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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Let me introduce you to the concept of legendary matter. Legendary matter is mostly like ordinary matter; indeed, there's a legendary counterpart to each ordinary particle, having basically the same properties. With one exception: Instead of the ordinary charges, they have their own charge fields, the legendary charges. Correspondingly the legendary fields are completely separate from the ordinary fields. This allows legendary matter to freely move around and even through ordinary matter, without ever interacting with it, except through gravitation (that's inevitable).
Now you may wonder why researchers never have found that legendary matter. The answer is: They have; they just don't know. Legendary matter is part of the mysterious dark matter.
Now you may wonder how Santa can then deliver real presents, and how it can be that some people have indeed seen him and his sleight (although the latter is a *very* rare occurrence). Well, what I wrote above is not the whole story: There exist another field, which is able to convert between ordinary and legendary matter. Santa uses the conversion field generator for two purposes:
* Quite obviously, he has to convert the gifts into normal matter when he lays them down under the Christmas tree.
* When he delivers the presents, he of course has to see where he flies; but just as we cannot see legendary matter, anyone made of legendary matter cannot see anything made of normal matter. Thus Santa uses a quite weak conversion field to shift himself and his sleight just a little bit into the ordinary matter regime, not enough that the ordinary matter would hinder his flight, but enough that he could interact with light, and thus see where he would go. A side effect is that he also gets visible to us.
There are also occasions where he temporarily shifts himself completely to ordinary matter; mostly in order to drink some milk and eat some cookies. | It is not as hard as is sounds. There are some facts that very few people know, which make it a lot of easier.
First of the facts is that Santa lives, not in the North Pole, but in Korvatunturi, Finland. The common misunderstanding is because Santa Travels over the North Pole on his way to America. Why? Check a globe to find out
Why has the Santa chosen to live in Korvaturi? It is on the east border of Finland. To the east is Russia, where Santa actually does not visit. It is a territory of Ded Moroz, who delivers presents to children on New Years eve (check Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ded_Moroz>). Santa and Ded have had this arrangement for centuries, for obvious practical reasons.
So Santa only has to travel towards west. Due to direction earth spins, this gives him considerably more time. Always when crossing a timezone he gets another hour 'extra'.
Secondly, in Finland as well as in most European countries, Santa delivers presents personally as he visits the houses early in the evening at Christmas Eve. He then arrives to the North America in the night and has all the time until the next morning to deliver the presents.
To sum up:
* Santa has divided workload with Ded and hence has a lot less of the area to cover.
* He travels towards west, giving him more time.
* He visits different countries at different time.
In addition, Santa is known to use something called 'Magic', of which very little is known outside Korvatunturi. |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | It is not as hard as is sounds. There are some facts that very few people know, which make it a lot of easier.
First of the facts is that Santa lives, not in the North Pole, but in Korvatunturi, Finland. The common misunderstanding is because Santa Travels over the North Pole on his way to America. Why? Check a globe to find out
Why has the Santa chosen to live in Korvaturi? It is on the east border of Finland. To the east is Russia, where Santa actually does not visit. It is a territory of Ded Moroz, who delivers presents to children on New Years eve (check Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ded_Moroz>). Santa and Ded have had this arrangement for centuries, for obvious practical reasons.
So Santa only has to travel towards west. Due to direction earth spins, this gives him considerably more time. Always when crossing a timezone he gets another hour 'extra'.
Secondly, in Finland as well as in most European countries, Santa delivers presents personally as he visits the houses early in the evening at Christmas Eve. He then arrives to the North America in the night and has all the time until the next morning to deliver the presents.
To sum up:
* Santa has divided workload with Ded and hence has a lot less of the area to cover.
* He travels towards west, giving him more time.
* He visits different countries at different time.
In addition, Santa is known to use something called 'Magic', of which very little is known outside Korvatunturi. | According to Norad, Santa's sleigh's max speed is "faster than starlight." Additionally, we know that despite being rather aged, he is still athletic and has not died yet.
"Faster than starlight", eh? You know what that means? [Time Travel](http://www.andersoninstitute.com/faster-than-light-travel.html). Backwards to be specific.
So here is how Santa does it. He delivers as many of the presents as he can. Then, at the end of Christmas, he starts going faster than starlight, and go backs and delivers more presents. At the beginning of Christmas, he slows down and starts going forward in time again to deliver presents. He just zips forward and backwards through time. This would take an extremely long time, but given that he can not die from old age and is supplied with free meals of milk and cookies (you can survive on [just milk](http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about1099.html) by the way), he could do it.
Of course, to prevent causal paradoxes, Santa would have to be a logistical and temporal genius. The rest of the year though, he watches literally *everyone* though, so I would not put it beyond his mental capacity.
Really, this is the only possible solution. Why would Santa's sleigh go faster than starlight anyway, if that automatically implies time travel? |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Santa has been running a successful deception operation for centuries, fooling people with aliases and disguises (Think about it. Sinterklaas en Zwarte Piet certainly would surprise anyone looking for a jolly fat man in a red suit, wouldn't they...), but it is time the truth be told, and the answers to all the questions revealed.
Santa lives and operates in a pocket universe.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B3zRz.jpg)
Connected to our space-time continuum by a wormhole exiting at the North Pole, Santa's pocket universe (aka "the sack") allows him and his elves to manipulate the flow of time, mass and energy within as compared to the outside universe. Subjective years can pass inside "the sack" while milliseconds pass here on Earth, allowing Santa to prepare toys, make detailed observations of the children of Earth, prepare the Naughty and Nice list and have a friendly AI check it twice (another answer, I'm afraid) and do all the other preparatory work for the big night.
Getting from place to place and entering buildings and structures with or without chimneys is a side effect of the way "the sack" is structured. On Christmas Eve, the wormhole mouth is disconnected from the North Pole and attached to "the sleigh" where eight powerful "reindeer" pull it around and position it under the trees of deserving children (the origin of the terms "sleigh" and "reindeer" to describe these very high tech devices is obscure, and no consensus on the origin is possible, since every elf has a different version). As time and space are not synchronized between "the sack" and our universe, what seems to be a ponderous and drawn out year long operation inside "the sack" only takes from midnight to @ 0600 EST on Earth. Santa is fairly certain that extending the reach of "the sack" to children in Earth orbit and the Moon would not be much of an issue, but has some doubts about extending the operation beyond Cis Lunar space. (The Apollo 8 astronauts are said to have been particularly pleased with the presents they got aboard their Apollo CM on Christmas eve, 1968, but respected Santa's wishes and didn't tell mission control. Santa wanted to surprise Gene Kranz).
So there you have it. Santa is operating in a pocket universe with different properties and using a wormhole connection between where he is and us to find out "who's naughty and nice", prepare the toys and appear under the trees to deliver presents.
By the way, he asked me to tell you that while he does enjoy the milk and cookies, he would appreciate a glass of single malt scotch on the fireplace mantle as well... | Let me introduce you to the concept of legendary matter. Legendary matter is mostly like ordinary matter; indeed, there's a legendary counterpart to each ordinary particle, having basically the same properties. With one exception: Instead of the ordinary charges, they have their own charge fields, the legendary charges. Correspondingly the legendary fields are completely separate from the ordinary fields. This allows legendary matter to freely move around and even through ordinary matter, without ever interacting with it, except through gravitation (that's inevitable).
Now you may wonder why researchers never have found that legendary matter. The answer is: They have; they just don't know. Legendary matter is part of the mysterious dark matter.
Now you may wonder how Santa can then deliver real presents, and how it can be that some people have indeed seen him and his sleight (although the latter is a *very* rare occurrence). Well, what I wrote above is not the whole story: There exist another field, which is able to convert between ordinary and legendary matter. Santa uses the conversion field generator for two purposes:
* Quite obviously, he has to convert the gifts into normal matter when he lays them down under the Christmas tree.
* When he delivers the presents, he of course has to see where he flies; but just as we cannot see legendary matter, anyone made of legendary matter cannot see anything made of normal matter. Thus Santa uses a quite weak conversion field to shift himself and his sleight just a little bit into the ordinary matter regime, not enough that the ordinary matter would hinder his flight, but enough that he could interact with light, and thus see where he would go. A side effect is that he also gets visible to us.
There are also occasions where he temporarily shifts himself completely to ordinary matter; mostly in order to drink some milk and eat some cookies. |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Santa has been running a successful deception operation for centuries, fooling people with aliases and disguises (Think about it. Sinterklaas en Zwarte Piet certainly would surprise anyone looking for a jolly fat man in a red suit, wouldn't they...), but it is time the truth be told, and the answers to all the questions revealed.
Santa lives and operates in a pocket universe.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B3zRz.jpg)
Connected to our space-time continuum by a wormhole exiting at the North Pole, Santa's pocket universe (aka "the sack") allows him and his elves to manipulate the flow of time, mass and energy within as compared to the outside universe. Subjective years can pass inside "the sack" while milliseconds pass here on Earth, allowing Santa to prepare toys, make detailed observations of the children of Earth, prepare the Naughty and Nice list and have a friendly AI check it twice (another answer, I'm afraid) and do all the other preparatory work for the big night.
Getting from place to place and entering buildings and structures with or without chimneys is a side effect of the way "the sack" is structured. On Christmas Eve, the wormhole mouth is disconnected from the North Pole and attached to "the sleigh" where eight powerful "reindeer" pull it around and position it under the trees of deserving children (the origin of the terms "sleigh" and "reindeer" to describe these very high tech devices is obscure, and no consensus on the origin is possible, since every elf has a different version). As time and space are not synchronized between "the sack" and our universe, what seems to be a ponderous and drawn out year long operation inside "the sack" only takes from midnight to @ 0600 EST on Earth. Santa is fairly certain that extending the reach of "the sack" to children in Earth orbit and the Moon would not be much of an issue, but has some doubts about extending the operation beyond Cis Lunar space. (The Apollo 8 astronauts are said to have been particularly pleased with the presents they got aboard their Apollo CM on Christmas eve, 1968, but respected Santa's wishes and didn't tell mission control. Santa wanted to surprise Gene Kranz).
So there you have it. Santa is operating in a pocket universe with different properties and using a wormhole connection between where he is and us to find out "who's naughty and nice", prepare the toys and appear under the trees to deliver presents.
By the way, he asked me to tell you that while he does enjoy the milk and cookies, he would appreciate a glass of single malt scotch on the fireplace mantle as well... | Assuming that Santa travels at the speed of light or faster to reach each home this would be problematic. Which with as many starts and stops needed would play heck on whiplash (or corporeal retention!). Even just one acceleration to half the speed of light in say seconds, would likely cause an x-ray burst and the complete disassociation of his particles.
So instead of going ultra fast, Santa plays with time. He makes Christmas/eve 364 days long from his perspective, so his deer can fly at much more reasonable speeds allowing him a little time to snack on cookies and milk between stops, feed the deer and run back to the north pole periodically to get the next batch of presents needing to be delivered. Of course to any observing, it appears that Santa is nothing more than maybe a flash of red out of the corner of the eye. Or maybe a jiggle is heard when the radio is off.
I could also see, Santa actually having several sleighs, Elves filling each one up depending on location to be visited, and when he comes home, hitch the deer up to the next sled and off you go again! Even their each one will have to have space warping abilities, since piling all the gifts for even 1 small town could fill a semi-trailer or two.
Come to think of it, the gift sack is much more likely to be a space warping device, that allows Santa to reach in all the way to the work shop to get the right gift for each, a little 'rift' exists in the sack, kind of like [Nakor and his oranges!](http://midkemia.wikia.com/wiki/Nakor) |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Speed of travel is completely irrelevant ironically...
Clearly, Santa is a mutant.
He has many names...err powers but the powers relevant to his gift giving gig are as follows:
1. **Teleportation**: Santa is able to teleport to any location on the globe, the teleportation may include other physical objects he is in contact with.
2. **Replication:** Santa is able to replicate multiple physical copies of himself. These are not separate 'persons' merely extensions of Santa's all powerful will. The teleportation power is retained by the replicant Santas.
3. **Psychic:** The actual Santa spends his annual Christmas gift giving extravaganza in silent meditation in a large dome at the north pole controlling the mentally linked avatars as they travel the globe delivering gifts to little ingrates.
**History**
The sleigh and reindeer are remnants from a time long past when Santa did things on his own in the more traditional manner. When Christmas was a small event in a fairly geographically localized area he did in fact fly around and drop off presents via a genetically modified elk powered sleigh. Over time as things grew Santa learned to hone his powers and he was able to skip the travel time altogether, but humanity had become so entranced with the myth of the sleigh with silver bells and reindeer that to this day he keeps up the charade by providing each of his avatars with reindeer and sleighs. Rumor has it the fleet of sleighs numbers in the thousands. | According to Norad, Santa's sleigh's max speed is "faster than starlight." Additionally, we know that despite being rather aged, he is still athletic and has not died yet.
"Faster than starlight", eh? You know what that means? [Time Travel](http://www.andersoninstitute.com/faster-than-light-travel.html). Backwards to be specific.
So here is how Santa does it. He delivers as many of the presents as he can. Then, at the end of Christmas, he starts going faster than starlight, and go backs and delivers more presents. At the beginning of Christmas, he slows down and starts going forward in time again to deliver presents. He just zips forward and backwards through time. This would take an extremely long time, but given that he can not die from old age and is supplied with free meals of milk and cookies (you can survive on [just milk](http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about1099.html) by the way), he could do it.
Of course, to prevent causal paradoxes, Santa would have to be a logistical and temporal genius. The rest of the year though, he watches literally *everyone* though, so I would not put it beyond his mental capacity.
Really, this is the only possible solution. Why would Santa's sleigh go faster than starlight anyway, if that automatically implies time travel? |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Let me introduce you to the concept of legendary matter. Legendary matter is mostly like ordinary matter; indeed, there's a legendary counterpart to each ordinary particle, having basically the same properties. With one exception: Instead of the ordinary charges, they have their own charge fields, the legendary charges. Correspondingly the legendary fields are completely separate from the ordinary fields. This allows legendary matter to freely move around and even through ordinary matter, without ever interacting with it, except through gravitation (that's inevitable).
Now you may wonder why researchers never have found that legendary matter. The answer is: They have; they just don't know. Legendary matter is part of the mysterious dark matter.
Now you may wonder how Santa can then deliver real presents, and how it can be that some people have indeed seen him and his sleight (although the latter is a *very* rare occurrence). Well, what I wrote above is not the whole story: There exist another field, which is able to convert between ordinary and legendary matter. Santa uses the conversion field generator for two purposes:
* Quite obviously, he has to convert the gifts into normal matter when he lays them down under the Christmas tree.
* When he delivers the presents, he of course has to see where he flies; but just as we cannot see legendary matter, anyone made of legendary matter cannot see anything made of normal matter. Thus Santa uses a quite weak conversion field to shift himself and his sleight just a little bit into the ordinary matter regime, not enough that the ordinary matter would hinder his flight, but enough that he could interact with light, and thus see where he would go. A side effect is that he also gets visible to us.
There are also occasions where he temporarily shifts himself completely to ordinary matter; mostly in order to drink some milk and eat some cookies. | According to Norad, Santa's sleigh's max speed is "faster than starlight." Additionally, we know that despite being rather aged, he is still athletic and has not died yet.
"Faster than starlight", eh? You know what that means? [Time Travel](http://www.andersoninstitute.com/faster-than-light-travel.html). Backwards to be specific.
So here is how Santa does it. He delivers as many of the presents as he can. Then, at the end of Christmas, he starts going faster than starlight, and go backs and delivers more presents. At the beginning of Christmas, he slows down and starts going forward in time again to deliver presents. He just zips forward and backwards through time. This would take an extremely long time, but given that he can not die from old age and is supplied with free meals of milk and cookies (you can survive on [just milk](http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about1099.html) by the way), he could do it.
Of course, to prevent causal paradoxes, Santa would have to be a logistical and temporal genius. The rest of the year though, he watches literally *everyone* though, so I would not put it beyond his mental capacity.
Really, this is the only possible solution. Why would Santa's sleigh go faster than starlight anyway, if that automatically implies time travel? |
32,007 | [This related question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/31460/28) asks about considerations for Santa's sleigh (particularly weight), but my question is more basic: how do you design a vehicle that satisfies Santa's design requirements, including the very tight schedule, in a way that doesn't turn Santa into a puddle of goo from high-Gs and vaporize the reindeer from wind-speed?
Key design requirements, as I understand them:
* The vehicle must be able to support take-off and landing at the homes of all good children on Earth in a span of roughly 24 hours. (Good children on space colonies are excluded.) We can't afford a long pre-flight check; really, we probably don't even have time to open and close a hatch. (Art never shows a hatch anyway.)
* Without knowing the number and distribution of stops we can only guess at the one-night mileage, but even at conservative estimates... mach-*what*? Gotta support super-high speed.
* It's ok if maintenance and repairs take the next 363 days, but there's not going to be time on delivery night for pit stops and spot-repairs -- the vehicle needs to operate continuously during the delivery run. (Santa would *probably* prefer to be able to do a test-drive tuning check between deployments, however, so less-extensive maintenance is preferred.)
* Santa, a well-padded humanoid, needs to survive the trip without long-term damage. As far as we know it's the same Santa every year.
* The reindeer need to survive the trip. Santa is pretty cagey about the reindeer, though -- who'd know if Blitzen is the same Blitzen as last year? It's ok to assume that Santa runs a breeding program, though protections for the lead reindeer with the light-emitting mutation would be advisable.
* There are no explicit requirements about materials or fuel sources. | 2015/12/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/28/"
] | Santa has been running a successful deception operation for centuries, fooling people with aliases and disguises (Think about it. Sinterklaas en Zwarte Piet certainly would surprise anyone looking for a jolly fat man in a red suit, wouldn't they...), but it is time the truth be told, and the answers to all the questions revealed.
Santa lives and operates in a pocket universe.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B3zRz.jpg)
Connected to our space-time continuum by a wormhole exiting at the North Pole, Santa's pocket universe (aka "the sack") allows him and his elves to manipulate the flow of time, mass and energy within as compared to the outside universe. Subjective years can pass inside "the sack" while milliseconds pass here on Earth, allowing Santa to prepare toys, make detailed observations of the children of Earth, prepare the Naughty and Nice list and have a friendly AI check it twice (another answer, I'm afraid) and do all the other preparatory work for the big night.
Getting from place to place and entering buildings and structures with or without chimneys is a side effect of the way "the sack" is structured. On Christmas Eve, the wormhole mouth is disconnected from the North Pole and attached to "the sleigh" where eight powerful "reindeer" pull it around and position it under the trees of deserving children (the origin of the terms "sleigh" and "reindeer" to describe these very high tech devices is obscure, and no consensus on the origin is possible, since every elf has a different version). As time and space are not synchronized between "the sack" and our universe, what seems to be a ponderous and drawn out year long operation inside "the sack" only takes from midnight to @ 0600 EST on Earth. Santa is fairly certain that extending the reach of "the sack" to children in Earth orbit and the Moon would not be much of an issue, but has some doubts about extending the operation beyond Cis Lunar space. (The Apollo 8 astronauts are said to have been particularly pleased with the presents they got aboard their Apollo CM on Christmas eve, 1968, but respected Santa's wishes and didn't tell mission control. Santa wanted to surprise Gene Kranz).
So there you have it. Santa is operating in a pocket universe with different properties and using a wormhole connection between where he is and us to find out "who's naughty and nice", prepare the toys and appear under the trees to deliver presents.
By the way, he asked me to tell you that while he does enjoy the milk and cookies, he would appreciate a glass of single malt scotch on the fireplace mantle as well... | Speed of travel is completely irrelevant ironically...
Clearly, Santa is a mutant.
He has many names...err powers but the powers relevant to his gift giving gig are as follows:
1. **Teleportation**: Santa is able to teleport to any location on the globe, the teleportation may include other physical objects he is in contact with.
2. **Replication:** Santa is able to replicate multiple physical copies of himself. These are not separate 'persons' merely extensions of Santa's all powerful will. The teleportation power is retained by the replicant Santas.
3. **Psychic:** The actual Santa spends his annual Christmas gift giving extravaganza in silent meditation in a large dome at the north pole controlling the mentally linked avatars as they travel the globe delivering gifts to little ingrates.
**History**
The sleigh and reindeer are remnants from a time long past when Santa did things on his own in the more traditional manner. When Christmas was a small event in a fairly geographically localized area he did in fact fly around and drop off presents via a genetically modified elk powered sleigh. Over time as things grew Santa learned to hone his powers and he was able to skip the travel time altogether, but humanity had become so entranced with the myth of the sleigh with silver bells and reindeer that to this day he keeps up the charade by providing each of his avatars with reindeer and sleighs. Rumor has it the fleet of sleighs numbers in the thousands. |
32,250 | 
How I might control the number of edges in the "X" direction for this surface? The edges in "Y" axis are controlled by the "Float series count" | 2015/06/11 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/32250",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/14926/"
] | As stated already, you need to set an audio codec, also some video formats don't support audio.
A combination that does work is H.264 for the video (selected from the Output panel) and AAC for the audio (selected from the Audio codec dropdown on the Encoding panel). | In properties/encoding find "Audio codec:". It should read something other than "none". Make sure it's set to a format that's compatible with what you selected in "Format" and properties/output. This three should make sense when combined.
It would help a lot :) if you included in your question information such as:
* Blender version
* The content of the sections above (i.e. format of
your video and audio)
Here's a similar question:
[No audio output in rendered video file](https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/21278/no-audio-output-in-rendered-video-file) |
149,810 | I've read the [Wiki page about Legendary Dragon.](http://dragoncity.wikia.com/wiki/Legendary_Dragon). But the breeding details are unclear for me:
* Do I need to build a Legendary Habitat to have a chance to breed a Legendary Dragon?
* What is the chance of getting it when breeding pure dragons? 1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 5?
* Do I have a higher chance of getting a Legendary Dragon when breeding 2 pure dragons or 2 pure hybrids? | 2014/01/07 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/149810",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/5937/"
] | A legendary dragon has a 1% chance of being breed, no matter what you try. It's best to only do 2 pure dragons. | Try getting a very high level mercury dragon. Pretty sure levels matter in breeding and mercury dragon has the most basic types for a hybrid + hybrid dragon, only water and metal, so shouldn't take that long to breed and hatch.
Pretty sure max level is 120. |
7,677 | I play bridge casually and mostly have learned from other players (and occasionally from online resources). While playing recently another player suggested that I was counting my hand's points incorrectly and the justification was something I've never heard before.
The hand I was holding had 13 high-card points and a doubleton consisting of QJ. After my hand was revealed (I was dummy) we discussed the point-count of my hand and one player suggested that I should have only counted it as 11 points because the 1 point for the doubleton replaced the three points for the honors in that suit.
Is this a common point-counting technique and, if so, what is it's utility? | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7677",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com",
"https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/1821/"
] | I've never heard of that method. I don't think it's very common, nor do I think it's sensible. A more common and better variant is to not count both distribution and high card points for a suit unless the honor is an A (for a singleton or doubleton) or a K (for a doubleton). Thus, QJ doubleton would be worth 3 points but not 4.
The rationale for the rule that was suggested is no doubt that your honors are unprotected -- if the opponents play AK, your honors drop. The reason this is wrong is that if you partner has at least one of the A, the K, or the 10 (which happens more than 2/3 of the time), your QJ doubleton becomes valuable again. Even if partner is missing all those cards, you still have a decent chance of winning a trick with one of your honors provided you don't end up dummy, because the opponents will have to guess how to play the suit. Another way to see that it is wrong to value the holding at 1 point is that QJ doubleton is clearly much better than xx doubleton, which would also be worth 1 point.
The more advanced answer is that the value of this holding depends strongly on what partner has and to a lesser extent on the contract. Therefore, you should re-evaluate your hand during the bidding as you get more information about your partner's hand and the opponent's hands. For instance, if partner seems to be reasonably strong in this suit, your QJ doubleton is probably valuable -- it could be worth 2 or even more tricks. On the other hand, if your LHO seems to have all the cards in the suit, your QJ doubleton may only be valuable for the fact that it is a doubleton. | With 13 high card points, you can count 1 for the doubleton, for a total of 14, because of ruffing potential.
