qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
62,968,996 | I am in the process of adding an Identity Server 4 implementation to serve authentication and authorization for a ASP.NET Core Web API. Clients will be a native iOS app, and MVC web app and potentially an Angular SPA later down the line.
I am able to provide tokens on an « offline access » basis to the iOS client using AppAuth - which is great.
I am just not sure about some of the **architectural choices** to make:
1/ where should the registration of new users take place? The literature recommends that the IS4 server be limited to login and logout endpoints, for security purposes. Does that mean that the clients or the APIs should handle creation of users in the store? I thought the whole point of IS4 was that clients and APIs don’t have access to the store? It would seem logical that the addition and modification of users be handled by the only part of the system that has access to the store, no?
2/ is it safe to persist (1) tokens (2) the user store and (3) business data ok the same database - different tables but same database on same server? Is it better to separate databases?
3/ is it safe to have the Identity server app hosted on a sub domain to the domain where the client app will live? The API is already on another sub domain on this same domain.
Thanks | 2020/07/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/62968996",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6906697/"
] | >
> 1/ where should the registration of new users take place? The literature recommends that the IS4 server be limited to login and logout endpoints, for security purposes. Does that mean that the clients or the APIs should handle creation of users in the store? I thought the whole point of IS4 was that clients and APIs don’t have access to the store? It would seem logical that the addition and modification of users be handled by the only part of the system that has access to the store, no?
>
>
>
You can extend IDS4 to add user management. Per [IDS4 docs](https://identityserver4.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro/big_picture.html?highlight=create%20user#how-identityserver4-can-help) it is a middleware that adds the spec compliant OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.0 endpoints to an arbitrary ASP.NET Core application. But this doesnt mean that you can not extend it. [Here](https://damienbod.com/2016/11/18/extending-identity-in-identityserver4-to-manage-users-in-asp-net-core/) is a sample.
>
> 2/ is it safe to persist (1) tokens (2) the user store and (3) business data ok the same database - different tables but same database on same server? Is it better to separate databases?
>
>
>
This depends more to your deployment model and your considerations for availability and scalability rather than safety. I suggest you to read more [here](https://docs.identityserver.io/en/latest/topics/deployment.html) to be able to make the best decision.
>
> 3/ is it safe to have the Identity server app hosted on a sub domain to the domain where the client app will live? The API is already on another sub domain on this same domain.
>
>
>
This again has nothing to do with safety as is more of availability/scalability matter | I have thoughts as following:
---
* 1/ where should the registration of new users take place? The
literature recommends that the IS4 server be limited to login and
logout endpoints, for security purposes. Does that mean that the
clients or the APIs should handle creation of users in the store? I
thought the whole point of IS4 was that clients and APIs don’t have
access to the store? It would seem logical that the addition and
modification of users be handled by the only part of the system that
has access to the store, no?
* Suggestion: If I am starting applications from scratch and there is no existing interface for user registration, then I will prefer to provide user registration flow as part of IdS.
---
* 2/ is it safe to persist (1) tokens (2) the user store and (3)
business data ok the same database - different tables but same
database on same server? Is it better to separate databases?
* Suggestion: Both options are fine, but best one, is one, which suitable to your application architecture. For example if I have Service oriented or Microservice architecture, then separate database is more feasible. But if you have only one application as user registration point and other applications will use that database as user store, then it is already part of an application database. I may prefer to have IdS tables in separate Database until, unless there is some limitation.
---
* 3/ is it safe to have the Identity server app hosted on a sub domain
to the domain where the client app will live? The API is already on
another sub domain on this same domain.
* Suggestion: if you are serving multiple organizations, then IdS can be on different domain, otherwise, it is generally practiced to be on sub domain. |
727,679 | Why MIPS CPU has 32 registers in the register file? Could it be more or less? What's the impact if we modify the size of register file? | 2014/03/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/727679",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/306919/"
] | MIPS is a "RISC" or "load-store" architecture.
RAM used to be as fast as CPUs. So people would write programs that would use RAM as intermediate or temporary storage. Early CPUs only had a few registers due to this (i.e. 6502, Z80 - the 6502 only had 3 general purpose registers. Some CPUs like the TMS9900 actually used RAM as registers). This made the CPUs use less transistors which means they were cheaper, easier to get good yields from, easier to develop (no CAD-based chip design in the 70's...)
RAM being as fast as the CPU stopped being true around 1985 or so, and has only gotten worse.
RISC came to be partly to address this (this was before CPU cache was common or large like it is today) - by having a bunch of registers, slow RAM can be avoided a lot of time for intermediate calculation results and such.
Reducing the registers available means it has to go to slower RAM more often for this purpose.
I'm not precisely sure why 32 was selected as a "sweet spot" - other than it's 5 bits and I know MIPS opcodes have 3 5-bit fields, meaning they are easy to decode (another attribute of "RISC" philosophy) - and it's really 31 as the first register always returns 0. | In a system with register renaming, you can vary the number of physical registers and only affect performance.
But you can't very the number of register names without creating a totally new architecture. Try to remove some names, and programs that did use those names fail. Try to add some names, and the 5-bit encoding is no longer enough to describe them all.
You may try to use tricks like instruction prefixes to expand the instruction set to include extended instructions that accept more or different names while keeping the old encodings intact to enable backward compatibility. I'm not aware of anyone doing this with MIPS, but AMD64 aka EM64T aka x86\_64 used the "extend with (mostly) backward compatibility" approach based on x86. |
727,679 | Why MIPS CPU has 32 registers in the register file? Could it be more or less? What's the impact if we modify the size of register file? | 2014/03/11 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/727679",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/306919/"
] | MIPS is a "RISC" or "load-store" architecture.
RAM used to be as fast as CPUs. So people would write programs that would use RAM as intermediate or temporary storage. Early CPUs only had a few registers due to this (i.e. 6502, Z80 - the 6502 only had 3 general purpose registers. Some CPUs like the TMS9900 actually used RAM as registers). This made the CPUs use less transistors which means they were cheaper, easier to get good yields from, easier to develop (no CAD-based chip design in the 70's...)
RAM being as fast as the CPU stopped being true around 1985 or so, and has only gotten worse.
RISC came to be partly to address this (this was before CPU cache was common or large like it is today) - by having a bunch of registers, slow RAM can be avoided a lot of time for intermediate calculation results and such.
Reducing the registers available means it has to go to slower RAM more often for this purpose.
I'm not precisely sure why 32 was selected as a "sweet spot" - other than it's 5 bits and I know MIPS opcodes have 3 5-bit fields, meaning they are easy to decode (another attribute of "RISC" philosophy) - and it's really 31 as the first register always returns 0. | It didn't have to, but it's a nice compromise with other design decisions.
So first off, the instruction length in MIPS is 32 bits(most MIPS, there is a 64-bit version). (You can see lots of details how it breaks down [here](http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/sum2003/cmsc311/Notes/Mips/format.html)). In many MIPS instructions, you have to supply three registers, say two sources and one destination (r4=r2+r4 for example). The MIPS architecture allows 5 bits to specify each of those registers, and 32 is the maximum number you can represent with five bits, so there is no point giving you more registers that you can't access.
If MIPS let you have 6 bits to select a register then you could use up to 64 different registers, but those extra bits would have to come from somewhere, possibly by reducing the number of operations or addressing modes.
There are other approaches, some processors use [bank switching](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_switching), which is basically saying "I have these 32 registers I'm using right now, but I also have this special SWITCH instruction that let's me pull out these other 32 registers to use for a while before a switch back" it's handy for certain applications but conceptually difficult for some others. |
19,207,153 | I am building a node graph in a QGraphicsView and I am currently implementing panning.
I used the following question "[how to pan images in QGraphicsView](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4753681/how-to-pan-images-in-qgraphicsview)" to start but the panning is limited by the scrollbar range.
I also tried the translate method but it gives the same result. The view is limited to a certain rectangle.
I would like to pan without limits, the graph can becomes quite large and it is useful to be able to work in different area of the scene (one graph here, another graph over there, etc). | 2013/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19207153",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/437728/"
] | If you take a look at [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeE_p11Iwd4), at the 3 minute mark you'll see the demonstration panning the screen. The application here is one I developed and although it doesn't show it, the real estate of the board appears limitless when panning.
What I did for this was to create a QGraphicsScene of 32000 x 32000 and start the application with the view at the centre of the QGraphicsScene. The test team spent ages trying to pan to the edge of the graphics scene and everyone gave up before getting there - perhaps the scene could have been smaller!
The scroll bar policies are set to off and translation is done by moving the QGraphicsView via its translate function, passing in the delta of either touch, or mouse movement that is applied in the mouseMoveEvent.
Done this way, you need not worry about exceeding the scroll bar range and there was no problem creating a very large QGraphicsScene as it's just a coordinate space. | You want to plot graphs. Try out this Qt library - [QCustomPlot](http://www.qcustomplot.com) , it will save you hours of hard work. |
19,207,153 | I am building a node graph in a QGraphicsView and I am currently implementing panning.
I used the following question "[how to pan images in QGraphicsView](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4753681/how-to-pan-images-in-qgraphicsview)" to start but the panning is limited by the scrollbar range.
I also tried the translate method but it gives the same result. The view is limited to a certain rectangle.
I would like to pan without limits, the graph can becomes quite large and it is useful to be able to work in different area of the scene (one graph here, another graph over there, etc). | 2013/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19207153",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/437728/"
] | I came across the same issue. However, setting the scene to something big and leaving it I do not think is the best option. I have developed a dynamic way of changing the scene size so it lets you move freely. You can find it in this other stack overflow [answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/55043082/4179302). | You want to plot graphs. Try out this Qt library - [QCustomPlot](http://www.qcustomplot.com) , it will save you hours of hard work. |
19,207,153 | I am building a node graph in a QGraphicsView and I am currently implementing panning.
I used the following question "[how to pan images in QGraphicsView](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4753681/how-to-pan-images-in-qgraphicsview)" to start but the panning is limited by the scrollbar range.
I also tried the translate method but it gives the same result. The view is limited to a certain rectangle.
I would like to pan without limits, the graph can becomes quite large and it is useful to be able to work in different area of the scene (one graph here, another graph over there, etc). | 2013/10/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19207153",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/437728/"
] | If you take a look at [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeE_p11Iwd4), at the 3 minute mark you'll see the demonstration panning the screen. The application here is one I developed and although it doesn't show it, the real estate of the board appears limitless when panning.
What I did for this was to create a QGraphicsScene of 32000 x 32000 and start the application with the view at the centre of the QGraphicsScene. The test team spent ages trying to pan to the edge of the graphics scene and everyone gave up before getting there - perhaps the scene could have been smaller!
The scroll bar policies are set to off and translation is done by moving the QGraphicsView via its translate function, passing in the delta of either touch, or mouse movement that is applied in the mouseMoveEvent.
Done this way, you need not worry about exceeding the scroll bar range and there was no problem creating a very large QGraphicsScene as it's just a coordinate space. | I came across the same issue. However, setting the scene to something big and leaving it I do not think is the best option. I have developed a dynamic way of changing the scene size so it lets you move freely. You can find it in this other stack overflow [answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/55043082/4179302). |
21,826 | I am reading the script of a TV series "How I Met Your Mother"
The script has this sentence:
>
> Hey, you want to do somethin' tonight? Okay, meet me at the bar in 15 minutes.
> And suit up! Where's your suit? Just once, when I say suit up, I wish you'd put on a suit.
>
>
>
What does "suit up" means please?
I tried to use a dictionary but it seems it is not a formal phrase. | 2014/04/21 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/21826",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/1834/"
] | In that context, "How I Met Your Mother", Barney literally and specifically means put on a suit, with a jacket and tie.
In other contexts, it means 'prepare for an activity by putting on the appropriate clothes, uniform or equipment.' | [it means](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/suit-up) : to get ready for an activity by putting on a uniform or special clothes.
>
> Suit up, and we go.
>
>
> |
21,826 | I am reading the script of a TV series "How I Met Your Mother"
The script has this sentence:
>
> Hey, you want to do somethin' tonight? Okay, meet me at the bar in 15 minutes.
> And suit up! Where's your suit? Just once, when I say suit up, I wish you'd put on a suit.
>
>
>
What does "suit up" means please?
I tried to use a dictionary but it seems it is not a formal phrase. | 2014/04/21 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/21826",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/1834/"
] | The above answers are correct, but the expression usually has a sense of specialized clothing that has a protective purpose.
For example, a diver might suit up with a wetsuit, or an astronaut would suit up with a space suit. | [it means](http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/suit-up) : to get ready for an activity by putting on a uniform or special clothes.
>
> Suit up, and we go.
>
>
> |
21,826 | I am reading the script of a TV series "How I Met Your Mother"
The script has this sentence:
>
> Hey, you want to do somethin' tonight? Okay, meet me at the bar in 15 minutes.
> And suit up! Where's your suit? Just once, when I say suit up, I wish you'd put on a suit.
>
>
>
What does "suit up" means please?
I tried to use a dictionary but it seems it is not a formal phrase. | 2014/04/21 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/21826",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/1834/"
] | In that context, "How I Met Your Mother", Barney literally and specifically means put on a suit, with a jacket and tie.
In other contexts, it means 'prepare for an activity by putting on the appropriate clothes, uniform or equipment.' | The above answers are correct, but the expression usually has a sense of specialized clothing that has a protective purpose.
For example, a diver might suit up with a wetsuit, or an astronaut would suit up with a space suit. |
7,554,971 | For example, lets say I have hello.java (arbitrarily), if it was running and user changed some accessible (not private) variable in that application by providing input while running, this application would have the variable different compared to one not executed yet. And another program (preferably java) can get or show the updated information on that variable from that application. | 2011/09/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7554971",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/808213/"
] | A variable holds a piece of information in memory. If you want to make it accessible from another program, you have two choices :
* make it available using some communication protocol (plain socket, RMI, etc.)
* store it in a persistent store (the file system, a database), and have the second program read the persistent value from this persistent store. | Yours is the problem of accessing an object in a JVM remotely. [RMI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_remote_method_invocation) seems good choice for this.
Here there will be two parts to your application
1. RMI server which will be the your application where the variable chance is supposed to happen.
2. RMI client which will access the server for latest update information.
There are many good tutorial including the Wiki link above. Check [this](http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/rmi/index.html) out. |
1,297,489 | I am running Windows 7 x64. Ever since I installed the OS on my machine a couple of months ago, there has been random restarts occasionally.
