even if it's after the commit, is you know just what broke the build. Rather than "something we did yesterday broke the build", or worse "four things we did yesterday broke the build in different ways and now we have to untangle it" it's "revision 1234 broke the build". You only have to examine that one revision to find the problem.
The advantage of doing a daily build is that at least you know there's a complete, clean build and test run happening every day. But you should be doing that anyway. | There are generally two cases where I've seen continuous integration not really make sense. Keep in mind I am a big advocate of CI and try to use it when I can.
The first one is when the roi just doesn't make sense. I currently develop several small internal apps. The applications are normally very trivial and the whole lifecycle of the development is about a week or two. To properly setup everything for CI would probably double that and I probably would never see that investment back again. You can argue that I'll get it back in maintenance, but these apps are as likely to be discarded as they are updated. Keep in mind that your job is probably to ship software, not reach 100% code coverage.
The other scenario that I have heard mentioned is that CI doesn't make sense if you're not going to do anything with the results. For example, if your software has to be sent to QA, and the QA staff can only really look at a new version every couple of days, it makes no sense to have builds every few hours. If other developers aren't going to look at code metrics and try to improve them, it makes no sense to track them. Granted this is not the fault of CI not being a good technique, it is a lack of your team willing to embrace CI. Nevertheless, implementing a CI system in such a scenario doesn't make sense. |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | I don't think there are any downsides to it. But for the sake of the argument, here is [Eric Minick's article on UrbanCode](http://www.anthillpro.com/blogs/anthillpro-blog/2008/07/14/1216083300000.html) *("It's about tests not builds.")* He criticises the tools that are based on [Martin Fowler's work](http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html) saying that they don't let enough time for tests.
*"To be truly successful in CI, Fowler asserts that the build should be self-testing and that these tests include both unit and end-to-end testing. At the same time, the build should be very fast - ideally less than ten minutes - because it should run on every commit. If there are a significant number of end-to-end tests, executing them at build time while keeping the whole process under ten minutes is unrealistic.
Add in the demand for a build on every commit, and the requirements start to feel improbable. The options are either slower feedback or the removal of some tests."* | There are generally two cases where I've seen continuous integration not really make sense. Keep in mind I am a big advocate of CI and try to use it when I can.
The first one is when the roi just doesn't make sense. I currently develop several small internal apps. The applications are normally very trivial and the whole lifecycle of the development is about a week or two. To properly setup everything for CI would probably double that and I probably would never see that investment back again. You can argue that I'll get it back in maintenance, but these apps are as likely to be discarded as they are updated. Keep in mind that your job is probably to ship software, not reach 100% code coverage.
The other scenario that I have heard mentioned is that CI doesn't make sense if you're not going to do anything with the results. For example, if your software has to be sent to QA, and the QA staff can only really look at a new version every couple of days, it makes no sense to have builds every few hours. If other developers aren't going to look at code metrics and try to improve them, it makes no sense to track them. Granted this is not the fault of CI not being a good technique, it is a lack of your team willing to embrace CI. Nevertheless, implementing a CI system in such a scenario doesn't make sense. |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | There are generally two cases where I've seen continuous integration not really make sense. Keep in mind I am a big advocate of CI and try to use it when I can.
The first one is when the roi just doesn't make sense. I currently develop several small internal apps. The applications are normally very trivial and the whole lifecycle of the development is about a week or two. To properly setup everything for CI would probably double that and I probably would never see that investment back again. You can argue that I'll get it back in maintenance, but these apps are as likely to be discarded as they are updated. Keep in mind that your job is probably to ship software, not reach 100% code coverage.
The other scenario that I have heard mentioned is that CI doesn't make sense if you're not going to do anything with the results. For example, if your software has to be sent to QA, and the QA staff can only really look at a new version every couple of days, it makes no sense to have builds every few hours. If other developers aren't going to look at code metrics and try to improve them, it makes no sense to track them. Granted this is not the fault of CI not being a good technique, it is a lack of your team willing to embrace CI. Nevertheless, implementing a CI system in such a scenario doesn't make sense. | The only good reason not to do continuous integration comes when you've gotten your project working to the point where your integration tests hadn't identified any defect in a good long while and they're taking too much time to run every time you do a build. In other words: you've done enough continuous integration that you've proven to yourself that you no longer need it. |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | (It's worth noting that by "continuous integration" I mean **automated** integration with an **automated** build process and **automatically** runs tests and **automatically** detects failure of each piece.
It's also worth noting that "continuous integration" just means to a trunk or test server. It does not mean "push every change live".
There are plenty of ways to do continuous integration wrong.)
---
I can't think of any reason not to do continuous integration testing. I guess I'm assuming that "continuous integration" includes testing. Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works.
If your build and/or tests take a long time then continuous integration can get expensive. In that case, run the tests obviously related to your change before the commit (coverage analysis tools, like [Devel::CoverX::Covered](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Devel::CoverX::Covered) can help discover what tests go with what code), do your integration testing after the commit using something like [SVN::Notify](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify), and alert the developers if it fails. Archive the test results using something like [Smolder](http://sourceforge.net/projects/smolder). That allows developers to work quickly without having to sit around watching test suites run, while still catching mistakes early.
That said, with a little work you can often you can speed up your build and test process. Many times slow tests are the result of each test having to do too much setup and teardown pointing at a system that's far too coupled requiring the whole system to be setup just to test a small piece.
Decoupling often helps, breaking out sub-systems into independent projects. The smaller scope makes for easier understanding and faster builds and tests. Each commit can do a full build and test without inconveniencing the programmer. Then all the sub-projects can be collected together to do integration testing.
One of the major advantages of running the test suite on every commit, even if it's after the commit, is you know just what broke the build. Rather than "something we did yesterday broke the build", or worse "four things we did yesterday broke the build in different ways and now we have to untangle it" it's "revision 1234 broke the build". You only have to examine that one revision to find the problem.
The advantage of doing a daily build is that at least you know there's a complete, clean build and test run happening every day. But you should be doing that anyway. | James Shore had a great series of blog entries on the dangers of thinking that using a CI tool like CruiseControl meant you were doing continuous integration:
* [Why I Don't like CruiseControl](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Why%20I%20Dont%20Like%20CruiseControl.html)
* [Continuous Integration is an Attitude not a Tool](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-is-an-Attitude.html)
* [Continuous Integration on a Dollar a Day](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-on-a-Dollar-a-Day.html)
One danger of setting up a CI server is goal displacement, thinking that the important thing is to "keep the build passing" as opposed to "ensuring we have high quality software". So people stop caring about how long the tests take to run. Then they take too long to run all of them before checkin. Then the build keeps breaking. Then the build is always broken. So people comment out the tests to make the build pass. And the quality of the software goes down, but hey, the build is passing... |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | I don't think there are any downsides to it. But for the sake of the argument, here is [Eric Minick's article on UrbanCode](http://www.anthillpro.com/blogs/anthillpro-blog/2008/07/14/1216083300000.html) *("It's about tests not builds.")* He criticises the tools that are based on [Martin Fowler's work](http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html) saying that they don't let enough time for tests.
*"To be truly successful in CI, Fowler asserts that the build should be self-testing and that these tests include both unit and end-to-end testing. At the same time, the build should be very fast - ideally less than ten minutes - because it should run on every commit. If there are a significant number of end-to-end tests, executing them at build time while keeping the whole process under ten minutes is unrealistic.
Add in the demand for a build on every commit, and the requirements start to feel improbable. The options are either slower feedback or the removal of some tests."* | James Shore had a great series of blog entries on the dangers of thinking that using a CI tool like CruiseControl meant you were doing continuous integration:
* [Why I Don't like CruiseControl](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Why%20I%20Dont%20Like%20CruiseControl.html)
* [Continuous Integration is an Attitude not a Tool](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-is-an-Attitude.html)
* [Continuous Integration on a Dollar a Day](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-on-a-Dollar-a-Day.html)
One danger of setting up a CI server is goal displacement, thinking that the important thing is to "keep the build passing" as opposed to "ensuring we have high quality software". So people stop caring about how long the tests take to run. Then they take too long to run all of them before checkin. Then the build keeps breaking. Then the build is always broken. So people comment out the tests to make the build pass. And the quality of the software goes down, but hey, the build is passing... |
214,695 | I can think of plenty of good reasons to using it; however, what are the downsides to it?