The QJ are both "stranded," meaning that they can fall to AK because there are no low cards to protect them. For that reason, I would deduct one point from each, counting 1 for the Q and 0 for the J. Making this adjustment reduces the value of your hand to 12.
KQ is worth 4, not 5, because the Q is fodder for an opposing ace. It's worth a bit more than Kx (3 points) but not two whole points more. |
31,983 | I use a Sallen-Key filter for a project at university and I need to know its input impedance. Is there a way to compute it theoretically ?
Here is my circuit:
 | 2012/05/15 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/31983",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/8889/"
] | Yes, this is a standard circuit analysis problem.
Perform the analysis in the frequency domain (R and Xc) and connect a 1A ac current source at the input. Solve for the input voltage as a function of frequency and that expression is the impedance.
I suggest using nodal analysis to perform the analysis.
Assume that the op amp is ideal and so the current into the +/- terminals is zero and the voltage at these terminals are equal. | @snickers
I pretty much just compute the Input Impedance, Zin in my Head.
Well you could solve for it using Ohm's Law and summing node equations, but after you've done it a few times, just do it in your head.
Step 1. Do a DC analysis
Step 2. Do an AC analysis where f is >> fo(BPF)
Step 3. Figure out what happens at f=fo
so here we go.
1. Zin= R1 + R2
2. Zin= R1 (since C5= 0Ω)
3. Zin= open circuit due to cancellation of signals . i.e. no feedback and hence maximum gain.
So if you had one of those nice HP or Anritsu Vector Network Analyzers, you get Zin with a big spike at f0 on a flat line where Zin starts at 35.6kΩ & ends at 33.0kΩ or something close to that...
But I do like the beautiful simulation and graph done above by one of our astute young Engineers.
See it my way? or your way starting with  |
15,063 | How can I block an app from accessing the internet completely? | 2017/06/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/15063",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/17729/"
] | You mention in your comment to @LouisGR that you're just trying to block WhatsApp for a while, while also using other apps. That's easy enough.
Disable the app from running in the background. As long as WhatsApp isn't in the foreground, it won't run at all and therefore can't access data. To do this, go to Settings, search for "Background apps", and turn off the toggle for WhatsApp. Make sure to turn this back on later, though, if you want the app to be able to receive message or call notifications while not running in the foreground. | There is no way to get a firewall 'by apps' in Windows Phone.
The only one dirty solution : pause LTE & WiFi but that's all. |
15,063 | How can I block an app from accessing the internet completely? | 2017/06/04 | [
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/questions/15063",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com",
"https://windowsphone.stackexchange.com/users/17729/"
] | You mention in your comment to @LouisGR that you're just trying to block WhatsApp for a while, while also using other apps. That's easy enough.
Disable the app from running in the background. As long as WhatsApp isn't in the foreground, it won't run at all and therefore can't access data. To do this, go to Settings, search for "Background apps", and turn off the toggle for WhatsApp. Make sure to turn this back on later, though, if you want the app to be able to receive message or call notifications while not running in the foreground. | As there is no firewall to control app access to the Internet. I have also tried to find any option natively in Windows Mobile but I have found none.
The only solution I can think of is to activate power saving mode. Choosing this option will curb all background activities for most apps even accessing the internet. The second step, never touch or open the app you don't want to access the web. The only downside for it that I have to sync the other apps I use manually. |
76,010 | Can anyone explain Wolverine having no trouble sleeping in a water bed at 300 lbs+ (plus the, let’s say, 130 lbs for the woman next to him) in *X-Men: Days of Future Past*? | 2014/12/17 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/76010",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/38327/"
] | Because when he travels back to the 1970s, he's not *physically* travelling in time, he's being mentally projected into his former self and in 1973 he didn't have an adamantium skeleton yet.
You can see from the image below (immediately after he gets out of bed) that his claws are just bone. His weight would therefore be around 175lbs not the 300lbs he weighs in the earlier films.
This was confirmed in [an interview](http://screenrant.com/x-men-days-of-future-past-time-travel-wolverine-explained/) with the film's writer, Simon Kinsberg:
>
> Probably the bigger reason is that when we started thinking about **the
> logistical realities of Kitty’s consciousness being sent back in time,
> to her younger self, as opposed to her physical body being sent back…**
> it was impossible.
>
>
> Obviously in the book it’s Kitty that’s sent back, but because we cast
> Ellen Page in X-Men: The Last Stand, you’re talking about an actress
> who, in the age of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, would have
> been negative 20 years old. So we started thinking again. The first
> reflex response to that was a character who doesn’t age. Wolverine is
> the only character who would looks the same in 1973 as he does in the
> future.”
>
>
>
As an aside, as has been pointed out in the comments above, most waterbed mattresses are rated to carry at least 400 pounds with no difficulty. Even if he did still have an adamantium skelton, his weight (300lbs) plus her weight (122lbs according to her bio) would present little or no chance of the mattress bursting. | **Simple answer: He doesn't have his Adamantium skeleton yet.**
This is seen in the next scene where he draws his claws to fight those mobsters and finds to his own dismay that he has plain bone claws, and not the Adamantium ones.
Furthermore, William Stryker is a youngster here. He isn't the same General Stryker who gave Wolverine his "gift".
So he couldn't have had his Adamantium. And without the Adamantium he weighs around [195lbs](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/16344/12551).
A typical waterbed can handle about [700kg](http://www.thewaterbedspecialist.co.uk/index.php?mod=pages&idp=9) or [1543.24](https://www.google.co.in/search?q=700%20kg%20to%20pounds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=baiSVLXdJM6_uATymYCoAQ).
So it's safe to assume a waterbed can handle the weight of an adamantium-less Wolverine alongwith his date. |
537,221 | I woke up the other day to find that my Sony Vaio VPC wouldn't boot up after multiple attempts. After running a system diagnostic check using the built-in recovery partition that came with the laptop, I was informed by the report that my registry is corrupted. However with no further effort, Windows 7 booted up on the next attempt.
Now the OS boots up very quickly at this point. But after startup, the machine takes ages to do anything that might require accessing the HDD, e.g. browsing files, opening programs etc. Even right-clicking a folder to get to properties took about 10-seconds to get a response.
I took this opportunity to slowly but surely back-up my precious data, and am now prepared for the worst. I also ran cCleaner on the registry. The OS still starts up, but with no change to the performance.
I then ran a HDD diagnostic, which performed a funnel seek test (which it failed), a linear seek test (which it failed) and a random seek test (which it passed).
Oh and to confuse things further, I have another partition on the HDD running Backtrack 5. Which still boots up and operates as smoothly as tropicana.
The strange thing is, I had exactly this same terrifying issue about 3 months ago, but for some reason, the machine just fought through and began working again as normal.
Now I can think of a few possible causes.
1. Bad/Broken sectors in the HDD. (In this case is there a fix?)
2. A broken 'something' with the motherboard. (In this case, god help me.)
3. Some kind of 'deep' corruption in the registry. (If this were the case a reinstall or repair may do the trick.)
4. The most stealthy and pointless malware I've ever encountered. (Probably the best-case scenario, but doesn't seem too likely.)
So based on the information I've given what do you think could be my problem? Or is my HDD just toast? | 2013/01/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/537221",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/190465/"
] | [Console](http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/) might help. So could [PowerCMD](http://www.powercmd.com/). If you [Google Command Prompt Alternative](https://www.google.com/search?q=command%20prompt%20alternative) you should be able to find something that suits your needs.
As for PowerShell, I really like the PowerShell ISE.
If you can't install an alternative on a server, see if you can have telnet enabled and use [PuTTY](http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.html), or better yet SSH. [This question](https://serverfault.com/questions/8411/what-is-a-good-ssh-server-to-use-on-windows) might help get SSH going. | I use [ConEmu](https://code.google.com/p/conemu-maximus5/) as terminal emulator with [clink](https://code.google.com/p/clink/) to have some of the joys of Bash. ConEmu have some very useful features like macros and custom key binding and clink bring things like history search and Bash shortcuts |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | ### Animistic philosophy
In animistic cultures, Humans had the understanding that they weren't different from other animals, it was natural to them to consider any living creature of the forest as their peers, but still, they always have been hunting. Our anchestors weren't vegan nor vegetarian, meat has always had an important share of the diet of our hunters-gatherers anchestors. Why would they kill someone they considered as a fellow soul of the forest? Because it perfectly fitted in the natural order of things, humans weren't the only hunting species, in fact, they were hunted as well, so they could never conceive it was wrong to kill a prey to eat it. Of course rituals were performed to thank the dying pray for its sacrifice.
If your species hunts, it doesn't need animals for farm work, and could very well stick with this point of view for quite forever.
### Non conscious animals
It is clearly difficult to say which animals are consciuous and which are not, but from a modern scientifical point of view, there are good reasons to think that most bigger animals are conscious, while most animals little enaugh aren't. Of course we have much better technology than your species, but we still can't tell, so it's difficult to imagine how they could decide it clearly, but it is really mostly a philophic question, so we can imagine they could chose to go for it. In that case, they could decide to base their diet on insects and little invertebrates like snails and shellfish. | Eugenics...on themselves...to change their dietary need.(gives some interesting possibilities of this solution being implemented without general consent and the associated exploration of social manipulation)
Long term solution, but it took a long time to get into the predator/prey debacle.
Slowly introduce non-prey based materials to supply some nutrition and allow reproduction between predator partners that show signs of synthesis of the missing ingredient only the prey beings can supply.
No quick solution when science cannot wave its infinite hands. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | They could become **carrion eaters** and only eat animals which died a natural or accidental death.
This might not be a good base to support a large, centralized population, though. If you want to support a large population, you need to produce food on an industrial scale. That means you need a food source which is reliable, planable and scalable. Scavenging for carrion is none of these things. So your civilization will likely need to be restricted to smaller communities until they develop the technology to synthesize their food. | **Amputation.**
Like the old farmer said, "A pig that good, you don't eat all at once."
Maybe your aliens will be lucky enough to develop a taste for skinks or some other animal that can regularly discard pieces of their body. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | Farm carrion
------------
Someone made the point that eating animals who naturally deceased is morally acceptable, but it can't be done on an industrial scale because carrion is hard to find.
Yes, it can be done on an industrial scale. You farm end-of-life animals.
You create prey-animal Paradise. They have a good life. Several times a day, you move the herd to a different field. Pay close attention to the stragglers. Those go off to hospital, and the unhealable ones go off to hospice, where they are watched, or if humane, euthanized.
Next stop after hospice is the butcher.
You would use choice of animal and selective breeding to get meaty animals with short natural lives. | There are some good answers here already, so I can only think of one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet. While you've specified the intelligence level of the predators, you haven't specified the intelligence level of the prey. Are the prey at a point of being able to communicate with the predators and sympathize with their problem?
There are some vampire stories where people submit themselves willingly to be consumed by vampires. You've said the predators don't have the technology to create something like True Blood, but perhaps the prey would have some reason to offer themselves to the predators, either out of positive feelings like compassion or negative feelings like fear. In Cabin in the Woods, people are sacrificed to a hungry god to avoid a terrible fate. I imagine your compassionate predators wouldn't want to threaten their prey, but the prey may feel threatened all the same.
If not enough of the prey are willing to give themselves up to the predators as sacrifices, then perhaps members of the predators' own species would be willing to make the sacrifice and they'd resort to cannibalism. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | They might be able to domesticate and farm a species of animal that can shed and regrow parts of its body, like lizards with their tails in our world but on a larger scale, and then subsist on the shed body parts. It’s conceptually similar to keeping animals for milk or eggs, but you get meat instead of dairy products. | Eugenics...on themselves...to change their dietary need.(gives some interesting possibilities of this solution being implemented without general consent and the associated exploration of social manipulation)
Long term solution, but it took a long time to get into the predator/prey debacle.
Slowly introduce non-prey based materials to supply some nutrition and allow reproduction between predator partners that show signs of synthesis of the missing ingredient only the prey beings can supply.
No quick solution when science cannot wave its infinite hands. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | Most animals actually have very similar nutritional requirements, at least with respect to what nutrients they need, if not exactly how much of each. However, obligate carnivores must eat meat because there are nutrients their bodies cannot synthesize, so in the absence of the ability to manufacture these nutrients industrially, they must get them directly from eating other animals. Over many, many generations, the biological processes that produce these nutrients become broken in carnivorous species, since they are redundant. For example, cats cannot synthesize taurine from other amino acids.
It's entirely possible that your carnivorous species only lacks the ability to synthesize one particular nutrient; let's call it vitamin X. In that case, all your carnivorous species needs to do to stop eating meat is to find non-meat foods which provide all the other nutrients vitamins A through K, and which provide similar macronutrient ratios. They'll probably need to eat a lot of starchy and high fat vegetables. They might need to process them somewhat to get the macronutrient ratios correct, such as by [washing the starch out of flour to leave the protein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food)).
Then it's only a matter of manufacturing vitamin X. The best way to hand-wave this with roman era technology is going to be some sort of fermented food. For instance, vitamin B12 is synthesized in modern times using bacteria. It's not hard to imagine your race stumbled upon some fermented beverage, grain, or other food that happens to contain a bacteria, mold, or other fungus that produces vitamin X. Of course, they don't know what vitamin X even is, but they may have figured out that the symptoms associated with not eating meat appear to be alleviated by eating this fermented food. | They could somehow "legislate" or form a binding consensus that the prey animal has a "right" to a finite lifespan. So they would never kill the prey animal below a certain age.
Similarly, they could form a consensus that the prey animal should be killed humanely, or only in their sleep. They would discover that the prey animal could be put under the influence of some kind of herb or drug, which would put them to sleep, and others would would eliminate their sensitivity to pain, anxiety, survival instinct, fear of death, familial/intra-species bonding, etc.
They could take on for themselves a sense of an ethical duty to somehow "feed" the prey animal from their own bodies; for example, when a predator animal dies, there would be an "honorable burial" ritual to use its body as fertilizer to grow vegetation, or possibly to grow a high-protein mushroom or fungi species, to feed captive prey animal. Or perhaps the females of the predator species, when lactating, would "raise" the prey animal as a pet, give it a cute name, and feed it her own milk from a bottle.
I think the prey-as-sacred-animal and prey-as-pet are both helpful archetypes. The prey animal, if domesticated, would tend to bond with the predator animal affectionately, simply as a matter of breeding and upbringing. And the predator animal would become convinced that the prey is "willing" to be sacrificed and killed. They would believe that their own carnivorous nature is totally harmonious with the prey. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | I would like to present a frame challenge.
**Sapient obligate carnivores WILL NOT decide to stop eating meat.**
There is going to be a distinct difference in the psychology of such a species compared with humans. Even if they are a social species capable of bonding and empathising with their domesticated animals, the species still sees them as their sole source of food.
Whereas humans are opportunistic omnivores, and can choose to exclude meat from their diet in favour of different sources of sustenance, if an obligate carnivore were to make the choice to not eat meat anymore, they are choosing to die. | **Milk and blood.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CCSkO.jpg)
<https://basia.typepad.com/india_ink/2007/09/got-blood.html>
Depicted - Maasai with some blood to eat.
Your carnivores stick to proteins from their prey animals. They just consume proteins that it is not difficult for these animals to regenerate and so the animals do not need to die. Examples from our world are milk and blood. Milk is of course great protein and adequate to sustain young mammals of all kinds as well as serve as the basis for other food products like delicious cheese. Blood can also form the base of a variety of foodstuffs. A well-cared for domestic animal can be bled a fair bit and regenerate the lost proteins and fluids.
Milking and bleeding domestic animals is compatible with gentle loving treatment of those animals. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | ### Animistic philosophy
In animistic cultures, Humans had the understanding that they weren't different from other animals, it was natural to them to consider any living creature of the forest as their peers, but still, they always have been hunting. Our anchestors weren't vegan nor vegetarian, meat has always had an important share of the diet of our hunters-gatherers anchestors. Why would they kill someone they considered as a fellow soul of the forest? Because it perfectly fitted in the natural order of things, humans weren't the only hunting species, in fact, they were hunted as well, so they could never conceive it was wrong to kill a prey to eat it. Of course rituals were performed to thank the dying pray for its sacrifice.
If your species hunts, it doesn't need animals for farm work, and could very well stick with this point of view for quite forever.
### Non conscious animals
It is clearly difficult to say which animals are consciuous and which are not, but from a modern scientifical point of view, there are good reasons to think that most bigger animals are conscious, while most animals little enaugh aren't. Of course we have much better technology than your species, but we still can't tell, so it's difficult to imagine how they could decide it clearly, but it is really mostly a philophic question, so we can imagine they could chose to go for it. In that case, they could decide to base their diet on insects and little invertebrates like snails and shellfish. | There are some good answers here already, so I can only think of one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet. While you've specified the intelligence level of the predators, you haven't specified the intelligence level of the prey. Are the prey at a point of being able to communicate with the predators and sympathize with their problem?
There are some vampire stories where people submit themselves willingly to be consumed by vampires. You've said the predators don't have the technology to create something like True Blood, but perhaps the prey would have some reason to offer themselves to the predators, either out of positive feelings like compassion or negative feelings like fear. In Cabin in the Woods, people are sacrificed to a hungry god to avoid a terrible fate. I imagine your compassionate predators wouldn't want to threaten their prey, but the prey may feel threatened all the same.
If not enough of the prey are willing to give themselves up to the predators as sacrifices, then perhaps members of the predators' own species would be willing to make the sacrifice and they'd resort to cannibalism. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | for alternative food what about a diet consist of only the unfertilize eggs.
so far as i check pure carnivore can eat egg.
and here some further information like nutritions from wikipedia link, and maybe some information there can help.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_as_food#Nutritional_value>
so just breed any egg laying animals like chicken,duck,or other bird, they wont get bothered by it nor it kill their populations.
also most hunting tribe has seasons or months they goes hunting to not depleting or overpopulate the prey, despite they have some moral dilemma of it they need to do it for survival and they also respect nature since they depend on it.
since look like your creature seems deep or to much involve in food chain as predator/hunter and prey. | Farm carrion
------------
Someone made the point that eating animals who naturally deceased is morally acceptable, but it can't be done on an industrial scale because carrion is hard to find.
Yes, it can be done on an industrial scale. You farm end-of-life animals.
You create prey-animal Paradise. They have a good life. Several times a day, you move the herd to a different field. Pay close attention to the stragglers. Those go off to hospital, and the unhealable ones go off to hospice, where they are watched, or if humane, euthanized.
Next stop after hospice is the butcher.
You would use choice of animal and selective breeding to get meaty animals with short natural lives. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | Soylent Green
=============
Of course it has well known issues, but we'll ignore Kuru and the like for the moment.
Soylent green has the advantage of acting as both waste disposal and food supply. The supply of high protein meat based food matches the population level, and while it of course won't fully supply a population it will act as a supplement to other available food sources such as eggs and fish. | **Amputation.**
Like the old farmer said, "A pig that good, you don't eat all at once."
Maybe your aliens will be lucky enough to develop a taste for skinks or some other animal that can regularly discard pieces of their body. |
157,314 | This is a bit of a strange one but I have an idea for a purely carnivorous species (land or water based, not determined yet) that gains awareness and even fondness of the animals they hunt. Not in the way we care for as they prefer hunting a prey species with a large population. They reached a point in civilization where they have become very aware of the consciousness of other animals and a caring for them almost like their preservation is a religion, but they are purely carnivorous.
An artificial or manufactured diet would be a good alternative, but, they are too early in technological development to know how to mass produce anything like that (around Roman era technology) Could there be an alternative food source for this species that would support a growing population?
Edit: Thank you to everyone who answered this question, they are all great solutions! But in the end I’m sticking with the Sacred Prey idea as it would make the most sense for the species. Thanks again to everyone who participated! | 2019/09/30 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/157314",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/59428/"
] | Most animals actually have very similar nutritional requirements, at least with respect to what nutrients they need, if not exactly how much of each. However, obligate carnivores must eat meat because there are nutrients their bodies cannot synthesize, so in the absence of the ability to manufacture these nutrients industrially, they must get them directly from eating other animals. Over many, many generations, the biological processes that produce these nutrients become broken in carnivorous species, since they are redundant. For example, cats cannot synthesize taurine from other amino acids.
It's entirely possible that your carnivorous species only lacks the ability to synthesize one particular nutrient; let's call it vitamin X. In that case, all your carnivorous species needs to do to stop eating meat is to find non-meat foods which provide all the other nutrients vitamins A through K, and which provide similar macronutrient ratios. They'll probably need to eat a lot of starchy and high fat vegetables. They might need to process them somewhat to get the macronutrient ratios correct, such as by [washing the starch out of flour to leave the protein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food)).
Then it's only a matter of manufacturing vitamin X. The best way to hand-wave this with roman era technology is going to be some sort of fermented food. For instance, vitamin B12 is synthesized in modern times using bacteria. It's not hard to imagine your race stumbled upon some fermented beverage, grain, or other food that happens to contain a bacteria, mold, or other fungus that produces vitamin X. Of course, they don't know what vitamin X even is, but they may have figured out that the symptoms associated with not eating meat appear to be alleviated by eating this fermented food. | Consider insects, or better yet, jellyfish, which **"has no brain, nor a heart"** (and has more DNA tricks up its sleeve: <https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html> )
Your Romans may be also able to breed - or discover - a **brainless mutation of a meaty organism** (that may be considered invasive and mindlessly destroying the world)
Such plague may easily be used for religious motivation. |
5,675,446 | I'm building an app that essentially displays data coming out of an external SOAP service, and occasionally posts some updates to it.
Question is, what is the best approach to building this app both from a testing point of view, and taking that into the development itself? | 2011/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5675446",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4787/"
] | You can check <https://github.com/myronmarston/vcr>. For a more high level view than fakeweb. | For development:
I would create a lib with all exchange methods.
For testing:
I'd use fakeweb to simulate Api calls so that I won't rely on the genuine Api.
<https://github.com/chrisk/fakeweb> |
6,126,009 | i would like to ask something about TableLayout..
In my code i read TableLayout from xml using
"TableLayout table = (TableLayout)findViewById(R.id.table);" and then i add dynamically table rows..
I have a button for refreshing the table..So, when i press the button i use
mainLayout.removeAllViews(); for delete all views from main layout and then
"TableLayout table = (TableLayout)findViewById(R.id.table);" i got null as result..
Anyone knows the reason i got null when i try to read from xml for second time the table?? | 2011/05/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6126009",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/579981/"
] | findViewById does not load the layout from XML. It finds views by ID that have already been inflated, generally with a setContentView call.
In your example, you call removeAllViews, then try to find a view in the hierarchy, which naturally returns null because you just removed them. | My problem solved..
I used table.removeAllViews(); instead of mainLayout.removeAllViews(); |
25,809 | In desserts like *panna cotta* or *crème brûlée*, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk? | 2012/08/23 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8322/"
] | I am not sure that the boiling step is absolutely necessary, but it is definitely an easy way to heat to a known temperature (rather than saying "heat to 180 degrees" and people complain because they don't have a thermometer). Or, it could just be because generations of chefs have done it that way and nobody thought to ask why. Either way, it is typical to heat the dairy, temper the eggs (creme brulee) or dissolve the gelatin (panna cotta) with that, and then finish cooking (gently heat to the desired consistency) for the creme brulee or just chill the panna cotta.
With that said, I have successfully made thin custards for ice cream/ gelato sous vide without first boiling the dairy and they have received wonderful reviews from my wife. Also, this recipe for [panna cotta](http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/panna-cotta-with-fresh-berries-recipe/index.html) specifically cautions you to not boil the mixture. | I think that this process (scalding) was done before there was homogenization and pasteurization of milk as a general rule, and that heating the milk would kill off any bacteria, and do some de-naturing of the proteins in the milk, making a smoother sauce or custard.
Since most milk is pasteurized and homogenized these days, it is an unnecessary step in most custard or sauce making. |
25,809 | In desserts like *panna cotta* or *crème brûlée*, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk? | 2012/08/23 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8322/"
] | I am not sure that the boiling step is absolutely necessary, but it is definitely an easy way to heat to a known temperature (rather than saying "heat to 180 degrees" and people complain because they don't have a thermometer). Or, it could just be because generations of chefs have done it that way and nobody thought to ask why. Either way, it is typical to heat the dairy, temper the eggs (creme brulee) or dissolve the gelatin (panna cotta) with that, and then finish cooking (gently heat to the desired consistency) for the creme brulee or just chill the panna cotta.