* My previous OS was Windows 8 and I did not have this issue.
* The restart is not preceded by anything - no BSOD, no application hangs etc. It feels like somebody just hit the reset button on the motherboard
This leads me to believe that this is a crash in kernel space, i.e. either the OS itself, or one of the drivers, crashed. I suspect it might be the Nvidia display driver, or one of the ASUS motherboard drivers which rumors to be buggy according to a few forums.
What logs can I look for if it is a driver crash? | 2018/02/22 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1297489",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/372205/"
] | If you find that your PC is crashed because of a driver fault, the best way to find the causing driver is using windbg.
* Check the if you machine has crash dump available. See <https://serverfault.com/questions/306812/where-is-minidump-file> for the exact location of the dump files.
* Install WinDbg; See <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/debugger/>
* Load the dump file into WinDbg, using File->Open Crash dump
* In the command window at the bottom, enter !analyze - v, and press Enter.
* this will generate a report, which gives you a hint which driver is at fault. | Some useful troubleshooting methods :
* Search the Event Viewer for useful error messages for both software and hardware.
* See if [BlueScreenView](http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/blue_screen_view.html) finds any Windows crash files - it will highlight the crashing driver.
* Try [AppCrashView](http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/app_crash_view.html) for analyzing application crashes.
* Run
[sfc /scannow](https://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1538-sfc-scannow-command-system-file-checker.html)
to check system validity.
* If you can boot and still work in
[Safe Mode With Network](https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-start-windows-7-in-safe-mode-2624540),
see if the crash happens in this mode.
If it does not happen, then the problem is with some installed
third-party startup product, and you may use
[Autoruns](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/autoruns)
to turn off startup programs until you find the problem.
* [Run Diagnostics to Check Your System for Memory Problems](https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff700221.aspx), just in case. |
7,252,842 | I have a ruby script. I need to access the functions written in c/c++ in my ruby script. Can any one tell me how to access these functions.
Thanks in advance. | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7252842",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/890064/"
] | Other options are:
* [FFI](https://github.com/ffi/ffi/wiki)
* without additional SW as described here: [pickaxe book](http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/html/ext_ruby.html) | You can create a Ruby module that wraps your C/C++ functions using [SWIG](http://www.swig.org/). |
7,252,842 | I have a ruby script. I need to access the functions written in c/c++ in my ruby script. Can any one tell me how to access these functions.
Thanks in advance. | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7252842",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/890064/"
] | Ryan Davis has created a 'Hello, World!' C extension example for beginners:
<https://github.com/zenspider/ruby-c-example> | You can create a Ruby module that wraps your C/C++ functions using [SWIG](http://www.swig.org/). |
7,252,842 | I have a ruby script. I need to access the functions written in c/c++ in my ruby script. Can any one tell me how to access these functions.
Thanks in advance. | 2011/08/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7252842",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/890064/"
] | You could also try [Rubyinline](https://github.com/seattlerb/rubyinline "RubyInline") | You can create a Ruby module that wraps your C/C++ functions using [SWIG](http://www.swig.org/). |
546,350 | Does anyone have experience with implementing OpenID on a non technical website? If you do, how were your non tech users reacting to the concept of OpenID and creation of the account on a different website?
I really like the idea of a single sign-on, but I am afraid that non-tech people who are used to create an account on every website would find it to complicated or even suspicious.
I know I could implement both (and that might be the route I will have to go) but I am trying to avoid implementing custom user login.
Also if you have links to some successful non-tech websites using OpenID only, it would be appreciated. | 2009/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/546350",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41877/"
] | Yahoo released their [OpenID usability research](http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2008/10/open_id_research.html) results a while back. This will give you an insight on how OpenID is perceived by non-techies. | <http://openiddirectory.com/> is a directory for sites that uses OpenID. You might find something interesting there. |
546,350 | Does anyone have experience with implementing OpenID on a non technical website? If you do, how were your non tech users reacting to the concept of OpenID and creation of the account on a different website?
I really like the idea of a single sign-on, but I am afraid that non-tech people who are used to create an account on every website would find it to complicated or even suspicious.
I know I could implement both (and that might be the route I will have to go) but I am trying to avoid implementing custom user login.
Also if you have links to some successful non-tech websites using OpenID only, it would be appreciated. | 2009/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/546350",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41877/"
] | Yahoo released their [OpenID usability research](http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2008/10/open_id_research.html) results a while back. This will give you an insight on how OpenID is perceived by non-techies. | JanRain has some casestudies on OpenID usage at <http://www.janrain.com/openid/casestudies> |
546,350 | Does anyone have experience with implementing OpenID on a non technical website? If you do, how were your non tech users reacting to the concept of OpenID and creation of the account on a different website?
I really like the idea of a single sign-on, but I am afraid that non-tech people who are used to create an account on every website would find it to complicated or even suspicious.
I know I could implement both (and that might be the route I will have to go) but I am trying to avoid implementing custom user login.
Also if you have links to some successful non-tech websites using OpenID only, it would be appreciated. | 2009/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/546350",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41877/"
] | Yahoo released their [OpenID usability research](http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2008/10/open_id_research.html) results a while back. This will give you an insight on how OpenID is perceived by non-techies. | I have the same question actually.
I will add my own input - my only real experience with OpenID is on stackoverflow here. And I will say it is confusing. Perhaps it's related to the way stackoverflow allows anonymous accounts to be joined together, in any case the overall experience was less than straight forward.
In particular it wasn't really clear that I had *created* an account with stackoverflow. I wondered if I was really registered or not. That is one thing that worries me. A form login is clear that an account was created.
I would really like to hear someone tell me what the benefit is of using OpenID. Why is it better than a form login? Clearly it adds some small amount of complexity, so that must be offset by some benefit for which I don't understand it. |
546,350 | Does anyone have experience with implementing OpenID on a non technical website? If you do, how were your non tech users reacting to the concept of OpenID and creation of the account on a different website?
I really like the idea of a single sign-on, but I am afraid that non-tech people who are used to create an account on every website would find it to complicated or even suspicious.
I know I could implement both (and that might be the route I will have to go) but I am trying to avoid implementing custom user login.
Also if you have links to some successful non-tech websites using OpenID only, it would be appreciated. | 2009/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/546350",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41877/"
] | <http://openiddirectory.com/> is a directory for sites that uses OpenID. You might find something interesting there. | I have the same question actually.
I will add my own input - my only real experience with OpenID is on stackoverflow here. And I will say it is confusing. Perhaps it's related to the way stackoverflow allows anonymous accounts to be joined together, in any case the overall experience was less than straight forward.
In particular it wasn't really clear that I had *created* an account with stackoverflow. I wondered if I was really registered or not. That is one thing that worries me. A form login is clear that an account was created.
I would really like to hear someone tell me what the benefit is of using OpenID. Why is it better than a form login? Clearly it adds some small amount of complexity, so that must be offset by some benefit for which I don't understand it. |
546,350 | Does anyone have experience with implementing OpenID on a non technical website? If you do, how were your non tech users reacting to the concept of OpenID and creation of the account on a different website?
I really like the idea of a single sign-on, but I am afraid that non-tech people who are used to create an account on every website would find it to complicated or even suspicious.
I know I could implement both (and that might be the route I will have to go) but I am trying to avoid implementing custom user login.
Also if you have links to some successful non-tech websites using OpenID only, it would be appreciated. | 2009/02/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/546350",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/41877/"
] | JanRain has some casestudies on OpenID usage at <http://www.janrain.com/openid/casestudies> | I have the same question actually.
I will add my own input - my only real experience with OpenID is on stackoverflow here. And I will say it is confusing. Perhaps it's related to the way stackoverflow allows anonymous accounts to be joined together, in any case the overall experience was less than straight forward.
In particular it wasn't really clear that I had *created* an account with stackoverflow. I wondered if I was really registered or not. That is one thing that worries me. A form login is clear that an account was created.
I would really like to hear someone tell me what the benefit is of using OpenID. Why is it better than a form login? Clearly it adds some small amount of complexity, so that must be offset by some benefit for which I don't understand it. |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | As long as the questions remain in good faith (and aren't an overt marketing effort), I'm certainly in favor of it.
However, the answers shall also come from the organizational account and **not** your personal account. This makes everything more transparent. | An alternative would be to direct the originators of the question to post them on Stack Overflow and then answer using your personal accounts but make it clear you are answering on behalf of "Foo Community". |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | As long as the questions remain in good faith (and aren't an overt marketing effort), I'm certainly in favor of it.
However, the answers shall also come from the organizational account and **not** your personal account. This makes everything more transparent. | I think as long as the answers "disclose your affiliation with the product" as stated in the [SO FAQ](https://stackoverflow.com/faq) I think it's fine and ultimately serves the goal of the site. |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | As long as the questions remain in good faith (and aren't an overt marketing effort), I'm certainly in favor of it.
However, the answers shall also come from the organizational account and **not** your personal account. This makes everything more transparent. | (Updated:) From what I could find elsewhere ([blog](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), [meta question 1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41436/is-it-wrong-to-ask-questions-for-someone-else), [meta question 2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68987/can-we-get-the-ability-to-ask-questions-as-a-community-user)), it is okay to ask questions on stackoverflow just to provide good answers to them. So but how to get the question you want to answer into the system?
Generally, I agree that having an account for a community is a promising solution. However this account should be limited to what you are entitled to do on behalf of the community. IMHO the "community account" must not be used to vote or accept answers. As long as such a policy cannot be technically enforced on an account, "community accounts" have the potential for abuse and should therefore not be encouraged on stackoverflow.
Instead, you should use [anonymous accounts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/69033/191131) for asking community questions. These do feature the limitations mentioned above and hence are not prone to misuse.
In summary: **Don't create an account that allows you to do things you are not entitled to do** |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | An alternative would be to direct the originators of the question to post them on Stack Overflow and then answer using your personal accounts but make it clear you are answering on behalf of "Foo Community". | I think as long as the answers "disclose your affiliation with the product" as stated in the [SO FAQ](https://stackoverflow.com/faq) I think it's fine and ultimately serves the goal of the site. |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | An alternative would be to direct the originators of the question to post them on Stack Overflow and then answer using your personal accounts but make it clear you are answering on behalf of "Foo Community". | (Updated:) From what I could find elsewhere ([blog](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), [meta question 1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41436/is-it-wrong-to-ask-questions-for-someone-else), [meta question 2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68987/can-we-get-the-ability-to-ask-questions-as-a-community-user)), it is okay to ask questions on stackoverflow just to provide good answers to them. So but how to get the question you want to answer into the system?
Generally, I agree that having an account for a community is a promising solution. However this account should be limited to what you are entitled to do on behalf of the community. IMHO the "community account" must not be used to vote or accept answers. As long as such a policy cannot be technically enforced on an account, "community accounts" have the potential for abuse and should therefore not be encouraged on stackoverflow.
Instead, you should use [anonymous accounts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/69033/191131) for asking community questions. These do feature the limitations mentioned above and hence are not prone to misuse.
In summary: **Don't create an account that allows you to do things you are not entitled to do** |
65,959 | Say the developers of the open source project Foo create a Stack Overflow account "Foo Community". They use this account to post on Stack Overflow questions they often get from the community as "Foo Community" and then post answers to those questions with their own personal account. Assuming the questions follow all the Stack Overflow rules, is this considered to be an accepted use of Stack Overflow? | 2010/09/28 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65959",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/137045/"
] | (Updated:) From what I could find elsewhere ([blog](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/its-ok-to-ask-and-answer-your-own-questions/), [meta question 1](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41436/is-it-wrong-to-ask-questions-for-someone-else), [meta question 2](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68987/can-we-get-the-ability-to-ask-questions-as-a-community-user)), it is okay to ask questions on stackoverflow just to provide good answers to them. So but how to get the question you want to answer into the system?
Generally, I agree that having an account for a community is a promising solution. However this account should be limited to what you are entitled to do on behalf of the community. IMHO the "community account" must not be used to vote or accept answers. As long as such a policy cannot be technically enforced on an account, "community accounts" have the potential for abuse and should therefore not be encouraged on stackoverflow.
Instead, you should use [anonymous accounts](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/69033/191131) for asking community questions. These do feature the limitations mentioned above and hence are not prone to misuse.
In summary: **Don't create an account that allows you to do things you are not entitled to do** | I think as long as the answers "disclose your affiliation with the product" as stated in the [SO FAQ](https://stackoverflow.com/faq) I think it's fine and ultimately serves the goal of the site. |
201,789 | I want to find a word to express relearning something. For instance, after taking a lecture you may find that something is still confusing and you go to learn it the second time by reading the textbook or possibly watching the record of the lecture.
I've searched the Internet for the phrase "course review" or "review a course", but what appeared to me were all about evaluating a course.
In [this question](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/101058/103153) I saw a phrase: brush up, I thought it would be a match for my case. | 2019/03/22 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/201789",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/10484/"
] | It’s fine.
When you review (AmE) or revise (BrE) something, you *study it again*, you *go over it again*, usually in preparation for an exam.
>
> We're **reviewing** (algebra) for the test tomorrow.
>
>
> We're **revising** (algebra) for the test tomorrow.
>
>
> Let’s **go over the rules** once more before we begin.
>
>
> I had to go back and **reread a few paragraphs** to see if I'd missed anything.
>
>
> | **Review** is the perfect word to describe that.
You may also wish to "study" the course, though this word implies you aren't "relearning" anything, unless you're coming back to this subject after a long time.
"Course review" literally makes sense, but as you found people are using that as a synonym for a "course evaluation." Therefore, the context in which something like "course review" is seen will determine if it means reviewing material or a class itself. |
201,789 | I want to find a word to express relearning something. For instance, after taking a lecture you may find that something is still confusing and you go to learn it the second time by reading the textbook or possibly watching the record of the lecture.
I've searched the Internet for the phrase "course review" or "review a course", but what appeared to me were all about evaluating a course.
In [this question](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/101058/103153) I saw a phrase: brush up, I thought it would be a match for my case. | 2019/03/22 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/201789",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/10484/"
] | It’s fine.
When you review (AmE) or revise (BrE) something, you *study it again*, you *go over it again*, usually in preparation for an exam.