(Apart from buying another server)
What are some advantages to using a daily build instead of it? | 2008/10/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/214695",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/18658/"
] | James Shore had a great series of blog entries on the dangers of thinking that using a CI tool like CruiseControl meant you were doing continuous integration:
* [Why I Don't like CruiseControl](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Why%20I%20Dont%20Like%20CruiseControl.html)
* [Continuous Integration is an Attitude not a Tool](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-is-an-Attitude.html)
* [Continuous Integration on a Dollar a Day](http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-on-a-Dollar-a-Day.html)
One danger of setting up a CI server is goal displacement, thinking that the important thing is to "keep the build passing" as opposed to "ensuring we have high quality software". So people stop caring about how long the tests take to run. Then they take too long to run all of them before checkin. Then the build keeps breaking. Then the build is always broken. So people comment out the tests to make the build pass. And the quality of the software goes down, but hey, the build is passing... | When starting, it takes a while to set everything up.
If you add tests, coverage, static code inspections, duplicate search, documentation build and deploys, it can take a long time (weeks) to get it right. After that, maintaining the build can be a problem.
e.g, if you add tests to solution, you can have the build detect them automatically based on some criteria or you have to manualy update build settings. Auto detection is much harder to get right. Same for coverage. Same of documentation generation... |
46,126 | 
I’ve had my cactus for over a year now. I bought it late winter/early spring (February/March?) and from the time I bought it to around a month ago it had very stunted growth and didn’t grow any new spines. I used to water it roughly every 3 weeks, because I I knew that cacti don’t need watering as much as other houseplants. However, in the past 2 months I’ve increased this to every 2 weeks and it has grown new spines and significantly increased in height. I was happy to see this of course, but the new stem looks really thin compared to the lower half. Do I need to increase its water intake even more?
Also if anyone can tell me what species or family my cactus belongs to I’d be really grateful! | 2019/06/07 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/46126",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/25984/"
] | It looks like *euphorbia pentagona* as the other answer said.
It is not a desert cactus, so it doesn't *need* full sun 12 hours a day 7 days a week. In fact too much sun can make them turn a lighter shade of green, since the plant doesn't waste resources producing more chlorophyll than it needs.
Etiolation is a thing, but your problem may be the change in watering. In the wild it grows in regions that get regular rain all year round. Under-watering probably wouldn't kill it (not unless it wasn't watered at all for 12 or 24 months!) but as you discovered, it will slow down the growth rate.
You might try watering it even more (say once a week) in summer, then cut back to nothing at all for the darkest 2 or 3 months in winter and start watering again in about March. Making it have an annual dormant period will encourage it to flower.
The stems won't get thicker over time, so your plant will now always have those thin spots - at least until it grows so many new "branches" that you can get rid of the oldest ones if you really don't like the way they look. | If new growth is thinner than the rest of the plant it is usually a not enough light problem. This phenomenon is called [etiolation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiolation), and it is not something you can reverse (the thin growth stays thin), so take action right away. You can prevent it by giving the plant more light, try to give it direct sunlight. Try to put it on a south facing window if available.
I think your cactus is not a real cactus, but a *Euphorbia pentagona*. |
17,337 | >
> Related: [Patch or replace
> tube?](https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/4479/patch-or-replace-tube?rq=1)
>
>
>
[This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFB_PyoOrt4) video asserts that:
* A properly patched area of a tube is stronger than intact tube area
* Never patch a tube more than 3 times
Those are seemingly contradictory.
The video is just and example and motivation for this question. I have often seem people discard tubes with several patches, after they are punctured again.
*Is it true that after some number of patches to a tube, it is better to dump the thing? How many?* | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/17337",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/3927/"
] | My rule of thumb is the following:
* Never patch a patch: when a puncture is too close to another patch so that the patches would overlap or almost, then I toss the tube
* Never patch too close to the valve: the valve makes is a *structural anomaly* in the butyl that makes the tube, so is a more sensitive area, not to mention all the air input comes from there so it is a *less stable* area.
* Toss a tube that has more than 8 patches... it is an arbitrary number but it is the one I set. Most of the times, when you reach that many patches, you will bump into one of the first two points,...
Of course, when in trouble, when you have no spare tube, and you have a flat, patch it no matter what. That is a no-brainer.
A properly patched area might be stronger than the intact area since it fixes the hole, but apart from the hole, it adds some thickness to the tube so puncture resistance.
You will (almost) never puncture a patched area: the patch might fail, but you will not puncture the patch.
That downside of the patch is that it does not expand (or just very little) compared to the intact tube (try to inflate a patched tube outside of the tire, you will see the diameter is smaller in patched areas). So an overly patched tube will be less expandable in the tire than an intact one.
This causes the whole physics of the tube inside a tire to be less perfect than it is conceived for; which is why you must not over-patch a tube (and solves the apparent contradiction). | Yeah, I'd essentially agree with Tisek. If the patches were very evenly distributed I could see going to 15 or even 20 patches, but they never are, and the uneven expansion that results puts additional stress on the tube and may also cause the wheel to be lumpy.
However, with belted tires I get punctures so rarely that I figure a tube is getting too old after 3-4 patches. (Especially since I always carry 2 spare tubes, one in my tool bag and one in my pannier, and rotate them.)
I would add that I'd never (except in an emergency) attempt to patch anything resembling a blowout (even a small one). (Though I have been known to put a patch on the inside of a tire to "boot" a small puncture hole.) |
29,785 | Over time, many musicians have experimented with various chord progressions, but none has stood the test of time as the [four-chord song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I). What is it about this [progression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression) (and its variations) that are so appealing to the masses? Is there any mathematical basis behind it?
---
1. That I asked for mathematical basis does not mean this is the only answer. Subjective answers (with reasoning) are encouraged as well.
2. So as to keep answers short(er), assume the reader (myself included) is familiar with chord theory and terminology (i.e. I=tonic, V=dominant, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29785",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/18873/"
] | **It is widely known that many popular songs of our era are comprised of only four chords. And more often than not, the four chords used in a four chord song - are the I (one), IV (four), V(five) and vi (minor sixth) chord.**
There is in fact a **mathematical explanation** for why these four chords seem to work well to create music that the majority of mainstream audiences seem to like.
It takes a little thought to grasp this concept from a mathematical perspective, so grab your beverage of choice, sit in a comfortable chair and put your thinking cap on. **This is only for those truly interested in a mathematical explanation of why certain chords work well together in popular music.**
Music is based on math because sound consists of waves that can be measured and quantified mathematically. Different sounds produce wave forms in different frequencies. A particular note will produce a particular and unique sound print based on how fast the waves move up and down which is measured as “frequency”.
**The mathematical relation of these frequencies to one another, account for the fact that some sets or groups of notes are harmonious with one another (sound good together) while others sound dis-harmonious (don’t seem to go together).** Another way this can be described is that notes that sound good together are **consonant**, and notes that don’t blend are **dissonant**.
When a composer of a popular song sets out to write an upbeat or up-tempo song, they will more than likely choose a major key – which tends to evoke a happier vibe (if you will).
When selecting the chords to be used , the safest ones he/she knows will always sound good, are the I chord (related to the root note of the key the song is in) the IV chord (based on the fourth note of the key) and the V chord (based on the fifth note of the key). We often refer to these "notes" as the first, fourth and fifth **degree** of the scale.
The I, IV and V (one, four, five) chords are also known as the tonic, subdominant and dominant chords of the scale. **These chords are always a safe bet in any song in a major key, because they will harmonize well with any note in the key the song is in.**
**The next safest bet mathematically speaking, is probably the vi (sixth minor chord) which is why if the composer adds a fourth chord and only a fourth chord to the three major chords described above - it will often be the vi chord.**
**Now I will attempt to explain mathematically, why the foregoing is true.**
A major chord is comprised of a root, a major 3rd (4 semitones or two whole steps above root) and a perfect fifth (7 semitones or 3 and one half steps above root). These notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another verses clashing with one another. A chord can be formed using any note as a root note.