With that said, I have successfully made thin custards for ice cream/ gelato sous vide without first boiling the dairy and they have received wonderful reviews from my wife. Also, this recipe for [panna cotta](http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/panna-cotta-with-fresh-berries-recipe/index.html) specifically cautions you to not boil the mixture. | Creme Brulee, panna cotta both involve mixing sugar (or sugar and honey) with the warmed milk. This is generally true of other similar desserts as well. Heat is a catalyst to the mixing process. The heat aids in dissolving and mixing the sugars into the solution. If you try to mix either in cool (or cold) milk most the sugar will clump and rest at the bottom and the honey will separate from the milk. |
25,809 | In desserts like *panna cotta* or *crème brûlée*, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk? | 2012/08/23 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8322/"
] | I am not sure that the boiling step is absolutely necessary, but it is definitely an easy way to heat to a known temperature (rather than saying "heat to 180 degrees" and people complain because they don't have a thermometer). Or, it could just be because generations of chefs have done it that way and nobody thought to ask why. Either way, it is typical to heat the dairy, temper the eggs (creme brulee) or dissolve the gelatin (panna cotta) with that, and then finish cooking (gently heat to the desired consistency) for the creme brulee or just chill the panna cotta.
With that said, I have successfully made thin custards for ice cream/ gelato sous vide without first boiling the dairy and they have received wonderful reviews from my wife. Also, this recipe for [panna cotta](http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/panna-cotta-with-fresh-berries-recipe/index.html) specifically cautions you to not boil the mixture. | Scalding milk destroys some enzymes so that it improves setting, as in custards. |
25,809 | In desserts like *panna cotta* or *crème brûlée*, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk? | 2012/08/23 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8322/"
] | Creme Brulee, panna cotta both involve mixing sugar (or sugar and honey) with the warmed milk. This is generally true of other similar desserts as well. Heat is a catalyst to the mixing process. The heat aids in dissolving and mixing the sugars into the solution. If you try to mix either in cool (or cold) milk most the sugar will clump and rest at the bottom and the honey will separate from the milk. | I think that this process (scalding) was done before there was homogenization and pasteurization of milk as a general rule, and that heating the milk would kill off any bacteria, and do some de-naturing of the proteins in the milk, making a smoother sauce or custard.
Since most milk is pasteurized and homogenized these days, it is an unnecessary step in most custard or sauce making. |
25,809 | In desserts like *panna cotta* or *crème brûlée*, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk? | 2012/08/23 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8322/"
] | Creme Brulee, panna cotta both involve mixing sugar (or sugar and honey) with the warmed milk. This is generally true of other similar desserts as well. Heat is a catalyst to the mixing process. The heat aids in dissolving and mixing the sugars into the solution. If you try to mix either in cool (or cold) milk most the sugar will clump and rest at the bottom and the honey will separate from the milk. | Scalding milk destroys some enzymes so that it improves setting, as in custards. |
44,769 | I have read quite some articles but I can't figure out the main reason for gc content deviation in prokaryotes. In eukaryotes I can understand it, because the genome isn't composed at random, like TATA boxes and CpG island, because they are important for functioning in the production of proteins.
However in prokaryotes there is such a variety, GC% is ranging from 20% up to 70%. Most of the time it depends on the environment, high temperature needs a stable genome (= high gc content).
I also read the answer to this question [How does GC-content evolve?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/16447/how-does-gc-content-evolve) however it's still not clear to me. I hope someone can explain the deviation a little bit more.
**Question**
Prokaryotes have an AT drift, but what mechanism causes some of these bacteria to higher their GC% instead of lowering it. | 2016/03/31 | [
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/44769",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/22887/"
] | Each cell [will indeed have the same DNA sequences](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/43063/is-the-dna-different-in-each-type-of-cell-what-dna-is-passed-to-offspring) and ability to produce any given protein. However, there are certain factors ([transcription factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_factor)) and cellular conditions within a cell that dictate which proteins are produced. If the conditions are right then only certain proteins will be produced depending on what type of cell it is. This process by which a cell continues to express selected proteins and becomes specialized for a specific function, is called [differentiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation). Expression of proteins that are not required can be prevented by [transcriptional repressors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressor) (or by [epigenetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) mechanisms such as [methylation of DNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation) sequences). So to answer your question, while cells contain the instructions (DNA sequences) to produce potentially any protein, not every type of protein will always be produced.
Keep in mind that my answer is very basic; the answer isn't as simplistic as I'm making it out to be. | Protein expression in cells is majorly governed by a concept called [RNA splicing.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing) This also forms the basis of different types of cells which has different proteins expressed at different levels, but from the same nuclear material: DNA, which can be visually seen [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicing) Differential splicing leads to various isoforms of the mRNAs, which are precursors of protein expression in cell. So, based on how the splicing occurs in different types of cells, different proteins are expressed at different levels, which constitute to the different phenotypes. This is just a brief introduction to these concepts following the previous comments, but I thought it would be a good time to mention these as these are pertinent.
I am new to this site, so may be not giving the best and most comprehensice answers, but I hope this is useful. |
44,769 | I have read quite some articles but I can't figure out the main reason for gc content deviation in prokaryotes. In eukaryotes I can understand it, because the genome isn't composed at random, like TATA boxes and CpG island, because they are important for functioning in the production of proteins.
However in prokaryotes there is such a variety, GC% is ranging from 20% up to 70%. Most of the time it depends on the environment, high temperature needs a stable genome (= high gc content).
I also read the answer to this question [How does GC-content evolve?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/16447/how-does-gc-content-evolve) however it's still not clear to me. I hope someone can explain the deviation a little bit more.
**Question**
Prokaryotes have an AT drift, but what mechanism causes some of these bacteria to higher their GC% instead of lowering it. | 2016/03/31 | [
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/44769",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/22887/"
] | Each cell [will indeed have the same DNA sequences](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/43063/is-the-dna-different-in-each-type-of-cell-what-dna-is-passed-to-offspring) and ability to produce any given protein. However, there are certain factors ([transcription factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_factor)) and cellular conditions within a cell that dictate which proteins are produced. If the conditions are right then only certain proteins will be produced depending on what type of cell it is. This process by which a cell continues to express selected proteins and becomes specialized for a specific function, is called [differentiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation). Expression of proteins that are not required can be prevented by [transcriptional repressors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressor) (or by [epigenetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) mechanisms such as [methylation of DNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation) sequences). So to answer your question, while cells contain the instructions (DNA sequences) to produce potentially any protein, not every type of protein will always be produced.
Keep in mind that my answer is very basic; the answer isn't as simplistic as I'm making it out to be. | if you sequence deep enough and add single-cell sequencing you will also find cell to cell differences in the DNA which will add an other layer of heterogeneity in protein expression between cells. |
6,124 | I was browsing IEEE xplore the other day and found this gem called ["What Mathematics Courses Should an Electrical Engineer Take? A Report on the National Study of Mathematics Requirements for Scientists and Engineers"](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractAuthors.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4320540) by G.H. Miller. dated 1970. I believe this paper is most likely aimed at undergrad electrical engineers.
In this paper he collected a survey from two groups: awards group and abstracts group. Awards group is a list of electrical engineers who won nationally or internationally recognized awards. Abstracts group were people who published profusely.
The goal was to determine just which courses should ELECTRICAL engineers take during undergrad. Note again this was from the 70s.
The conclusion of the paper is as follows:
Highly recommended: calculus sequence, vectors, elementary DE, intermediate ODE, advanced calculus, elementary complex variables, matrix theory, elementary probability
Moderately recommended: tensor analysis, advanced ODE, advanced PDE, calculus of variations, complex variables and machine computation, numerical analysis and integral transform
and this quote:
>
> There was little use for newer courses in modern mathematics such as
> group theory, lie lgebras, multilinear algebra, mathematical logic,
> game theory, and geometric algebra. Therefore, these courses shoud be
> given low priority.
>
>
>
This quote raises obvious questions. Group theory is the foundation of signal processing. Lie algebra is used widely in quantum mechanics which is important for semiconductor physics. Mathematical logic is core of modern programming and control theory. Geometric algebra has many application in both signal processing and control theory. So it appears highly likely that the paper is out of date.
Three questions I have in mind hope some one can help me with (in no particular order)
1. Are recent or more modern sources for undergrad electrical engineer to decide on which math courses to take?
2. As the work force becomes more segmented, it is highly likely that a working electrical engineer will never use much of the math taught in school. (how much math is needed in quality assurance anyhow?)
So this is more aimed towards research engineers. Are there any research electrical engineers who might wish to dispute some of the claims in the paper?
3. What courses outside of the high and moderate recommendations should an electrical engineer student consider and why? | 2014/12/28 | [
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/6124",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/users/3560/"
] | In my experience teaching undergraduate engineering students, key topics include at least some calculus, linear algebra and differential equations. Exactly how much depends on the field/subfield of engineering. A sampling of other topics includes:
* Boolean algebra (digital electronics)
* Graph theory and algorithms (networks)
* Probability and statistics (reliability engineering, quality assurance and communications)
The main thing I miss from a modern perspective in Miller's lists is discrete mathematics, which has increased in importance with the rise of computers in the last few decades. On a more specialized note, I would add discrete/computational geometry for its applications in areas such as robotics and sensor networks.
Research engineers may need to draw on a much wider and deeper array of knowledge. An example would be Michael Robinson at American University (<http://www.drmichaelrobinson.net/>), whose research includes signal processing, dynamics and applied topology. See, for instance, his recent book [Topological Signal Processing](http://www.drmichaelrobinson.net/publications.html), which draws on ideas from sheaf theory, category theory and computational topology. Note that this book is published in Springer's [Mathematical Engineering](http://www.springer.com/series/8445) series, which in the words of the publisher
>
> ...presents new or heretofore little-known methods to support engineers in finding suitable answers to their questions, presenting those methods in such manner as to make them ideally comprehensible and applicable in practice.
>
>
>
An undergraduate interested in pursuing such an area would conceivably be advised to take courses in topology and abstract algebra as preparation, both of which remain unorthodox choices for most engineers to the best of my knowledge.
---
Edit: The 2014-2015 ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accreditation criteria can be found at <http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/2014_-_2015/E001%2014-15%20EAC%20Criteria%203-13-14(2).pdf>.
(Thanks Michael E2 for the link.)
In particular, on page 11:
>
> These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical,” “electronic,” “computer,” “communications,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
>
>
> 1. Curriculum
>
>
> The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program.
>
>
> The curriculum must include probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; sciences (defined as biological, chemical, or physical science); and engineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components.
>
>
> The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical” in the title must include advanced mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.
>
>
> The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include discrete mathematics.
>
>
> | I believe Discrete Mathematics, Logic, and Calculus to Electrical Engineers.
How much has to be studied in Calculus, and how the curriculum is to be arranged, however, is a tough question.
The current educational system in my country teaches Electrical Engineers the following:
Year 1: Linear Algebra, Matrix Theory, Differentiation and Integration, Logic
Note that at least this much is necessary to understand circuits, programming, and the physics curriculum (which includes basic forms of the Maxwell Equations)
Year 2: Partial Differentiation, Differential Equations, Discrete Mathematics, Probability and Statistics
Note that this curriculum is set to help them understand topics they study in Modern Physics, programming, and electronics.
After the 2nd year, undergraduates start to specialize to the extent that it is no longer possible to provide one universal curriculum which all electric engineers must know. Engineers working on electronics will need to know different mathematical concepts than those working in communication, for example. |
6,124 | I was browsing IEEE xplore the other day and found this gem called ["What Mathematics Courses Should an Electrical Engineer Take? A Report on the National Study of Mathematics Requirements for Scientists and Engineers"](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractAuthors.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4320540) by G.H. Miller. dated 1970. I believe this paper is most likely aimed at undergrad electrical engineers.
In this paper he collected a survey from two groups: awards group and abstracts group. Awards group is a list of electrical engineers who won nationally or internationally recognized awards. Abstracts group were people who published profusely.
The goal was to determine just which courses should ELECTRICAL engineers take during undergrad. Note again this was from the 70s.
The conclusion of the paper is as follows:
Highly recommended: calculus sequence, vectors, elementary DE, intermediate ODE, advanced calculus, elementary complex variables, matrix theory, elementary probability
Moderately recommended: tensor analysis, advanced ODE, advanced PDE, calculus of variations, complex variables and machine computation, numerical analysis and integral transform
and this quote:
>
> There was little use for newer courses in modern mathematics such as
> group theory, lie lgebras, multilinear algebra, mathematical logic,
> game theory, and geometric algebra. Therefore, these courses shoud be
> given low priority.
>
>
>
This quote raises obvious questions. Group theory is the foundation of signal processing. Lie algebra is used widely in quantum mechanics which is important for semiconductor physics. Mathematical logic is core of modern programming and control theory. Geometric algebra has many application in both signal processing and control theory. So it appears highly likely that the paper is out of date.
Three questions I have in mind hope some one can help me with (in no particular order)
1. Are recent or more modern sources for undergrad electrical engineer to decide on which math courses to take?
2. As the work force becomes more segmented, it is highly likely that a working electrical engineer will never use much of the math taught in school. (how much math is needed in quality assurance anyhow?)
So this is more aimed towards research engineers. Are there any research electrical engineers who might wish to dispute some of the claims in the paper?
3. What courses outside of the high and moderate recommendations should an electrical engineer student consider and why? | 2014/12/28 | [
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/6124",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/users/3560/"
] | In my experience teaching undergraduate engineering students, key topics include at least some calculus, linear algebra and differential equations. Exactly how much depends on the field/subfield of engineering. A sampling of other topics includes:
* Boolean algebra (digital electronics)
* Graph theory and algorithms (networks)
* Probability and statistics (reliability engineering, quality assurance and communications)
The main thing I miss from a modern perspective in Miller's lists is discrete mathematics, which has increased in importance with the rise of computers in the last few decades. On a more specialized note, I would add discrete/computational geometry for its applications in areas such as robotics and sensor networks.
Research engineers may need to draw on a much wider and deeper array of knowledge. An example would be Michael Robinson at American University (<http://www.drmichaelrobinson.net/>), whose research includes signal processing, dynamics and applied topology. See, for instance, his recent book [Topological Signal Processing](http://www.drmichaelrobinson.net/publications.html), which draws on ideas from sheaf theory, category theory and computational topology. Note that this book is published in Springer's [Mathematical Engineering](http://www.springer.com/series/8445) series, which in the words of the publisher
>
> ...presents new or heretofore little-known methods to support engineers in finding suitable answers to their questions, presenting those methods in such manner as to make them ideally comprehensible and applicable in practice.
>
>
>
An undergraduate interested in pursuing such an area would conceivably be advised to take courses in topology and abstract algebra as preparation, both of which remain unorthodox choices for most engineers to the best of my knowledge.
---
Edit: The 2014-2015 ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accreditation criteria can be found at <http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/2014_-_2015/E001%2014-15%20EAC%20Criteria%203-13-14(2).pdf>.
(Thanks Michael E2 for the link.)
In particular, on page 11:
>
> These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical,” “electronic,” “computer,” “communications,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
>
>
> 1. Curriculum
>
>
> The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program.
>
>
> The curriculum must include probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; sciences (defined as biological, chemical, or physical science); and engineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components.
>
>
> The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical” in the title must include advanced mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.
>
>
> The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include discrete mathematics.
>
>
> | Life requires prioritization. You are emphasizing some very intricate backgrounds (group theory to quantum to semiconductor physics to EE). And implicitly ignoring the huge amount of times that students will need basic calculus or ODEs in derivations or homework problems. More of C is less of A. The list is prioritized, your remarks are essentially "why not more C" so don't even show the benefit of comparison. Of stating what you would lower on the list if you raise something.
I actually get a little bit the impression you know a lot about math but not that much about EE. I'm not an EE, but took two solid semesters of junior level EE as part of engineering requirement and also had training in it at nuke school. And even worked in a firm that had ME and EEs.
Furthermore, I have a pretty solid quantum background for a chemist and did a Ph.D. in solid state that involved a lot of semiconductor physics (but light and experimental for a physicist, but still way more at least exposure than the average cat). And I never had my learning hurt by the lack of theoretical group theory for quantum (it was more diffyq based). Heck, even if you do look at quantum theory in terms of group theory, the average physicist would just use the parts of group theory he needed.
And the idea that a BS EE needs that level of quantum theory? Noooo. (There are only so many hours in the day and EEs already bust ass. They have to learn about a gazillion things from op amps to squirrel cage induction motors and Y-D transformers.) |
6,124 | I was browsing IEEE xplore the other day and found this gem called ["What Mathematics Courses Should an Electrical Engineer Take? A Report on the National Study of Mathematics Requirements for Scientists and Engineers"](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractAuthors.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4320540) by G.H. Miller. dated 1970. I believe this paper is most likely aimed at undergrad electrical engineers.
In this paper he collected a survey from two groups: awards group and abstracts group. Awards group is a list of electrical engineers who won nationally or internationally recognized awards. Abstracts group were people who published profusely.
The goal was to determine just which courses should ELECTRICAL engineers take during undergrad. Note again this was from the 70s.
The conclusion of the paper is as follows:
Highly recommended: calculus sequence, vectors, elementary DE, intermediate ODE, advanced calculus, elementary complex variables, matrix theory, elementary probability
Moderately recommended: tensor analysis, advanced ODE, advanced PDE, calculus of variations, complex variables and machine computation, numerical analysis and integral transform
and this quote:
>
> There was little use for newer courses in modern mathematics such as
> group theory, lie lgebras, multilinear algebra, mathematical logic,
> game theory, and geometric algebra. Therefore, these courses shoud be
> given low priority.
>
>
>
This quote raises obvious questions. Group theory is the foundation of signal processing. Lie algebra is used widely in quantum mechanics which is important for semiconductor physics. Mathematical logic is core of modern programming and control theory. Geometric algebra has many application in both signal processing and control theory. So it appears highly likely that the paper is out of date.
Three questions I have in mind hope some one can help me with (in no particular order)
1. Are recent or more modern sources for undergrad electrical engineer to decide on which math courses to take?
2. As the work force becomes more segmented, it is highly likely that a working electrical engineer will never use much of the math taught in school. (how much math is needed in quality assurance anyhow?)
So this is more aimed towards research engineers. Are there any research electrical engineers who might wish to dispute some of the claims in the paper?
3. What courses outside of the high and moderate recommendations should an electrical engineer student consider and why? | 2014/12/28 | [
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/6124",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com",
"https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/users/3560/"
] | I believe Discrete Mathematics, Logic, and Calculus to Electrical Engineers.
How much has to be studied in Calculus, and how the curriculum is to be arranged, however, is a tough question.
The current educational system in my country teaches Electrical Engineers the following:
Year 1: Linear Algebra, Matrix Theory, Differentiation and Integration, Logic
Note that at least this much is necessary to understand circuits, programming, and the physics curriculum (which includes basic forms of the Maxwell Equations)
Year 2: Partial Differentiation, Differential Equations, Discrete Mathematics, Probability and Statistics
Note that this curriculum is set to help them understand topics they study in Modern Physics, programming, and electronics.
After the 2nd year, undergraduates start to specialize to the extent that it is no longer possible to provide one universal curriculum which all electric engineers must know. Engineers working on electronics will need to know different mathematical concepts than those working in communication, for example. | Life requires prioritization. You are emphasizing some very intricate backgrounds (group theory to quantum to semiconductor physics to EE). And implicitly ignoring the huge amount of times that students will need basic calculus or ODEs in derivations or homework problems. More of C is less of A. The list is prioritized, your remarks are essentially "why not more C" so don't even show the benefit of comparison. Of stating what you would lower on the list if you raise something.
I actually get a little bit the impression you know a lot about math but not that much about EE. I'm not an EE, but took two solid semesters of junior level EE as part of engineering requirement and also had training in it at nuke school. And even worked in a firm that had ME and EEs.
Furthermore, I have a pretty solid quantum background for a chemist and did a Ph.D. in solid state that involved a lot of semiconductor physics (but light and experimental for a physicist, but still way more at least exposure than the average cat). And I never had my learning hurt by the lack of theoretical group theory for quantum (it was more diffyq based). Heck, even if you do look at quantum theory in terms of group theory, the average physicist would just use the parts of group theory he needed.
And the idea that a BS EE needs that level of quantum theory? Noooo. (There are only so many hours in the day and EEs already bust ass. They have to learn about a gazillion things from op amps to squirrel cage induction motors and Y-D transformers.) |
59,608,685 | I am a beginner in flutter development. I have heard that ios app can make and test only in Mac. I don't know it's wrong or not.
But now I am started learning Flutter in Windows. I don't have enough money to buy a Mac. So is there any problem with learning flutter in Windows. | 2020/01/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59608685",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/7775597/"
] | You need a Mac to build and test for iOS.
There are workarounds though. You could use a tool like Appollo. Appollo is a CLI utility that let's you:
* configure Xcode
* Test on an iOS simulator
* Build an IPA, to install on a physical device
* or build and publish your app in the App Store
Here is a link to their [github](https://github.com/Appollo-CLI/Appollo) and [documentation](https://appollo.readthedocs.io/en/master/index.html) | you can learn flutter on windows and publish android apps or for the web.
however, for developing ios apps, mac is required.
the codebase remains the same, so there is no rework.
you can use <https://codemagic.io/> for ios builds. |
193,679 | There are no humans on this planet, obviously, but could an ambush predator fill the same niche as a human did on Earth? I'm unsure if humans being pursuit predators actually mattered in our growth in intelligence, so I guess that's why I'm asking this question! Let's assume these aliens are also very social creatures, living in packs and whatnot. Could this also affect their future society? | 2021/01/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193679",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/70981/"
] | **As long as it is to the evolutionary advantage of the creature then yes, it could happen.**
It makes sense that, for a predator that ambushes it's prey, it would be beneficial for a species to have the ability to work well together, predict it's prey well in advance and perhaps even create tools to assist. The more prey they can catch the better the mutation of this species will survive and so the more advantageous it is. | As for why greater intelligence would be an evolutionary advantage:
Ambush predators could have used greater intelligence to improve their hunting techniques- traps, ranged weapons, and artificial camouflage spring to mind.
In humans, developing tools (spears, atlatls, and such) made our basic "chase the animal until it collapses from exhaustion" strategy much more effective, so there's no reason that the "jump out at your prey from a tree/the water/etc." approach couldn't also be improved by basic tools. |
193,679 | There are no humans on this planet, obviously, but could an ambush predator fill the same niche as a human did on Earth? I'm unsure if humans being pursuit predators actually mattered in our growth in intelligence, so I guess that's why I'm asking this question! Let's assume these aliens are also very social creatures, living in packs and whatnot. Could this also affect their future society? | 2021/01/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193679",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/70981/"
] | **As long as it is to the evolutionary advantage of the creature then yes, it could happen.**
It makes sense that, for a predator that ambushes it's prey, it would be beneficial for a species to have the ability to work well together, predict it's prey well in advance and perhaps even create tools to assist. The more prey they can catch the better the mutation of this species will survive and so the more advantageous it is. | Humans are pretty good ambush predators. Of course that's not all they do, and I would think that anything that fills the "human" niche would have to be a generalist, like humans. |
193,679 | There are no humans on this planet, obviously, but could an ambush predator fill the same niche as a human did on Earth? I'm unsure if humans being pursuit predators actually mattered in our growth in intelligence, so I guess that's why I'm asking this question! Let's assume these aliens are also very social creatures, living in packs and whatnot. Could this also affect their future society? | 2021/01/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/193679",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/70981/"
] | Humans are pretty good ambush predators. Of course that's not all they do, and I would think that anything that fills the "human" niche would have to be a generalist, like humans. | As for why greater intelligence would be an evolutionary advantage:
Ambush predators could have used greater intelligence to improve their hunting techniques- traps, ranged weapons, and artificial camouflage spring to mind.