>
> We're **reviewing** (algebra) for the test tomorrow.
>
>
> We're **revising** (algebra) for the test tomorrow.
>
>
> Let’s **go over the rules** once more before we begin.
>
>
> I had to go back and **reread a few paragraphs** to see if I'd missed anything.
>
>
> | **To refresh** is a good candidate.
In [Cambridge dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/refresh-sb-s-memory):
>
> **refresh** sb's memory = to help someone remember something:
>
>
> * I looked the word up in the dictionary to **refresh** my memory of its exact meaning.
>
>
>
In your context:
>
> I went through the course again to **refresh** my memory with the details.
>
>
> |
1,122 | Is there any difference between using *pretty*, and *quite*, in the following sentences?
>
> I am pretty good at playing soccer.
>
>
>
>
> I am quite good at playing soccer.
>
>
>
>
> How are you?
>
> I am quite well.
>
>
>
>
> How are you?
>
> I am pretty well.
>
>
>
The reason I am asking is that, in Italian, the translation of *pretty*, and *quite*, are respectively *piuttosto*, and *abbastanza*, which have very similar meanings. | 2013/02/06 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1122",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/95/"
] | [Pretty](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pretty?q=pretty) is "to a moderately high degree; fairly", whereas [quite](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/quite?q=quite) can have two meanings: "to the utmost or most absolute extent or degree; absolutely; completely" or "to a certain or fairly significant extent or degree; fairly: ". So they may be synonymous; sometimes may be not.
In each of the contexts you have cited, whenever you would use "quite" it can mean either "more" than "pretty" or equal to "pretty". So use the words wisely as per context | It's funny that English is not technically a tonal language when so much of our speech depends largely on tone.
*Quite* means what you think it does. It basically means *very.* For all intents and purposes as a learner, you can think of it as a synonym for *very* or *really*.
*Pretty*, however, depends on the tone of the speaker. In general it's like a medium version of *very*, **however**, it can also mean *not very.*
I know that sounds completely nonsensical, that it can mean two things that are total opposites, but you will almost always know the difference when you hear it. Example:
>
> Hey Nick! How are you?
>
> Pretty good....I guess...
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Is the job finished?
>
> Pretty finished, yeah.
>
>
>
When said this way, you'll hear some doubt or hesitation in the speaker's voice, as if they're lying to you and not trying to hide it, and you will understand that what they're saying on the surface is alluding to something else underneath.
This usage is exclusive to spoken language and dialogue. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | No component is ideal, and inductors tend to be the least ideal of the passive components--and relays and solenoids are even *less* ideal than your average inductor, because they aren't designed to be close to ideal.
All materials (other than superconductors in their superconducting phase) have some positive resistivity. For copper, this is a very low resistivity, but it's still nonzero. Solenoids and relays try to maximize the magnetic force produced by current through a coil, so they use many, many turns of very thin wire--and "long and thin" is exactly the recipe for a high resistance. So there's a significant real resistance in the coil in addition to its inductance, and this resistance sets the steady-state current. | All inductors have series resistance. Well, unless they are made with super-conducting wire, I guess. But coils designed for DC operation have sufficient DC resistance to limit the DC current to a reasonable level for continuous operation. This is convenient so that the user of the coil does not have to figure out a way to limit the current. It is like having a coil plus a current limiting resistor combined in a single unit.
As far as motors go, they have back EMF. That is to say there is a magnetic field in motion with respect to a coil. So a voltage develops across the coil.
The wire typically used for solenoids and similar is called "magnet wire." This wire has a very thin insulation coating often referred to as "varnish" or "enamel" even though it may actually be a more modern polymer coating such as polyurethane. It is readily available in very small diameters. For example 30 AWG magnet wire has a diameter of 0.28 mm. Its resistance is around 330 Ohms per km. The weight of this wire is under 500 grams per kilometer. The coating on this wire is designed to withstand high temperatures. Operating temperatures of 150 C or even higher are possible.
Smaller diameter magnet wire is also available. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | No component is ideal, and inductors tend to be the least ideal of the passive components--and relays and solenoids are even *less* ideal than your average inductor, because they aren't designed to be close to ideal.
All materials (other than superconductors in their superconducting phase) have some positive resistivity. For copper, this is a very low resistivity, but it's still nonzero. Solenoids and relays try to maximize the magnetic force produced by current through a coil, so they use many, many turns of very thin wire--and "long and thin" is exactly the recipe for a high resistance. So there's a significant real resistance in the coil in addition to its inductance, and this resistance sets the steady-state current. | When you have two resistive elements in series, like a coil and resistor in a DC circuit, then each one consumes power proportional to its resistance.
That is why you don't put a resistor in series with a relay or motor. You want to deliver power to the relay or motor instead of wasting it in a resistor.
The magnetic force produced by a relay or motor coil is proportional to current \* turns. For a given coil material and a given space for the coil, you need to fill that space in order to maximize how much force you get for any energy input.
For constant power, you could fill that space by increasing the thickness of your wire, which would increase the current (decreasing voltage). Alternatively, you could use more turns (increasing voltage and coil resistance).
Regardless of which way you choose, the maximum force you get is the same, so once you determine how much power you want to spend in your coil, **the wire thickness is specifically chosen to produce the desired resistance**, when the coil space is filled with turns of wire. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | No component is ideal, and inductors tend to be the least ideal of the passive components--and relays and solenoids are even *less* ideal than your average inductor, because they aren't designed to be close to ideal.
All materials (other than superconductors in their superconducting phase) have some positive resistivity. For copper, this is a very low resistivity, but it's still nonzero. Solenoids and relays try to maximize the magnetic force produced by current through a coil, so they use many, many turns of very thin wire--and "long and thin" is exactly the recipe for a high resistance. So there's a significant real resistance in the coil in addition to its inductance, and this resistance sets the steady-state current. | The correct DC voltage across a solenoid or relay is important to ensure it actuates and doesn't overheat. A resistor in series with a low voltage solenoid may be useful to allow it to be operated from a higher voltage. For example the KEMET EC2-5NU is a 5V relay with a coil resistance of 178 ohms. To run it off 12V a series resistor of about 250 ohms would be suitable. This will be inefficient as both will have a 28mA current flowing through them.
As it is likely that a relay is being switched by a micro controller a better (more efficient) way is to pulse width modulate the driving transistor, in this case with a duty cycle of 5/12 or 42%. The average current will then be less, about 12mA.
As DC motors draw different current as their back EMF changes the PWM approach is the only suitable approach to use. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | No component is ideal, and inductors tend to be the least ideal of the passive components--and relays and solenoids are even *less* ideal than your average inductor, because they aren't designed to be close to ideal.
All materials (other than superconductors in their superconducting phase) have some positive resistivity. For copper, this is a very low resistivity, but it's still nonzero. Solenoids and relays try to maximize the magnetic force produced by current through a coil, so they use many, many turns of very thin wire--and "long and thin" is exactly the recipe for a high resistance. So there's a significant real resistance in the coil in addition to its inductance, and this resistance sets the steady-state current. | Ideal inductors would indeed act the way you describe: if you stall an ideal DC motor, or apply DC to a solenoid, they would produce infinite force and consume infinite current.
If you're talking about real-world components, then "short" is only defined in a context: in some schematics, 1 kOhm is a short, while in other 1 mOhm is a significant resistance. In case of relays, the coil resistance is high compared to the other parts of the circuit, so the current is limited. The same is true for stepper motors which are designed to hold a position indefinitely while being powered by DC. Power motors, by contrast, have a low coil resistance and are not designed to be stalled. This is why one could say that applying DC to a power motor coil is a short.
Speaking of power motors, they can be powered by DC as a whole, but individual coils are supplied by AC, produced either by a mechanical commutator or by an invertor circuit in case of a BLDC. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | All inductors have series resistance. Well, unless they are made with super-conducting wire, I guess. But coils designed for DC operation have sufficient DC resistance to limit the DC current to a reasonable level for continuous operation. This is convenient so that the user of the coil does not have to figure out a way to limit the current. It is like having a coil plus a current limiting resistor combined in a single unit.
As far as motors go, they have back EMF. That is to say there is a magnetic field in motion with respect to a coil. So a voltage develops across the coil.
The wire typically used for solenoids and similar is called "magnet wire." This wire has a very thin insulation coating often referred to as "varnish" or "enamel" even though it may actually be a more modern polymer coating such as polyurethane. It is readily available in very small diameters. For example 30 AWG magnet wire has a diameter of 0.28 mm. Its resistance is around 330 Ohms per km. The weight of this wire is under 500 grams per kilometer. The coating on this wire is designed to withstand high temperatures. Operating temperatures of 150 C or even higher are possible.
Smaller diameter magnet wire is also available. | When you have two resistive elements in series, like a coil and resistor in a DC circuit, then each one consumes power proportional to its resistance.
That is why you don't put a resistor in series with a relay or motor. You want to deliver power to the relay or motor instead of wasting it in a resistor.
The magnetic force produced by a relay or motor coil is proportional to current \* turns. For a given coil material and a given space for the coil, you need to fill that space in order to maximize how much force you get for any energy input.
For constant power, you could fill that space by increasing the thickness of your wire, which would increase the current (decreasing voltage). Alternatively, you could use more turns (increasing voltage and coil resistance).
Regardless of which way you choose, the maximum force you get is the same, so once you determine how much power you want to spend in your coil, **the wire thickness is specifically chosen to produce the desired resistance**, when the coil space is filled with turns of wire. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | All inductors have series resistance. Well, unless they are made with super-conducting wire, I guess. But coils designed for DC operation have sufficient DC resistance to limit the DC current to a reasonable level for continuous operation. This is convenient so that the user of the coil does not have to figure out a way to limit the current. It is like having a coil plus a current limiting resistor combined in a single unit.
As far as motors go, they have back EMF. That is to say there is a magnetic field in motion with respect to a coil. So a voltage develops across the coil.
The wire typically used for solenoids and similar is called "magnet wire." This wire has a very thin insulation coating often referred to as "varnish" or "enamel" even though it may actually be a more modern polymer coating such as polyurethane. It is readily available in very small diameters. For example 30 AWG magnet wire has a diameter of 0.28 mm. Its resistance is around 330 Ohms per km. The weight of this wire is under 500 grams per kilometer. The coating on this wire is designed to withstand high temperatures. Operating temperatures of 150 C or even higher are possible.
Smaller diameter magnet wire is also available. | The correct DC voltage across a solenoid or relay is important to ensure it actuates and doesn't overheat. A resistor in series with a low voltage solenoid may be useful to allow it to be operated from a higher voltage. For example the KEMET EC2-5NU is a 5V relay with a coil resistance of 178 ohms. To run it off 12V a series resistor of about 250 ohms would be suitable. This will be inefficient as both will have a 28mA current flowing through them.
As it is likely that a relay is being switched by a micro controller a better (more efficient) way is to pulse width modulate the driving transistor, in this case with a duty cycle of 5/12 or 42%. The average current will then be less, about 12mA.
As DC motors draw different current as their back EMF changes the PWM approach is the only suitable approach to use. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | All inductors have series resistance. Well, unless they are made with super-conducting wire, I guess. But coils designed for DC operation have sufficient DC resistance to limit the DC current to a reasonable level for continuous operation. This is convenient so that the user of the coil does not have to figure out a way to limit the current. It is like having a coil plus a current limiting resistor combined in a single unit.
As far as motors go, they have back EMF. That is to say there is a magnetic field in motion with respect to a coil. So a voltage develops across the coil.
The wire typically used for solenoids and similar is called "magnet wire." This wire has a very thin insulation coating often referred to as "varnish" or "enamel" even though it may actually be a more modern polymer coating such as polyurethane. It is readily available in very small diameters. For example 30 AWG magnet wire has a diameter of 0.28 mm. Its resistance is around 330 Ohms per km. The weight of this wire is under 500 grams per kilometer. The coating on this wire is designed to withstand high temperatures. Operating temperatures of 150 C or even higher are possible.
Smaller diameter magnet wire is also available. | Ideal inductors would indeed act the way you describe: if you stall an ideal DC motor, or apply DC to a solenoid, they would produce infinite force and consume infinite current.
If you're talking about real-world components, then "short" is only defined in a context: in some schematics, 1 kOhm is a short, while in other 1 mOhm is a significant resistance. In case of relays, the coil resistance is high compared to the other parts of the circuit, so the current is limited. The same is true for stepper motors which are designed to hold a position indefinitely while being powered by DC. Power motors, by contrast, have a low coil resistance and are not designed to be stalled. This is why one could say that applying DC to a power motor coil is a short.
Speaking of power motors, they can be powered by DC as a whole, but individual coils are supplied by AC, produced either by a mechanical commutator or by an invertor circuit in case of a BLDC. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | When you have two resistive elements in series, like a coil and resistor in a DC circuit, then each one consumes power proportional to its resistance.
That is why you don't put a resistor in series with a relay or motor. You want to deliver power to the relay or motor instead of wasting it in a resistor.
The magnetic force produced by a relay or motor coil is proportional to current \* turns. For a given coil material and a given space for the coil, you need to fill that space in order to maximize how much force you get for any energy input.
For constant power, you could fill that space by increasing the thickness of your wire, which would increase the current (decreasing voltage). Alternatively, you could use more turns (increasing voltage and coil resistance).
Regardless of which way you choose, the maximum force you get is the same, so once you determine how much power you want to spend in your coil, **the wire thickness is specifically chosen to produce the desired resistance**, when the coil space is filled with turns of wire. | The correct DC voltage across a solenoid or relay is important to ensure it actuates and doesn't overheat. A resistor in series with a low voltage solenoid may be useful to allow it to be operated from a higher voltage. For example the KEMET EC2-5NU is a 5V relay with a coil resistance of 178 ohms. To run it off 12V a series resistor of about 250 ohms would be suitable. This will be inefficient as both will have a 28mA current flowing through them.
As it is likely that a relay is being switched by a micro controller a better (more efficient) way is to pulse width modulate the driving transistor, in this case with a duty cycle of 5/12 or 42%. The average current will then be less, about 12mA.
As DC motors draw different current as their back EMF changes the PWM approach is the only suitable approach to use. |
570,878 | I've never worked with or studied electro-mechanical components, but my understanding is that relays and motors are basically just inductors. If they're inductors, wouldn't they act as a short under DC and need the current controlled by an external resistor or transistor? | 2021/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/570878",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/171611/"
] | When you have two resistive elements in series, like a coil and resistor in a DC circuit, then each one consumes power proportional to its resistance.