The chords available for any **given key** which will sound correct with that key based on music theory, are limited to the chords which can be formed using the notes in that key. Any given diatonic key will have only 7 notes that are in that key and these are the 7 notes we can use to form chords that go with that key.
Since our melody notes will be taken from the notes in the key we are composing in, it follows that the chords that will sound good with the notes we choose for the melody, should be comprised of the notes in the melody. Therefore the chords that will support any melody in a given key must be formed using the 7 notes in that particular key.
Using the 7 notes in a major key, limits which chords we can form and only gives us three options for major chords that can be formed using those 7 notes. And those 3 options for major chords will always end up being the I chord, IV chord and V chord (all major).
While the foregoing explains why you don't have a choice of which chords you can use without venturing outside they key - **it falls short of explaining why the I, IV, and V chord sound good in a given key.**
To understand this better, we must revisit the idea presented in part one, that suggests that certain notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another. **Our brains will instinctively have a desire to gravitate towards complimentary frequencies that will blend together to form pleasing sounds.** The relationship between the sonic frequency of two notes is described in music theory as an "interval" which is how far apart the sonic frequencies are - commonly measured in what we call semitones (with one semitone being the smallest step in a Western Music chromatic scale).
The most congruent and **consonant sounding intervals** are the unison (same exact frequency or **1:1 ratio**) and an octave (exactly double the frequency or a **2:1 ratio**). It's easy to visualize how the sound waves will line up evenly and blend together if you have exactly **2 crests of one wave for every one crest of the second**.
**Besides the octave and unison, the next most consonant** (harmonious) interval is the **perfect fifth**. This is because the ratio between the sonic frequency of two notes that form a perfect fifth (7 semitones apart) is **3:2.** Because these two numbers are small, **the crests of the sound waves will peak at the same place more often than they would if the ratio were say 15:8.** So any two notes with an interval between them of a perfect fifth, will sound good together.
If we start with the note of a particular key (say C in C Major for example) we can get to a perfect fifth interval from there by going up 7 semitones which lands on G if we start with C. That happens to end up being the 5th note in a diatonic major scale. (1)C (2)D (3)E (4)F (5)G. We know, that the interval between C and G in the key of C major will result in two notes that blend together because they form a perfect fifth, and we know that these notes will sound good together whether they are played at the same time or successively.
So if we build a chord using the G note as the root of the chord (since G is on the other end of a perfect fifth interval from the home note of our key (C), and that chord is formed using only the notes in our key, then it makes sense that the chord (in this case G Major) naturally evolves from the tonic I chord - C Major (which uses our key's home note as it's root).
It's like we use the tonic chord and pivot to the G chord because the G note is a perfect fifth interval using C at the other end. So the chord using this note as the root (G major) evolves naturally from the tonic chord C (with C as the root). This is why the five chord is the dominant.
If we pivot from C in the **opposite** direction on our piano keyboard (or our scale carried out over several octaves), and we count in **descending** order seven steps to the note that forms the other perfect fifth that can occur in the key of C major (using a C as a note on one end of the interval), we land on the note F - **seven semitones from C**. So if we use our home note (C) as the anchor point and count a perfect fifth **descending**, we get the **fifth interval formed with the notes F and C**.
So if the interval F to C is a perfect fifth we know those notes will blend together in a harmonious manner. We know that using C as an anchor point in the key of C Major, we can reach a perfect fifth using the C in **two and only two ways** - **ascending the scale by 7 semitones to get to G, or descending the scale by 7 semitones which lands us on the other option - F.** So if the relationship between the C and F can also form a fifth interval, it makes sense that leaving C Major and going to a chord with a root based on F (F Major - our IV chord) or going from an F back to C, will sound natural in the key of C Major.
To further illustrate why the IV and V chord segue well with the tonic I chord which anchors the key, I might point out that the next most consonant interval between notes is the perfect fourth with a sonic frequency ratio of **4:3.**
If you start with the triad that forms the tonic chord of a given Major key, and use the root note of that Major triad as the anchor point, there are two notes you can reach that will each form BOTH a perfect fourth interval AND a perfect fifth interval using your home note of the key (which is the root note of the tonic chord) as one end of the interval.
Again using the key of C major for illustration, the interval between C and G is a perfect fifth and the interval between G and C (same two notes **now inverted**) is a perfect fourth. Thus using C as an anchor point, and G at the other end of the interval, you can form both a perfect fifth (if you **ascend** from C) and a perfect fourth (if you **descend** from C). Remember, these are the **two most consonant (pleasing sounding) intervals available outside of the octave and unison**.
You can also achieve this same feat using one other note - F. The interval between F and C is a perfect fifth and the interval between C and F (ascending the scale) is a perfect fourth. Again the C is the home note or anchor point.
This provides further logic to explain why chords with root notes based on the two notes in the diatonic scale for a particular key, that are each capable of combining with the home key note to make both a perfect fourth and perfect fifth, will be the most stable sounding chords in that key and will naturally evolve from or resolve to the tonic (I) chord that anchors the key.
**To understand why the next safest bet – harmonically or mathematically speaking is the vi (minor sixth) chord** of the scale we must understand that every major key has a relative minor key that contains the same notes (only starting at a different place when written out or played as a scale).
The relative minor key of any major key – is based on the sixth degree vi (minor sixth) of the major scale. The relative minor key will contain exactly the same notes as the **major** key it is related to. So in any major key, the relative minor key (based on the sixth scale degree) will contain the same notes as the **root key** our song is in, and the minor sixth chord (vi) will consist of notes that are in the key of the song and will therefore harmonize well with corresponding notes in the melody.
The fact that the vi chord is derived from the relative minor scale of the **root key** of the song, perhaps further explains why it seems to work well for composing a chord progression for any popular song one wishes to write.
It may take some time to digest this but hopefully it helps. If any more knowledgeable members of the community care to comment on, or edit my answer for the sake of clarification or accuracy, please feel free to do so. | **Now for the short answer.**
As it occurred to me that not everyone will want to read my dissertation in the first answer, I will attempt a simpler explanation for **why many popular songs are based on a similar four chord progression.**
**This answer will still explain it mathematically as suggested by the question.**
Music is based on math because sound consists of waves that can be measured and quantified mathematically. **Different sounds produce wave forms in different frequencies.** A particular note will produce a particular and unique sound print based on **how fast the waves move up and down which is measured as “frequency”.**
**The mathematical relation of these frequencies to one another,** account for the fact that some sets or groups of notes are harmonious with one another (sound good together) while others sound dis-harmonious (don’t seem to go together).
Music in common usage in most of the Western World today divides an octave into 12 steps. Each key contains 7 of the 12 possible notes. The distance between these notes is known as an interval and is measured in steps (also known as semitones). Each octave has 12 semitones but the intervals between them define which notes are in that scale and if the scale is major or minor.
**The harmonic quality of an interval between notes (or how pleasing it sounds) is determined by the ratio of the frequency of each notes sound waves to one another.**
So two people singing the exact same note at the same time will produce a sound that blends together well. **We call this interval a unison and it has a ratio of one crest of sound wave to one crest of sound wave or 1:1.**
The next closest aspect ratio of crest to crest that we can achieve is **the octave which is the note at exactly double the frequency of the first - or 2:1.** An example of an octave interval is the bass strings on a 12 string guitar are tuned an octave apart, so one vibrates exactly twice as fast as the other so the crest of the waves coincides one for every two making those two notes at that octave interval blend well together and sound good.
Besides the octave and unison, **the next most consonant (harmonious) interval is the perfect fifth. This is because the ratio between the sonic frequency of two notes that form a perfect fifth is 3:2.** Because these two numbers are small, the crests of the sound waves will peak at the same place more often than they would if the ratio were say 15:8. So any two notes with an interval between them of a perfect fifth, will sound good together.