In humans, developing tools (spears, atlatls, and such) made our basic "chase the animal until it collapses from exhaustion" strategy much more effective, so there's no reason that the "jump out at your prey from a tree/the water/etc." approach couldn't also be improved by basic tools. |
5,106 | The title says it all. I am looking to learn and adopt a play style which does not necessarily win, but is typified as being incredibly difficult to actually win against, hence why I wish to know who had the most draws. | 2014/03/24 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5106",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/2697/"
] | World Champion [Tigran Petrosian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian) was known to be almost impossible to beat. He's your man. Study his games and legacy.
Per Wikipedia, he lost 1 out of 129 Olympiad games. Olympiads are top-notch tournaments and the score is over 20 years of play. He's not a flash in the pan.
In his 8 Euroteams competitions (held every three years from 1957 to 1983) he lost -0- out of 52 games. His team won the competition every time.
Then I started poking around in chessgames.com and I started looking at win/loss/draw ratios.
I made a list of all world champions since Botvinnik, including the weird ones where FIDE lost control.
The three players with the best win:loss ratio (in order): Kasparov (6.62), Fischer (4.87), and Petrosian (4.38). Kasparov dominates. (Only Karpov and Botvinnik are in the same class as these three.) I expected Kasparov and Fischer to be in this list. I was surprised that Petrosian was there, to be honest. But we see that he was very much able to score the win. He's about like Fischer in this regard.
The three players with the best win:draw ratio, in order: Fischer (1.7), Botvinnik (1.22), and Kasparov (1.02). Fischer dominates. No other players are in their class. I attribute this to an uncompromising aggressive desire to win. No half measures. Petrosian was not afflicted with this mentality. If it did not fit, he did not force it.
The three players with the best draw:loss ratio, in order: Petrosian (6.74), Kasparov (6.52), and Kramnik (6.25). Spassky and Karpov trail. No one else is close. This means that even if you had an advantage over one of these players, you'd have to work like mad to score the full point.
The three players with the best win+draw:loss ratio, in order: Kasparov (13.14), Petrosian (11.13), and Kramnik (9.73). Each is dominant over the next. Karpov and Spassky follow Kramnik closely. This reflects upon the difficulty of scoring the full point. An opponent would twice as likely to nick a full point off **Carlsen** than Petrosian. Ouch. (I think this is a statistical fluke due to Carslen's age...but it makes a good story.)
Finally, while I did not list it, Petrosian has one of the lower win:draw ratios. He was more than willing to accept a draw if he could not see how to secure the win. Other players with a similar win:draw ratio do not possess Petrosian's compensating win:loss ratio, however.
This rather defines his style, I think. You can see here a player who will defeat you if you aren't careful. He is patient and takes few chances. If you get ahead of him, he'll likely wear you down, into a draw. And if you err, he'll crush you.
edit - fun facts for the world champions...
In the 4 ratios I looked at (w:l, w:d, d:l, and w+d:l)...
* Kasparov is the only player who made the top-3 in all 4 ratios.
* Petrosian is the only player who made the top-3 of 3 ratios.
* Fischer and Kramnik both have two top-3 honors, but also each have a bottom-3 honor.
* Botvinnik is the only player with a single top-3 honor.
* Topolov and Carlsen each have three bottom-3 honors.
* Carlsen excepted, the three champions from the weird FIDE years (Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, and Topalov) have the lowest W+D:L ratios. There is a marked just in score difference between them and the next lowest scored player (Smyslov). Find the clue. | My guess would be Ulf Andersson. |
1,277,820 | What are the benefits of Spring Actionscript considering [Dynamic Proxies](http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/ASC-3136) are not possible in the current version of Actionscript and Reflection is quite limited.
So for example I could specify my object creation in an XML application context, but why would I do that when I can simply specify that in code, and hence take advantage of static type checking etc.
It is by no means my intent to belittle the work done on Spring Actionscript but more to find an application for it in my projects. | 2009/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1277820",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/16744/"
] | Besides XML configuration, Spring ActionScript also supports MXML configuration. The type of config (XML, MXML) depends on the use cases your application needs to support. For the reasons you mention, it makes perfect sense to configure most of the context in MXML, but I would encourage you to externalize the config of service endpoints in every case.
In a past project we opted for XML config since the configuration was generated at runtime when a user logged on to the application. Depending on the user credentials, different endpoints and various different settings were used. We could not have done this elegantly with static MXML configs.
Both config types have their strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to you to decide what type you want to use. I think we could even support a mixture of MXML and XML quite easily actually if that would make sense. As soon as we have Dynamic Proxies and class loading, XML config will make a lot more sense. | There are several projects available that are simply misguided ports of philosophies from other platforms. Whenever starting in on a new platform, I think the best thing to do is figure out how people are effectively developing and go from there.
I say all of that because I think *all* of the java-esque frameworks for flex/flash leave you worse off than you started. You do need dependency injection, but there are good as3/mxml-friendly frameworks for that (Mate, Swiz). There is absolutely no point in using xml when you can use mxml, which is strongly typed. |
1,277,820 | What are the benefits of Spring Actionscript considering [Dynamic Proxies](http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/ASC-3136) are not possible in the current version of Actionscript and Reflection is quite limited.
So for example I could specify my object creation in an XML application context, but why would I do that when I can simply specify that in code, and hence take advantage of static type checking etc.
It is by no means my intent to belittle the work done on Spring Actionscript but more to find an application for it in my projects. | 2009/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1277820",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/16744/"
] | I would agree with Sean in the general sense that trying to force Flex inside of the Java box is generally a bad idea. As many similarities as there are, Flex is not Java.
That being said, there are plenty of reasons why you might want to have some of your configuration in an external XML file, not the least of which is in the use case of configuring your service destinations and endpoints, where you may have a need to be able to change the endpoint URI without having to recompile your application. | There are several projects available that are simply misguided ports of philosophies from other platforms. Whenever starting in on a new platform, I think the best thing to do is figure out how people are effectively developing and go from there.
I say all of that because I think *all* of the java-esque frameworks for flex/flash leave you worse off than you started. You do need dependency injection, but there are good as3/mxml-friendly frameworks for that (Mate, Swiz). There is absolutely no point in using xml when you can use mxml, which is strongly typed. |
1,277,820 | What are the benefits of Spring Actionscript considering [Dynamic Proxies](http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/ASC-3136) are not possible in the current version of Actionscript and Reflection is quite limited.
So for example I could specify my object creation in an XML application context, but why would I do that when I can simply specify that in code, and hence take advantage of static type checking etc.
It is by no means my intent to belittle the work done on Spring Actionscript but more to find an application for it in my projects. | 2009/08/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1277820",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/16744/"
] | Besides XML configuration, Spring ActionScript also supports MXML configuration. The type of config (XML, MXML) depends on the use cases your application needs to support. For the reasons you mention, it makes perfect sense to configure most of the context in MXML, but I would encourage you to externalize the config of service endpoints in every case.
In a past project we opted for XML config since the configuration was generated at runtime when a user logged on to the application. Depending on the user credentials, different endpoints and various different settings were used. We could not have done this elegantly with static MXML configs.
Both config types have their strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to you to decide what type you want to use. I think we could even support a mixture of MXML and XML quite easily actually if that would make sense. As soon as we have Dynamic Proxies and class loading, XML config will make a lot more sense. | I would agree with Sean in the general sense that trying to force Flex inside of the Java box is generally a bad idea. As many similarities as there are, Flex is not Java.
That being said, there are plenty of reasons why you might want to have some of your configuration in an external XML file, not the least of which is in the use case of configuring your service destinations and endpoints, where you may have a need to be able to change the endpoint URI without having to recompile your application. |
36,397,442 | I was reading through Nevatech Sentinet the last week and I'm currently asking myself the following question: "When NevaTech Sentinet exists, with all these named features, why should anyone use BizTalk with ESB Toolkit and extend it with Sentinet?"
Does I see there something wrong, but Sentinet is able to handle everything and more what BizTalk with ESB Toolkit is also able to do? | 2016/04/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36397442",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3875926/"
] | Essentially you are talking about 2 very different products here.
Sentinet is a very good tool if you are thinking about centralized API management. It is very good in what it does in that niche.
BizTalk on the other hand is a ESB, using a publish/subscribe architecture. BizTalk also has various ways of connecting to non-trivial systems like SAP, DB2, Siebel, MSMQ, etc... It can also do EDI/AS2/X12, flat file parsing and so on.
You can set it up as a ESB and/or message broker/hub/etc...
In your specific case (I'm guessing web services related?) it might seem that BizTalk and Sentinet are similar, yet the two are very different and actuallly complement each other rather nicely.
As you see these are 2 completely diverse products and together they actually might be a perfect match in your case.
**Some more clarification after your comment:**
Using BizTalk does not necessarily mean you have to use ESB Toolkit. BizTalk can perfectly act as an ESB without the ESB Toolkit.
The benefits of using Sentinet is definitely API management. What you are focusing on when "doing" API management with Sentinet is to form a single layer of API's within Sentinet. Often you would point all your clients (both internal or external) to Sentinet, where you would host all of your services virtually. You gain a lot of control that way and can add security, versioning, load balancing, SLA reporting, etc... to your existing services without any hassle.
Another thing Sentinet is quite good at is low-latency services. This is something BizTalk is not particulary good at, since it will persist everything to it's database to prevent losing messages. (I once used it in a POC and setup a virtual service calling an existing, external service with additional enrichment and easily covered 200+ trx/seconds).
BizTalk on the other hand is middleware. That's a whole other playing field.
It's very good in connecting different systems to each other using different protocols, mapping messages to other formats (xml, flat file or EDI), adding business logic to your flows, integration patters, long running flows, loose coupling, etc... you wouldn't want to use it as a virtual service since it will persist everything to it's message box!
Hopefully now you see they are both quite a different tool set.
They do play along nicely next to each other though: hosting your BizTalk web services in a virtual web service on Sentinet has a lot of advantages, especially in a fast-paced environment. | One addition to @Peter's great answer:
I almost always install the ESB ToolKit, if nothing else for the centralized exception handling (EsbExceptionDb). You may or may not want to use the itinerary and other services in the toolkit, but the exception DB is very handy when trying to debug and potentially resubmit messages. |
54,481 | Is there a laser or something in there because it's really bright and looks weird and has a different look I'm pretty sure it isn't but it's weird .
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LBwNB.jpg) | 2018/05/20 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/54481",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/36398/"
] | I've seen this before. The bulb assembly usually fits into the gear indicator mechanism in a similar way that brake lights fit into brake light assemblies. That is, usually the bulb socket has a snap tab or twist fit. In your case the bulb is still intact but **the bulb assembly isn't in the right place**. In other words, it's not snapped in where it's supposed to be. It's more annoying than harmful, but I'd recommend trying to fix it anyway.
There are a number of ways of disassembling these; it varies by model, but it often involves gently prying the gear shift indicator assembly out of the housing and then snapping the bulb assembly back into place. It will be obvious where it should be.
There's also the possibility that the last person to replace the bulb (or do some other maintenance in there) broke some plastic bit that's supposed to hold the bulb in place. That's even more annoying, but also usually repairable buy paying a king's ransom for the replacement plastic bit, and struggling for a while to replace it, all the while cursing the clumsy gorilla mechanic who first broke it. (Even if it's yourself!) | Well, years ago it would be a small bulb, but now it is most likely to be an LED - some are usually colored to match the dash lights, some have colored plastic covers of some type.
Difficult to tell anything as it is on - a decent picture of the bulb / led will confirm. |
150,524 | I'm running a campaign set in Chult. In making sure I know the setting well, I came across [this entry on the Forgotten Realms wiki](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Tabaxi_(tribe)), which notes *This article is about the tribe of Chultan humans. For the race of humanoid felinids, see Tabaxi.*, and goes on to explain:
>
> "Tabaxi" was also a term given to a race of humanoid jaguars found in both Chult and Maztica. It has been suggested that this was an error in naming. The explanation was that an explorer from Cormyr saw a Tabaxi tribesman dressed in ceremonial garb of panther skin and was told by a guide that the man was a Tabaxi. Misunderstanding what the guide meant, this explorer assumed that all cat-men were called "Tabaxi".
>
>
> In actuality the Cormyrean explorer was not far off from the truth. The human tribesmen named their people after the enigmatic feline-humanoids.
>
>
>
This is also covered in
[Who was this character from the Tomb of Annihilation adventure before they became a monster?](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/147876/who-was-this-character-from-the-tomb-of-annihilation-adventure-before-they-becam/147879#147879), which references Dragon+ magazine article which appears to confirm some of this, at least as far as *metagame* history goes.
But, the actual in-print 5E book covering Chult, the *Tomb of Annihilation* adventure, doesn't mention this at all. Instead, the human natives are referred to as "Chultans", and the only references to "Tabaxi" are to the feline kind:
>
> Tabaxi are feline humanoids, originally native to the western continent of Maztica. Some Chultans refer to them as “cat folk” or “leopard people.” Groups of tabaxi wound up in Chult after escaping from slavers. They are a cultured people and seldom evil. A few work as guides out of Port Nyanzaru. Others enter the jungle in small groups to hunt grungs and goblins for their own purposes.
>
>
>
Sooooo, what's the story here? Are what *were* the "Tabaxi people" now *Chultans*? | 2019/06/25 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/150524",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/904/"
] | Yes
===
The Tabaxi tribe and the tabaxi race are both still official canon for The Realms. This was discussed in Dragon+ Magazine issue 11, section 16 titled "Lore you should Know." This article was published in 2016.
Within, the addition of the Tabaxi race to *Volo's Guide to Monsters* is discussed, as well as looking at the history and development of the race and their name from older versions of Dungeons and Dragons. The article specifically calls out the existence of the Tabaxi tribe (always written with a capital T) and the tabaxi race (lowercase t) and how they knew this could cause a bit of confusion. Here are a few relevant quotes:
>
> Tabaxi with a capital T is the ancestral name of one of a number of human tribes that traveled east to Faerûn from across the ocean. The Tabaxi were originally from a continent or island known as Katashaka in some sources, and which is generally assumed to be a separate landmass than the area described by the *Maztica Campaign Set*. The *Jungles of Chult* adventure established that the Chultan humans refer to themselves as Tabaxi, being the survivors of intertribal warfare among the emigrating human peoples.
>
>
> Further confusion about Tabaxi vs. tabaxi is sown by Fires of Zatal, an adventure set in Maztica. In it, there are no Tabaxi[the tribe], but a tabaxi[the race] NPC named Chioptl features prominently.
>
>
>
And, most importantly to answer your question
>
> Ultimately, we settled on using the tabaxi because it offered us more freedom in the design of the race. And **although having both tabaxi and Tabaxi in the canon of the Forgotten Realms is confusing,** it makes sense for tabaxi to originate from Maztica. This provides the in-world explanation for the similarity of their names: the human Tabaxi named their tribe after the mysterious cat people of Maztica and Katashaka. Also, establishing them as native to that distant land explains why tabaxi are rare across Faerûn in both the past and present.
>
>
>
Emphasis Mine
You can view the full article and all that it discusses about the Tabaxi and tabaxi [here](http://www.dragonmag.com/5.0/#!/article/113120/102960511?loadFresh=true&title=11_16_Lore%20You%20Should%20Know) | Yes. Same with the Eshowe and Thinguth, the other tribes of Chult. I'm doing a series on YouTube right now about all the peoples/playable/potentially playable races in that region of Faerûn.
The video on them is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbmh5rZSO_0). |
166,152 | A lot of white space has suddenly appeared in the close dialogue on Meta Stack Overflow, probably because of the lack of NARQ?
It looks like there is more than there was previously on beta sites and Android, though not to anywhere near the same degree as on MSO.
 | 2013/02/04 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/166152",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/176080/"
] | Don't think this is a bug. The new design for the "close as duplicate" is taking this whole space:
>
> 
>
>
>
So it's either having that extra space initially or having to expand the dialog vertically which I think will be even more annoying. | This might not be a *bug*, but it still looks wrong. I liked [Ben Brocka](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/166936/ben-brocka)'s idea of vertically centering the list to avoid any complex changes or exceptions for sites with different numbers of close vote options, however it didn't look that much better when I mocked it up:
Even if this isn't a bug in the strictest sense of the word I still think it's worthy of being fixed by either:
1. Making the close box smaller on meta and showing fewer duplicates before scrolling down
2. Making the close box smaller on meta for the first window, having it grow on the next step of the workflow then re-implementing this [feature request](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93170/the-vote-to-close-button-for-duplicates-is-inefficiently-placed-and-shouldnt) so we don't all go crazy (although looking at Shog's latest edit on it I guess this isn't too likely). |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | Absolutely! This is an important component of opening preparation. If you know your opponent is very booked up in e.g. the Sicilian Najdorf, entering the Sicilian Najdorf is suicide unless you also have specialist knowledge. You are liable to be caught in an opening trap or make otherwise inferior moves against which the opponent has memorized the best responses. [Game 1 of the World Chess Championship 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2010#Game_1,_Topalov%E2%80%93Anand,_1%E2%80%930) is illustrative: Anand forgot his preparation and when Topalov responded instantly, Anand knew at once that he was lost. More to the point, he didn't actually lose the game to Topalov's superior chess, he lost to Topalov's computer & memory.
In a similar way, if you know your opponent likes tactical melees, playing for closed positions where slow maneuver is the order of the day can dramatically increase your win rate against him. Directly challenging the opponent in the area of his strength is fine if you're looking to improve, and not so fine if you just want to win.
In case you're wondering, the same principles apply as well in the highest level of play: correspondence chess. To quote from [an interview](https://en.chessbase.com/(X(1)S(rg2ylarr0wonrzrhfene5qre))/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo-ljubicic-1-2) with the then-world correspondence chess champion,
>
> It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) *steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.*
>
>
> *If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.*
>
>
> ...
>
>
> I used Rybka for a number of years but around 2012 and 2103 I switched to Stockfish. Of course, I tested other engines as well but these two are my main engines. *I firmly believe that the top CC players must not change their engines too much because you have to understand and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your engines.* Otherwise, you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.
>
>
>
(Emphasis mine)
If your engine is good at positional play, those are the positions you want to gun for. If you further manage to identify the opponent's engine is not good at positional play, more power to you if you successfully get into such a position. | There are many ways of looking at this depending on one's strength. Super Grandmasters are able to shift between openings with ease and still play them well at a very high level and with deep understanding. As for middling players, it is *good* to stay with one opening line for long and there are several advantages to that;
1. Experience is a very important aspect in the road to mastery and there's no shortcut to acquiring experience. The great martial artist, Bruce Lee once said,
>
> I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks *(chess openings)* once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick *(chess opening)* 10,000 times.
>
>
>
The same could also be said about chess and sticking with one (or a few) opening lines for long time, acquiring more experience, deepening your understanding in strategic & tactical ideas behind the opening and both the resulting middlegames and endgame positions.
2. Don't play against the player but play against the pieces. Most great masters of the past including Bobby Fischer himself have stayed with one opening repertoire for long and playing fearlessly against all their opponents. Fischer played just a few openings, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Najdorf, King's Indian Attack & Defense, Grunfeld Defense, and others in between. Some openings and variations have been named after masters simply because they remained loyal for long and built indepth understanding in those lines.
3. The desire to win quickly and the creeping in of last minute doubt in one's opening repertoire is what has led many players to run away from their main weapons, hoping that the new unknown opening will yield better results in their favor. More often than not, it is the same players that end up surprising themselves with their own lack of experience in the new unusual opening than surprising their opponents. The sad is thing is that after the game, there isn't much to analyse or to add to your experience in that *surprise* opening.
For serious tournament games, I would strongly recommend sticking with one's main opening repertoire and using *surprise* openings for blitz and casual chess. As for beginners, I would recommend that they should stay with simple openings that adhere to basic opening principles (develop your pieces quickly, knights first, king safety, etc) like the Italian Game before trying to *surprise* anyone. |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | Absolutely! This is an important component of opening preparation. If you know your opponent is very booked up in e.g. the Sicilian Najdorf, entering the Sicilian Najdorf is suicide unless you also have specialist knowledge. You are liable to be caught in an opening trap or make otherwise inferior moves against which the opponent has memorized the best responses. [Game 1 of the World Chess Championship 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2010#Game_1,_Topalov%E2%80%93Anand,_1%E2%80%930) is illustrative: Anand forgot his preparation and when Topalov responded instantly, Anand knew at once that he was lost. More to the point, he didn't actually lose the game to Topalov's superior chess, he lost to Topalov's computer & memory.
In a similar way, if you know your opponent likes tactical melees, playing for closed positions where slow maneuver is the order of the day can dramatically increase your win rate against him. Directly challenging the opponent in the area of his strength is fine if you're looking to improve, and not so fine if you just want to win.
In case you're wondering, the same principles apply as well in the highest level of play: correspondence chess. To quote from [an interview](https://en.chessbase.com/(X(1)S(rg2ylarr0wonrzrhfene5qre))/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo-ljubicic-1-2) with the then-world correspondence chess champion,
>
> It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) *steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.*
>
>
> *If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.*
>
>
> ...
>
>
> I used Rybka for a number of years but around 2012 and 2103 I switched to Stockfish. Of course, I tested other engines as well but these two are my main engines. *I firmly believe that the top CC players must not change their engines too much because you have to understand and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your engines.* Otherwise, you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.
>
>
>
(Emphasis mine)
If your engine is good at positional play, those are the positions you want to gun for. If you further manage to identify the opponent's engine is not good at positional play, more power to you if you successfully get into such a position. | First, I'm not convinced Fischer's 1. c4 was the masterstroke some claim. His Bb5 had already been played by Furman against Geller, one of Spassky's seconds, and was nothing special. (As shown the next year when Timman ventured that same line against Geller, who responded with the continuation he himself had shown Spassky during the match prep and won.) I think Spassky had already been rocked back on his heels before Game 6 by the way Fischer responded to being two games down -- drawing even by winning his next two games *as black.* Starting with Game 5 Spassky became uncharacteristically blunder-prone for a fatal stretch. I'm not sure the end result would have changed had Fischer simply stuck to his e4 habit. (See for example, Game 10.)
As for the main question: I've always encouraged my students to experiment with openings, for the simple reason that until both players have reached a basic level of strength (it's an uncertain line but it's somewhere north of USCF1800) specific opening choices really don't matter, and it's a way for them to discover what kinds of positions they like to play and have a natural aptitude for.
The unfortunate truth is for beginning and club-level players, the propensity for making errors in the middlegame and endgame will more than offset any advantage gained by memorizing a list of opening moves.
The question why I wasn't telling them which openings to play came up in a training session with one of my high school teams, so I opened my scorebook and we took a look at all the rated tournament games I had won so far that year (15, I think). We discovered that in all but one of those games I had come out of the opening behind, ranging from standing a little bit worse to being well on my way to losing. (I've long had a propensity for playing oddball lines, just to see how they play out against humans, rather than computers.) Yet I'd won, mainly because once the game shifted gears into the middle game or the endgame, my opponent didn't know what to do.
The first things to work on are calculation/visualization and basic endgames. Basic principles of chess, such as mobility, development, and control of the center. Go ahead and try out different opening lines, with the aim of figuring out whether the resulting positions suit you, not because of some supposed psychological effect on your opponent. Until the rest of your game is good enough to hold on to an early edge, none of that will matter for you. (If you want to play some trappy line and hope your opponent won't find the right path through it, go ahead. But remember, winning via memorized book traps says nothing at all about how good you are at chess, only how good your memory is.)
Specific opening preparation can wait until you're good enough to hold on to the advantage that preparation might give you.
Anatoly Karpov spoke at one of Scholastic Championships I brought a team to, and one of the coaches there asked him to comment on what US coaches were doing wrong. You could see him think carefully for a while (since his English is quite good, I personally think as a gentleman he was trying to find a way to say it clearly without offending his hosts) "You think too much about the opening. First comes chess. After you play it well, then is the time to think about openings."