That is why you don't put a resistor in series with a relay or motor. You want to deliver power to the relay or motor instead of wasting it in a resistor.
The magnetic force produced by a relay or motor coil is proportional to current \* turns. For a given coil material and a given space for the coil, you need to fill that space in order to maximize how much force you get for any energy input.
For constant power, you could fill that space by increasing the thickness of your wire, which would increase the current (decreasing voltage). Alternatively, you could use more turns (increasing voltage and coil resistance).
Regardless of which way you choose, the maximum force you get is the same, so once you determine how much power you want to spend in your coil, **the wire thickness is specifically chosen to produce the desired resistance**, when the coil space is filled with turns of wire. | Ideal inductors would indeed act the way you describe: if you stall an ideal DC motor, or apply DC to a solenoid, they would produce infinite force and consume infinite current.
If you're talking about real-world components, then "short" is only defined in a context: in some schematics, 1 kOhm is a short, while in other 1 mOhm is a significant resistance. In case of relays, the coil resistance is high compared to the other parts of the circuit, so the current is limited. The same is true for stepper motors which are designed to hold a position indefinitely while being powered by DC. Power motors, by contrast, have a low coil resistance and are not designed to be stalled. This is why one could say that applying DC to a power motor coil is a short.
Speaking of power motors, they can be powered by DC as a whole, but individual coils are supplied by AC, produced either by a mechanical commutator or by an invertor circuit in case of a BLDC. |
127,351 | From my understanding, the Bluetooth signal is using a 2.4 GHz frequency.
However, when someone is playing with a 40 MHz RC vehicle, the Bluetooth signal keep on getting interrupted or disconnected.
Does the 40 MHz RC vehicle is the root cause that cause the Bluetooth to get interrupt or disconnect?
If it is not the RC vehicle, what might likely cause such interference to the Bluetooth signal?
Thank you. | 2014/09/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/127351",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/50795/"
] | Just like any radio receiver, the front end/antenna wanted signal is very tiny - maybe about a couple of micro volts. Along comes a big signal from a relatively more powerful 40MHz radio transmitter and the front-end circuit is swamped into overload and this compresses the wanted signal.
It's called compression: -
[Here](http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/receivers/dynamic_range/dynamic_range.php) is a site that should explain this | In theory, harmonics of 40MHz multiplied by 60 is 2.4GHz.
Practically, every next harmonic frequency has much less power than previous one. So at 60th harmonics the influence can be considered as 0.
Microwave, some Wi-Fi networks, nRF module, ZigBee, some proprietary devices use 2.4GHz carrier RF. |
127,351 | From my understanding, the Bluetooth signal is using a 2.4 GHz frequency.
However, when someone is playing with a 40 MHz RC vehicle, the Bluetooth signal keep on getting interrupted or disconnected.
Does the 40 MHz RC vehicle is the root cause that cause the Bluetooth to get interrupt or disconnect?
If it is not the RC vehicle, what might likely cause such interference to the Bluetooth signal?
Thank you. | 2014/09/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/127351",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/50795/"
] | In theory, harmonics of 40MHz multiplied by 60 is 2.4GHz.
Practically, every next harmonic frequency has much less power than previous one. So at 60th harmonics the influence can be considered as 0.
Microwave, some Wi-Fi networks, nRF module, ZigBee, some proprietary devices use 2.4GHz carrier RF. | Motors create broadband (wide spectrum) RF noise. It's possible that it's actually the motors in the vehicle, rather than the intentional RF from the controller, that's causing the interference. |
127,351 | From my understanding, the Bluetooth signal is using a 2.4 GHz frequency.
However, when someone is playing with a 40 MHz RC vehicle, the Bluetooth signal keep on getting interrupted or disconnected.
Does the 40 MHz RC vehicle is the root cause that cause the Bluetooth to get interrupt or disconnect?
If it is not the RC vehicle, what might likely cause such interference to the Bluetooth signal?
Thank you. | 2014/09/01 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/127351",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/50795/"
] | Just like any radio receiver, the front end/antenna wanted signal is very tiny - maybe about a couple of micro volts. Along comes a big signal from a relatively more powerful 40MHz radio transmitter and the front-end circuit is swamped into overload and this compresses the wanted signal.
It's called compression: -
[Here](http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/receivers/dynamic_range/dynamic_range.php) is a site that should explain this | Motors create broadband (wide spectrum) RF noise. It's possible that it's actually the motors in the vehicle, rather than the intentional RF from the controller, that's causing the interference. |
45,889 | I have a road bike with road tires. I commute on a paved trail that is fairly bumpy through a couple places due to roots pushing the asphalt up.
My problem is that about once every week or two, I have a poke nipple completely loosen and fall inside the wheel. I've had them replaced with brass nipples, but even those will fall out.
Is the bumpiness the cause of this? Should I expect the wheel hold up to this seemingly normal amount of wear and tear? Should I ditch the wheel and buy a new one? What's my best and hopefully most economical choice here? | 2017/03/26 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/45889",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/19525/"
] | This is a strange problem you're describing. Having them chronically come loose to the point of falling off is not a common problem, and even so the obvious solution is more/proper tension, but if the wheel was essentially rebuilt already (all new nipples?) then one would hope it's in the reasonable ballpark, 100-120kgf drive side depending on the parts used. If you only mean to say you've had the lost ones replaced with brass, then getting the whole wheel tensioned up would hopefully fix it.
The other thing to do is apply a no-disassembly-required spoke prep such as DT Spoke Freeze or a wicking oil-resistant low/medium-strength threadlocker such as those made by Loctite or ND Industries. A small drop is applied at the spoke/nipple interface on each nipple, and it wicks in. It only takes a minute to do the whole wheel so it's a cheap solution if it works. Many but not all bike shops have this in the shop. | About six months ago I thought somebody (unknown) had maliciously loosened some of my spokes. A week later it "happened" again. I now believe that the spokes were loosening by themselves during riding because **they were too loose to begin with**. I re-tensioned the entire wheel, and the problem has gone away completely. Good luck, hope it is that simple for you. |
14,939 | While taking out an rusted tailpeice it broke and you can see what was left in the pvc pipe.
How can I remove the rest of the tailpiece?
Update: Also how would I know which tailpiece size to replace it with.
Update: I ended up cutting just below the T-connection thing. Installed new PVC including the new PVC tailpiece. Before I put all that back though I realized I probably would never have that much space under the sink and replaced the faucet and supply tubes.
**Last question**, should I replace that curled up supply tube on the left with a shorter one to put less stress on the tap?
Thanks again everyone!
 | 2012/06/16 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/14939",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/6496/"
] | I think I would just be inclined to replace both the tail piece and the PVC pipe (and trap if necessary). You might be able to get it out without damaging the pipe but more then likely you will at minimum, rough up the surface inside which might just attract gunk to stick to it over time. It's probably easier than trying to remove it too. This should not be an expensive repair.
As far as what to replace it with, you need to measure the diameter of the existing piece and the distance between the trap and the sink. Make sure to account for the overlap needed for the fittings - better to have it a bit too long and cut it down. | Insert a pair of needlenose pliers as far as possible between the rusted tailpiece and the white pvc pipe. Twist the pliers as if you were twirling spaghetti on a fork. This action will cause the metal pipe to collapse onto itself making it small enough to easily remove. Bring the lower slipnut washer with you when you get your new parts as this will determine the pipe size. |
256,631 | In my office, we are working off one IP address currently, and this lets us connect a single computer to one of our client's VPNs, which effectively locks out multiple people from working with that client (1 VPN connection per IP). Is there a particular way via some software or service that will allow us to 'fake' an outgoing IP so we can make multiple connections? We are using Windows 7, if that helps. I've heard of systems like Tor, but I'm not really sure how that can be applied to my situation. Thanks! | 2011/04/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/256631",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/77453/"
] | One thing you can try is, establish the VPN connection at the router level, and it should handle all the connections for you.
If you are using a cheap router that doesn't allow VPN connections (not VPN passthrough), another potential cheap/free solution would be to update your router's firmware if possible to unlock features it may be capable of.
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index> <-- Check if your router is compatible | I agree (depending on the type of VPN you have to work with) that you should look for a site-to-site solution. However, rather than trying to unlock a feature that may exist in your router, it may be easier to set up a port-forwarding rule on the router/FW to pass the ports the VPN runs over to an internal VPN "client" on the DMZ or LAN interface that then shares the connection with the rest of the LAN.
EDIT: @Zypher correctly points out that you may need to enable passthrough rather than port-forwarding depending on what type of VPN you're using. For that matter, if it's an SSL VPN and you're running the client, you may not need either -- a regular statefull NAT'd firewall may not interfere at all with the connection. Again, it depends on the type of VPN your client has. |
256,631 | In my office, we are working off one IP address currently, and this lets us connect a single computer to one of our client's VPNs, which effectively locks out multiple people from working with that client (1 VPN connection per IP). Is there a particular way via some software or service that will allow us to 'fake' an outgoing IP so we can make multiple connections? We are using Windows 7, if that helps. I've heard of systems like Tor, but I'm not really sure how that can be applied to my situation. Thanks! | 2011/04/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/256631",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/77453/"
] | One thing you can try is, establish the VPN connection at the router level, and it should handle all the connections for you.
If you are using a cheap router that doesn't allow VPN connections (not VPN passthrough), another potential cheap/free solution would be to update your router's firmware if possible to unlock features it may be capable of.
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index> <-- Check if your router is compatible | This is the limiatation of PPTP Passthrough. Sourssprite solution will work. However some people will not have a router that can terminate the VPN tunnel.
What you are actually describing is VPN passthrough where the router allows outbound VPN connections. There are problems though and I know I found an article called [Multiple VPN Connections – Why It Isn’t Possible](http://think-like-a-computer.com/2011/08/09/multiple-vpn-connections/) which explains why this happens and ways around it. It's a good read! |
7,544,332 | Decision problems are not suited for use in evolutionary algorithms since a simple right/wrong fitness measure cannot be optimized/evolved. So, what are some methods/techniques for converting decision problems to optimization problems?
For instance, I'm currently working on a problem where the fitness of an individual depends very heavily on the output it produces. Depending on the ordering of genes, an individual either produces no output or perfect output - no "in between" (and therefore, no hills to climb). One small change in an individual's gene ordering can have a drastic effect on the fitness of an individual, so using an evolutionary algorithm essentially amounts to a random search.
Some literature references would be nice if you know of any. | 2011/09/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7544332",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/963396/"
] | Application to multiple inputs and examination of percentage of correct answers.
True, a right/wrong fitness measure cannot evolve towards more rightness, but an algorithm can nonetheless apply a mutable function to whatever input it takes to produce a decision which will be right or wrong. So, you keep mutating the algorithm, and for each mutated version of the algorithm you apply it to, say, 100 different inputs, and you check how many of them it got right. Then, you select those algorithms that gave more correct answers than others. Who knows, eventually you might see one which gets them all right.
There are no literature references, I just came up with it. | Well i think you must work on your fitness function.
When you say that some Individuals are more close to a perfect solution can you identify this solutions based on their genetic structure?
If you can do that a program could do that too and so you shouldn't rate the individual based on the output but on its structure. |
5,605 | Turkeys say, "gobble". We also "gobble" down a lot of turkey on Thanksgiving. This is just a bit of idle musing, but are the two meanings of this word somehow related via the American & Canadian holidays? | 2010/11/25 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5605",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/803/"
] | Etymonline has [this](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gobble&searchmode=none):
>
> **gobble (1)**
> "eat fast," c.1600, probably partly echoic, partly frequentative of *gob*, via *gobben* "drink something greedily." Related: *Gobbled*; *gobbling*.
>
>
> **gobble (2)**
> "turkey noise," 1680, probably imitative.
>
>
>
The Free Dictionary [agrees](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gobble). So it appears that these are actually two unrelated words that just happen to be spelled identically (much like *cleave*). | The *O.E.D.* lists "gobble" as a noun meaning *mouth*, and "gobbling" as *gorging*, the latter dating from 1630. Still, I would not be surprised if the verb form meaning the sound a turkey makes is at least in some sense onomatopoeic. Where the two senses may be related is likely to be a confusion of the two. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | Your sceptic must understand what the symbols 1+1 means otherwise he is not justified in claiming that 1+1 is two. For example there are number systems in which there isn't a 1, or certain operations are undefined, or 1+1=0. But one could also imagine that the symbol '1' means a drop of water, and '+' means physical addition, so that 1+1 means add one drop of water to another drop of water, so we get a another (larger) drop of water, so in this case 1+1=1.
Assuming it has the traditional sense, then if you start from the Peano axioms, which are roughly that there is a zero and that you can always add one to a number, then you can prove that 1+1=2.
But this is not the whole truth. Had these axioms shown us that 1+1 is not in fact 2, then Peano would simply have thrown his axioms away.
What he was attempting to do was find a set of axioms that accurately captures our intuition about how the integers act; and obviously 1+1=2 is an act of the integers that is true by intuition/observation which he has to incorporate for his axioms to meaningfully model the integers.
Now given Peanos formalisation and the mathematical logic introduced by Boole & Frege, Bertrand Russell attempted to derive Peanos axioms from logic. This is why it took him several hundred pages to reach the point of saying that 1+1=2.
Perhaps the most practical set of axioms in the sense that it mirrors our intuition is that it is a well-ordered ring. This means that it is a set with two operations called addition & multiplication and they are commutative, associative and have an identity; that multiplication distributes over addition; that there is an order relation on the set such that every non-empty set has a minimal element.
These three sets of axioms are connected by a simple dependency of deduction: Logic -> Peano Axioms -> Ring Axioms; but one should retain in mind that the other direction holds too as a process of historical reflection and label it as thus: Logic <- Formal (Peano) <- Intuition (Ring).
The mythical Amazonian tribe that can't do or understand arithmetic will also not understand what you mean by proof; but this is simply because they have no perception that arithmetic in the right context can be important; and this conceals the important point that the long development of arithmetic & measurement in Ancient Mesopotamia is to understand its use & importance; it is this acquaintenance that was bequeathed to Greece and by which Euclid first outlined a complete axiomatic system. It's hardly creditable that he was the first to conceive of an axiomatic one but he was the first to achieve something like a complete system. In India, and roughly contemporareus Panini developed a complete formalisation of Sanskrit Grammar.