**The next most consonant interval between notes is the perfect fourth with a sonic frequency ratio of 4:3.**
In choosing chords for a song in a particular key, the chords most likely to support the melody will consist of those chords that contain the notes of the scale corresponding to the key the song is in. Those notes give us only three major chords if we are composing an upbeat song in a major key. And those 3 options for major chords will always end up being the I chord, IV chord and V chord (all major) because of how a chord is formed.
**The I chord** is formed using the tonic note of the key (C in the key of C) as the root note of the chord. So it's a major chord **based on the first degree of the scale** corresponding to our 1:1 unison. **The IV chord is the major chord based on the fourth degree of the scale** which relates to our aforementioned fourth interval at a 4:3 ratio and the **V chord is based on the fifth degree and thus is related to our 5th interval at a harmonically pleasing ratio of 3:2.**
Some other chords available to us for our chord progression that also consist of notes found in our key, are the ii (two minor) based on the second degree of our scale, the iii (three minor) and the vi (sixth minor).
Since the sonic frequencies of these minor chords in our major key will be less congruent than in our 3 major chords (the I, IV and V) they will create tension in our arrangement. This tension will create a desire for resolution back to a major chord and ultimately back to the tonic or I chord.
They are available to us in our chord progression since they consist only of notes in our key. And if the composer wants to create an element of tension in a part of the song, one of these minor chords will often be added to the I, IV and V chords to create a four chord song. A fourth chord will sometimes make the song more interesting with the tension and resolution creating a dynamic sense of movement in the music. Kind of like a push pull effect.
But the chords available to increase the probability of widespread appeal in a song, will be limited primarily to the chords discussed above. **These are the chords who's notes and intervals as they relate to the sonic frequency ratios between them - will blend most harmoniously and pleasingly with the notes in the melody of any song in a given key.**
For a more detailed discussion of this, see my other answer to this question. |
29,785 | Over time, many musicians have experimented with various chord progressions, but none has stood the test of time as the [four-chord song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I). What is it about this [progression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression) (and its variations) that are so appealing to the masses? Is there any mathematical basis behind it?
---
1. That I asked for mathematical basis does not mean this is the only answer. Subjective answers (with reasoning) are encouraged as well.
2. So as to keep answers short(er), assume the reader (myself included) is familiar with chord theory and terminology (i.e. I=tonic, V=dominant, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29785",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/18873/"
] | **It is widely known that many popular songs of our era are comprised of only four chords. And more often than not, the four chords used in a four chord song - are the I (one), IV (four), V(five) and vi (minor sixth) chord.**
There is in fact a **mathematical explanation** for why these four chords seem to work well to create music that the majority of mainstream audiences seem to like.
It takes a little thought to grasp this concept from a mathematical perspective, so grab your beverage of choice, sit in a comfortable chair and put your thinking cap on. **This is only for those truly interested in a mathematical explanation of why certain chords work well together in popular music.**
Music is based on math because sound consists of waves that can be measured and quantified mathematically. Different sounds produce wave forms in different frequencies. A particular note will produce a particular and unique sound print based on how fast the waves move up and down which is measured as “frequency”.
**The mathematical relation of these frequencies to one another, account for the fact that some sets or groups of notes are harmonious with one another (sound good together) while others sound dis-harmonious (don’t seem to go together).** Another way this can be described is that notes that sound good together are **consonant**, and notes that don’t blend are **dissonant**.
When a composer of a popular song sets out to write an upbeat or up-tempo song, they will more than likely choose a major key – which tends to evoke a happier vibe (if you will).
When selecting the chords to be used , the safest ones he/she knows will always sound good, are the I chord (related to the root note of the key the song is in) the IV chord (based on the fourth note of the key) and the V chord (based on the fifth note of the key). We often refer to these "notes" as the first, fourth and fifth **degree** of the scale.
The I, IV and V (one, four, five) chords are also known as the tonic, subdominant and dominant chords of the scale. **These chords are always a safe bet in any song in a major key, because they will harmonize well with any note in the key the song is in.**
**The next safest bet mathematically speaking, is probably the vi (sixth minor chord) which is why if the composer adds a fourth chord and only a fourth chord to the three major chords described above - it will often be the vi chord.**
**Now I will attempt to explain mathematically, why the foregoing is true.**
A major chord is comprised of a root, a major 3rd (4 semitones or two whole steps above root) and a perfect fifth (7 semitones or 3 and one half steps above root). These notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another verses clashing with one another. A chord can be formed using any note as a root note.
The chords available for any **given key** which will sound correct with that key based on music theory, are limited to the chords which can be formed using the notes in that key. Any given diatonic key will have only 7 notes that are in that key and these are the 7 notes we can use to form chords that go with that key.
Since our melody notes will be taken from the notes in the key we are composing in, it follows that the chords that will sound good with the notes we choose for the melody, should be comprised of the notes in the melody. Therefore the chords that will support any melody in a given key must be formed using the 7 notes in that particular key.
Using the 7 notes in a major key, limits which chords we can form and only gives us three options for major chords that can be formed using those 7 notes. And those 3 options for major chords will always end up being the I chord, IV chord and V chord (all major).
While the foregoing explains why you don't have a choice of which chords you can use without venturing outside they key - **it falls short of explaining why the I, IV, and V chord sound good in a given key.**
To understand this better, we must revisit the idea presented in part one, that suggests that certain notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another. **Our brains will instinctively have a desire to gravitate towards complimentary frequencies that will blend together to form pleasing sounds.** The relationship between the sonic frequency of two notes is described in music theory as an "interval" which is how far apart the sonic frequencies are - commonly measured in what we call semitones (with one semitone being the smallest step in a Western Music chromatic scale).
The most congruent and **consonant sounding intervals** are the unison (same exact frequency or **1:1 ratio**) and an octave (exactly double the frequency or a **2:1 ratio**). It's easy to visualize how the sound waves will line up evenly and blend together if you have exactly **2 crests of one wave for every one crest of the second**.
**Besides the octave and unison, the next most consonant** (harmonious) interval is the **perfect fifth**. This is because the ratio between the sonic frequency of two notes that form a perfect fifth (7 semitones apart) is **3:2.** Because these two numbers are small, **the crests of the sound waves will peak at the same place more often than they would if the ratio were say 15:8.** So any two notes with an interval between them of a perfect fifth, will sound good together.
If we start with the note of a particular key (say C in C Major for example) we can get to a perfect fifth interval from there by going up 7 semitones which lands on G if we start with C. That happens to end up being the 5th note in a diatonic major scale. (1)C (2)D (3)E (4)F (5)G. We know, that the interval between C and G in the key of C major will result in two notes that blend together because they form a perfect fifth, and we know that these notes will sound good together whether they are played at the same time or successively.
So if we build a chord using the G note as the root of the chord (since G is on the other end of a perfect fifth interval from the home note of our key (C), and that chord is formed using only the notes in our key, then it makes sense that the chord (in this case G Major) naturally evolves from the tonic I chord - C Major (which uses our key's home note as it's root).
It's like we use the tonic chord and pivot to the G chord because the G note is a perfect fifth interval using C at the other end. So the chord using this note as the root (G major) evolves naturally from the tonic chord C (with C as the root). This is why the five chord is the dominant.
If we pivot from C in the **opposite** direction on our piano keyboard (or our scale carried out over several octaves), and we count in **descending** order seven steps to the note that forms the other perfect fifth that can occur in the key of C major (using a C as a note on one end of the interval), we land on the note F - **seven semitones from C**. So if we use our home note (C) as the anchor point and count a perfect fifth **descending**, we get the **fifth interval formed with the notes F and C**.
So if the interval F to C is a perfect fifth we know those notes will blend together in a harmonious manner. We know that using C as an anchor point in the key of C Major, we can reach a perfect fifth using the C in **two and only two ways** - **ascending the scale by 7 semitones to get to G, or descending the scale by 7 semitones which lands us on the other option - F.** So if the relationship between the C and F can also form a fifth interval, it makes sense that leaving C Major and going to a chord with a root based on F (F Major - our IV chord) or going from an F back to C, will sound natural in the key of C Major.