You want to play some offbeat lines? Go ahead. Have some fun with them. Experiment. Dance with the wallflowers of chess opening theory. But unless both you and your opponent are dancing with candidate master or better skill, don't do it for any sort of opening advantage, because the odds are you'll give it all back before the game is over. |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | Absolutely! This is an important component of opening preparation. If you know your opponent is very booked up in e.g. the Sicilian Najdorf, entering the Sicilian Najdorf is suicide unless you also have specialist knowledge. You are liable to be caught in an opening trap or make otherwise inferior moves against which the opponent has memorized the best responses. [Game 1 of the World Chess Championship 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2010#Game_1,_Topalov%E2%80%93Anand,_1%E2%80%930) is illustrative: Anand forgot his preparation and when Topalov responded instantly, Anand knew at once that he was lost. More to the point, he didn't actually lose the game to Topalov's superior chess, he lost to Topalov's computer & memory.
In a similar way, if you know your opponent likes tactical melees, playing for closed positions where slow maneuver is the order of the day can dramatically increase your win rate against him. Directly challenging the opponent in the area of his strength is fine if you're looking to improve, and not so fine if you just want to win.
In case you're wondering, the same principles apply as well in the highest level of play: correspondence chess. To quote from [an interview](https://en.chessbase.com/(X(1)S(rg2ylarr0wonrzrhfene5qre))/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo-ljubicic-1-2) with the then-world correspondence chess champion,
>
> It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) *steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.*
>
>
> *If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.*
>
>
> ...
>
>
> I used Rybka for a number of years but around 2012 and 2103 I switched to Stockfish. Of course, I tested other engines as well but these two are my main engines. *I firmly believe that the top CC players must not change their engines too much because you have to understand and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your engines.* Otherwise, you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.
>
>
>
(Emphasis mine)
If your engine is good at positional play, those are the positions you want to gun for. If you further manage to identify the opponent's engine is not good at positional play, more power to you if you successfully get into such a position. | In chess, in general, you want to avoid the opponent's strengths, however, playing something you totally do not understand is not OK, either. I recently played something that I was not used to against a GM, and got soundly outplayed. In that game, 1.d4 d6, I decided that I would try the Kaprov line of the Pirc, and played 2.e4, even though I am not an e4-player.
If you opponent is a known tactical player, it pays to steer the game to a more positional approach, and vice versa. That said, you still need to play things that you understand.
P.S. "The Game of the Century" was an English after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4, but Fischer was black.
During the 1972 match, Fischer playing 1.c4 was definitely to take Spassky out of his primary preparation, and make them both play mano a mano, but of course, both those players understand virtually all positions so they can get away with such tactics. |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | Absolutely! This is an important component of opening preparation. If you know your opponent is very booked up in e.g. the Sicilian Najdorf, entering the Sicilian Najdorf is suicide unless you also have specialist knowledge. You are liable to be caught in an opening trap or make otherwise inferior moves against which the opponent has memorized the best responses. [Game 1 of the World Chess Championship 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2010#Game_1,_Topalov%E2%80%93Anand,_1%E2%80%930) is illustrative: Anand forgot his preparation and when Topalov responded instantly, Anand knew at once that he was lost. More to the point, he didn't actually lose the game to Topalov's superior chess, he lost to Topalov's computer & memory.
In a similar way, if you know your opponent likes tactical melees, playing for closed positions where slow maneuver is the order of the day can dramatically increase your win rate against him. Directly challenging the opponent in the area of his strength is fine if you're looking to improve, and not so fine if you just want to win.
In case you're wondering, the same principles apply as well in the highest level of play: correspondence chess. To quote from [an interview](https://en.chessbase.com/(X(1)S(rg2ylarr0wonrzrhfene5qre))/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo-ljubicic-1-2) with the then-world correspondence chess champion,
>
> It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) *steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.*
>
>
> *If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.*
>
>
> ...
>
>
> I used Rybka for a number of years but around 2012 and 2103 I switched to Stockfish. Of course, I tested other engines as well but these two are my main engines. *I firmly believe that the top CC players must not change their engines too much because you have to understand and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your engines.* Otherwise, you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.
>
>
>
(Emphasis mine)
If your engine is good at positional play, those are the positions you want to gun for. If you further manage to identify the opponent's engine is not good at positional play, more power to you if you successfully get into such a position. | The answer is it depends. You're actually asking a couple of different questions though.
First of all, a narrow vs. a broad rep. Most players are probably better off steering their games into a narrow rep where they limit the opponent's responses and steer the game into positions they know. However, because of engines, I don't believe you can be a competitive international player nowadays playing that way. If your goal is 2400+ you really need to be comfortable in all positions and play a broad rep.
The other aspect is whether or not to choose openings based on the opponent. In terms of general opponents I would at least consider the psychology. For example, I recommend the French exchange to a lot of players precisely for the reason that most French players hate playing against it. If you're talking about specific opponents then it really depends on the value of a win vs. the amount of time spent analyzing it and how comfortable you are with the resulting positions. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it to spend X number of hours studying a line and what the potential gain of that knowledge is. ie is 50 hours of study worth it to beat a specific player? |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | There are many ways of looking at this depending on one's strength. Super Grandmasters are able to shift between openings with ease and still play them well at a very high level and with deep understanding. As for middling players, it is *good* to stay with one opening line for long and there are several advantages to that;
1. Experience is a very important aspect in the road to mastery and there's no shortcut to acquiring experience. The great martial artist, Bruce Lee once said,
>
> I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks *(chess openings)* once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick *(chess opening)* 10,000 times.
>
>
>
The same could also be said about chess and sticking with one (or a few) opening lines for long time, acquiring more experience, deepening your understanding in strategic & tactical ideas behind the opening and both the resulting middlegames and endgame positions.
2. Don't play against the player but play against the pieces. Most great masters of the past including Bobby Fischer himself have stayed with one opening repertoire for long and playing fearlessly against all their opponents. Fischer played just a few openings, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Najdorf, King's Indian Attack & Defense, Grunfeld Defense, and others in between. Some openings and variations have been named after masters simply because they remained loyal for long and built indepth understanding in those lines.
3. The desire to win quickly and the creeping in of last minute doubt in one's opening repertoire is what has led many players to run away from their main weapons, hoping that the new unknown opening will yield better results in their favor. More often than not, it is the same players that end up surprising themselves with their own lack of experience in the new unusual opening than surprising their opponents. The sad is thing is that after the game, there isn't much to analyse or to add to your experience in that *surprise* opening.
For serious tournament games, I would strongly recommend sticking with one's main opening repertoire and using *surprise* openings for blitz and casual chess. As for beginners, I would recommend that they should stay with simple openings that adhere to basic opening principles (develop your pieces quickly, knights first, king safety, etc) like the Italian Game before trying to *surprise* anyone. | In chess, in general, you want to avoid the opponent's strengths, however, playing something you totally do not understand is not OK, either. I recently played something that I was not used to against a GM, and got soundly outplayed. In that game, 1.d4 d6, I decided that I would try the Kaprov line of the Pirc, and played 2.e4, even though I am not an e4-player.
If you opponent is a known tactical player, it pays to steer the game to a more positional approach, and vice versa. That said, you still need to play things that you understand.
P.S. "The Game of the Century" was an English after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4, but Fischer was black.
During the 1972 match, Fischer playing 1.c4 was definitely to take Spassky out of his primary preparation, and make them both play mano a mano, but of course, both those players understand virtually all positions so they can get away with such tactics. |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | There are many ways of looking at this depending on one's strength. Super Grandmasters are able to shift between openings with ease and still play them well at a very high level and with deep understanding. As for middling players, it is *good* to stay with one opening line for long and there are several advantages to that;
1. Experience is a very important aspect in the road to mastery and there's no shortcut to acquiring experience. The great martial artist, Bruce Lee once said,
>
> I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks *(chess openings)* once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick *(chess opening)* 10,000 times.
>
>
>
The same could also be said about chess and sticking with one (or a few) opening lines for long time, acquiring more experience, deepening your understanding in strategic & tactical ideas behind the opening and both the resulting middlegames and endgame positions.
2. Don't play against the player but play against the pieces. Most great masters of the past including Bobby Fischer himself have stayed with one opening repertoire for long and playing fearlessly against all their opponents. Fischer played just a few openings, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Najdorf, King's Indian Attack & Defense, Grunfeld Defense, and others in between. Some openings and variations have been named after masters simply because they remained loyal for long and built indepth understanding in those lines.
3. The desire to win quickly and the creeping in of last minute doubt in one's opening repertoire is what has led many players to run away from their main weapons, hoping that the new unknown opening will yield better results in their favor. More often than not, it is the same players that end up surprising themselves with their own lack of experience in the new unusual opening than surprising their opponents. The sad is thing is that after the game, there isn't much to analyse or to add to your experience in that *surprise* opening.
For serious tournament games, I would strongly recommend sticking with one's main opening repertoire and using *surprise* openings for blitz and casual chess. As for beginners, I would recommend that they should stay with simple openings that adhere to basic opening principles (develop your pieces quickly, knights first, king safety, etc) like the Italian Game before trying to *surprise* anyone. | The answer is it depends. You're actually asking a couple of different questions though.
First of all, a narrow vs. a broad rep. Most players are probably better off steering their games into a narrow rep where they limit the opponent's responses and steer the game into positions they know. However, because of engines, I don't believe you can be a competitive international player nowadays playing that way. If your goal is 2400+ you really need to be comfortable in all positions and play a broad rep.
The other aspect is whether or not to choose openings based on the opponent. In terms of general opponents I would at least consider the psychology. For example, I recommend the French exchange to a lot of players precisely for the reason that most French players hate playing against it. If you're talking about specific opponents then it really depends on the value of a win vs. the amount of time spent analyzing it and how comfortable you are with the resulting positions. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it to spend X number of hours studying a line and what the potential gain of that knowledge is. ie is 50 hours of study worth it to beat a specific player? |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | First, I'm not convinced Fischer's 1. c4 was the masterstroke some claim. His Bb5 had already been played by Furman against Geller, one of Spassky's seconds, and was nothing special. (As shown the next year when Timman ventured that same line against Geller, who responded with the continuation he himself had shown Spassky during the match prep and won.) I think Spassky had already been rocked back on his heels before Game 6 by the way Fischer responded to being two games down -- drawing even by winning his next two games *as black.* Starting with Game 5 Spassky became uncharacteristically blunder-prone for a fatal stretch. I'm not sure the end result would have changed had Fischer simply stuck to his e4 habit. (See for example, Game 10.)
As for the main question: I've always encouraged my students to experiment with openings, for the simple reason that until both players have reached a basic level of strength (it's an uncertain line but it's somewhere north of USCF1800) specific opening choices really don't matter, and it's a way for them to discover what kinds of positions they like to play and have a natural aptitude for.
The unfortunate truth is for beginning and club-level players, the propensity for making errors in the middlegame and endgame will more than offset any advantage gained by memorizing a list of opening moves.
The question why I wasn't telling them which openings to play came up in a training session with one of my high school teams, so I opened my scorebook and we took a look at all the rated tournament games I had won so far that year (15, I think). We discovered that in all but one of those games I had come out of the opening behind, ranging from standing a little bit worse to being well on my way to losing. (I've long had a propensity for playing oddball lines, just to see how they play out against humans, rather than computers.) Yet I'd won, mainly because once the game shifted gears into the middle game or the endgame, my opponent didn't know what to do.
The first things to work on are calculation/visualization and basic endgames. Basic principles of chess, such as mobility, development, and control of the center. Go ahead and try out different opening lines, with the aim of figuring out whether the resulting positions suit you, not because of some supposed psychological effect on your opponent. Until the rest of your game is good enough to hold on to an early edge, none of that will matter for you. (If you want to play some trappy line and hope your opponent won't find the right path through it, go ahead. But remember, winning via memorized book traps says nothing at all about how good you are at chess, only how good your memory is.)
Specific opening preparation can wait until you're good enough to hold on to the advantage that preparation might give you.
Anatoly Karpov spoke at one of Scholastic Championships I brought a team to, and one of the coaches there asked him to comment on what US coaches were doing wrong. You could see him think carefully for a while (since his English is quite good, I personally think as a gentleman he was trying to find a way to say it clearly without offending his hosts) "You think too much about the opening. First comes chess. After you play it well, then is the time to think about openings."
You want to play some offbeat lines? Go ahead. Have some fun with them. Experiment. Dance with the wallflowers of chess opening theory. But unless both you and your opponent are dancing with candidate master or better skill, don't do it for any sort of opening advantage, because the odds are you'll give it all back before the game is over. | In chess, in general, you want to avoid the opponent's strengths, however, playing something you totally do not understand is not OK, either. I recently played something that I was not used to against a GM, and got soundly outplayed. In that game, 1.d4 d6, I decided that I would try the Kaprov line of the Pirc, and played 2.e4, even though I am not an e4-player.
If you opponent is a known tactical player, it pays to steer the game to a more positional approach, and vice versa. That said, you still need to play things that you understand.
P.S. "The Game of the Century" was an English after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4, but Fischer was black.
During the 1972 match, Fischer playing 1.c4 was definitely to take Spassky out of his primary preparation, and make them both play mano a mano, but of course, both those players understand virtually all positions so they can get away with such tactics. |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | First, I'm not convinced Fischer's 1. c4 was the masterstroke some claim. His Bb5 had already been played by Furman against Geller, one of Spassky's seconds, and was nothing special. (As shown the next year when Timman ventured that same line against Geller, who responded with the continuation he himself had shown Spassky during the match prep and won.) I think Spassky had already been rocked back on his heels before Game 6 by the way Fischer responded to being two games down -- drawing even by winning his next two games *as black.* Starting with Game 5 Spassky became uncharacteristically blunder-prone for a fatal stretch. I'm not sure the end result would have changed had Fischer simply stuck to his e4 habit. (See for example, Game 10.)
As for the main question: I've always encouraged my students to experiment with openings, for the simple reason that until both players have reached a basic level of strength (it's an uncertain line but it's somewhere north of USCF1800) specific opening choices really don't matter, and it's a way for them to discover what kinds of positions they like to play and have a natural aptitude for.
The unfortunate truth is for beginning and club-level players, the propensity for making errors in the middlegame and endgame will more than offset any advantage gained by memorizing a list of opening moves.
The question why I wasn't telling them which openings to play came up in a training session with one of my high school teams, so I opened my scorebook and we took a look at all the rated tournament games I had won so far that year (15, I think). We discovered that in all but one of those games I had come out of the opening behind, ranging from standing a little bit worse to being well on my way to losing. (I've long had a propensity for playing oddball lines, just to see how they play out against humans, rather than computers.) Yet I'd won, mainly because once the game shifted gears into the middle game or the endgame, my opponent didn't know what to do.
The first things to work on are calculation/visualization and basic endgames. Basic principles of chess, such as mobility, development, and control of the center. Go ahead and try out different opening lines, with the aim of figuring out whether the resulting positions suit you, not because of some supposed psychological effect on your opponent. Until the rest of your game is good enough to hold on to an early edge, none of that will matter for you. (If you want to play some trappy line and hope your opponent won't find the right path through it, go ahead. But remember, winning via memorized book traps says nothing at all about how good you are at chess, only how good your memory is.)
Specific opening preparation can wait until you're good enough to hold on to the advantage that preparation might give you.
Anatoly Karpov spoke at one of Scholastic Championships I brought a team to, and one of the coaches there asked him to comment on what US coaches were doing wrong. You could see him think carefully for a while (since his English is quite good, I personally think as a gentleman he was trying to find a way to say it clearly without offending his hosts) "You think too much about the opening. First comes chess. After you play it well, then is the time to think about openings."
You want to play some offbeat lines? Go ahead. Have some fun with them. Experiment. Dance with the wallflowers of chess opening theory. But unless both you and your opponent are dancing with candidate master or better skill, don't do it for any sort of opening advantage, because the odds are you'll give it all back before the game is over. | The answer is it depends. You're actually asking a couple of different questions though.
First of all, a narrow vs. a broad rep. Most players are probably better off steering their games into a narrow rep where they limit the opponent's responses and steer the game into positions they know. However, because of engines, I don't believe you can be a competitive international player nowadays playing that way. If your goal is 2400+ you really need to be comfortable in all positions and play a broad rep.
The other aspect is whether or not to choose openings based on the opponent. In terms of general opponents I would at least consider the psychology. For example, I recommend the French exchange to a lot of players precisely for the reason that most French players hate playing against it. If you're talking about specific opponents then it really depends on the value of a win vs. the amount of time spent analyzing it and how comfortable you are with the resulting positions. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it to spend X number of hours studying a line and what the potential gain of that knowledge is. ie is 50 hours of study worth it to beat a specific player? |
24,950 | Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments? | 2019/07/23 | [
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24950",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com",
"https://chess.stackexchange.com/users/15511/"
] | In chess, in general, you want to avoid the opponent's strengths, however, playing something you totally do not understand is not OK, either. I recently played something that I was not used to against a GM, and got soundly outplayed. In that game, 1.d4 d6, I decided that I would try the Kaprov line of the Pirc, and played 2.e4, even though I am not an e4-player.
If you opponent is a known tactical player, it pays to steer the game to a more positional approach, and vice versa. That said, you still need to play things that you understand.
P.S. "The Game of the Century" was an English after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4, but Fischer was black.
During the 1972 match, Fischer playing 1.c4 was definitely to take Spassky out of his primary preparation, and make them both play mano a mano, but of course, both those players understand virtually all positions so they can get away with such tactics. | The answer is it depends. You're actually asking a couple of different questions though.
First of all, a narrow vs. a broad rep. Most players are probably better off steering their games into a narrow rep where they limit the opponent's responses and steer the game into positions they know. However, because of engines, I don't believe you can be a competitive international player nowadays playing that way. If your goal is 2400+ you really need to be comfortable in all positions and play a broad rep.
The other aspect is whether or not to choose openings based on the opponent. In terms of general opponents I would at least consider the psychology. For example, I recommend the French exchange to a lot of players precisely for the reason that most French players hate playing against it. If you're talking about specific opponents then it really depends on the value of a win vs. the amount of time spent analyzing it and how comfortable you are with the resulting positions. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it to spend X number of hours studying a line and what the potential gain of that knowledge is. ie is 50 hours of study worth it to beat a specific player? |
24,632 | Is there a finite game that cannot be represented by an [extensive form](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive-form_game) or a game tree?
I know that many games are too long and complex to be represented by a tree of a reasonable size, but that's not what I'm looking for because it is in part a computational limitation.
Instead I wonder if there is something simple out there that just doesn't fit into an extensive form? All the books that I've read say something like
>
> Various games can be represented by trees
>
>
>
But I haven't seen "all games" claim anywhere. Are there any known exceptions? | 2018/09/22 | [
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/24632",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com",
"https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/6231/"
] | Well, for this you need to define what a "finite game" is. The usual way to do so, is to define it as an extensive form game, which makes the whole issue circular. But there are different ways to model extensive form games at different levels of generality. For example, the first definition due to John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern made a number of strong restrictions on timing that look somewhat archaic from today's perspective. The subsequent definition by Harold Kuhn significantly generalized the class of possible extensive form games. An implicit restriction in the way Kuhn defined extensive form games was that no player is allowed to move through the same information set twice, an assumption weakened in the Ph.D. thesis of John Isbell. So there are various notions of extensive form games at various levels of generality, including versions that allow for infinite games. | An interesting thought...
I guess that recoursive games, where a result is dependent on playing the same game, in a dynamic count of times, cannot be represented in a form or a matrix
A more common case is multiplayer simultaneous games, when has 2 player requires a 2d matrix, each new player will add a dimension to the matrix, more than 3 will not be able to have a graph representation, but only a database like schema |
32,175 | I'm trying to install a .NET service I wrote. As recommended by MSDN, I'm using InstallUtil. But I have missed how I can set the default service user on the command-line or even in the service itself. Now, when InstallUtil is run, it will display a dialog asking the user for the credentials for a user. I'm trying to integrate the service installation into a larger install and need the service installation to remain silent. | 2008/08/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32175",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2494/"
] | I think I may have found it. In the service itself, the automatically created ServiceProcessInstaller component has a property "Account" which can be set to "LocalService", "LocalSystem", "NetworkService" or "User". It was defaulting to "User" which must have displayed the prompt. | Are you being asked for the account to run the service under, or for rights to install the service? For the second, installing as admin should prevent that from happening. For the first, you have to add a ServiceProcessInstaller to your Installer.
I believe the design surface for a service has a link to create a Project Installer. On that designer, you can add a process installer of type System.ServiceProcess.ServiceProcessInstaller. The properties of this object allow you to set the account to use for the service. |
32,175 | I'm trying to install a .NET service I wrote. As recommended by MSDN, I'm using InstallUtil. But I have missed how I can set the default service user on the command-line or even in the service itself. Now, when InstallUtil is run, it will display a dialog asking the user for the credentials for a user. I'm trying to integrate the service installation into a larger install and need the service installation to remain silent. | 2008/08/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32175",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2494/"
] | I think I may have found it. In the service itself, the automatically created ServiceProcessInstaller component has a property "Account" which can be set to "LocalService", "LocalSystem", "NetworkService" or "User". It was defaulting to "User" which must have displayed the prompt. | Also keep in mind the **[SC.exe util](http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=251192)** which does not require visual studio to be installed. You can simply copy this exe to the server you want to create the service or even **run it remotely**. Use the **obj** parameter to specify a user.
Apparently there is a GUI for this tool, but I have not used it. |
32,175 | I'm trying to install a .NET service I wrote. As recommended by MSDN, I'm using InstallUtil. But I have missed how I can set the default service user on the command-line or even in the service itself. Now, when InstallUtil is run, it will display a dialog asking the user for the credentials for a user. I'm trying to integrate the service installation into a larger install and need the service installation to remain silent. | 2008/08/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32175",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2494/"
] | I think I may have found it. In the service itself, the automatically created ServiceProcessInstaller component has a property "Account" which can be set to "LocalService", "LocalSystem", "NetworkService" or "User". It was defaulting to "User" which must have displayed the prompt. | As you noticed, Karim, "Account" property is the solution, here. For those interested in differences between security contexts set by this property:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.serviceprocess.serviceaccount.aspx>
Above using InstallUtil or SC, I like the idea of creating a **SELF INSTALLER**:
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/WinSvcSelfInstaller.aspx>
even though I found this in the .Net 1.1 documentation:
>
> The **ManagedInstallerClass** type
> supports the .NET Framework
> infrastructure and is not intended to
> be used directly from your code.
>
>
> |
32,175 | I'm trying to install a .NET service I wrote. As recommended by MSDN, I'm using InstallUtil. But I have missed how I can set the default service user on the command-line or even in the service itself. Now, when InstallUtil is run, it will display a dialog asking the user for the credentials for a user. I'm trying to integrate the service installation into a larger install and need the service installation to remain silent. | 2008/08/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32175",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2494/"
] | Also keep in mind the **[SC.exe util](http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=251192)** which does not require visual studio to be installed. You can simply copy this exe to the server you want to create the service or even **run it remotely**. Use the **obj** parameter to specify a user.
Apparently there is a GUI for this tool, but I have not used it. | Are you being asked for the account to run the service under, or for rights to install the service? For the second, installing as admin should prevent that from happening. For the first, you have to add a ServiceProcessInstaller to your Installer.
I believe the design surface for a service has a link to create a Project Installer. On that designer, you can add a process installer of type System.ServiceProcess.ServiceProcessInstaller. The properties of this object allow you to set the account to use for the service. |
32,175 | I'm trying to install a .NET service I wrote. As recommended by MSDN, I'm using InstallUtil. But I have missed how I can set the default service user on the command-line or even in the service itself. Now, when InstallUtil is run, it will display a dialog asking the user for the credentials for a user. I'm trying to integrate the service installation into a larger install and need the service installation to remain silent. | 2008/08/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32175",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2494/"
] | As you noticed, Karim, "Account" property is the solution, here. For those interested in differences between security contexts set by this property:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.serviceprocess.serviceaccount.aspx>
Above using InstallUtil or SC, I like the idea of creating a **SELF INSTALLER**:
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/WinSvcSelfInstaller.aspx>
even though I found this in the .Net 1.1 documentation:
>
> The **ManagedInstallerClass** type
> supports the .NET Framework
> infrastructure and is not intended to
> be used directly from your code.
>
>
> | Are you being asked for the account to run the service under, or for rights to install the service? For the second, installing as admin should prevent that from happening. For the first, you have to add a ServiceProcessInstaller to your Installer.