Formalisation as a concept in mathematics only occurred in the early 20th Century after the revitalisation of mathematical logic. This differs from axiomatic systems in that the idea of truth is absent - self-consistency is the only requirement, whereas an axiom should be self-evidently true. That is in a formal system, you may 'prove' something, but because the 'axioms' are contigent rather than self-evident, one could argue that in fact nothing has been proved. In this case, proof has been reduced to syntax.
And this in fact, is the difference between the two earliest attempts at formalisation. After all, there is only one system of integers; whereas there are many languages other than Sanskrit. | What about an explanation by Newton Laws (A mass can not be at the same place and same time of another mass -> mass + mass = 2 x mass) |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | Your sceptic must understand what the symbols 1+1 means otherwise he is not justified in claiming that 1+1 is two. For example there are number systems in which there isn't a 1, or certain operations are undefined, or 1+1=0. But one could also imagine that the symbol '1' means a drop of water, and '+' means physical addition, so that 1+1 means add one drop of water to another drop of water, so we get a another (larger) drop of water, so in this case 1+1=1.
Assuming it has the traditional sense, then if you start from the Peano axioms, which are roughly that there is a zero and that you can always add one to a number, then you can prove that 1+1=2.
But this is not the whole truth. Had these axioms shown us that 1+1 is not in fact 2, then Peano would simply have thrown his axioms away.
What he was attempting to do was find a set of axioms that accurately captures our intuition about how the integers act; and obviously 1+1=2 is an act of the integers that is true by intuition/observation which he has to incorporate for his axioms to meaningfully model the integers.
Now given Peanos formalisation and the mathematical logic introduced by Boole & Frege, Bertrand Russell attempted to derive Peanos axioms from logic. This is why it took him several hundred pages to reach the point of saying that 1+1=2.
Perhaps the most practical set of axioms in the sense that it mirrors our intuition is that it is a well-ordered ring. This means that it is a set with two operations called addition & multiplication and they are commutative, associative and have an identity; that multiplication distributes over addition; that there is an order relation on the set such that every non-empty set has a minimal element.
These three sets of axioms are connected by a simple dependency of deduction: Logic -> Peano Axioms -> Ring Axioms; but one should retain in mind that the other direction holds too as a process of historical reflection and label it as thus: Logic <- Formal (Peano) <- Intuition (Ring).
The mythical Amazonian tribe that can't do or understand arithmetic will also not understand what you mean by proof; but this is simply because they have no perception that arithmetic in the right context can be important; and this conceals the important point that the long development of arithmetic & measurement in Ancient Mesopotamia is to understand its use & importance; it is this acquaintenance that was bequeathed to Greece and by which Euclid first outlined a complete axiomatic system. It's hardly creditable that he was the first to conceive of an axiomatic one but he was the first to achieve something like a complete system. In India, and roughly contemporareus Panini developed a complete formalisation of Sanskrit Grammar.
Formalisation as a concept in mathematics only occurred in the early 20th Century after the revitalisation of mathematical logic. This differs from axiomatic systems in that the idea of truth is absent - self-consistency is the only requirement, whereas an axiom should be self-evidently true. That is in a formal system, you may 'prove' something, but because the 'axioms' are contigent rather than self-evident, one could argue that in fact nothing has been proved. In this case, proof has been reduced to syntax.
And this in fact, is the difference between the two earliest attempts at formalisation. After all, there is only one system of integers; whereas there are many languages other than Sanskrit. | It is true by definition, in fact i would write it like this `2=1+1` because you are defining number 2.
By the way, proves or demonstrations are just ways to simplify expressions to reach definitions, so we can be sure that premises were correct. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | Your sceptic must understand what the symbols 1+1 means otherwise he is not justified in claiming that 1+1 is two. For example there are number systems in which there isn't a 1, or certain operations are undefined, or 1+1=0. But one could also imagine that the symbol '1' means a drop of water, and '+' means physical addition, so that 1+1 means add one drop of water to another drop of water, so we get a another (larger) drop of water, so in this case 1+1=1.
Assuming it has the traditional sense, then if you start from the Peano axioms, which are roughly that there is a zero and that you can always add one to a number, then you can prove that 1+1=2.
But this is not the whole truth. Had these axioms shown us that 1+1 is not in fact 2, then Peano would simply have thrown his axioms away.
What he was attempting to do was find a set of axioms that accurately captures our intuition about how the integers act; and obviously 1+1=2 is an act of the integers that is true by intuition/observation which he has to incorporate for his axioms to meaningfully model the integers.
Now given Peanos formalisation and the mathematical logic introduced by Boole & Frege, Bertrand Russell attempted to derive Peanos axioms from logic. This is why it took him several hundred pages to reach the point of saying that 1+1=2.
Perhaps the most practical set of axioms in the sense that it mirrors our intuition is that it is a well-ordered ring. This means that it is a set with two operations called addition & multiplication and they are commutative, associative and have an identity; that multiplication distributes over addition; that there is an order relation on the set such that every non-empty set has a minimal element.
These three sets of axioms are connected by a simple dependency of deduction: Logic -> Peano Axioms -> Ring Axioms; but one should retain in mind that the other direction holds too as a process of historical reflection and label it as thus: Logic <- Formal (Peano) <- Intuition (Ring).
The mythical Amazonian tribe that can't do or understand arithmetic will also not understand what you mean by proof; but this is simply because they have no perception that arithmetic in the right context can be important; and this conceals the important point that the long development of arithmetic & measurement in Ancient Mesopotamia is to understand its use & importance; it is this acquaintenance that was bequeathed to Greece and by which Euclid first outlined a complete axiomatic system. It's hardly creditable that he was the first to conceive of an axiomatic one but he was the first to achieve something like a complete system. In India, and roughly contemporareus Panini developed a complete formalisation of Sanskrit Grammar.
Formalisation as a concept in mathematics only occurred in the early 20th Century after the revitalisation of mathematical logic. This differs from axiomatic systems in that the idea of truth is absent - self-consistency is the only requirement, whereas an axiom should be self-evidently true. That is in a formal system, you may 'prove' something, but because the 'axioms' are contigent rather than self-evident, one could argue that in fact nothing has been proved. In this case, proof has been reduced to syntax.
And this in fact, is the difference between the two earliest attempts at formalisation. After all, there is only one system of integers; whereas there are many languages other than Sanskrit. | When I was growing up I learned that in some situations the word "one" was to be used. Say the number of dots between the parentheses (.). After a while I encountered situations like (. .) and would say "one" "one" because that would tell someone what I had seen. This kept up with (...), (....), etc with just repeating the word appropriately for the situation. It became tedious and time consuming however and new utterances were substituted for the different situations. The utterance for the (..) situation was "two", and so on.
OK I lied. This wasn't exactly how I grew up but I bet it's an approximation as to how 1+1=2 came about.
This is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. We see/experience things and cast them into categories. The fact that we can dissect our sensory input into any parts at all is the origin of numbers. We had to differentiate between aspects of experience (sensory input) to avoid tigers and find edible fruit. We came up with utterances to match these discrimination. As soon as we had a way to identify single instances we could identify multiple instances. We then shortened saying "ugh" 16 times for a given herd of buffalo to whatever the Indian word for 16 was (depending on tribe).
Well that's how we got 1+1 = 2. The rest of math was developed from that by inventing new notation (multiplying instead of repeated addings and such) and demanding that we didn't end up with contradictions because of all the inventing we were doing.
It's how a relatively limited system can deal with too much input. Our senses provide far more actual data then we can effectively process so we use lossy compression to classify similar gobs of data. If an input stream approximates others fairly well we say close enough and say that we have "one" of those. We then get into the above scenario above leading to two etc. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | A reasonable proof in ZFC would be to prove 1 + 1 = 2 for the corresponding ordinal numbers. The first few ordinal numbers in ZFC are 0:={}, 1:={0} and 2:={0, 1} with the order 0 < 1 on {0, 1}. The sum of two ordinal numbers is the disjunct union of the two well-ordered sets, with the concatenation of the well-orders as the well-order for the sum. For example, we would have {a, b} + {c, d} = {(a,0), (b,0), (c,1), (d,1)} with the order (a,0) < (b,0) < (c,1) < (d,1), if WLOG a < b on {a, b} and c < d on {c, d}. Note that the [Kuratowski definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski_definition) (x,y)={{x},{x,y}} is used here.
So 1 + 1 = {(0,0), (0,1)} with the order (0,0) < (0,1). How can this be equal to 2 = {0, 1} with the order 0 < 1? Well, two ordinal numbers are equal if there exists an [order isomorphism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_isomorphic) between them. It's easy to check that {((0,0),0), ((0,1),1)} is the required order isomorphism. This concludes my informal proof that 1+1=2 for ordinal numbers in ZFC.
How difficult is it to convert such an informal proof into a formal proof? For me, the first difficulty would already be that I'm not sure in which form I should specify the order. I guess the correct way is to use a set of pairs, similar to how I specified the order isomorphism above. The [formal proof for 1+1=2 from metamath](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/pm110.643.html) uses cardinal numbers instead of ordinal numbers (as DBK indicated in a comment, that's also what [Principia Mathematica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Quotations) did), but that seems to make the proof even more difficult. Note however that already formalizing and proving a simple formula like (a,b)=(c,d) -> (a=c ∧ b=d) in ZFC is quite some work. So maybe the informal proof given above is not so bad after all.
---
A simpler interpretation of 1+1=2 would use [Peano arithmetic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#First-order_theory_of_arithmetic). Then 1+1=2 turns into the statement S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)). Then we can use the axiom ∀x1,x2∈N. x1 + S(x2) = S(x1 + x2) to get S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)+0) and then the axiom ∀x1∈N. x1 + 0 = x1 to get S(S(0)+0)=S(S(0)). We see here that 1+1=2 is true in this interpretation, as a consequence of two axioms and the two definitions 1=S(0) and 2=S(S(0)). Because there were two axioms involved (not even mentioning the first order logic deduction system implicitly used), it's pretty clear that the statement "1+1=2 is true by definition" is at least questionable.
---
But if one really wants, one can exclude 0 from the natural numbers, and use 1+1 as the definition of 2. This was done for the 2+2=4 proof, which is explained under the [2+2=4 Trivia](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia) paragraph on the starting page for the Metamath Proof Explorer subproject. Then 1+1=2 is really true by definition, but so what? | What about an explanation by Newton Laws (A mass can not be at the same place and same time of another mass -> mass + mass = 2 x mass) |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | It is true by definition, in fact i would write it like this `2=1+1` because you are defining number 2.
By the way, proves or demonstrations are just ways to simplify expressions to reach definitions, so we can be sure that premises were correct. | 1 + 1 = 2 is at its core a belief.
This is based on our tendency to see separate things as one. Without this tendency our perceptions disintegrate. Such beliefs allow us to communicate/ use language and one might argue this leads to consciousness.
There are no to ultimate truths.
We always have to start off with some basic axioms which are again at core an agreed upon belief. Someone can disagree if they don't want to accept these starting axioms. It normally leads to a circular discussion where we realise that what are are talking about is whether there is internal consistency in our own system. The systems are circular and self defining, this can be seen by trying to define things and if done rigourously enough we may realise we define them in relation to one another.
So in short 1+1=2 is just what it is and how it is defined. It is internally consistent. With beliefs there is a leap of faith past the infinite regression. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | A reasonable proof in ZFC would be to prove 1 + 1 = 2 for the corresponding ordinal numbers. The first few ordinal numbers in ZFC are 0:={}, 1:={0} and 2:={0, 1} with the order 0 < 1 on {0, 1}. The sum of two ordinal numbers is the disjunct union of the two well-ordered sets, with the concatenation of the well-orders as the well-order for the sum. For example, we would have {a, b} + {c, d} = {(a,0), (b,0), (c,1), (d,1)} with the order (a,0) < (b,0) < (c,1) < (d,1), if WLOG a < b on {a, b} and c < d on {c, d}. Note that the [Kuratowski definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski_definition) (x,y)={{x},{x,y}} is used here.
So 1 + 1 = {(0,0), (0,1)} with the order (0,0) < (0,1). How can this be equal to 2 = {0, 1} with the order 0 < 1? Well, two ordinal numbers are equal if there exists an [order isomorphism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_isomorphic) between them. It's easy to check that {((0,0),0), ((0,1),1)} is the required order isomorphism. This concludes my informal proof that 1+1=2 for ordinal numbers in ZFC.
How difficult is it to convert such an informal proof into a formal proof? For me, the first difficulty would already be that I'm not sure in which form I should specify the order. I guess the correct way is to use a set of pairs, similar to how I specified the order isomorphism above. The [formal proof for 1+1=2 from metamath](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/pm110.643.html) uses cardinal numbers instead of ordinal numbers (as DBK indicated in a comment, that's also what [Principia Mathematica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Quotations) did), but that seems to make the proof even more difficult. Note however that already formalizing and proving a simple formula like (a,b)=(c,d) -> (a=c ∧ b=d) in ZFC is quite some work. So maybe the informal proof given above is not so bad after all.
---
A simpler interpretation of 1+1=2 would use [Peano arithmetic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#First-order_theory_of_arithmetic). Then 1+1=2 turns into the statement S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)). Then we can use the axiom ∀x1,x2∈N. x1 + S(x2) = S(x1 + x2) to get S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)+0) and then the axiom ∀x1∈N. x1 + 0 = x1 to get S(S(0)+0)=S(S(0)). We see here that 1+1=2 is true in this interpretation, as a consequence of two axioms and the two definitions 1=S(0) and 2=S(S(0)). Because there were two axioms involved (not even mentioning the first order logic deduction system implicitly used), it's pretty clear that the statement "1+1=2 is true by definition" is at least questionable.
---
But if one really wants, one can exclude 0 from the natural numbers, and use 1+1 as the definition of 2. This was done for the 2+2=4 proof, which is explained under the [2+2=4 Trivia](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia) paragraph on the starting page for the Metamath Proof Explorer subproject. Then 1+1=2 is really true by definition, but so what? | Beware that there are different kinds of truths:
* *Objective truths* assert something about the objective world:
"Paris is a French city" is an objective truth.