To further illustrate why the IV and V chord segue well with the tonic I chord which anchors the key, I might point out that the next most consonant interval between notes is the perfect fourth with a sonic frequency ratio of **4:3.**
If you start with the triad that forms the tonic chord of a given Major key, and use the root note of that Major triad as the anchor point, there are two notes you can reach that will each form BOTH a perfect fourth interval AND a perfect fifth interval using your home note of the key (which is the root note of the tonic chord) as one end of the interval.
Again using the key of C major for illustration, the interval between C and G is a perfect fifth and the interval between G and C (same two notes **now inverted**) is a perfect fourth. Thus using C as an anchor point, and G at the other end of the interval, you can form both a perfect fifth (if you **ascend** from C) and a perfect fourth (if you **descend** from C). Remember, these are the **two most consonant (pleasing sounding) intervals available outside of the octave and unison**.
You can also achieve this same feat using one other note - F. The interval between F and C is a perfect fifth and the interval between C and F (ascending the scale) is a perfect fourth. Again the C is the home note or anchor point.
This provides further logic to explain why chords with root notes based on the two notes in the diatonic scale for a particular key, that are each capable of combining with the home key note to make both a perfect fourth and perfect fifth, will be the most stable sounding chords in that key and will naturally evolve from or resolve to the tonic (I) chord that anchors the key.
**To understand why the next safest bet – harmonically or mathematically speaking is the vi (minor sixth) chord** of the scale we must understand that every major key has a relative minor key that contains the same notes (only starting at a different place when written out or played as a scale).
The relative minor key of any major key – is based on the sixth degree vi (minor sixth) of the major scale. The relative minor key will contain exactly the same notes as the **major** key it is related to. So in any major key, the relative minor key (based on the sixth scale degree) will contain the same notes as the **root key** our song is in, and the minor sixth chord (vi) will consist of notes that are in the key of the song and will therefore harmonize well with corresponding notes in the melody.
The fact that the vi chord is derived from the relative minor scale of the **root key** of the song, perhaps further explains why it seems to work well for composing a chord progression for any popular song one wishes to write.
It may take some time to digest this but hopefully it helps. If any more knowledgeable members of the community care to comment on, or edit my answer for the sake of clarification or accuracy, please feel free to do so. | The first thing that I would point out is that within a given key, you can harmonize any diatonic melody using only three chords, I, IV and V.
Key of C
I = C = CEG
IV = F = FAC
V = G = GBD
You can see that all 7 notes of the scale appear in at least one of these chords, allowing you to consonantly harmonize each scale degree. The classic diss on Rock music comes to mind, "You only need to play three chords and scream".
This can be slightly different in a minor key. If you are playing a functional minor, ie, your V is a major/dominant chord, as opposed to playing modally, then the 7th degree of your scale is altered to become a leading tone when V is played. This means that the natural 7 of minor (b7) is not covered by the V chord and would need to be harmonized otherwise, such as with the (b)III or (b)VII chord. If you are playing modally (not altering the 7th degree of the scale on your V chord), then the concept remains true that all scale degrees can be harmonized by the i, iv and v chords. I like to point out that in both cases the chords that will consonantly harmonize all diatonic notes are built on scale degress 1, 4 and 5.
I like to think of the 3rd chord that appears in the 4 chord progression as a texture change. The 3rd chord is your vi chord, which is the relative minor. I and vi share two notes (scale degrees 1 and 3) and vi is known to be a substitute for I because of this relationship. Additionally, vi and IV share two notes in common (scale degrees 6 and 1), so vi can also be used in places where IV could be used, though slightly less common as a substitution.
So I think of the I-V-vi-IV progression as I-V-substitute for I (vi)-IV. Pretty much any of the tunes that are played with this progression could be reharmonized to have I in the place that vi appears, I-V-I-IV.
I'd also point out the plagal cadence (IV-I) the progression creates. I feel that this makes such a song's repetition flow a little smoother because the resolution of IV to I is less strong than V to I. The resolution being less strong makes each phrase feel less complete, almost asking for more music to follow. I also sometimes think of the progression as feeling somewhat modal, which would be the Lydian mode, where the IV chord feels rather resolved to me, though I'm pretty sure most would classify this as being in the major key or, if modal, the Ionian mode.
As for the math side of things, I believe that chord theory and harmonization theory cover that. I don't find anything about it mathematically relevant beyond the basic concepts used to construct our harmony based idiom. |
29,785 | Over time, many musicians have experimented with various chord progressions, but none has stood the test of time as the [four-chord song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I). What is it about this [progression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression) (and its variations) that are so appealing to the masses? Is there any mathematical basis behind it?
---
1. That I asked for mathematical basis does not mean this is the only answer. Subjective answers (with reasoning) are encouraged as well.
2. So as to keep answers short(er), assume the reader (myself included) is familiar with chord theory and terminology (i.e. I=tonic, V=dominant, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29785",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/18873/"
] | **It is widely known that many popular songs of our era are comprised of only four chords. And more often than not, the four chords used in a four chord song - are the I (one), IV (four), V(five) and vi (minor sixth) chord.**
There is in fact a **mathematical explanation** for why these four chords seem to work well to create music that the majority of mainstream audiences seem to like.
It takes a little thought to grasp this concept from a mathematical perspective, so grab your beverage of choice, sit in a comfortable chair and put your thinking cap on. **This is only for those truly interested in a mathematical explanation of why certain chords work well together in popular music.**
Music is based on math because sound consists of waves that can be measured and quantified mathematically. Different sounds produce wave forms in different frequencies. A particular note will produce a particular and unique sound print based on how fast the waves move up and down which is measured as “frequency”.
**The mathematical relation of these frequencies to one another, account for the fact that some sets or groups of notes are harmonious with one another (sound good together) while others sound dis-harmonious (don’t seem to go together).** Another way this can be described is that notes that sound good together are **consonant**, and notes that don’t blend are **dissonant**.
When a composer of a popular song sets out to write an upbeat or up-tempo song, they will more than likely choose a major key – which tends to evoke a happier vibe (if you will).
When selecting the chords to be used , the safest ones he/she knows will always sound good, are the I chord (related to the root note of the key the song is in) the IV chord (based on the fourth note of the key) and the V chord (based on the fifth note of the key). We often refer to these "notes" as the first, fourth and fifth **degree** of the scale.
The I, IV and V (one, four, five) chords are also known as the tonic, subdominant and dominant chords of the scale. **These chords are always a safe bet in any song in a major key, because they will harmonize well with any note in the key the song is in.**
**The next safest bet mathematically speaking, is probably the vi (sixth minor chord) which is why if the composer adds a fourth chord and only a fourth chord to the three major chords described above - it will often be the vi chord.**
**Now I will attempt to explain mathematically, why the foregoing is true.**
A major chord is comprised of a root, a major 3rd (4 semitones or two whole steps above root) and a perfect fifth (7 semitones or 3 and one half steps above root). These notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another verses clashing with one another. A chord can be formed using any note as a root note.
The chords available for any **given key** which will sound correct with that key based on music theory, are limited to the chords which can be formed using the notes in that key. Any given diatonic key will have only 7 notes that are in that key and these are the 7 notes we can use to form chords that go with that key.
Since our melody notes will be taken from the notes in the key we are composing in, it follows that the chords that will sound good with the notes we choose for the melody, should be comprised of the notes in the melody. Therefore the chords that will support any melody in a given key must be formed using the 7 notes in that particular key.
Using the 7 notes in a major key, limits which chords we can form and only gives us three options for major chords that can be formed using those 7 notes. And those 3 options for major chords will always end up being the I chord, IV chord and V chord (all major).