I believe the design surface for a service has a link to create a Project Installer. On that designer, you can add a process installer of type System.ServiceProcess.ServiceProcessInstaller. The properties of this object allow you to set the account to use for the service. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | I hate to break it to you, but academic publishing can be political. The political component is smaller in math than in other areas, but not zero.
[Here](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844) is a study that shows articles previously published by esteemed psychology researchers were rejected when re-submitted under a different author's name, and not simply because reviewers recognized the articles. The papers were subjected to greater criticism when given a different author.
I don't want to exaggerate the effect of prejudice, just to say it cannot be ruled out. | I have seen cases where the student and supervisor were in different places. They worked badly. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | I know of at least one field that matches your description of Area B, so your advisor's advise may not be ridiculous. | I will try to point something complimentary to the existing answers.
The problem here is not that "your advisor is not interested in you contributing to area B", and also the problem is not that "only elite groups works on B". The problem is your university and the phd program which brings constraints on your long term schedule and graduation. So work in "A" to finish phd, remembering "every area offers challenges in its own right and A is no different". After graduating, get a tenure or whatever that is, to have freedom to work on area of your choice. Keep this strong in your memory, till you graduate. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | Another consideration that your adviser might have had in mind is that the experts in area B might be slow to publish or even to write up their work, so that the literature doesn't reflect the state of the art. In that situation, you might find yourself rediscovering what they already know but haven't published. I think this difficulty can be minimized, or even removed altogether, if you can establish really good communication with the people in area B, so that they tell you their latest discoveries, even if they haven't yet written them up. But establishing such a level of communication may take considerable effort on your part. | I have seen cases where the student and supervisor were in different places. They worked badly. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | Another consideration that your adviser might have had in mind is that the experts in area B might be slow to publish or even to write up their work, so that the literature doesn't reflect the state of the art. In that situation, you might find yourself rediscovering what they already know but haven't published. I think this difficulty can be minimized, or even removed altogether, if you can establish really good communication with the people in area B, so that they tell you their latest discoveries, even if they haven't yet written them up. But establishing such a level of communication may take considerable effort on your part. | I'd very much encourage you to contact one or more of the leading researchers in Area B and ask for their advice. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | I hate to break it to you, but academic publishing can be political. The political component is smaller in math than in other areas, but not zero.
[Here](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844) is a study that shows articles previously published by esteemed psychology researchers were rejected when re-submitted under a different author's name, and not simply because reviewers recognized the articles. The papers were subjected to greater criticism when given a different author.
I don't want to exaggerate the effect of prejudice, just to say it cannot be ruled out. | I will try to point something complimentary to the existing answers.
The problem here is not that "your advisor is not interested in you contributing to area B", and also the problem is not that "only elite groups works on B". The problem is your university and the phd program which brings constraints on your long term schedule and graduation. So work in "A" to finish phd, remembering "every area offers challenges in its own right and A is no different". After graduating, get a tenure or whatever that is, to have freedom to work on area of your choice. Keep this strong in your memory, till you graduate. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | I (LSpice) have copied and pasted Matt Emerton's excellent answer from the comments ([1](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005/research-topics-restricted-to-students-at-top-universities#comment342714_133005) [2](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005/research-topics-restricted-to-students-at-top-universities#comment342715_133005) [3](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005/research-topics-restricted-to-students-at-top-universities#comment342716_133005) [4](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005/research-topics-restricted-to-students-at-top-universities#comment342720_133005)), which seems OK (with attribution) since this is community wiki anyway.
>
> There are some areas of mathematics where the research is at a very high level, and where there are a fairly small number of leading experts who know each other more-or-less personally, so that ideas are shared not only through published literature but through more informal channels as well. In these circumstances, it can be hard to "break into" the area from the outside.
>
>
> The most basic reason is that in such situations one can find one's hard work being trumped by more general and powerful results that suddenly appear from the core group of researchers. Students who are working with the core group are hopefully spared this, b/c their advisor knows what everyone in the group is doing (more-or-less), and can try to protect their students a bit from being crushed by the other leaders in the field (through careful choice of problem, through communication with the leaders and letting them know what their students are working on, etc.). If your advisor is not connected to this core group (and it sounds like they are not) then they can't offer you this mantle of protection, and this sounds (to me) to be in part what your advisor is alluding too.
>
>
> I would ask your advisor to elaborate on/explain their comments (since it seems that you haven't fully understood whatever point they were trying to make). Also, if one of their concerns is the one I just described, this can be alleviated to some extent if you build your own personal connections with the area B core group.
>
>
> Just to conclude: math doesn't have to be a competition, but in old, highly developed areas, with a strong group of leaders who have a good grasp of where the field is moving and what results are and aren't currently in reach, it can be difficult for a newcomer to navigate and avoid having their work be literally trumped or at least overshadowed by the work of the core group. Since your advisor has explicitly said that area B is competitive, it seems that this is one of the concerns they have. So if you do move into area B, you should at least bear this in mind.
>
>
> One way to deal with this situation is to begin working on areas close to, but not exactly in, and not quite as mathematically central, as the key concerns of area B. This can provide you a chance to develop your technical skills, and then you can try to move into area B from a position of mathematical strength, with some solid experience already under your belt. I know several people who have done this successfully.
> | If area B can be applied to area A as you imply then I would suggest trying to do that. Your advisor should be able to tell if what you are doing is genuinely new and worthwhile in this case. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | Another consideration that your adviser might have had in mind is that the experts in area B might be slow to publish or even to write up their work, so that the literature doesn't reflect the state of the art. In that situation, you might find yourself rediscovering what they already know but haven't published. I think this difficulty can be minimized, or even removed altogether, if you can establish really good communication with the people in area B, so that they tell you their latest discoveries, even if they haven't yet written them up. But establishing such a level of communication may take considerable effort on your part. | Having very limited knowledge of the specifics it is impossible to know what you should do in your particular case, or whether your advisor is correct in sensing danger. Some fields have harder competition, harder problems, and less low-hanging fruit to collect.
However, there are a few things which might not occur to a beginning graduate student:
A. There is nothing that prevents a student at one university from working formally or informally with professors at other universities. If your current advisor interferes with this you have the option of finding another advisor. You might even be able to relocate to the other university, whether or not you keep your official status as a student at your current university.
B. There is nothing that prevents a graduate student from submitting independent results to a journal, giving talks on said result at conferences, or being hired based on such a result. Reading the current literature is a good way to find problems that interest you that also interest other people. Solving someone's published conjecture or extending their published work as a graduate student is a good way to get hired by that person as a postdoc.
C. The goal of grad school is to leave as an independent researcher with your own research momentum and the ability to find your own problems and research program. It is a very good sign that you are developing your own interests.
D. It is much harder to work on what someone else is interested in than what you are interested in.
E. If you go to a conference in area B then you'll meet all the professors there. They won't care if your current advisor thinks you should work in A rather than in B. By all means you should go to any conference that interests you.
F. Professors do not always agree with each other, even if one happens to be your advisor.
Whether any of this is relevant to your situation is unclear. Is area B simply an over-competitive shark-tank? (If so, do you feel like shark or like "bait"?) |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | I'd very much encourage you to contact one or more of the leading researchers in Area B and ask for their advice. | I will try to point something complimentary to the existing answers.
The problem here is not that "your advisor is not interested in you contributing to area B", and also the problem is not that "only elite groups works on B". The problem is your university and the phd program which brings constraints on your long term schedule and graduation. So work in "A" to finish phd, remembering "every area offers challenges in its own right and A is no different". After graduating, get a tenure or whatever that is, to have freedom to work on area of your choice. Keep this strong in your memory, till you graduate. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | Another consideration that your adviser might have had in mind is that the experts in area B might be slow to publish or even to write up their work, so that the literature doesn't reflect the state of the art. In that situation, you might find yourself rediscovering what they already know but haven't published. I think this difficulty can be minimized, or even removed altogether, if you can establish really good communication with the people in area B, so that they tell you their latest discoveries, even if they haven't yet written them up. But establishing such a level of communication may take considerable effort on your part. | If area B can be applied to area A as you imply then I would suggest trying to do that. Your advisor should be able to tell if what you are doing is genuinely new and worthwhile in this case. |
133,005 | Hello everybody.
I am a Ph.D student in North America looking for advice about my prospective research area.
My supervisor works in a research area, let's say area A, so as soon as I was accepted as his student I started to learn the background in the area A. At some point I started to study by my own the connection of area A with a nearby area, let's say area B. I found that area B match much better my interest, I can use my former background in area B and definitely I have more mathematical intuition in that area.
I have spent the last six months studying really hard several advances books, recent papers and lectures notes to get the necessary advanced background to start doing research in area B. Some days ago I had a meeting with my supervisor, I was really enthusiastic explaining the connection of area B with what he does in his research (area A), however my supervisor told me that it is not a good idea to continue working in that direction because it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B (several professors at top U.S. universities and their former/current students), that there is a lot competition between them to publish results and because neither my supervisor nor me belong to that circle it would be difficult to publish or even find a specific problem for my research.
I did not understand what my supervisor means when he said " it is difficult to be accepted in the circle of people who work in area B", does that mean that if I submit a paper it would not be published even if it is correct, well-written and meets the standard of quality and originality of the journal? or if I try to submit a talk to a conference in that area my talk would be always rejected?
I find difficult to believe that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain circle of leading researchers and their students.
Despite this, I consider that is possible to perform my research in area B, I could contact by email people working in that area, several of them posed open questions and further directions of research in recent papers, moreover at the end of this year I plan to attend an important conference specialized in area B, a lot of junior and senior researchers of "the circle" are attending and I am interested and familiarized with the research of several of them, so the connections I could make there would be very useful.
To sum up my questions are:
i) Is is true that there are areas of mathematics that are closed to people who does not belong to a certain group of professors and students at certain universities?
ii) If I make the right connections with people working in area B, do you think is feasible to perform my Ph.D research in area B with my supervisor, whose research is just nearby area B, and the advice of a specialist in area B mainly by email?
Some additional information: I am not very far from those universities where the people of "the circle" are, so I could travel from time to time to those universities to meet those people or give talks at the seminars.
Thanks for your answers. | 2013/06/06 | [
"https://mathoverflow.net/questions/133005",
"https://mathoverflow.net",
"https://mathoverflow.net/users/34674/"
] | If area B can be applied to area A as you imply then I would suggest trying to do that. Your advisor should be able to tell if what you are doing is genuinely new and worthwhile in this case. | I will try to point something complimentary to the existing answers.
The problem here is not that "your advisor is not interested in you contributing to area B", and also the problem is not that "only elite groups works on B". The problem is your university and the phd program which brings constraints on your long term schedule and graduation. So work in "A" to finish phd, remembering "every area offers challenges in its own right and A is no different". After graduating, get a tenure or whatever that is, to have freedom to work on area of your choice. Keep this strong in your memory, till you graduate. |
4,771,188 | I've set up the default gateway of the router I am configurating as serial2/0 as they call it on packet trace with the address of 172.16.68.1. When I try and ping the gateway from the pc with the address 172.16.16.1 I just get an error saying request timed out.
Have I done the default gateway correctly and if I have can anyone suggest what is causing the time out? | 2011/01/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4771188",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1317246/"
] | iOS / Apple take care of that use-case for you, you don't need to worry about it. Your app will get terminated, so when the user next taps its icon you will have a relaunch. | Any app in suspended in the iOS "background" can get terminated by the OS at any time. The OS knows to do the "right thing" when the app's icon is tapped on again next. An app update would just be another case of that same thing happening. |
2,043 | I am wondering if it would be reasonable to apply to M.A. or Phd programs in Philosophy with only a B.A. in Computer Science. I have done a great deal of reading in the field of Philosophy, but have never taken a class. I would be looking mostly at State Universities in the Cleveland, OH area. | 2012/01/04 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2043",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1215/"
] | I want to expand on my comment a bit:
You'll definitely want to talk to the professors at each university you wish to apply to see what kind of requirements they have for applying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically though, I would imagine it's not as important what your bachelors degree is (say, as it would be compared to getting a Ph.D. in Computer Science) so much as that you have a clear, demonstrable interest in the field of philosophy. When you apply to these programs, it will be of critical importance to show them why philosophy is important to you and what your research interests are. Graduate school Ph.D. programs as a general rule look for students with active interest in the curriculum they offer (clinical-leaning Psych majors should avoid applying to research-based Psych programs, for example). Perhaps most importantly, your research interests should **preferably align with the interests of at least one professor in the department**. If you are applying to a program with heavy interest in philosophy of religion and the department has no professors with that specialization, they won't have the expertise to help you and thus will probably decline your application, however otherwise stunning it may be. | What kind of philosophy do you want to do? It's definitely possible, but you have the burden of proving why you want to go into philosophy, what exactly you want to do, and why you are prepared for it. Those answers will vary depending on what kind of philosophy you want to go into and the makeup of the department. Grad school is different than undergrad because you are working more closely with faculty, so you need to make sure they align with your interests and vice versa.
Many departments have a reputation for being highly interdisciplinary, and this might be an advantage if you want to do something in philosophy related to CS. For example, there are plenty of philosophy departments in the U.S. that have an emphasis on analytic philosophy, which is heavily influenced by computer science and mathematics. It's going to be easier to get into that kind of program with a CS degree than, say, ethics, because your CS background would be a direct advantage in certain kinds of analytic philosophy. That doesn't mean you can't go into an unrelated area of philosophy, just that you have an extra burden to overcome. I attended a very interdisciplinary philosophy program in undergrad, and several professors did not have undergrad degrees in philosophy, but it was very clear to me why they chose to pursue philosophy.
Once you have a good explanation of what you want to do and why you are prepared to study philosophy on a graduate level, start researching philosophy professors at the colleges you're interested in. Reach out to them explaining why you are interested in the program. Generally they are happy to talk to you, and having someone in the department who wants to work with you is a big asset in the grad school application process. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **It would be decisive in any (non-landlocked) war prior to 1860/1870** (and quite a few after that).
1859 is when [ironclads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship) were first used, and they became all-steel from about 1870. Even with the modern armaments of your patrol boat, I expect a group of them would pose a significant-enough challenge to reduce the impact of its existence. It would still definitely win battles, but I don't know if it could win a *war*.
Prior to 1860, your boat has free reign. It's orders of magnitude faster, better-armed and better-equipped than anything it might encounter at sea. The only thing I can think that might stymie it is fixed coastal defences, like a fort bristling with cannon.
On cannon: I think enough cannon ball strikes could certainly make it a non-threat for a while, But I doubt any pre-ironclad ship would be able to hit it. Even ignoring the vast difference in maneuverability, the maximum range for an 18th or 19th century cannon was [maybe 2km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon#18th_and_19th_centuries), below the effective range for the [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster) (3km) and well below its maximum range (6.8km).
Go far enough back, and you could sink (or aid) entire invading armies. The course of history would change. Norman invasion of Britain? Nope. Spanish Armada - wins handily. Mongol invasion of Japan? No problem. | This is not a line ship designed to go toe to toe with major naval assets. It's a patrol boat designed to bring force to control civilian shipping. This boat can badly damage most modern civilian freighter and passenger ships. You would not want to be on the receiving end of this thing if the Commander decides to light up your bridge with its weapons. Ships sink just as well with a bunch of little holes in their hull as much as a single big one, and this thing can add lots of little holes to your ship. If the Commander of this ship tells you to stop, you stop.
That said, the decisive nature of this vessel would be its impact of being in the right place, and the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time if you're on the other side of this).
It can stumble upon a smuggled cargo, it can attack and disable/destroy a blockade runner carrying something vital. It can be repurposed to support a SPEC OPS team returning from a vital mission. This is a pretty fast ship with good endurance, designed for open water. While not "stealthy", it's not "not stealthy". It's small and hides easily. It's not a "green water" (i.e. river) boat, but it draught isn't too deep.
How can a simple fighter plane, with little but machine guns, change the course of the war? When that fighter plane happens to take out the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto.
So, it's all in the timing as much as the craft itself. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | It could alter the course of history beyond all recognition.
* Think about the [battle of Salamis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis), in the year 480 before the common era. The Persians had already occupied northern and central Greece, the Athenians had evacuated their city, leaving the empty shell to be occupied by the enemy. The alliance of Greek city-states had agreed to the plan of [Themistocles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles) to risk everything on a naval battle, hoping that their organizational and technological advantages would be enough to overcome the numerical superiority of the enemy.
The *entire history* of the world stood balanced on a fine edge: if the Persians won, Greece would have been confirmed as a Persian satrapy. There would have been no Athenian democracy to serve as a model; there would have been no Aristotelian logic to guide the inquiring minds; there would have been no Hellenistic civilization, no Eratosthenes to measure the Earth, no Archimedes to push the boundaries of mathematics and physics. Without the Greek and Hellenistic civilization there would have been no Rome as we know it; the history of Europe would have veered off in a completely unpredictable direction.
Think of a world where Oriental fatalism and blind obedience to fate rule.
The smallest modern war ship would have easily destroyed the Athenian fleet at Salamis: and the entire history would have been profoundly different.
* Think of the [battle of Actium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium), in the year 31 before the common era. [Octavian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus), who by that time was calling himself C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, was leading the western forces in the contest for supremacy in the nascent Roman empire against the eastern forces of [Marc Antony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Antony) and [Cleopatra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra) of Egypt.
Had the easterners won, [Caesarion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarion), the son of the *real* C. Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, would have been confirmed in his title of [King of Kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donations_of_Alexandria). The center of gravity of the world-spanning empire would have moved from Rome to Alexandria. Instead of Octavian's careful preservation of the old republican form, the empire would have veered into a typical oriental monarchy, with a pair of god-like rulers at the top.
There would have been no evolution of the Roman law, no five good emperors, no Justinian, no *Corpus Juris Civilis*.
And again, the smallest modern war ship would have easily destroyed the western fleet at Actium: and the entire history would have been profoundly different. | This is not a line ship designed to go toe to toe with major naval assets. It's a patrol boat designed to bring force to control civilian shipping. This boat can badly damage most modern civilian freighter and passenger ships. You would not want to be on the receiving end of this thing if the Commander decides to light up your bridge with its weapons. Ships sink just as well with a bunch of little holes in their hull as much as a single big one, and this thing can add lots of little holes to your ship. If the Commander of this ship tells you to stop, you stop.
That said, the decisive nature of this vessel would be its impact of being in the right place, and the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time if you're on the other side of this).
It can stumble upon a smuggled cargo, it can attack and disable/destroy a blockade runner carrying something vital. It can be repurposed to support a SPEC OPS team returning from a vital mission. This is a pretty fast ship with good endurance, designed for open water. While not "stealthy", it's not "not stealthy". It's small and hides easily. It's not a "green water" (i.e. river) boat, but it draught isn't too deep.
How can a simple fighter plane, with little but machine guns, change the course of the war? When that fighter plane happens to take out the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto.
So, it's all in the timing as much as the craft itself. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Massive Difference (but not how you would expect it)**
Forget firepower. The difference is computing power. Code breaking suddenly leaps ahead decades so German codes are virtually worthless. Your codes suddenly go to 256 bit encryption and impossible to break.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The real difference is the technology contained in the ship, not the ship itself. | **Think all the way back**:
*[At the time I answered this question, it was referring to a Japanese patrol boat (the question was modified), and the answer is reflected as such]*
The biggest impacts on battles this ship can make will be in shifting major historical events. Imagine a group of Japanese who wanted to change the entire course of history for Japan. How broadly are you willing to consider battle, war, and what constitutes victory?
* 1853 - Commodore Perry sails into Tokyo bay with four war ships. Before they can ever contact the locals, the ships explode. Legends of a "divine wind" defending Japan keep the country isolated from the West. The heroes responsible for this act deliver the Emperor technological secrets allowing Japan to become the military equal to any country on Earth.
* February 1904 - The course of Japanese imperialism is changed forever when Japanese torpedo boats sent to attack the Russian navy sink mysteriously. A confident Russian navy wins the battle of Port Arthur and stymies Japanese imperial ambitions. A less aggressive and expansionist Japan decides not to pursue a global empire and stays out of WW2.
* Midway - The Japanese fleet is given mysterious intelligence about the location of the US carrier fleet and warned as each wave of US fighters approaches, so American bombers and torpedo planes are shot down without ever seeing Japanese ships. The mysterious intelligence comes from an unknown source with full access to all imperial codes and passwords. Japan sinks the entire US carrier fleet handily when they know their exact location at all times. Historians conjecture Japan developed advanced naval radar early, but no proof ever comes to light. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | I answered this when they question was still a Japanese missile boat. But the editing shows what I consider the main misconception underlying the question.
**Think People, Knowledge, Politics**
Assume that the time travelers **decide** to support a local government and that they can **convince** the locals to trust them and to take them seriously to start with. For the latter, a warship will help, I'll admit that. Then the best the time travelers can do to support a local faction is to teach them technology *just* a bit ahead of everyone else. *"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."*
A graduate student with a solar-powered notebook and the right collection of textbooks and blueprints should be more efficient in this regard than the books which happen to be on a small to medium warship. A large one would probably have a nice library and a good group of engineering officers. The key is to bring improvements which can be applied to a local tech base. A very good javascript programmer would have learned the wrong things for programming ENIAC. But blueprints for a [CODAG power plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel_and_gas) would make a real difference in the 1950s, and the formula for [prismatic powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_powder) would be great in the 1850s.
The tech difference for "this makes a great prototype" is smaller than the tech difference for "this warship is a war winner."
---
Expanding on the answers by Thorne and DWKraus:
* 21 well-trained crew. It would be extremely silly to send them out *using* their ship, and risking their life. Send them to universities where scientists and engineers can pick their brains. The officers and petty officers won't know enough to manufacture new radars or gas turbines, but they can give pointers in the right direction.
* On the other hand, what makes you think that present-day Japanese would bow to the military dictatorship in the name of the Emperor and not support the forces of Democracy? Drop the boat into the battle of Midway and it might well support the USN after some serious soul-searching. Or stay out of it and try to reach Sweden.
* In addition to the crew, there would be reference books. Technical, historical, and so on. The butterfly effect might soon invalidate history books, however. | This is not a line ship designed to go toe to toe with major naval assets. It's a patrol boat designed to bring force to control civilian shipping. This boat can badly damage most modern civilian freighter and passenger ships. You would not want to be on the receiving end of this thing if the Commander decides to light up your bridge with its weapons. Ships sink just as well with a bunch of little holes in their hull as much as a single big one, and this thing can add lots of little holes to your ship. If the Commander of this ship tells you to stop, you stop.
That said, the decisive nature of this vessel would be its impact of being in the right place, and the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time if you're on the other side of this).
It can stumble upon a smuggled cargo, it can attack and disable/destroy a blockade runner carrying something vital. It can be repurposed to support a SPEC OPS team returning from a vital mission. This is a pretty fast ship with good endurance, designed for open water. While not "stealthy", it's not "not stealthy". It's small and hides easily. It's not a "green water" (i.e. river) boat, but it draught isn't too deep.
How can a simple fighter plane, with little but machine guns, change the course of the war? When that fighter plane happens to take out the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto.
So, it's all in the timing as much as the craft itself. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **It would be decisive in any (non-landlocked) war prior to 1860/1870** (and quite a few after that).
1859 is when [ironclads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship) were first used, and they became all-steel from about 1870. Even with the modern armaments of your patrol boat, I expect a group of them would pose a significant-enough challenge to reduce the impact of its existence. It would still definitely win battles, but I don't know if it could win a *war*.
Prior to 1860, your boat has free reign. It's orders of magnitude faster, better-armed and better-equipped than anything it might encounter at sea. The only thing I can think that might stymie it is fixed coastal defences, like a fort bristling with cannon.
On cannon: I think enough cannon ball strikes could certainly make it a non-threat for a while, But I doubt any pre-ironclad ship would be able to hit it. Even ignoring the vast difference in maneuverability, the maximum range for an 18th or 19th century cannon was [maybe 2km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon#18th_and_19th_centuries), below the effective range for the [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster) (3km) and well below its maximum range (6.8km).
Go far enough back, and you could sink (or aid) entire invading armies. The course of history would change. Norman invasion of Britain? Nope. Spanish Armada - wins handily. Mongol invasion of Japan? No problem. | I answered this when they question was still a Japanese missile boat. But the editing shows what I consider the main misconception underlying the question.