* *Mathematical truths* assert implications: "if pigs can fly then I am Pope" is a mathematical truth.
* *Postulated truths* are not necessarily mathematical truths or objective truths; they are simply assumed to be true. All of Euclid's postulates are postulated truths.
1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic rule, just like the rules of a game, which are propositions assumed to be true before proof. Like Euclid's postulates, it is a postulated truth. Mathematics used to have a great many postulates until someone speculated that mathematics can be reduced to a very small number of postulates.
The creation of a rule like this is an inductive process starting from counting, measurement and many other daily activities: people first figured out how to count and knew what one thing and two things mean. Then they discovered that one horse and another horse are two horses; one mile in addition to another mile are two miles, etc. Then people generalized that one and one equals to two with an aura of mystery. The conception of numbers detached from things is a great leap forward; it is very likely that a very small number of individuals, perhaps only one, made this breakthrough.
For a long time this rule is used to solve problems without precise definitions of 1, 2, + and =. Since people have no problem with understanding *one thing* or *two things*, for a long time, no one ever questioned what 1 or 2 means - anyone who raised a question like this would have been considered laughable.
This type of fuzzy thinking is not peculiar to arithmetic. Take "yellow and blue make green" for example, everyone understand this proposition, but few know the precise definition of *yellow*, *blue* and *green*. As a matter fact, no one ever saw yellow or blue or green independent of ***things***; no one ever mixed yellow with blue; what they actually did was mixing yellow paints with blue paints. People are so familiar with *blue things* or *yellow things*, they unconsciously think they know what *blue* or *yellow* mean, but no one raise silly questions like these until some great minds think precise definitions are are necessary for the sake of clear thinking.
At first it was thought 1 + 1 = 2 has some objective truth in it until one day people realized that it was not always the case: if an emperor sends out 2 tax collectors and tells each to bring back a tael of silver, he has right to expect 2 taels of silver at the end of day, but if he tells them each to bring back a variety of exotic plant, there is no guarantee that he will have 2 varieties of plants after each of them brings one variety back. One had to admit that 1 + 1 = 2 was just a rule, which was sometimes applicable to the real world and some other times not.
Mathematics consists of many rules like 1 + 1 = 2. Some people discovered that some rules can be derived from other rules; some other people speculated that the entire mathematics can be deduced from a very small number of rules which were called the foundations. They speculated what these foundations (rules) were and tried to deduce ordinary mathematics from them - this process had the appearance of *proving* 1 + 1 = 2, but, as a matter of fact, ordinary mathematics has greater degree of self-evidence than their foundations. If 1 + 1 = 2 can be deduced from a speculated foundation, it only gives reasons for believing the validity of the foundation, rather than believing 1 + 1 = 2, which is already self-evident.
Similarly, if someone's theory prophesied a eclipse and an eclipse was observed as he predicted, his theory did not make the eclipse more true. Quite the contrary, it was the eclipse that gave reasons for believing his theory.
Another analogy is the creation of by-laws of an organization. At first, ad hoc rules were added to address specific scenario. Later on, people discovered that some rules were already implied by other rules, and the whole book of regulations was equivalent to just a small number of primitive rules. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | When I was growing up I learned that in some situations the word "one" was to be used. Say the number of dots between the parentheses (.). After a while I encountered situations like (. .) and would say "one" "one" because that would tell someone what I had seen. This kept up with (...), (....), etc with just repeating the word appropriately for the situation. It became tedious and time consuming however and new utterances were substituted for the different situations. The utterance for the (..) situation was "two", and so on.
OK I lied. This wasn't exactly how I grew up but I bet it's an approximation as to how 1+1=2 came about.
This is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. We see/experience things and cast them into categories. The fact that we can dissect our sensory input into any parts at all is the origin of numbers. We had to differentiate between aspects of experience (sensory input) to avoid tigers and find edible fruit. We came up with utterances to match these discrimination. As soon as we had a way to identify single instances we could identify multiple instances. We then shortened saying "ugh" 16 times for a given herd of buffalo to whatever the Indian word for 16 was (depending on tribe).
Well that's how we got 1+1 = 2. The rest of math was developed from that by inventing new notation (multiplying instead of repeated addings and such) and demanding that we didn't end up with contradictions because of all the inventing we were doing.
It's how a relatively limited system can deal with too much input. Our senses provide far more actual data then we can effectively process so we use lossy compression to classify similar gobs of data. If an input stream approximates others fairly well we say close enough and say that we have "one" of those. We then get into the above scenario above leading to two etc. | 1 + 1 = 2 is at its core a belief.
This is based on our tendency to see separate things as one. Without this tendency our perceptions disintegrate. Such beliefs allow us to communicate/ use language and one might argue this leads to consciousness.
There are no to ultimate truths.
We always have to start off with some basic axioms which are again at core an agreed upon belief. Someone can disagree if they don't want to accept these starting axioms. It normally leads to a circular discussion where we realise that what are are talking about is whether there is internal consistency in our own system. The systems are circular and self defining, this can be seen by trying to define things and if done rigourously enough we may realise we define them in relation to one another.
So in short 1+1=2 is just what it is and how it is defined. It is internally consistent. With beliefs there is a leap of faith past the infinite regression. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | It is true by definition, in fact i would write it like this `2=1+1` because you are defining number 2.
By the way, proves or demonstrations are just ways to simplify expressions to reach definitions, so we can be sure that premises were correct. | When I was growing up I learned that in some situations the word "one" was to be used. Say the number of dots between the parentheses (.). After a while I encountered situations like (. .) and would say "one" "one" because that would tell someone what I had seen. This kept up with (...), (....), etc with just repeating the word appropriately for the situation. It became tedious and time consuming however and new utterances were substituted for the different situations. The utterance for the (..) situation was "two", and so on.
OK I lied. This wasn't exactly how I grew up but I bet it's an approximation as to how 1+1=2 came about.
This is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. We see/experience things and cast them into categories. The fact that we can dissect our sensory input into any parts at all is the origin of numbers. We had to differentiate between aspects of experience (sensory input) to avoid tigers and find edible fruit. We came up with utterances to match these discrimination. As soon as we had a way to identify single instances we could identify multiple instances. We then shortened saying "ugh" 16 times for a given herd of buffalo to whatever the Indian word for 16 was (depending on tribe).
Well that's how we got 1+1 = 2. The rest of math was developed from that by inventing new notation (multiplying instead of repeated addings and such) and demanding that we didn't end up with contradictions because of all the inventing we were doing.
It's how a relatively limited system can deal with too much input. Our senses provide far more actual data then we can effectively process so we use lossy compression to classify similar gobs of data. If an input stream approximates others fairly well we say close enough and say that we have "one" of those. We then get into the above scenario above leading to two etc. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | A reasonable proof in ZFC would be to prove 1 + 1 = 2 for the corresponding ordinal numbers. The first few ordinal numbers in ZFC are 0:={}, 1:={0} and 2:={0, 1} with the order 0 < 1 on {0, 1}. The sum of two ordinal numbers is the disjunct union of the two well-ordered sets, with the concatenation of the well-orders as the well-order for the sum. For example, we would have {a, b} + {c, d} = {(a,0), (b,0), (c,1), (d,1)} with the order (a,0) < (b,0) < (c,1) < (d,1), if WLOG a < b on {a, b} and c < d on {c, d}. Note that the [Kuratowski definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski_definition) (x,y)={{x},{x,y}} is used here.
So 1 + 1 = {(0,0), (0,1)} with the order (0,0) < (0,1). How can this be equal to 2 = {0, 1} with the order 0 < 1? Well, two ordinal numbers are equal if there exists an [order isomorphism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_isomorphic) between them. It's easy to check that {((0,0),0), ((0,1),1)} is the required order isomorphism. This concludes my informal proof that 1+1=2 for ordinal numbers in ZFC.
How difficult is it to convert such an informal proof into a formal proof? For me, the first difficulty would already be that I'm not sure in which form I should specify the order. I guess the correct way is to use a set of pairs, similar to how I specified the order isomorphism above. The [formal proof for 1+1=2 from metamath](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/pm110.643.html) uses cardinal numbers instead of ordinal numbers (as DBK indicated in a comment, that's also what [Principia Mathematica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Quotations) did), but that seems to make the proof even more difficult. Note however that already formalizing and proving a simple formula like (a,b)=(c,d) -> (a=c ∧ b=d) in ZFC is quite some work. So maybe the informal proof given above is not so bad after all.
---
A simpler interpretation of 1+1=2 would use [Peano arithmetic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#First-order_theory_of_arithmetic). Then 1+1=2 turns into the statement S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)). Then we can use the axiom ∀x1,x2∈N. x1 + S(x2) = S(x1 + x2) to get S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)+0) and then the axiom ∀x1∈N. x1 + 0 = x1 to get S(S(0)+0)=S(S(0)). We see here that 1+1=2 is true in this interpretation, as a consequence of two axioms and the two definitions 1=S(0) and 2=S(S(0)). Because there were two axioms involved (not even mentioning the first order logic deduction system implicitly used), it's pretty clear that the statement "1+1=2 is true by definition" is at least questionable.
---
But if one really wants, one can exclude 0 from the natural numbers, and use 1+1 as the definition of 2. This was done for the 2+2=4 proof, which is explained under the [2+2=4 Trivia](http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia) paragraph on the starting page for the Metamath Proof Explorer subproject. Then 1+1=2 is really true by definition, but so what? | 1 + 1 = 2 is at its core a belief.
This is based on our tendency to see separate things as one. Without this tendency our perceptions disintegrate. Such beliefs allow us to communicate/ use language and one might argue this leads to consciousness.
There are no to ultimate truths.
We always have to start off with some basic axioms which are again at core an agreed upon belief. Someone can disagree if they don't want to accept these starting axioms. It normally leads to a circular discussion where we realise that what are are talking about is whether there is internal consistency in our own system. The systems are circular and self defining, this can be seen by trying to define things and if done rigourously enough we may realise we define them in relation to one another.
So in short 1+1=2 is just what it is and how it is defined. It is internally consistent. With beliefs there is a leap of faith past the infinite regression. |
8,738 | Is 1+1=2 true by definition ?
Or, is there a way to prove it?
I'm trying to understand how do we know it's true, and how to reply if someone is skeptical or denies that 1+1=2. | 2013/11/20 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8738",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4118/"
] | What about an explanation by Newton Laws (A mass can not be at the same place and same time of another mass -> mass + mass = 2 x mass) | 1 + 1 = 2 is at its core a belief.
This is based on our tendency to see separate things as one. Without this tendency our perceptions disintegrate. Such beliefs allow us to communicate/ use language and one might argue this leads to consciousness.
There are no to ultimate truths.
We always have to start off with some basic axioms which are again at core an agreed upon belief. Someone can disagree if they don't want to accept these starting axioms. It normally leads to a circular discussion where we realise that what are are talking about is whether there is internal consistency in our own system. The systems are circular and self defining, this can be seen by trying to define things and if done rigourously enough we may realise we define them in relation to one another.
So in short 1+1=2 is just what it is and how it is defined. It is internally consistent. With beliefs there is a leap of faith past the infinite regression. |
7,246,307 | I'm setting up an iPhone app which integrates with Facebook.
The app's settings in the facebook developer page are asking for "iTunes App Store ID"... is this the number in the url for the app? So the number would be 430671660 for this app:...?
<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/craigslist-mobile-ultimate/id430671660?mt=8> | 2011/08/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7246307",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/121646/"
] | Short answer it should be. If you want to verify go its under your apps information in itunesconnect. | Yes that ID is correct. The ID is the ID Generated for the App Store in iTunes Connect. |
3,564,936 | I need to implement a revision system for articles in my **grails** web app. After searching grails forum, stackoverflow, grails plugins and googling internet, I have ended up with 3 options:
**Option 1** - Using the **grails Envers plugin** (see <http://code.google.com/p/grails-envers-plugin/>). Has anyone used it successfully? Or using [Envers](http://www.jboss.org/envers/) without the plugin (see [here](http://grails.1312388.n4.nabble.com/Grails-1-1-1-Envers-1-2-1-GA-td1384836.html#a1384836)) but how can I make it work with GORM?
**Option 2** - Using the **Gvers plugin** I have found out here: <https://github.com/ziftytodd/gvers>. I never heard anyone using it, so is there anybody who have ever used it successfully?
**Option 3** - **Built -in mechanism**. **Weceem** has created a versioning system for any content of the Weceem CMS. I can draw my inspiration from the logic of the code and design of this great application but it seems like overkill and I don't really like using non-standard solutions.
So my question, what do you advise me to do ? Have you ever used any of these options ?
Thank you very much for your insights. | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3564936",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/144012/"
] | Since I didn't get any answers during the days following my question, we have started investigating all of the options and came to the following results/conclusions :
1. **Envers plugin** : while Envers is a well-established way to handle object revisions and auditing with Hibernate (as pointed out by Vadeg), there is no such out-of-the-shelf solution for grails. Envers plugin is stricly useless and a dead-never-born project. Therefore, using Envers with GORM is still not possible directly BUT I believe that there is a space for an Envers Plugin (maybe part of grail 2.0 ?) since Envers is now integral part of Hibernate core modules. However, we didn't have time to implement such a solution (which is by far the best one when you have enough time and resources ahead of you)...so we dropped it.
2. **Gvers plugin** : Surprisingly this plug-in is working like a charm even if it seems that no one is using it in GRAILS world (even the plugin creator that has an invalid email!). Seems risky to go with it but if your requirements are low (like a basic versioning system), you should go with it..
3. **Built-In System** : except if you are building a CMS system with very specific needs OR at the contrary something very simple, I would not go for it in any other cases. Weceem is very-well implemented with plenty of examples for CMS content revisions, but even for this, it's a pity that they don't use Envers instead. No need to reinvent the wheel...better to improve existing Ferrari, no?
4. **VCS System** : one friend has suggested me to use existing solutions that are built especially for this kind of tasks : **Version control System** of course!! Actually **[GIT](http://git-scm.com/)** seems to be the perfect candidate : fast, reliable, alomst-free repositories available at your disposal. Actually this is perfect solution. My only problem : well, I don't know how to use Git (and even less its API) and again I don't have time.