While the foregoing explains why you don't have a choice of which chords you can use without venturing outside they key - **it falls short of explaining why the I, IV, and V chord sound good in a given key.**
To understand this better, we must revisit the idea presented in part one, that suggests that certain notes blend well together because of the way the sonic frequencies merge together and complement one another. **Our brains will instinctively have a desire to gravitate towards complimentary frequencies that will blend together to form pleasing sounds.** The relationship between the sonic frequency of two notes is described in music theory as an "interval" which is how far apart the sonic frequencies are - commonly measured in what we call semitones (with one semitone being the smallest step in a Western Music chromatic scale).
The most congruent and **consonant sounding intervals** are the unison (same exact frequency or **1:1 ratio**) and an octave (exactly double the frequency or a **2:1 ratio**). It's easy to visualize how the sound waves will line up evenly and blend together if you have exactly **2 crests of one wave for every one crest of the second**.
**Besides the octave and unison, the next most consonant** (harmonious) interval is the **perfect fifth**. This is because the ratio between the sonic frequency of two notes that form a perfect fifth (7 semitones apart) is **3:2.** Because these two numbers are small, **the crests of the sound waves will peak at the same place more often than they would if the ratio were say 15:8.** So any two notes with an interval between them of a perfect fifth, will sound good together.
If we start with the note of a particular key (say C in C Major for example) we can get to a perfect fifth interval from there by going up 7 semitones which lands on G if we start with C. That happens to end up being the 5th note in a diatonic major scale. (1)C (2)D (3)E (4)F (5)G. We know, that the interval between C and G in the key of C major will result in two notes that blend together because they form a perfect fifth, and we know that these notes will sound good together whether they are played at the same time or successively.
So if we build a chord using the G note as the root of the chord (since G is on the other end of a perfect fifth interval from the home note of our key (C), and that chord is formed using only the notes in our key, then it makes sense that the chord (in this case G Major) naturally evolves from the tonic I chord - C Major (which uses our key's home note as it's root).
It's like we use the tonic chord and pivot to the G chord because the G note is a perfect fifth interval using C at the other end. So the chord using this note as the root (G major) evolves naturally from the tonic chord C (with C as the root). This is why the five chord is the dominant.
If we pivot from C in the **opposite** direction on our piano keyboard (or our scale carried out over several octaves), and we count in **descending** order seven steps to the note that forms the other perfect fifth that can occur in the key of C major (using a C as a note on one end of the interval), we land on the note F - **seven semitones from C**. So if we use our home note (C) as the anchor point and count a perfect fifth **descending**, we get the **fifth interval formed with the notes F and C**.
So if the interval F to C is a perfect fifth we know those notes will blend together in a harmonious manner. We know that using C as an anchor point in the key of C Major, we can reach a perfect fifth using the C in **two and only two ways** - **ascending the scale by 7 semitones to get to G, or descending the scale by 7 semitones which lands us on the other option - F.** So if the relationship between the C and F can also form a fifth interval, it makes sense that leaving C Major and going to a chord with a root based on F (F Major - our IV chord) or going from an F back to C, will sound natural in the key of C Major.
To further illustrate why the IV and V chord segue well with the tonic I chord which anchors the key, I might point out that the next most consonant interval between notes is the perfect fourth with a sonic frequency ratio of **4:3.**
If you start with the triad that forms the tonic chord of a given Major key, and use the root note of that Major triad as the anchor point, there are two notes you can reach that will each form BOTH a perfect fourth interval AND a perfect fifth interval using your home note of the key (which is the root note of the tonic chord) as one end of the interval.
Again using the key of C major for illustration, the interval between C and G is a perfect fifth and the interval between G and C (same two notes **now inverted**) is a perfect fourth. Thus using C as an anchor point, and G at the other end of the interval, you can form both a perfect fifth (if you **ascend** from C) and a perfect fourth (if you **descend** from C). Remember, these are the **two most consonant (pleasing sounding) intervals available outside of the octave and unison**.
You can also achieve this same feat using one other note - F. The interval between F and C is a perfect fifth and the interval between C and F (ascending the scale) is a perfect fourth. Again the C is the home note or anchor point.
This provides further logic to explain why chords with root notes based on the two notes in the diatonic scale for a particular key, that are each capable of combining with the home key note to make both a perfect fourth and perfect fifth, will be the most stable sounding chords in that key and will naturally evolve from or resolve to the tonic (I) chord that anchors the key.
**To understand why the next safest bet – harmonically or mathematically speaking is the vi (minor sixth) chord** of the scale we must understand that every major key has a relative minor key that contains the same notes (only starting at a different place when written out or played as a scale).
The relative minor key of any major key – is based on the sixth degree vi (minor sixth) of the major scale. The relative minor key will contain exactly the same notes as the **major** key it is related to. So in any major key, the relative minor key (based on the sixth scale degree) will contain the same notes as the **root key** our song is in, and the minor sixth chord (vi) will consist of notes that are in the key of the song and will therefore harmonize well with corresponding notes in the melody.
The fact that the vi chord is derived from the relative minor scale of the **root key** of the song, perhaps further explains why it seems to work well for composing a chord progression for any popular song one wishes to write.
It may take some time to digest this but hopefully it helps. If any more knowledgeable members of the community care to comment on, or edit my answer for the sake of clarification or accuracy, please feel free to do so. | Also, although this answer might be kind of redundant,
for example in C major, the melodic tones have this support:
C: root of C, third of a, fifth of F
D: 5/G
E: 3/C, 5/a
F: 1/F
G:1/G,5/C
A: 1/a
B: 3/G
So 1,3,5,1&3,1&5,3&5,1&3&5 and {} are all represented in the seven tones --- this is exactly the subset content of 2^3
If you include the option of silence.
A kind of spreadsheet
C G a F
C 1,0,3,5
D 0,5,0,0
E 3,0,5,0
F 0,0,0,1
G 5,1,0,0
A 0,0,1,3
B 0,3,0,0
Where zero may be some degree but not one three or five
PGH |
29,785 | Over time, many musicians have experimented with various chord progressions, but none has stood the test of time as the [four-chord song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I). What is it about this [progression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression) (and its variations) that are so appealing to the masses? Is there any mathematical basis behind it?
---
1. That I asked for mathematical basis does not mean this is the only answer. Subjective answers (with reasoning) are encouraged as well.
2. So as to keep answers short(er), assume the reader (myself included) is familiar with chord theory and terminology (i.e. I=tonic, V=dominant, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29785",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/18873/"
] | **Now for the short answer.**
As it occurred to me that not everyone will want to read my dissertation in the first answer, I will attempt a simpler explanation for **why many popular songs are based on a similar four chord progression.**
**This answer will still explain it mathematically as suggested by the question.**
Music is based on math because sound consists of waves that can be measured and quantified mathematically. **Different sounds produce wave forms in different frequencies.** A particular note will produce a particular and unique sound print based on **how fast the waves move up and down which is measured as “frequency”.**
**The mathematical relation of these frequencies to one another,** account for the fact that some sets or groups of notes are harmonious with one another (sound good together) while others sound dis-harmonious (don’t seem to go together).
Music in common usage in most of the Western World today divides an octave into 12 steps. Each key contains 7 of the 12 possible notes. The distance between these notes is known as an interval and is measured in steps (also known as semitones). Each octave has 12 semitones but the intervals between them define which notes are in that scale and if the scale is major or minor.
**The harmonic quality of an interval between notes (or how pleasing it sounds) is determined by the ratio of the frequency of each notes sound waves to one another.**
So two people singing the exact same note at the same time will produce a sound that blends together well. **We call this interval a unison and it has a ratio of one crest of sound wave to one crest of sound wave or 1:1.**
The next closest aspect ratio of crest to crest that we can achieve is **the octave which is the note at exactly double the frequency of the first - or 2:1.** An example of an octave interval is the bass strings on a 12 string guitar are tuned an octave apart, so one vibrates exactly twice as fast as the other so the crest of the waves coincides one for every two making those two notes at that octave interval blend well together and sound good.
Besides the octave and unison, **the next most consonant (harmonious) interval is the perfect fifth. This is because the ratio between the sonic frequency of two notes that form a perfect fifth is 3:2.** Because these two numbers are small, the crests of the sound waves will peak at the same place more often than they would if the ratio were say 15:8. So any two notes with an interval between them of a perfect fifth, will sound good together.