**Think People, Knowledge, Politics**
Assume that the time travelers **decide** to support a local government and that they can **convince** the locals to trust them and to take them seriously to start with. For the latter, a warship will help, I'll admit that. Then the best the time travelers can do to support a local faction is to teach them technology *just* a bit ahead of everyone else. *"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."*
A graduate student with a solar-powered notebook and the right collection of textbooks and blueprints should be more efficient in this regard than the books which happen to be on a small to medium warship. A large one would probably have a nice library and a good group of engineering officers. The key is to bring improvements which can be applied to a local tech base. A very good javascript programmer would have learned the wrong things for programming ENIAC. But blueprints for a [CODAG power plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel_and_gas) would make a real difference in the 1950s, and the formula for [prismatic powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_powder) would be great in the 1850s.
The tech difference for "this makes a great prototype" is smaller than the tech difference for "this warship is a war winner."
---
Expanding on the answers by Thorne and DWKraus:
* 21 well-trained crew. It would be extremely silly to send them out *using* their ship, and risking their life. Send them to universities where scientists and engineers can pick their brains. The officers and petty officers won't know enough to manufacture new radars or gas turbines, but they can give pointers in the right direction.
* On the other hand, what makes you think that present-day Japanese would bow to the military dictatorship in the name of the Emperor and not support the forces of Democracy? Drop the boat into the battle of Midway and it might well support the USN after some serious soul-searching. Or stay out of it and try to reach Sweden.
* In addition to the crew, there would be reference books. Technical, historical, and so on. The butterfly effect might soon invalidate history books, however. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Think all the way back**:
*[At the time I answered this question, it was referring to a Japanese patrol boat (the question was modified), and the answer is reflected as such]*
The biggest impacts on battles this ship can make will be in shifting major historical events. Imagine a group of Japanese who wanted to change the entire course of history for Japan. How broadly are you willing to consider battle, war, and what constitutes victory?
* 1853 - Commodore Perry sails into Tokyo bay with four war ships. Before they can ever contact the locals, the ships explode. Legends of a "divine wind" defending Japan keep the country isolated from the West. The heroes responsible for this act deliver the Emperor technological secrets allowing Japan to become the military equal to any country on Earth.
* February 1904 - The course of Japanese imperialism is changed forever when Japanese torpedo boats sent to attack the Russian navy sink mysteriously. A confident Russian navy wins the battle of Port Arthur and stymies Japanese imperial ambitions. A less aggressive and expansionist Japan decides not to pursue a global empire and stays out of WW2.
* Midway - The Japanese fleet is given mysterious intelligence about the location of the US carrier fleet and warned as each wave of US fighters approaches, so American bombers and torpedo planes are shot down without ever seeing Japanese ships. The mysterious intelligence comes from an unknown source with full access to all imperial codes and passwords. Japan sinks the entire US carrier fleet handily when they know their exact location at all times. Historians conjecture Japan developed advanced naval radar early, but no proof ever comes to light. | It could alter the course of history beyond all recognition.
* Think about the [battle of Salamis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis), in the year 480 before the common era. The Persians had already occupied northern and central Greece, the Athenians had evacuated their city, leaving the empty shell to be occupied by the enemy. The alliance of Greek city-states had agreed to the plan of [Themistocles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles) to risk everything on a naval battle, hoping that their organizational and technological advantages would be enough to overcome the numerical superiority of the enemy.
The *entire history* of the world stood balanced on a fine edge: if the Persians won, Greece would have been confirmed as a Persian satrapy. There would have been no Athenian democracy to serve as a model; there would have been no Aristotelian logic to guide the inquiring minds; there would have been no Hellenistic civilization, no Eratosthenes to measure the Earth, no Archimedes to push the boundaries of mathematics and physics. Without the Greek and Hellenistic civilization there would have been no Rome as we know it; the history of Europe would have veered off in a completely unpredictable direction.
Think of a world where Oriental fatalism and blind obedience to fate rule.
The smallest modern war ship would have easily destroyed the Athenian fleet at Salamis: and the entire history would have been profoundly different.
* Think of the [battle of Actium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium), in the year 31 before the common era. [Octavian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus), who by that time was calling himself C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, was leading the western forces in the contest for supremacy in the nascent Roman empire against the eastern forces of [Marc Antony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Antony) and [Cleopatra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra) of Egypt.
Had the easterners won, [Caesarion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarion), the son of the *real* C. Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, would have been confirmed in his title of [King of Kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donations_of_Alexandria). The center of gravity of the world-spanning empire would have moved from Rome to Alexandria. Instead of Octavian's careful preservation of the old republican form, the empire would have veered into a typical oriental monarchy, with a pair of god-like rulers at the top.
There would have been no evolution of the Roman law, no five good emperors, no Justinian, no *Corpus Juris Civilis*.
And again, the smallest modern war ship would have easily destroyed the western fleet at Actium: and the entire history would have been profoundly different. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Think all the way back**:
*[At the time I answered this question, it was referring to a Japanese patrol boat (the question was modified), and the answer is reflected as such]*
The biggest impacts on battles this ship can make will be in shifting major historical events. Imagine a group of Japanese who wanted to change the entire course of history for Japan. How broadly are you willing to consider battle, war, and what constitutes victory?
* 1853 - Commodore Perry sails into Tokyo bay with four war ships. Before they can ever contact the locals, the ships explode. Legends of a "divine wind" defending Japan keep the country isolated from the West. The heroes responsible for this act deliver the Emperor technological secrets allowing Japan to become the military equal to any country on Earth.
* February 1904 - The course of Japanese imperialism is changed forever when Japanese torpedo boats sent to attack the Russian navy sink mysteriously. A confident Russian navy wins the battle of Port Arthur and stymies Japanese imperial ambitions. A less aggressive and expansionist Japan decides not to pursue a global empire and stays out of WW2.
* Midway - The Japanese fleet is given mysterious intelligence about the location of the US carrier fleet and warned as each wave of US fighters approaches, so American bombers and torpedo planes are shot down without ever seeing Japanese ships. The mysterious intelligence comes from an unknown source with full access to all imperial codes and passwords. Japan sinks the entire US carrier fleet handily when they know their exact location at all times. Historians conjecture Japan developed advanced naval radar early, but no proof ever comes to light. | I answered this when they question was still a Japanese missile boat. But the editing shows what I consider the main misconception underlying the question.
**Think People, Knowledge, Politics**
Assume that the time travelers **decide** to support a local government and that they can **convince** the locals to trust them and to take them seriously to start with. For the latter, a warship will help, I'll admit that. Then the best the time travelers can do to support a local faction is to teach them technology *just* a bit ahead of everyone else. *"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."*
A graduate student with a solar-powered notebook and the right collection of textbooks and blueprints should be more efficient in this regard than the books which happen to be on a small to medium warship. A large one would probably have a nice library and a good group of engineering officers. The key is to bring improvements which can be applied to a local tech base. A very good javascript programmer would have learned the wrong things for programming ENIAC. But blueprints for a [CODAG power plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel_and_gas) would make a real difference in the 1950s, and the formula for [prismatic powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_powder) would be great in the 1850s.
The tech difference for "this makes a great prototype" is smaller than the tech difference for "this warship is a war winner."
---
Expanding on the answers by Thorne and DWKraus:
* 21 well-trained crew. It would be extremely silly to send them out *using* their ship, and risking their life. Send them to universities where scientists and engineers can pick their brains. The officers and petty officers won't know enough to manufacture new radars or gas turbines, but they can give pointers in the right direction.
* On the other hand, what makes you think that present-day Japanese would bow to the military dictatorship in the name of the Emperor and not support the forces of Democracy? Drop the boat into the battle of Midway and it might well support the USN after some serious soul-searching. Or stay out of it and try to reach Sweden.
* In addition to the crew, there would be reference books. Technical, historical, and so on. The butterfly effect might soon invalidate history books, however. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Think all the way back**:
*[At the time I answered this question, it was referring to a Japanese patrol boat (the question was modified), and the answer is reflected as such]*
The biggest impacts on battles this ship can make will be in shifting major historical events. Imagine a group of Japanese who wanted to change the entire course of history for Japan. How broadly are you willing to consider battle, war, and what constitutes victory?
* 1853 - Commodore Perry sails into Tokyo bay with four war ships. Before they can ever contact the locals, the ships explode. Legends of a "divine wind" defending Japan keep the country isolated from the West. The heroes responsible for this act deliver the Emperor technological secrets allowing Japan to become the military equal to any country on Earth.
* February 1904 - The course of Japanese imperialism is changed forever when Japanese torpedo boats sent to attack the Russian navy sink mysteriously. A confident Russian navy wins the battle of Port Arthur and stymies Japanese imperial ambitions. A less aggressive and expansionist Japan decides not to pursue a global empire and stays out of WW2.
* Midway - The Japanese fleet is given mysterious intelligence about the location of the US carrier fleet and warned as each wave of US fighters approaches, so American bombers and torpedo planes are shot down without ever seeing Japanese ships. The mysterious intelligence comes from an unknown source with full access to all imperial codes and passwords. Japan sinks the entire US carrier fleet handily when they know their exact location at all times. Historians conjecture Japan developed advanced naval radar early, but no proof ever comes to light. | This is not a line ship designed to go toe to toe with major naval assets. It's a patrol boat designed to bring force to control civilian shipping. This boat can badly damage most modern civilian freighter and passenger ships. You would not want to be on the receiving end of this thing if the Commander decides to light up your bridge with its weapons. Ships sink just as well with a bunch of little holes in their hull as much as a single big one, and this thing can add lots of little holes to your ship. If the Commander of this ship tells you to stop, you stop.
That said, the decisive nature of this vessel would be its impact of being in the right place, and the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time if you're on the other side of this).
It can stumble upon a smuggled cargo, it can attack and disable/destroy a blockade runner carrying something vital. It can be repurposed to support a SPEC OPS team returning from a vital mission. This is a pretty fast ship with good endurance, designed for open water. While not "stealthy", it's not "not stealthy". It's small and hides easily. It's not a "green water" (i.e. river) boat, but it draught isn't too deep.
How can a simple fighter plane, with little but machine guns, change the course of the war? When that fighter plane happens to take out the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto.
So, it's all in the timing as much as the craft itself. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **It would be decisive in any (non-landlocked) war prior to 1860/1870** (and quite a few after that).
1859 is when [ironclads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship) were first used, and they became all-steel from about 1870. Even with the modern armaments of your patrol boat, I expect a group of them would pose a significant-enough challenge to reduce the impact of its existence. It would still definitely win battles, but I don't know if it could win a *war*.
Prior to 1860, your boat has free reign. It's orders of magnitude faster, better-armed and better-equipped than anything it might encounter at sea. The only thing I can think that might stymie it is fixed coastal defences, like a fort bristling with cannon.
On cannon: I think enough cannon ball strikes could certainly make it a non-threat for a while, But I doubt any pre-ironclad ship would be able to hit it. Even ignoring the vast difference in maneuverability, the maximum range for an 18th or 19th century cannon was [maybe 2km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon#18th_and_19th_centuries), below the effective range for the [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster) (3km) and well below its maximum range (6.8km).
Go far enough back, and you could sink (or aid) entire invading armies. The course of history would change. Norman invasion of Britain? Nope. Spanish Armada - wins handily. Mongol invasion of Japan? No problem. | **Think all the way back**:
*[At the time I answered this question, it was referring to a Japanese patrol boat (the question was modified), and the answer is reflected as such]*
The biggest impacts on battles this ship can make will be in shifting major historical events. Imagine a group of Japanese who wanted to change the entire course of history for Japan. How broadly are you willing to consider battle, war, and what constitutes victory?
* 1853 - Commodore Perry sails into Tokyo bay with four war ships. Before they can ever contact the locals, the ships explode. Legends of a "divine wind" defending Japan keep the country isolated from the West. The heroes responsible for this act deliver the Emperor technological secrets allowing Japan to become the military equal to any country on Earth.
* February 1904 - The course of Japanese imperialism is changed forever when Japanese torpedo boats sent to attack the Russian navy sink mysteriously. A confident Russian navy wins the battle of Port Arthur and stymies Japanese imperial ambitions. A less aggressive and expansionist Japan decides not to pursue a global empire and stays out of WW2.
* Midway - The Japanese fleet is given mysterious intelligence about the location of the US carrier fleet and warned as each wave of US fighters approaches, so American bombers and torpedo planes are shot down without ever seeing Japanese ships. The mysterious intelligence comes from an unknown source with full access to all imperial codes and passwords. Japan sinks the entire US carrier fleet handily when they know their exact location at all times. Historians conjecture Japan developed advanced naval radar early, but no proof ever comes to light. |
181,559 | Just variegating [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12219) for a Royal Australian Navy [*Armidale*-class patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat) that has no aircraft or missiles. Like other question, assume a full weekly resupply of only ammunition and fuel.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UHoao.jpg)
>
> Armament:
>
>
> * 1 × [Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System "Typhoon Weapon System") fitted with a 25 mm (1 in) [M242 Bushmaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster "M242 Bushmaster") autocannon
> * 2 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns
>
>
>
[Armidale Class Patrol Boat used for Civilian Support - Naval Technology](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/armidaleclass/).
>
> Armidale class weapons
> ----------------------
>
>
> The vessel is armed with a Rafael Typhoon 25mm stabilised naval gun mount with an ATK Bushmaster cannon. Fire control is provided by a Rafael Toplite multi-sensor optronic weapons director. The gun has a traverse range of ±20° and an elevation of -12.5° to +40°30′. The gun has a stabilisation accuracy of 0.2mrad.
>
>
> "The main roles of the Armidale Class are naval support of civilian authorities."
>
>
> The line of fire stabilisation allows hostile targets to be engaged with precision in high sea state conditions and at appropriate stand-off distance. The gunner can choose to operate the gun manually or automatically. The ship also carries two 12.7mm machine guns.
>
>
> Sensors and communications
> --------------------------
>
>
> The Armidale Class patrol boats are equipped with low-light optical surveillance and a Bridgemaster E radar operating at E, F and I bands.
>
>
> BAE Systems Australia’s passive radar identification system (PRISM III) electronic support measures provides detection, direction finding, analysis and classification of radar emissions in the 2GHz-18GHz band.
>
>
> CEA Technologies has been contracted to supply the modular integrated ships communications suite (ISCS).
>
>
>
To what war do you need to send this patrol boat, before it can decisively impact the course of events? A decisive impact means anywhere from eliminating a major battle in the war to changing who wins the war. Killing one extra opposition soldier does not qualify, because it doesn't quite affect war outcome.
This patrol boat can't impact outcome of WWII? This boat can be penetrated by anti-aircraft guns, let alone battleship and naval artillery, or torpedoed by wolf packs of submarines. Enemy can re-locate and settle underground, or further in land, to evade this boat's radar and technologies. | 2020/07/28 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/181559",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Massive Difference (but not how you would expect it)**
Forget firepower. The difference is computing power. Code breaking suddenly leaps ahead decades so German codes are virtually worthless. Your codes suddenly go to 256 bit encryption and impossible to break.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The real difference is the technology contained in the ship, not the ship itself. | This is not a line ship designed to go toe to toe with major naval assets. It's a patrol boat designed to bring force to control civilian shipping. This boat can badly damage most modern civilian freighter and passenger ships. You would not want to be on the receiving end of this thing if the Commander decides to light up your bridge with its weapons. Ships sink just as well with a bunch of little holes in their hull as much as a single big one, and this thing can add lots of little holes to your ship. If the Commander of this ship tells you to stop, you stop.
That said, the decisive nature of this vessel would be its impact of being in the right place, and the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time if you're on the other side of this).
It can stumble upon a smuggled cargo, it can attack and disable/destroy a blockade runner carrying something vital. It can be repurposed to support a SPEC OPS team returning from a vital mission. This is a pretty fast ship with good endurance, designed for open water. While not "stealthy", it's not "not stealthy". It's small and hides easily. It's not a "green water" (i.e. river) boat, but it draught isn't too deep.
How can a simple fighter plane, with little but machine guns, change the course of the war? When that fighter plane happens to take out the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto.
So, it's all in the timing as much as the craft itself. |
29,988 | I read some English poems on the books or websites, and like to translate some poems from English to Chinese. So can I put these English poems with my translation on my blog?
Which situation do I need to inform the author, or don't? How will I do?
1.Translate his/her poems in Chinese, and put his/her original on my blog?
2.Excerpt his/her full or part of the poems in my essay, and put the essay on my blog or book?
3.Write a essay to introduce his/her poems or book?
Thanks. | 2017/08/30 | [
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/29988",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com",
"https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26469/"
] | A translation is a derivative work. Merely informing the author is not enough.
If you want to publish a derivative work, you must secure the right to do so from the copyright holder (who may be someone other than the author).
See *The Copyright Handbook* from NOLO Press. | You should always inform the author if you are going to use their work. I expect most people would be delighted to have their work translated and shared to a wider audience.
As to how you present the work, that will really depend on what you are trying to achieve, but I think it would make sense to also supply the English versions (assuming you have permission) and link back to the original source.
If the work is very old, then it may be in the [public domain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain), in which case you may have the right to use it without informing the author (which is useful if they're dead). Whether this applies will depend on when it was written and what country you're in. |
50,734,730 | I am trying to install BI Publisher add on for Word on my system.
Below is the configuration of my system:
* Windows 7- 64 Bit
* JRE - 64 Bit
* Microsoft office 2016 - 64 Bit
* BIPublisher - 32 Bit ( The 64 bit version is not installing, stating a message "Please use 32 bit version)
I tried using Java 32 and 64 bit versions, but I am still not seeing the BI Publisher tab in my word or excel.
Below is the Java version details on my machine.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d0i8n.png)
Steps I tried:
1. <https://mani2web.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/issues-with-oracle-bi-publisher-with-microsoft-word-2016/>
2. <http://www.catgovind.com/obiee/solved-bi-publisher-tab-is-not-visible-in-ms-word/>
3. <http://www.redstk.com/bi-publisher-desktop-menu-ribbon-not-displaying-correctly/> | 2018/06/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/50734730",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2181942/"
] | The Office 64 bit and BI Publisher 64 bit should match.
I was able to use BI Publisher 64 bit (Version: 11.117.0.79; MD5 Hash: e47ab8d8b0cd71a891c29ecc5df17cdd; Size: 237 MB (249,504,566 bytes)) with Word 2013 64 bit. Found my version by right clicking install file and reviewing properties. Their website lists 11.1.1.7 (I really don't get how disorganized Oracle is)
Also, may want do downgrade your JRE Last I was using was 7 Update 45 (7.0.450.18). Every time Oracle updates stuff, it becomes incompatible with nearly everything else.
Many versions available here:
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/bi-publisher/downloads/index.html>
Good luck! | * Go to the all programs (Start menu)
* Expand the Oracle BI Publisher Desktop (sub-menu)
* Click on "Enable or Disable Template Builder"
Then the BI Publisher will be displayed in the Word 2016 menu. |
50,734,730 | I am trying to install BI Publisher add on for Word on my system.
Below is the configuration of my system:
* Windows 7- 64 Bit
* JRE - 64 Bit
* Microsoft office 2016 - 64 Bit
* BIPublisher - 32 Bit ( The 64 bit version is not installing, stating a message "Please use 32 bit version)
I tried using Java 32 and 64 bit versions, but I am still not seeing the BI Publisher tab in my word or excel.
Below is the Java version details on my machine.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d0i8n.png)
Steps I tried:
1. <https://mani2web.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/issues-with-oracle-bi-publisher-with-microsoft-word-2016/>
2. <http://www.catgovind.com/obiee/solved-bi-publisher-tab-is-not-visible-in-ms-word/>
3. <http://www.redstk.com/bi-publisher-desktop-menu-ribbon-not-displaying-correctly/> | 2018/06/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/50734730",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2181942/"
] | The Office 64 bit and BI Publisher 64 bit should match.
I was able to use BI Publisher 64 bit (Version: 11.117.0.79; MD5 Hash: e47ab8d8b0cd71a891c29ecc5df17cdd; Size: 237 MB (249,504,566 bytes)) with Word 2013 64 bit. Found my version by right clicking install file and reviewing properties. Their website lists 11.1.1.7 (I really don't get how disorganized Oracle is)
Also, may want do downgrade your JRE Last I was using was 7 Update 45 (7.0.450.18). Every time Oracle updates stuff, it becomes incompatible with nearly everything else.
Many versions available here:
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/bi-publisher/downloads/index.html>
Good luck! | I have this issue too but found the solution (I hope it'll be useful for you):
* After installing BI Publisher, enter to Word, go to FILES-> OPTIONS -> TRUST CENTER -> TRUST CENTER SETTINGS-> COMPLEMENTS, AND THEN, UNCHECK OPTION (Deshabilitar todos los complementos de aplicaciones).
After that, go to com objects and check BI Publisher.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UyW4W.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1QlNR.png) |
50,734,730 | I am trying to install BI Publisher add on for Word on my system.
Below is the configuration of my system:
* Windows 7- 64 Bit
* JRE - 64 Bit
* Microsoft office 2016 - 64 Bit
* BIPublisher - 32 Bit ( The 64 bit version is not installing, stating a message "Please use 32 bit version)
I tried using Java 32 and 64 bit versions, but I am still not seeing the BI Publisher tab in my word or excel.
Below is the Java version details on my machine.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/d0i8n.png)
Steps I tried:
1. <https://mani2web.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/issues-with-oracle-bi-publisher-with-microsoft-word-2016/>
2. <http://www.catgovind.com/obiee/solved-bi-publisher-tab-is-not-visible-in-ms-word/>
3. <http://www.redstk.com/bi-publisher-desktop-menu-ribbon-not-displaying-correctly/> | 2018/06/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/50734730",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2181942/"
] | * Go to the all programs (Start menu)
* Expand the Oracle BI Publisher Desktop (sub-menu)
* Click on "Enable or Disable Template Builder"
Then the BI Publisher will be displayed in the Word 2016 menu. | I have this issue too but found the solution (I hope it'll be useful for you):
* After installing BI Publisher, enter to Word, go to FILES-> OPTIONS -> TRUST CENTER -> TRUST CENTER SETTINGS-> COMPLEMENTS, AND THEN, UNCHECK OPTION (Deshabilitar todos los complementos de aplicaciones).
After that, go to com objects and check BI Publisher.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UyW4W.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1QlNR.png) |
208,733 | Please consider the following scenario:
>
> * **a)** I'm really jealous of him; he's a really successful engineer.
>
> **b)** Instead, I'm really proud to have such a colleague! You see! He's been a truly diligent person thoughout his whole academic period and now he's enjoying his life! I knew him since many years ago! I remember well; he really **burned the midnight oil** to get where his is now!
>
>
>
Does the bold phrase above mean **to work hard late into the nights for a long time** in modern English? Doesn't is sound old-fashioned to you?
I would appreciate it if you let me know a better idiom in modern language if it's an obsolete type of implying this meaning in English. | 2019/04/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/208733",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5652/"
] | **Burning the midnight oil** is still an often-used phrase.
It remains a well understood phrase even though oil lamps are relics of the past.
Just for fun, check your favorite search engine for news articles with this exact phrase. *Google News* turns up many articles with this phrase in the headline over the past month or so (in 2019). | *Burning the midnight oil* means *to work late into the night*. It implies one is working hard. In the context of the scenario, it means he worked a lot, often late into the night, to get to his present position. It is meant as both a compliment, and a comment on the person's character as a hard-working individual.
*Burning the midnight oil* is still used. There are a few alternatives that are used regularly. *To keep one's nose to the grindstone* would work in that context in the past tense: *He really kept his nose to the grindstone to get where he is now!* Another, more modern, and colloquial, expression is *to pull an all-nighter*, which is mostly used by high school and college students in the context of studying for exams, as in: *I pulled an all-nighter to study for that test!*
However, an *all-nighter* implies procrastination or laziness, waiting until the last moment to prepare. It is uncommon to say *he really pulled a lot of all-nighters to get where he is*, and if used, it would not be a compliment. |
210,713 | I have some animations and baked simulations in my scene. When I view the playback, it plays at around 16 fps. Right now I can use my mouse to scrub through the timeline which works ok, but obviously I can't move at an exact speed. I know there are ways to improve the fps, but is there a way to simply force 24 fps? I don't care how bad it looks and I don't care if it skips every other frame. I just want to see how the animation looks in real time. | 2021/02/05 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/210713",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/63896/"
] | I randomly found an answer to this while looking for something else completely unrelated.