### Bottom Line
I will certainly use **Gvers** but if you are familiar with **Git** or if you feel comfortable with **GORM** and **Hibernate**, go for building a grail plugin (either based on **Git** or **Envers**) | I've used Envers in project with Hibernate and it works fine. GORM is based on the Hibernate, so I think there is no problem with it.
First of all, you need to decide what kind of versioning you need? Do you need to rollback object graph changes or you need to look after some fields? Sometimes it's better to make some small local implementation rather than injecting huge library.
If you need to revision graph of objects, Envers is a good choice.
If you need to make revision of one field, DIY :) |
3,564,936 | I need to implement a revision system for articles in my **grails** web app. After searching grails forum, stackoverflow, grails plugins and googling internet, I have ended up with 3 options:
**Option 1** - Using the **grails Envers plugin** (see <http://code.google.com/p/grails-envers-plugin/>). Has anyone used it successfully? Or using [Envers](http://www.jboss.org/envers/) without the plugin (see [here](http://grails.1312388.n4.nabble.com/Grails-1-1-1-Envers-1-2-1-GA-td1384836.html#a1384836)) but how can I make it work with GORM?
**Option 2** - Using the **Gvers plugin** I have found out here: <https://github.com/ziftytodd/gvers>. I never heard anyone using it, so is there anybody who have ever used it successfully?
**Option 3** - **Built -in mechanism**. **Weceem** has created a versioning system for any content of the Weceem CMS. I can draw my inspiration from the logic of the code and design of this great application but it seems like overkill and I don't really like using non-standard solutions.
So my question, what do you advise me to do ? Have you ever used any of these options ?
Thank you very much for your insights. | 2010/08/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3564936",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/144012/"
] | Since I didn't get any answers during the days following my question, we have started investigating all of the options and came to the following results/conclusions :
1. **Envers plugin** : while Envers is a well-established way to handle object revisions and auditing with Hibernate (as pointed out by Vadeg), there is no such out-of-the-shelf solution for grails. Envers plugin is stricly useless and a dead-never-born project. Therefore, using Envers with GORM is still not possible directly BUT I believe that there is a space for an Envers Plugin (maybe part of grail 2.0 ?) since Envers is now integral part of Hibernate core modules. However, we didn't have time to implement such a solution (which is by far the best one when you have enough time and resources ahead of you)...so we dropped it.
2. **Gvers plugin** : Surprisingly this plug-in is working like a charm even if it seems that no one is using it in GRAILS world (even the plugin creator that has an invalid email!). Seems risky to go with it but if your requirements are low (like a basic versioning system), you should go with it..
3. **Built-In System** : except if you are building a CMS system with very specific needs OR at the contrary something very simple, I would not go for it in any other cases. Weceem is very-well implemented with plenty of examples for CMS content revisions, but even for this, it's a pity that they don't use Envers instead. No need to reinvent the wheel...better to improve existing Ferrari, no?
4. **VCS System** : one friend has suggested me to use existing solutions that are built especially for this kind of tasks : **Version control System** of course!! Actually **[GIT](http://git-scm.com/)** seems to be the perfect candidate : fast, reliable, alomst-free repositories available at your disposal. Actually this is perfect solution. My only problem : well, I don't know how to use Git (and even less its API) and again I don't have time.
### Bottom Line
I will certainly use **Gvers** but if you are familiar with **Git** or if you feel comfortable with **GORM** and **Hibernate**, go for building a grail plugin (either based on **Git** or **Envers**) | [Lucas Ward's plugin](http://www.lucasward.net/2011/04/grails-envers-plugin.html) works. Confirmed with Grails 1.3.7
The important thing is to ensure entity updates are within transaction as envers depends on it.
Just to remind Grails controllers aren't transactional by default. |
4,370,636 | I want to find out more about NoSQL databases/data-stores available for use from Java, and so far I tried out Project Voldemort. Except for awfully chosen name, it seems fine so far.
I'd like to find out more about other such database systems. Now, on [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL) there is a list of some of them, and there is some documentation on their project pages.
However, instead of comparing technical specs and tutorials provided by authors, what I would like to know is:
What are your experiences with working with these libraries on real projects? Which one would you recommend for use based on that experience, which one you wouldn't and why?
I know that only people to be able to answer this question are those who actually used more than one such database, but I hope that someone did do so.
EDIT:
By "real project" I primarily mean a project in production (but in absence of these anything larger than a homework or finished tutorial applies).
I worked with a relational database that had enormous amount of data in it, most of it concentrated in a single table, which was denormalized for performance anyway. But, because of the entire mess with constraints etc, creating a usable cluster had shown horrible results in both stability and performance.
Now, I'm quite sure that most likely any of these NoSQL systems would be a better choice then what I had at disposal. But, there has to be a difference between them, too. Whether it is in documentation, stability between versions, community, ease of use, whatever... And there are many giants. Which ones shoulders to choose? :D | 2010/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4370636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/506721/"
] | It's pretty difficult to nail down a good choice without knowing exactly what your use case is. Much of it depends on what kind of data model are you comfortable with and fits your need. You have key-value stores, document-oriented, column-oriented, etc. Another huge factor is the products take on scaling and how they choose to deal with availability/consistency trade-offs.
I like MongoDB. I like how it supports queries and I like the document oriented data models. It fits many problems that I seem to run into. There is a Great (with capital G) community as seen at the recent MongoSV event.
Your best bet it to pick 3 different products and evaluate them. I would also see if you can find some companies who have presented at conferences and tell their stories of how they were successful. Videos from MongoSV will be available soon. | We have been working with HBase for our projects. Our experience is -
* The community is very dynamic and extremely helpful
* The installation procedure for developers is quite easy in either pseudo distributed or standalone mode
* We have been using it for integration test like unit tests
* Installing a cluster is also easy but comparing some other NoSQL it has more components to install than others.
* Administering - is still going on so not able to say much to say about it.
* Do not use it for SQL like SELECT queries, for that we are using Apache Solr
* To make development and testing easier we have come up with a simple object mapper - <https://github.com/smart-it/smart-dao>
* The reason I chose is HBase, like other NoSQL, solves sharding, scaling by design making it easier in the long run and that seems to hold well. |
4,370,636 | I want to find out more about NoSQL databases/data-stores available for use from Java, and so far I tried out Project Voldemort. Except for awfully chosen name, it seems fine so far.
I'd like to find out more about other such database systems. Now, on [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL) there is a list of some of them, and there is some documentation on their project pages.
However, instead of comparing technical specs and tutorials provided by authors, what I would like to know is:
What are your experiences with working with these libraries on real projects? Which one would you recommend for use based on that experience, which one you wouldn't and why?
I know that only people to be able to answer this question are those who actually used more than one such database, but I hope that someone did do so.
EDIT:
By "real project" I primarily mean a project in production (but in absence of these anything larger than a homework or finished tutorial applies).
I worked with a relational database that had enormous amount of data in it, most of it concentrated in a single table, which was denormalized for performance anyway. But, because of the entire mess with constraints etc, creating a usable cluster had shown horrible results in both stability and performance.
Now, I'm quite sure that most likely any of these NoSQL systems would be a better choice then what I had at disposal. But, there has to be a difference between them, too. Whether it is in documentation, stability between versions, community, ease of use, whatever... And there are many giants. Which ones shoulders to choose? :D | 2010/12/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4370636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/506721/"
] | It's pretty difficult to nail down a good choice without knowing exactly what your use case is. Much of it depends on what kind of data model are you comfortable with and fits your need. You have key-value stores, document-oriented, column-oriented, etc. Another huge factor is the products take on scaling and how they choose to deal with availability/consistency trade-offs.
I like MongoDB. I like how it supports queries and I like the document oriented data models. It fits many problems that I seem to run into. There is a Great (with capital G) community as seen at the recent MongoSV event.
Your best bet it to pick 3 different products and evaluate them. I would also see if you can find some companies who have presented at conferences and tell their stories of how they were successful. Videos from MongoSV will be available soon. | Maybe the most prominent of Java NoSQL solutions is [Cassandra](http://cassandra.apache.org/). It has some features beyond Voldemort (Order-Preserving Partitioner which allows range queries; BigTable style structure for values); and is missing others (no alternate storage backends or version clocks for versioning).
Its performance is more optimal for fast writes, but its biggest strength is probably ease at which it can be horizontally scaled by adding new nodes (something where V is bit more static).
Compared to, say, MongoDB, its data model is quite simple and often there's no point in using much more than key/value abstraction (that is, handle data mapping on client side, store serialized objects).
It has full replication and distribution, unlike some k/v stores (couchdb, from what I understand). |
31,007,372 | I'm trying to use Google's App Invites API with my Android app and according to their [guide](https://developers.google.com/app-invites/android/ "guide"), I need to put a config file that is generated from the developer console in the app/ directory of the project. My app has multiple build flavors, one for production, qa, and debug. I don't know how this works (since it is a pluging) with multiple build flavors and am hoping that someone can shed some light on this issue. | 2015/06/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/31007372",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4533335/"
] | Package id is a unique id for google play, you can't upload two apps with one package.
Instead of this use library projects or create different [flavors](http://tools.android.com/tech-docs/new-build-system/user-guide#TOC-Product-flavors). | Of course it is possible. Use on your new app all your abstract classes and interfaces and implement them properly but dont forget to put them in a new package. No one is gonna tell you not to do it couse no one knows or understands that you are extening another application. Good luck |
9,539 | Block ciphers have modes like GCM or OCB that combine primitives to provide both authentication and encryption.
Are there similar constructs for stream ciphers, which provide both authentication and encryption using only one cryptographic primitive - actual stream cipher (or keystream)? | 2013/08/02 | [
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/9539",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/7871/"
] | An OCB like mode seems impossible with stream-ciphers. It's coupled tightly to the concept of a keyed permutation i.e. a (tweakable) block-cipher.
Many authenticated encryption actually combine two distinct primitives. It's just that the specification and API only expose the combination.
Essentially these xor a key-stream into the message to encrypt it (i.e. they use a synchronous stream cipher), and then authenticate the ciphertext using a MAC. Often they use part of the key-stream as one-time keys for the MAC.
* [AES-GCM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois/Counter_Mode) is built by combining a polynomial one-time MAC called GHash with the stream cipher AES-CTR.
While AES itself is a block cipher, AES-CTR behaves like a stream cipher. GCM doesn't use AES in a way that'd prevent the use of a stream cipher.
* [Salsa20-Poly1305](http://nacl.cr.yp.to/valid.html) is built by combining a polynomial one-time MAC called Poly1305 with the stream cipher Salsa.
* [Poly1305-AES](http://cr.yp.to/mac.html) is built by combining a polynomial one-time MAC called Poly1305 with the stream cipher AES-CTR.
Then there are some stream ciphers which provide authentication without a separate primitive. These constructions aren't [synchronous stream ciphers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_cipher#Synchronous_stream_ciphers), and can't be used together with a one-time-pad or plain key-stream.
* [Helix](http://www.schneier.com/paper-helix.html) and [Phelix](http://www.schneier.com/paper-phelix.html) are authenticated stream ciphers that merge authentication and encryption. There has been some criticism of their security, but I'm not sure if that criticism is actually valid.
* Keccak (built on an unkeyed permutation) using the [duplex constructio](http://sponge.noekeon.org/) can considered an authenticated stream cipher | extending to the top answer
ACORN (lightweight authenticated cipher) is a stream-based AE scheme and is one of the finalists in CAESAR. it is better than AES-GCM mode in hardware especially in constrained environment (resources and energy consumption) and software (small code size).
Reference:
[ACORN:
A Lightweight Authenticated Cipher (v3)](https://competitions.cr.yp.to/round3/acornv3.pdf) |
7,634 | I am currently helping out with the [TodoMVC](http://todomvc.com) project by adding automated tests. I have been 'exercising' my tests by trying them out on new submissions, such as [this one recently](https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/798#issuecomment-33368567). One problem I have discovered is that the test results often look worse than they actually are due to dependencies between tests. Because these are automated UI tests, if for example the process of adding items to the todo list has a small flaw, the knock on effect is that numerous other tests will fail indirectly, even if the function that are trying to test is actually correctly implemented.
I don't think it looks great to have 14 failures when there are actually only 3 underlying failures. It doesn't help people diagnose and solve these issues.
What might be better is that if a pre-requisite test fails subsequent tests are not executed.
In a general / conceptual sense, how do you manage dependencies between tests? Do you acknowledge these dependencies in any way? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/7634",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6836/"
] | I think there are two different possible situations when we talk about that sort of test dependencies. Let's say we have 2 tests A and B
1. If A and B depend on the same component/feature of your product and you know that if A fails, then, B can not success, then you should skip test B altogether. For example, a login/password page where A check that input forms for login and password are displayed and B test some set of inputs. In Robot Framework, I check [${PREV TEST STATUS}](http://robotframework.googlecode.com/hg/doc/libraries/BuiltIn.html) at the beginning of execution of B and, if it is Failed, then I stop B (using "[fail](http://robotframework.googlecode.com/hg/doc/libraries/BuiltIn.html#Fail)")
2. If B will fail because it uses the feature tested in A and this feature fails, but more in a workflow way. Then I will try to make B independent of this feature. For example, if A test "add item to list" and B test "remove item from list", then if the setup of B is "first add an item", then B will fail when A fails. What I would do is to add the item with a non-gui / more robust way (updating directly the "objects" that contains the list of items... whether it is a javascript object, a file or a database). | The way I solve this is to ensure all the unit tests will revert back to the 'known' state regardless what happens. For example, I have a feature that manage subscription via web. In 'add' subscription tests, I always clear up the subscription data before the next test.
HTH,
Chuan |
7,634 | I am currently helping out with the [TodoMVC](http://todomvc.com) project by adding automated tests. I have been 'exercising' my tests by trying them out on new submissions, such as [this one recently](https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/798#issuecomment-33368567). One problem I have discovered is that the test results often look worse than they actually are due to dependencies between tests. Because these are automated UI tests, if for example the process of adding items to the todo list has a small flaw, the knock on effect is that numerous other tests will fail indirectly, even if the function that are trying to test is actually correctly implemented.
I don't think it looks great to have 14 failures when there are actually only 3 underlying failures. It doesn't help people diagnose and solve these issues.
What might be better is that if a pre-requisite test fails subsequent tests are not executed.