**The next most consonant interval between notes is the perfect fourth with a sonic frequency ratio of 4:3.**
In choosing chords for a song in a particular key, the chords most likely to support the melody will consist of those chords that contain the notes of the scale corresponding to the key the song is in. Those notes give us only three major chords if we are composing an upbeat song in a major key. And those 3 options for major chords will always end up being the I chord, IV chord and V chord (all major) because of how a chord is formed.
**The I chord** is formed using the tonic note of the key (C in the key of C) as the root note of the chord. So it's a major chord **based on the first degree of the scale** corresponding to our 1:1 unison. **The IV chord is the major chord based on the fourth degree of the scale** which relates to our aforementioned fourth interval at a 4:3 ratio and the **V chord is based on the fifth degree and thus is related to our 5th interval at a harmonically pleasing ratio of 3:2.**
Some other chords available to us for our chord progression that also consist of notes found in our key, are the ii (two minor) based on the second degree of our scale, the iii (three minor) and the vi (sixth minor).
Since the sonic frequencies of these minor chords in our major key will be less congruent than in our 3 major chords (the I, IV and V) they will create tension in our arrangement. This tension will create a desire for resolution back to a major chord and ultimately back to the tonic or I chord.
They are available to us in our chord progression since they consist only of notes in our key. And if the composer wants to create an element of tension in a part of the song, one of these minor chords will often be added to the I, IV and V chords to create a four chord song. A fourth chord will sometimes make the song more interesting with the tension and resolution creating a dynamic sense of movement in the music. Kind of like a push pull effect.
But the chords available to increase the probability of widespread appeal in a song, will be limited primarily to the chords discussed above. **These are the chords who's notes and intervals as they relate to the sonic frequency ratios between them - will blend most harmoniously and pleasingly with the notes in the melody of any song in a given key.**
For a more detailed discussion of this, see my other answer to this question. | Also, although this answer might be kind of redundant,
for example in C major, the melodic tones have this support:
C: root of C, third of a, fifth of F
D: 5/G
E: 3/C, 5/a
F: 1/F
G:1/G,5/C
A: 1/a
B: 3/G
So 1,3,5,1&3,1&5,3&5,1&3&5 and {} are all represented in the seven tones --- this is exactly the subset content of 2^3
If you include the option of silence.
A kind of spreadsheet
C G a F
C 1,0,3,5
D 0,5,0,0
E 3,0,5,0
F 0,0,0,1
G 5,1,0,0
A 0,0,1,3
B 0,3,0,0
Where zero may be some degree but not one three or five
PGH |
29,785 | Over time, many musicians have experimented with various chord progressions, but none has stood the test of time as the [four-chord song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I). What is it about this [progression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression) (and its variations) that are so appealing to the masses? Is there any mathematical basis behind it?
---
1. That I asked for mathematical basis does not mean this is the only answer. Subjective answers (with reasoning) are encouraged as well.
2. So as to keep answers short(er), assume the reader (myself included) is familiar with chord theory and terminology (i.e. I=tonic, V=dominant, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. | 2015/02/13 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/29785",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/18873/"
] | The first thing that I would point out is that within a given key, you can harmonize any diatonic melody using only three chords, I, IV and V.
Key of C
I = C = CEG
IV = F = FAC
V = G = GBD
You can see that all 7 notes of the scale appear in at least one of these chords, allowing you to consonantly harmonize each scale degree. The classic diss on Rock music comes to mind, "You only need to play three chords and scream".
This can be slightly different in a minor key. If you are playing a functional minor, ie, your V is a major/dominant chord, as opposed to playing modally, then the 7th degree of your scale is altered to become a leading tone when V is played. This means that the natural 7 of minor (b7) is not covered by the V chord and would need to be harmonized otherwise, such as with the (b)III or (b)VII chord. If you are playing modally (not altering the 7th degree of the scale on your V chord), then the concept remains true that all scale degrees can be harmonized by the i, iv and v chords. I like to point out that in both cases the chords that will consonantly harmonize all diatonic notes are built on scale degress 1, 4 and 5.
I like to think of the 3rd chord that appears in the 4 chord progression as a texture change. The 3rd chord is your vi chord, which is the relative minor. I and vi share two notes (scale degrees 1 and 3) and vi is known to be a substitute for I because of this relationship. Additionally, vi and IV share two notes in common (scale degrees 6 and 1), so vi can also be used in places where IV could be used, though slightly less common as a substitution.
So I think of the I-V-vi-IV progression as I-V-substitute for I (vi)-IV. Pretty much any of the tunes that are played with this progression could be reharmonized to have I in the place that vi appears, I-V-I-IV.
I'd also point out the plagal cadence (IV-I) the progression creates. I feel that this makes such a song's repetition flow a little smoother because the resolution of IV to I is less strong than V to I. The resolution being less strong makes each phrase feel less complete, almost asking for more music to follow. I also sometimes think of the progression as feeling somewhat modal, which would be the Lydian mode, where the IV chord feels rather resolved to me, though I'm pretty sure most would classify this as being in the major key or, if modal, the Ionian mode.
As for the math side of things, I believe that chord theory and harmonization theory cover that. I don't find anything about it mathematically relevant beyond the basic concepts used to construct our harmony based idiom. | Also, although this answer might be kind of redundant,
for example in C major, the melodic tones have this support:
C: root of C, third of a, fifth of F
D: 5/G
E: 3/C, 5/a
F: 1/F
G:1/G,5/C
A: 1/a
B: 3/G
So 1,3,5,1&3,1&5,3&5,1&3&5 and {} are all represented in the seven tones --- this is exactly the subset content of 2^3
If you include the option of silence.
A kind of spreadsheet
C G a F
C 1,0,3,5
D 0,5,0,0
E 3,0,5,0
F 0,0,0,1
G 5,1,0,0
A 0,0,1,3
B 0,3,0,0
Where zero may be some degree but not one three or five
PGH |
183,386 | In the film *Star Trek Into Darkness* (2013), Khan Noonien Singh notably remains conscious after the famous Vulcan nerve pinch. In the *Star Trek* canon, have any other humans been able to achieve this? | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/183386",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93268/"
] | Yes: [Gary Seven](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Seven).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpzOw.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/96506.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OvU8J.jpg)
It is debatable whether or not he truly qualifies human however, as his ancestors were abducted from Earth over 6000 years ago and bred or engineered by aliens to have a superior physical body.
>
> KIRK: Bones, check the prisoner you'll find in security confinement. I want a medical analysis fast. Is he or isn't he human?
>
>
> Captain's log, supplemental. A man in a twentieth century business suit. What is he? Not even Spock's Vulcan neck pinch could stop him. Without our phasers, he would have over powered all five of us. I find it difficult to believe the mysterious Mister Seven can be human, and yet, suppose he is?
>
>
>
In a later scene:
>
> MCCOY: Well, I must admit the sensor readings seem too good. Human readings, yes, but not a single physical flaw. Totally perfect body.
>
>
>
Memory Alpha claims he is the only human to have withstood the effects of the nerve-pinch (presumably Khan is counted as "human augment" rather than a human), so I doubt a better example will be found. The answer to the question "has any *normal* human withstood the nerve-pinch" is almost certainly **no.** | The secret service agent tailing McCoy in *Star Trek III* suffered no ill effects from McCoy's attempt at a nerve pinch:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BqaUo.jpg)
McCoy was weak and delirious, and this scene was played for laughs with the implication that McCoy was performing the nerve pinch improperly.
However, an earlier scene -- the conversation between Kirk and McCoy in Spock's quarters aboard *Enterprise* -- established that Spock's *katra* was able to use McCoy to convey things that McCoy wouldn't otherwise have known. It's at least possible, then, that McCoy "remembered" how to do a proper nerve pinch, and that the secret service agent had gear or combat conditioning to make him resistant. |
183,386 | In the film *Star Trek Into Darkness* (2013), Khan Noonien Singh notably remains conscious after the famous Vulcan nerve pinch. In the *Star Trek* canon, have any other humans been able to achieve this? | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/183386",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93268/"
] | Yes: [Gary Seven](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Seven).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpzOw.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/96506.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OvU8J.jpg)
It is debatable whether or not he truly qualifies human however, as his ancestors were abducted from Earth over 6000 years ago and bred or engineered by aliens to have a superior physical body.