[Settings to make viewport playback drop frames in order to keep up with actual animation speed?](https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/220239/settings-to-make-viewport-playback-drop-frames-in-order-to-keep-up-with-actual-a) | I can see the problem here. It is probably because your hardware isn't able to handle it. I am sorry to say that. Maybe try restarting your computer, or try clearing any junk files, anything to increase the speed of your computer. If you could share your computer specs, it would be easier, or there is one more solution, try removing 1 simulation. This might boost your computer. It would be easier if you could share a video of the simulation in the viewport mode along with your hardware specs.
Cheers,
Aster17 |
621,737 | I'm looking to translate several of my iPhone applications to other (human) languages. I've done all the right things in my code and inserted translation table lookups everywhere, so I'm technically prepared.
The problem is, of course, that I don't know even *one* foreign language well enough to translate my app, let alone the seven or eight I'd like to offer. Nor do I have experience with translators. That leaves me with a lot of questions, like:
1. Where do I find translators?
2. How much do they usually cost? (The application I'd be doing first is small—less than 700 words, not counting marketing material.)
3. How do I ensure they're turning in work that's correct and high-quality? (If I could read what they were giving me, I wouldn't need a translator.)
4. How do I handle the ongoing maintenance of those translations as I change and expand the app? How do I translate release notes? Is it common to have a translator on an ongoing basis for small, quick translations?
5. What important questions am I not asking? | 2009/03/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/621737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41222/"
] | I don't know about the nature of your applications, but a model I've seen widly used for shareware (and freeware) is to offer some of your (beta) users from foreign countries a free license (and maybe free life-long upgrades etc) in return for helping with the translation. Usually such a need for translators is announced on the app's web site.
As for the quality of the translation, you can't tell more than maybe "this string is too long, it breaks the UI" - but you should look for beta users in these languages to try out the translated app and report any error. Ideally, as your user base grows, so will (free) reports of incorrect wording... | I've hear good things about [Tethras](http://www.tethras.com/help) and like the fact that you can let them do part of the translations, and to some of them on your own or using friends/family but still integrate with their system.
I'll be using it for my next commercial Mac app for sure.. |
621,737 | I'm looking to translate several of my iPhone applications to other (human) languages. I've done all the right things in my code and inserted translation table lookups everywhere, so I'm technically prepared.
The problem is, of course, that I don't know even *one* foreign language well enough to translate my app, let alone the seven or eight I'd like to offer. Nor do I have experience with translators. That leaves me with a lot of questions, like:
1. Where do I find translators?
2. How much do they usually cost? (The application I'd be doing first is small—less than 700 words, not counting marketing material.)
3. How do I ensure they're turning in work that's correct and high-quality? (If I could read what they were giving me, I wouldn't need a translator.)
4. How do I handle the ongoing maintenance of those translations as I change and expand the app? How do I translate release notes? Is it common to have a translator on an ongoing basis for small, quick translations?
5. What important questions am I not asking? | 2009/03/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/621737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41222/"
] | Try services like [Rent A Coder](http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/DotNet/default.aspx) - there are a lot of people there doing translations, and the prices are very competitive. | I've hear good things about [Tethras](http://www.tethras.com/help) and like the fact that you can let them do part of the translations, and to some of them on your own or using friends/family but still integrate with their system.
I'll be using it for my next commercial Mac app for sure.. |
170,967 | The first step of dragon slaying is pretty established:
First you locate a place that the dragon frequently visits (i.e: considers it to be safe) and place an offering. This is a combination of various food items and one unlucky virgin (and usually serf) woman.
The theoretical reasoning for that is if the dragon's intelligent, he could probably use her as a slave. The virginity thing has no mystical layer to it, it's just signaling that "the product's [brand new](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand-new)". I mean, what did you expect from a medieval society?
So, you hide until the dragon arrives to check out what's going on. Then you shoot at it with crossbows. The bolts are contaminated either with a poison or a disease.
And realizing that he's being attacked, the dragon charges at your team, kills everyone then collapses on the ground before losing consciousness.
The problem with poisoned crossbow bolts is that while the real damage they do is getting the poison into the bloodstream, a dragon is a DRAGON. It's huge (vent-snout length is 5 meters), and has a strong immune system. Poisons need time to act and you can't make a suicide squad out of mercenaries, plus suicide squads are outlawed (both in military and on the screen) here.
---
The Dragon
----------
**Size**: 10 meters (5 meters of which is the tail)
**Wingspan**: 12-15 meters
**Breath weapon**: at around 5 liters of concentrated (0.2-0.1 pH) sulfuric acid; usually used as a fine-grain spray. The dragon's scales and most internal parts build acidic residue into their proteins, making them more resistant to the acid. Heartburn can still occur if this ability's overused.
**Flight speed**: 16.3 - 24.9 m/s gliding
Dragon's feel home just as much in water as in the sky, though they can't take off frequently, a dragon will usually be able to do an emergency escape after landing, since gliding doesn't take too much power thus allowing the creature to rest his muscles. Terrestrial capabilities are good, but nothing special.
Dragons have six limbs in total, two wings and the hind and fore legs, both of which have little value in combat. Though it's possible to amplify the power of the foreleg's strike by putting the rest of the body behind it.
There's also the most fearsome tail in existence, which can cause [major damage](https://youtu.be/ctaA4iFnITg?t=83) (dented armor, heads blown right off) AND has a decent range.
The other major weapon are the jaws, coupled with a long neck, and the [spurs](https://youtu.be/F7usYyVQ7I4?t=14) on the dragon's wings.
As far as senses go, dragons have excellent smell and good eyesight, they can also sniff out poison in food, so there's that.
Note: You can't really cut a dragon's bone or scales. Crossbows have about enough power to penetrate deep enough to draw blood, but they can't cause serious damage.
---
**Knowing that, just how would could a small group of people hunt down a dragon in medieval times without suffering heavy casualties?** | 2020/03/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/170967",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/32097/"
] | I'd put the poison in glass capsules and then hide them somewhere on some sheep which I'd leave in a field the dragon is known to fly over. The beast will eat the sheep, break open the capsules and become poisoned.
Then I'd take the virgin home for myself.
If one dosage doesn't work, you can always use a "dragon trap". It's just like a bear trap, except larger and with hooked teeth that twist themselves in flesh becoming impossible to remove without tearing a giant gouge out of yourself. Some of the teeth are hollowed out, leaving a straight path from the bloodstream to the outside world. Eventually leading to bloodloss and death. | The king cobra is not the most venomous snake, but it does inject enough venom in a single bite that it can still take down elephants. To get this much venom in via crossbow bolt, I don't think dipping it in poison will suffice. The bolt needs to inject. I have no idea how to make a crossbow bolt function like an impact-activated syringe, but that seems the best way to get the right amount into the dragon.
Since you need a rather precise hit for the venom to spread quickly, so the more of these available, the better. This might be cheaper than importing and rangling a kingdom of cobras. Alternatively, king cobra catapults. |
170,967 | The first step of dragon slaying is pretty established:
First you locate a place that the dragon frequently visits (i.e: considers it to be safe) and place an offering. This is a combination of various food items and one unlucky virgin (and usually serf) woman.
The theoretical reasoning for that is if the dragon's intelligent, he could probably use her as a slave. The virginity thing has no mystical layer to it, it's just signaling that "the product's [brand new](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand-new)". I mean, what did you expect from a medieval society?
So, you hide until the dragon arrives to check out what's going on. Then you shoot at it with crossbows. The bolts are contaminated either with a poison or a disease.
And realizing that he's being attacked, the dragon charges at your team, kills everyone then collapses on the ground before losing consciousness.
The problem with poisoned crossbow bolts is that while the real damage they do is getting the poison into the bloodstream, a dragon is a DRAGON. It's huge (vent-snout length is 5 meters), and has a strong immune system. Poisons need time to act and you can't make a suicide squad out of mercenaries, plus suicide squads are outlawed (both in military and on the screen) here.
---
The Dragon
----------
**Size**: 10 meters (5 meters of which is the tail)
**Wingspan**: 12-15 meters
**Breath weapon**: at around 5 liters of concentrated (0.2-0.1 pH) sulfuric acid; usually used as a fine-grain spray. The dragon's scales and most internal parts build acidic residue into their proteins, making them more resistant to the acid. Heartburn can still occur if this ability's overused.
**Flight speed**: 16.3 - 24.9 m/s gliding
Dragon's feel home just as much in water as in the sky, though they can't take off frequently, a dragon will usually be able to do an emergency escape after landing, since gliding doesn't take too much power thus allowing the creature to rest his muscles. Terrestrial capabilities are good, but nothing special.
Dragons have six limbs in total, two wings and the hind and fore legs, both of which have little value in combat. Though it's possible to amplify the power of the foreleg's strike by putting the rest of the body behind it.
There's also the most fearsome tail in existence, which can cause [major damage](https://youtu.be/ctaA4iFnITg?t=83) (dented armor, heads blown right off) AND has a decent range.
The other major weapon are the jaws, coupled with a long neck, and the [spurs](https://youtu.be/F7usYyVQ7I4?t=14) on the dragon's wings.
As far as senses go, dragons have excellent smell and good eyesight, they can also sniff out poison in food, so there's that.
Note: You can't really cut a dragon's bone or scales. Crossbows have about enough power to penetrate deep enough to draw blood, but they can't cause serious damage.
---
**Knowing that, just how would could a small group of people hunt down a dragon in medieval times without suffering heavy casualties?** | 2020/03/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/170967",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/32097/"
] | I'd put the poison in glass capsules and then hide them somewhere on some sheep which I'd leave in a field the dragon is known to fly over. The beast will eat the sheep, break open the capsules and become poisoned.
Then I'd take the virgin home for myself.
If one dosage doesn't work, you can always use a "dragon trap". It's just like a bear trap, except larger and with hooked teeth that twist themselves in flesh becoming impossible to remove without tearing a giant gouge out of yourself. Some of the teeth are hollowed out, leaving a straight path from the bloodstream to the outside world. Eventually leading to bloodloss and death. | **Step 1: Clip the wings**
As long as the dragon can fly, your dragon-fighting forces are at a serious disadvantage, not to mention that if you ever gain the upper hand, there's a good chance the dragon could flee and either escape, or even if you mortally wound it, take the corpse too far away for you to recover.
The first step is to take the wings out of commission. Use ballistae for that, modeled after the traditional Roman design. This gives you a highly accurate ballista, not to mention that it's made up of mainly wood which means that it's easy to make. Set up ballistae at your chosen trap location, and then load them with chains. Not darts, *chains*. This will give you a larger area of effect and will tear larger holes through the dragon's wings. If you're lucky, it'll also wrap around the dragon and send it off balance.
**Step 2: Cripple the beast**
If you've done everything right, you've dropped the creature from out of the air and the impact should stun the creature, kill it outright if you're lucky. But since when are you lucky? Now you have a downed dragon, and it's mad at you. When it's down, have your skirmishes shoot it full of poison-tipped crossbow bolts. But not just any poison - no, we're going to douse that thing on nightshade-derived poisons, which are both lethal *and* are hallucinogenics. That's right - we now have a downed, mad, drugged-up dragon. Once they've done that, the skirmishers are to run.
**Step 3: Bother it to death**
Now that the dragon can't fly and is slowly going mad with hallucinations, we deploy the last line of fighters - our heavy knights. Now, contrary to their name, these knights aren't actually wearing heavy armor - they're wearing padded armor with shields. The padding it to help against blunt-trauma impact. They're also using blunt flails as their weapon of choice - slashing at the dragon won't do a thing. But blunt weapons, especially the kind of power you can get with a flail, can deal serious damage. Working as a coordinated team, the heavies will surround the dragon and dart in and out, dealing blows when it's safe and defending when it isn't.
If we only use these fighters, it should be relatively safe. Tossing the crossbow skirmishers in the mix would risk their lives if the dragon decided to go after them. The dragon can run, sure, but it's not going to get far because reptiles aren't build for endurance running, which means that if it runs, we follow the very-easy-to-follow trail of it and then attack it again once we find it. |
170,967 | The first step of dragon slaying is pretty established:
First you locate a place that the dragon frequently visits (i.e: considers it to be safe) and place an offering. This is a combination of various food items and one unlucky virgin (and usually serf) woman.
The theoretical reasoning for that is if the dragon's intelligent, he could probably use her as a slave. The virginity thing has no mystical layer to it, it's just signaling that "the product's [brand new](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand-new)". I mean, what did you expect from a medieval society?
So, you hide until the dragon arrives to check out what's going on. Then you shoot at it with crossbows. The bolts are contaminated either with a poison or a disease.
And realizing that he's being attacked, the dragon charges at your team, kills everyone then collapses on the ground before losing consciousness.
The problem with poisoned crossbow bolts is that while the real damage they do is getting the poison into the bloodstream, a dragon is a DRAGON. It's huge (vent-snout length is 5 meters), and has a strong immune system. Poisons need time to act and you can't make a suicide squad out of mercenaries, plus suicide squads are outlawed (both in military and on the screen) here.
---
The Dragon
----------
**Size**: 10 meters (5 meters of which is the tail)
**Wingspan**: 12-15 meters
**Breath weapon**: at around 5 liters of concentrated (0.2-0.1 pH) sulfuric acid; usually used as a fine-grain spray. The dragon's scales and most internal parts build acidic residue into their proteins, making them more resistant to the acid. Heartburn can still occur if this ability's overused.
**Flight speed**: 16.3 - 24.9 m/s gliding
Dragon's feel home just as much in water as in the sky, though they can't take off frequently, a dragon will usually be able to do an emergency escape after landing, since gliding doesn't take too much power thus allowing the creature to rest his muscles. Terrestrial capabilities are good, but nothing special.
Dragons have six limbs in total, two wings and the hind and fore legs, both of which have little value in combat. Though it's possible to amplify the power of the foreleg's strike by putting the rest of the body behind it.
There's also the most fearsome tail in existence, which can cause [major damage](https://youtu.be/ctaA4iFnITg?t=83) (dented armor, heads blown right off) AND has a decent range.
The other major weapon are the jaws, coupled with a long neck, and the [spurs](https://youtu.be/F7usYyVQ7I4?t=14) on the dragon's wings.
As far as senses go, dragons have excellent smell and good eyesight, they can also sniff out poison in food, so there's that.
Note: You can't really cut a dragon's bone or scales. Crossbows have about enough power to penetrate deep enough to draw blood, but they can't cause serious damage.
---
**Knowing that, just how would could a small group of people hunt down a dragon in medieval times without suffering heavy casualties?** | 2020/03/10 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/170967",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/32097/"
] | The king cobra is not the most venomous snake, but it does inject enough venom in a single bite that it can still take down elephants. To get this much venom in via crossbow bolt, I don't think dipping it in poison will suffice. The bolt needs to inject. I have no idea how to make a crossbow bolt function like an impact-activated syringe, but that seems the best way to get the right amount into the dragon.
Since you need a rather precise hit for the venom to spread quickly, so the more of these available, the better. This might be cheaper than importing and rangling a kingdom of cobras. Alternatively, king cobra catapults. | **Step 1: Clip the wings**
As long as the dragon can fly, your dragon-fighting forces are at a serious disadvantage, not to mention that if you ever gain the upper hand, there's a good chance the dragon could flee and either escape, or even if you mortally wound it, take the corpse too far away for you to recover.
The first step is to take the wings out of commission. Use ballistae for that, modeled after the traditional Roman design. This gives you a highly accurate ballista, not to mention that it's made up of mainly wood which means that it's easy to make. Set up ballistae at your chosen trap location, and then load them with chains. Not darts, *chains*. This will give you a larger area of effect and will tear larger holes through the dragon's wings. If you're lucky, it'll also wrap around the dragon and send it off balance.
**Step 2: Cripple the beast**
If you've done everything right, you've dropped the creature from out of the air and the impact should stun the creature, kill it outright if you're lucky. But since when are you lucky? Now you have a downed dragon, and it's mad at you. When it's down, have your skirmishes shoot it full of poison-tipped crossbow bolts. But not just any poison - no, we're going to douse that thing on nightshade-derived poisons, which are both lethal *and* are hallucinogenics. That's right - we now have a downed, mad, drugged-up dragon. Once they've done that, the skirmishers are to run.
**Step 3: Bother it to death**
Now that the dragon can't fly and is slowly going mad with hallucinations, we deploy the last line of fighters - our heavy knights. Now, contrary to their name, these knights aren't actually wearing heavy armor - they're wearing padded armor with shields. The padding it to help against blunt-trauma impact. They're also using blunt flails as their weapon of choice - slashing at the dragon won't do a thing. But blunt weapons, especially the kind of power you can get with a flail, can deal serious damage. Working as a coordinated team, the heavies will surround the dragon and dart in and out, dealing blows when it's safe and defending when it isn't.
If we only use these fighters, it should be relatively safe. Tossing the crossbow skirmishers in the mix would risk their lives if the dragon decided to go after them. The dragon can run, sure, but it's not going to get far because reptiles aren't build for endurance running, which means that if it runs, we follow the very-easy-to-follow trail of it and then attack it again once we find it. |
83,340 | **Star A**
Mass: 1.2 x Sol
Radius: 1.157 x Sol
Luminosity: 2.074 x Sol
Temperature: 6,444 K
**Star B**
Mass: 0.63 x Sol
Radius 0.691 x Sol
Luminosity: 0.158 x Sol
Temperature: 4,378 K
Semi-Major Axis: 852.1 au
Eccentricity: 0.1259
Apoapsis: 959.38 au
Periapsis: 744.82 au
Period: 22721.53 years
**Planet**
Mass: 0.64 x Earth
Radius: 0.87 x Earth
Gravity: 0.85 x Earth
Rotation: 30 Hours
Tilt: 19.25°
Semi-Major Axis: 1.5 au (Star A)
Eccentricity: 0.0159
Apoapsis:
Periapsis:
Period: 1 year, 247 days.
Local Year: 490.076 days.
Water: 81%
Atmospheric Pressure: 234.061 kPa
Atmospheric Composition:
N2: 87.34%
O2: 11.52%
Ar: 1.02%
CO2: 0.06%
H2O (water vapor): 0.04%
CH4: 0.00020%
Average Temp: 11° C (probably underestimated or overestimated the increased greenhouse gas, but I'm going with it unless someone points out just how off this is.)
**Satellite**
Mass: 2.84 x Luna
Radius: 1.43 x Luna
Semi-Major Axis: 213,845 km
Eccentricity: 0.0450
Apoapsis: 223,468 km
Periapsis: 204,222 km
Period: 13 days, 20 hours
Based on this information, could humans live on this planet without genetic modifications or being in a space suit all the time? How difficult would it be to grow Earth-based crops? | 2017/06/11 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/83340",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/39050/"
] | It's **incredibly** impractical to attempt to harvest a nebula.
[Density of a Nebula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula#Physical_characteristics) is somewhere between 100 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimeter. Really, really young nebula can have about 1,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter.
For comparison, sea level atmosphere has about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter. The [theoretical maximum vacuum you can create](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_chamber) at sea level is aproxamately 0.0008534% of an atmosphere - Or a density of roughly 213,350,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter.
To put it simply, the theoretical "Best" vacuum you can achieve on Earth is about 213 million times more dense than the densest of nebula.
*Fun Fact*: The [atmosphere on the Lunar Surface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon) is between 80,000 atoms per cubic centimeter and 1,000,000 atoms per cubic centimeter, depending on which part of that article you look at. That's roughly about the same density as a nebula.
Now, let's do some more math.
[Helium](https://www.livescience.com/28552-facts-about-helium.html) has a density of 0.0001785 grams per cubic centimeter. Not a lot. It has an Atomic Mass of 4.002602. This means one [Mole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)) of Helium is a tad over 4 grams. Using this, we can get that one cubic centimeter of Helium at one atmosphere is around the ballpark of 26,856,000,000,000,000,000 individual particles, or atoms, of Helium.
In the thickest nebula, you would have to collect 26,856,000,000,000 cubic centimeters. That's just shy of 27 cubic kilometers of "space" to get one cubic centimeter of Helium.
(A note: I was thinking of Helium-3 when writing this, as it's used in a lot of sci-fi space reactors. But it turns out Helium-3 has an atomic mass of [3.0160293](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3) and not 4.002602. I'll probably go back and re-do the math in the morning, unless someone answers better than I.
Also, it's fairly late for me so my math exacts may not be 100% correct. The general idea should be fairly correct even if the numbers aren't.)
For nearly anything I can think of, the energy you would get from harvesting that material would not equal the energy expenditure that you would have to make to harvest it. | The known process which compacts a nebula makes use of gravity to condense it into stars.
A futuristic technology, imitating gravity effects, can force the nebula matter to the collection point like a galactic vacuum cleaner, where the molecules are then further processed for the colony use.
The momentum of the harvested mass can be used to generate energy for the colony, which of course need energy to survive. |
84,761 | I've been over many faq's and troubelshooting but can't seem to find an answer to this.
I'm currently running my mac from an external HD. My internal got corrupted, I can't repair it with disc utility. So I booted from an older time machine backup, on an external HD which now is my main HD and what I'm running from.
Anyway I want to put everything back the way it was. Meaning erasing my internal and let time machine put back a back up of my current workspace. But when I let it run he backs up the corrupted internal one. It even makes for a total of 500G, and my original HD is only 320.. so I'm making a backup to big to be used to restore later.
How can I change that he backups only the external information? Or maybe I'm wrong and he needs to back up the internal to for things to work since I still use it as my computer (but not my HD). I don't need the content of the original HD to be backed up along with my external one. I just want the workspace I created with a back up on my external to be put back on my erased, internal one..
I'm also worried if I erase my internal HD the booting help progam (C or R) will be gone to.. will it? | 2013/03/08 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84761",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/44664/"
] | To exclude your internal drive from backup, do the following. Go to System Preferences > Time Machine. Click **Options...** Under the section titled "Exclude these items from backups", click the **+** button. Select your internal hard drive. This will prevent Time Machine from backing up your internal hard drive.
If your external hard drive is working just like you'd like your internal hard drive to work after you finish fixing it, you can also restore your external volume onto your internal volume. To do this, boot into Recovery Mode (holding `R` upon boot). Once booted into Recovery Mode, follow the steps in [this Apple Support article](http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1553), under the section *Restoring the backup disk image's contents to your internal Mac OS X disk*. You can begin with Step 4, as you have a newer operating system than the article was written for. | I'm confused, if the data on your internal drive is corrupted you wouldn't want to use that as a source of backup.
If you are running Mountain Lion or Lion there is / or should be a recovery partition on the hard drive (even the time machine version for cmd-r).
However, using disk utility in the external drive, I would first reformat the internal drive (which still should show up) using one of the security options (overwrite with 1 pass 0 write or DOE 3 pass). This will keep any rogue (malware or damaging data) from creeping back into the new install. If the internal drive can't be reformatted you may have a hardware issue that needs to be resolved before attempting to restore.
Assuming the drive is formatted...
You can restore from Time Machine. (but if you somehow acquired malware you will be being it back as well) or you can install OSX again and migrate the programs and data (only after ensuring all of the most recent security patches are applied)
If you install Mountain Lion you will just download it from the external drive you have been working on and when it is complete and stars it will ask where you want to install and the internal drive will show. Hope that helps. |
285,107 | So I heard that ntrig has released Android drivers for their multitouch interface.
I am sick of Windows 7 on my Dell XT Tablet, and if some one, some where has made the switch to Android, I would love a how-to and get it going. | 2011/05/18 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/285107",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/81757/"
] | Here you have a [list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices) of all known devices supported by android, unfortunately I don't see your tablet there. It may work, but I have no Idea how to get it there. | I tried it on muine. Graphics are glitchy. You need to run in vesa mode all the time. Wireless card is not compatible, though you can change it for other compatible one or try using a usb wifi dongle. Bluetooth doesn't work either. Touch works, sometimes you need to use the pen first and then your finger. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.