>
> KIRK: Bones, check the prisoner you'll find in security confinement. I want a medical analysis fast. Is he or isn't he human?
>
>
> Captain's log, supplemental. A man in a twentieth century business suit. What is he? Not even Spock's Vulcan neck pinch could stop him. Without our phasers, he would have over powered all five of us. I find it difficult to believe the mysterious Mister Seven can be human, and yet, suppose he is?
>
>
>
In a later scene:
>
> MCCOY: Well, I must admit the sensor readings seem too good. Human readings, yes, but not a single physical flaw. Totally perfect body.
>
>
>
Memory Alpha claims he is the only human to have withstood the effects of the nerve-pinch (presumably Khan is counted as "human augment" rather than a human), so I doubt a better example will be found. The answer to the question "has any *normal* human withstood the nerve-pinch" is almost certainly **no.** | What about Riker in TNG:Conspiracy. He resists for a good few seconds until Picard shoots the Vulcan, and then he's no worse for the wear. |
183,386 | In the film *Star Trek Into Darkness* (2013), Khan Noonien Singh notably remains conscious after the famous Vulcan nerve pinch. In the *Star Trek* canon, have any other humans been able to achieve this? | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/183386",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/93268/"
] | The secret service agent tailing McCoy in *Star Trek III* suffered no ill effects from McCoy's attempt at a nerve pinch:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BqaUo.jpg)
McCoy was weak and delirious, and this scene was played for laughs with the implication that McCoy was performing the nerve pinch improperly.
However, an earlier scene -- the conversation between Kirk and McCoy in Spock's quarters aboard *Enterprise* -- established that Spock's *katra* was able to use McCoy to convey things that McCoy wouldn't otherwise have known. It's at least possible, then, that McCoy "remembered" how to do a proper nerve pinch, and that the secret service agent had gear or combat conditioning to make him resistant. | What about Riker in TNG:Conspiracy. He resists for a good few seconds until Picard shoots the Vulcan, and then he's no worse for the wear. |
523,286 | I understand that we perceive the sky as blue and not violet because (1) sunlight has more blue than violet in it ([see here](https://scied.ucar.edu/sun-spectrum)), and (2) our eyes are more sensitive to blue than to violet.
However, I can't reconcile that with the reality that there's plenty of indigo and violet left in the rainbow, which is after all a breakdown of sunlight.
Whether I give more weight to (1) or to (2), I find a contradiction with the fact that we do in fact have plenty of violet:
If one were to argue point 1, "there isn't enough violet in sunlight", then one could counter with "but I can still see plenty violet in the rainbow".
If one were to argue point 2, "we're not sensitive enough to violet", then one could counter with a similar answer: we seem to be sensitive enough to violet as seen in the rainbow.
(If anything, the fact that the atmosphere prefers to scatter violet over blue should give extra points to violet in the color of the sky versus the rainbow, which is borne of less scattering—am I right here? The color of the sky is made from scattering from many, many rays that passed us overhead. The rainbow is made from much fewer rays that interact with water droplets. Less scattering.)
Yet, I can't deny the reality of what colors I'm perceiving. So, what is the physics that is eluding me in this regard? | 2020/01/05 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/523286",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/181677/"
] | You are not comparing like with like. In a rainbow the blue light and the violet light are arriving at your eye from different directions and the colours can be clearly resolved. In scattered sunlight in the sky, the violet light and blue light arrive from the same direction and are superimposed.
There *is* less violet light in the solar spectrum and your eye *is* less sensitive to violet light than blue light. The net result is that the sky looks blue. | There is a difference between *refraction* of sunlight and *scattering* of sunlight. Different processes create different results.
The sky's color is caused by the scattering of sunlight by air molecules. This is a microscopic process (involving the interaction of a single photon with a single molecule at a time) that depends mainly on the absorption spectrum of air molecules.
On the other hand, a rainbow is caused by the refraction of sunlight through water droplets in the air. This is a macroscopic process (involving the interaction of a light ray with an entire droplet at once) that depends mainly on the refractive index and geometry of a water droplet.
As an aside, the reason that the light from a rainbow isn't really scattered too much by the atmosphere is because most of the liquid water droplets suspended in the atmosphere are quite close to the ground, so there simply isn't much atmosphere in the way. |
141,378 | I would like to check if an online bank is legit. It is a Astroibank. I cannot find anything online and I have some money that was supposed to have been sent there. The bank is asking me to pay a lot of money for a COT code but to a bitcoin wallet. I am not sure about the bank.
Does anyone know of it or how to check it? | 2021/06/03 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/141378",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/108532/"
] | I just Googled "COT code", and [you probably won't like it](https://wallethub.com/answers/t/what-is-a-cot-code-2140656639/).
>
> The C.O.T. code stands for Cost of Transfer, which is **allegedly** needed to complete **questionable** international wire transfers, but please be wary, as this is **most likely a scam**.
>
>
> | **All banks have a substantial online presence.**
**Also all banks must be registered.** [For example, here is the list of banks and financial institutions in my country.](http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/wt-ow/Pages/wwr-er.aspx)
If either of the above are not true then the "bank" is unquestionably a scam. |
141,378 | I would like to check if an online bank is legit. It is a Astroibank. I cannot find anything online and I have some money that was supposed to have been sent there. The bank is asking me to pay a lot of money for a COT code but to a bitcoin wallet. I am not sure about the bank.
Does anyone know of it or how to check it? | 2021/06/03 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/141378",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/108532/"
] | * There is no legitimate reason for anyone to send money to you at a bank you don't have an account at
* There is no legitimate bank that is going to ask you to pay money in order to access money you have there. They might charge a fee for the transfer but that would come out of the transferred funds.
* No legitimate bank is going to ask you to make payments to a bitcoin wallet
You could certainly spend time and effort looking up a bank with the regulators of whatever country the bank operates in. And if there is a legitimate bank by that name, then spend time and effort trying to determine whether the people you're talking to actually associated with that legitimate bank. But given the hallmarks of a scam, it isn't worth the effort. | I just Googled "COT code", and [you probably won't like it](https://wallethub.com/answers/t/what-is-a-cot-code-2140656639/).
>
> The C.O.T. code stands for Cost of Transfer, which is **allegedly** needed to complete **questionable** international wire transfers, but please be wary, as this is **most likely a scam**.
>
>
> |
141,378 | I would like to check if an online bank is legit. It is a Astroibank. I cannot find anything online and I have some money that was supposed to have been sent there. The bank is asking me to pay a lot of money for a COT code but to a bitcoin wallet. I am not sure about the bank.
Does anyone know of it or how to check it? | 2021/06/03 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/141378",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/108532/"
] | I just Googled "COT code", and [you probably won't like it](https://wallethub.com/answers/t/what-is-a-cot-code-2140656639/).
>
> The C.O.T. code stands for Cost of Transfer, which is **allegedly** needed to complete **questionable** international wire transfers, but please be wary, as this is **most likely a scam**.
>
>
> | The most simplest way to check if a bank is legit, is to search your governments directory of registered banks.
For example;
1. [Hong Kong's Government's list of registered/licensed banks](https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-functions/banking-stability/banking-policy-and-supervision/list_of_lb.xls)
2. [India's official list of registered/licensed banks](https://m.rbi.org.in/scripts/bs_viewcontent.aspx?Id=3657)
These can be easily found with a google search like "India list of registered banks", and find the government supplied site
Another effective way to find out if a bank is legit is look for mistakes in English/spelling/grammar. Often these fake sites are made in a rush by non-native speakers of English. Plus, real banks will invest a lot of money in making sure that their English is flawless. (Applies to other languages as well, e.g. if your bank language is Spanish, French etc etc) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.