In a general / conceptual sense, how do you manage dependencies between tests? Do you acknowledge these dependencies in any way? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/7634",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6836/"
] | Whenever possible,
instead of managing dependencies,
I work very hard
to eliminate them,
or at least reduce them.
Another high priority goal for me
is to *eliminate any technology that is not **directly** involved*
in the feature I'm testing.
Every additional element of technology
offers possibilities
for the tests to fail
*independent of whether the system implements the feature correctly*.
For through-the-UI tests,
I like to have each test use the GUI
*only for GUI feature the test is testing*.
Think of a test in three rough parts:
* Set up preconditions
* Invoke the feature being tested.
* Verify the results produced by the system.
If my test is testing that the feature can be invoked through the GUI,
then I'll go through the GUI to invoke the feature.
But I will *skip around the GUI*
to set up the preconditions
and verify the results.
I'll call some lower level API,
or stuff data into the database,
or something.
If my test is testing that the system displays
specific results in some specific way
through the GUI,
then I'll go through the GUI to verify the results.
But I will *skip around the GUI*
to set up the preconditions
and invoke the feature.
And if my test is not testing anything *specifically about the GUI,*
I will eliminate the GUI from the test altogether,
and make API calls into the system.
Further,
when I *am* testing GUI stuff,
I like to eliminate the system.
Instead, provide a mock system
that I can control directly
with my test code.
Then my test verifies that when the user fiddles with some widget,
the GUI makes the right API call.
Or it verifies that when the system gives a response,
the GUI displays it correctly
(to the limited extent that can be verified with automation).
I like to have very few
end-to-end automated tests.
Just enough to discover whether
the parts are wired together correctly.
For more complex things
like following data through the system,
have people do the tests.
People are much less sensitive to minor technology burps
that would cause an automated end-to-end test
to fail inadvertently. | The way I solve this is to ensure all the unit tests will revert back to the 'known' state regardless what happens. For example, I have a feature that manage subscription via web. In 'add' subscription tests, I always clear up the subscription data before the next test.
HTH,
Chuan |
7,634 | I am currently helping out with the [TodoMVC](http://todomvc.com) project by adding automated tests. I have been 'exercising' my tests by trying them out on new submissions, such as [this one recently](https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/798#issuecomment-33368567). One problem I have discovered is that the test results often look worse than they actually are due to dependencies between tests. Because these are automated UI tests, if for example the process of adding items to the todo list has a small flaw, the knock on effect is that numerous other tests will fail indirectly, even if the function that are trying to test is actually correctly implemented.
I don't think it looks great to have 14 failures when there are actually only 3 underlying failures. It doesn't help people diagnose and solve these issues.
What might be better is that if a pre-requisite test fails subsequent tests are not executed.
In a general / conceptual sense, how do you manage dependencies between tests? Do you acknowledge these dependencies in any way? | 2014/01/27 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/7634",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6836/"
] | Whenever possible,
instead of managing dependencies,
I work very hard
to eliminate them,
or at least reduce them.
Another high priority goal for me
is to *eliminate any technology that is not **directly** involved*
in the feature I'm testing.
Every additional element of technology
offers possibilities
for the tests to fail
*independent of whether the system implements the feature correctly*.
For through-the-UI tests,
I like to have each test use the GUI
*only for GUI feature the test is testing*.
Think of a test in three rough parts:
* Set up preconditions
* Invoke the feature being tested.
* Verify the results produced by the system.
If my test is testing that the feature can be invoked through the GUI,
then I'll go through the GUI to invoke the feature.
But I will *skip around the GUI*
to set up the preconditions
and verify the results.
I'll call some lower level API,
or stuff data into the database,
or something.
If my test is testing that the system displays
specific results in some specific way
through the GUI,
then I'll go through the GUI to verify the results.
But I will *skip around the GUI*
to set up the preconditions
and invoke the feature.
And if my test is not testing anything *specifically about the GUI,*
I will eliminate the GUI from the test altogether,
and make API calls into the system.
Further,
when I *am* testing GUI stuff,
I like to eliminate the system.
Instead, provide a mock system
that I can control directly
with my test code.
Then my test verifies that when the user fiddles with some widget,
the GUI makes the right API call.
Or it verifies that when the system gives a response,
the GUI displays it correctly
(to the limited extent that can be verified with automation).
I like to have very few
end-to-end automated tests.
Just enough to discover whether
the parts are wired together correctly.
For more complex things
like following data through the system,
have people do the tests.
People are much less sensitive to minor technology burps
that would cause an automated end-to-end test
to fail inadvertently. | I think there are two different possible situations when we talk about that sort of test dependencies. Let's say we have 2 tests A and B
1. If A and B depend on the same component/feature of your product and you know that if A fails, then, B can not success, then you should skip test B altogether. For example, a login/password page where A check that input forms for login and password are displayed and B test some set of inputs. In Robot Framework, I check [${PREV TEST STATUS}](http://robotframework.googlecode.com/hg/doc/libraries/BuiltIn.html) at the beginning of execution of B and, if it is Failed, then I stop B (using "[fail](http://robotframework.googlecode.com/hg/doc/libraries/BuiltIn.html#Fail)")
2. If B will fail because it uses the feature tested in A and this feature fails, but more in a workflow way. Then I will try to make B independent of this feature. For example, if A test "add item to list" and B test "remove item from list", then if the setup of B is "first add an item", then B will fail when A fails. What I would do is to add the item with a non-gui / more robust way (updating directly the "objects" that contains the list of items... whether it is a javascript object, a file or a database). |
627,821 | There is Windows subsytem for Linux and... Is there Linux subsystem for Windows? That allows you to access Windows terminal on Linux like on Windows subsytem for Linux.
The Windows Subsystem for Linux lets developers run a GNU/Linux environment -- including most command-line tools, utilities, and applications -- directly on Windows, unmodified, without the overhead of a traditional virtual machine or dualboot setup.
You can:
Choose your favorite GNU/Linux distributions from the Microsoft Store.
Run common command-line tools such as grep, sed, awk, or other ELF-64 binaries.
Run Bash shell scripts and GNU/Linux command-line applications including:
Tools: vim, emacs, tmux
Languages: NodeJS, Javascript, Python, Ruby, C/C++, C# & F#, Rust, Go, etc.
Services: SSHD, MySQL, Apache, lighttpd, MongoDB, PostgreSQL.
Install additional software using your own GNU/Linux distribution package manager.
Invoke Windows applications using a Unix-like command-line shell.
Invoke GNU/Linux applications on Windows. | 2021/01/06 | [
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/627821",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/441735/"
] | No that isn't possible.
If you want to have a fully or even partially functioning windows environment on your linux machine you need either dual boot or a virtual machine.
If you are only looking for one or a few particular applications you could use [wine](http://www.winehq.org/).
"Windows terminal" is what confused me about your question because that isn't really a thing, or at least not an easily defined thing, but again if you are just looking for powershell that can be installed natively on linux.
Additionally there are virtually an unlimited number of ways to access your wsl instance on windows so saying "access like wsl" isn't really a useful description. I can ssh to my wsl instance so you could install a windows virtual machine on your linux box and ssh to it and that is "like wsl", alternatively I normally access my wsl instance by simply typing "ubuntu" in the command line so you could create an alias on your linux machine to run windows when you type "ubuntu" but that probably wouldn't make much sense... | WSL is not just "a way to access Linux terminal on Windows". It goes a bit deeper: it provides a Linux-compatible programming API on top of the Windows kernel, allowing you to run Linux userspace programs on Windows.
Since Linux's unix-style programming API relies on things like terminals, WSL needs to provide them too.
The opposite - providing a Windows programming API and the equivalents to some necessary bits of Windows infrastructure on Linux - sort of already exists, and has in fact existed for longer than WSL. [It's called Wine](https://www.winehq.org/), and your Linux distribution might already include a pre-packaged version of it.
You can run `wine cmd` on Linux to run the Windows command shell in a Linux terminal window. (Compared to a Windows command prompt window, a Linux terminal window is usually an upgrade.)
However, because Windows is not an open-source OS, not all of its API is published. As a result, some parts of Wine rely on reverse-engineering and might not work perfectly. There may also licensing questions: depending on your jurisdiction, you might not be authorized to run Microsoft applications on a non-Microsoft OS. |
627,821 | There is Windows subsytem for Linux and... Is there Linux subsystem for Windows? That allows you to access Windows terminal on Linux like on Windows subsytem for Linux.
The Windows Subsystem for Linux lets developers run a GNU/Linux environment -- including most command-line tools, utilities, and applications -- directly on Windows, unmodified, without the overhead of a traditional virtual machine or dualboot setup.
You can:
Choose your favorite GNU/Linux distributions from the Microsoft Store.
Run common command-line tools such as grep, sed, awk, or other ELF-64 binaries.
Run Bash shell scripts and GNU/Linux command-line applications including:
Tools: vim, emacs, tmux
Languages: NodeJS, Javascript, Python, Ruby, C/C++, C# & F#, Rust, Go, etc.
Services: SSHD, MySQL, Apache, lighttpd, MongoDB, PostgreSQL.
Install additional software using your own GNU/Linux distribution package manager.
Invoke Windows applications using a Unix-like command-line shell.
Invoke GNU/Linux applications on Windows. | 2021/01/06 | [
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/627821",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/441735/"
] | No that isn't possible.
If you want to have a fully or even partially functioning windows environment on your linux machine you need either dual boot or a virtual machine.
If you are only looking for one or a few particular applications you could use [wine](http://www.winehq.org/).
"Windows terminal" is what confused me about your question because that isn't really a thing, or at least not an easily defined thing, but again if you are just looking for powershell that can be installed natively on linux.
Additionally there are virtually an unlimited number of ways to access your wsl instance on windows so saying "access like wsl" isn't really a useful description. I can ssh to my wsl instance so you could install a windows virtual machine on your linux box and ssh to it and that is "like wsl", alternatively I normally access my wsl instance by simply typing "ubuntu" in the command line so you could create an alias on your linux machine to run windows when you type "ubuntu" but that probably wouldn't make much sense... | Simple answer is no. You can, however, install powershellcore and .NET core in linux which is the next bext thing.
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell-core-on-linux>
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/install/> |
627,821 | There is Windows subsytem for Linux and... Is there Linux subsystem for Windows? That allows you to access Windows terminal on Linux like on Windows subsytem for Linux.
The Windows Subsystem for Linux lets developers run a GNU/Linux environment -- including most command-line tools, utilities, and applications -- directly on Windows, unmodified, without the overhead of a traditional virtual machine or dualboot setup.
You can:
Choose your favorite GNU/Linux distributions from the Microsoft Store.
Run common command-line tools such as grep, sed, awk, or other ELF-64 binaries.
Run Bash shell scripts and GNU/Linux command-line applications including:
Tools: vim, emacs, tmux
Languages: NodeJS, Javascript, Python, Ruby, C/C++, C# & F#, Rust, Go, etc.
Services: SSHD, MySQL, Apache, lighttpd, MongoDB, PostgreSQL.
Install additional software using your own GNU/Linux distribution package manager.
Invoke Windows applications using a Unix-like command-line shell.
Invoke GNU/Linux applications on Windows. | 2021/01/06 | [
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/627821",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com",
"https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/441735/"
] | WSL is not just "a way to access Linux terminal on Windows". It goes a bit deeper: it provides a Linux-compatible programming API on top of the Windows kernel, allowing you to run Linux userspace programs on Windows.
Since Linux's unix-style programming API relies on things like terminals, WSL needs to provide them too.
The opposite - providing a Windows programming API and the equivalents to some necessary bits of Windows infrastructure on Linux - sort of already exists, and has in fact existed for longer than WSL. [It's called Wine](https://www.winehq.org/), and your Linux distribution might already include a pre-packaged version of it.
You can run `wine cmd` on Linux to run the Windows command shell in a Linux terminal window. (Compared to a Windows command prompt window, a Linux terminal window is usually an upgrade.)
However, because Windows is not an open-source OS, not all of its API is published. As a result, some parts of Wine rely on reverse-engineering and might not work perfectly. There may also licensing questions: depending on your jurisdiction, you might not be authorized to run Microsoft applications on a non-Microsoft OS. | Simple answer is no. You can, however, install powershellcore and .NET core in linux which is the next bext thing.
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell-core-on-linux>
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/install/> |
203,141 | I have created a few creatures with a pattern based on that of the earthworm (head and foremost back-portion is dark, belly and rear is paler). Both of these creatures have eyes, and on one creature the pattern is on the hair, not the skin. However, I have recently discovered that the earthworm's distinctive pattern is actually used to detect light without eyes, which is not a necessary feature when the creature actually has eyes. What other reason could there be for this pattern to arise? | 2021/05/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203141",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75161/"
] | **Adaptation to predation.**
The "earthworm-a-likes" are adapted to survive predation from above (voles, birds even the occasional fox). The knack to this is to look dark against the dark soil beneath them (it presupposes that they spend time on the surface during the day - perhaps like real earthworms when it rains, they come to the surface to avoid drowning.)
[Melanosomes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanosome) (what makes dark-skin dark and gives you a sun-tan) in skin cells have the special knack of reducing skin cancer by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from your Sun. This means that in response to light from above there would be an adaptive advantage to those that get the dark pigment on their dorsal sides, their backs.
There's simply no need to have any dark pigment on the underbelly (the ventral side), and the stimulation of sunlight to grow the pigment would be absent.
Another adaptation to favour a light belly might be a tendency to swim in (or cross) fish-infested-waters - the light belly against the sky would be less conspicuous visually (when seen from the underneath against the light sky), and be less likely to attract the attention of the hungry ones below, and conversely a dark back against the water would be less visible to hungry flying creatures. You see this in most shallow-water fish.
The adaptation to having eyes is so ubiquitous, so useful in mate-finding, feeding, finding shelter, avoidance of (or freezing to be less visible to) predator animals, that yes, you can absolutely justify its existence.
For segmentation like worms, there are all sorts of insect larvae which, like caterpillars, have those periodic bulges, and move with rhythmic muscular contractions. Their eyes are a bit different, but they work just fine. The [Leatherjacket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_fly) (crane-fly larva) is a nice example (although a bit stumpy and fat compared to worms), living underground much of the time, but they appear sometimes when it rains (their eyesight is pretty awful, but they can detect light just fine).
For another reference, you can take a look at the [slow-worm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_worm) - it looks a bit like a snake, dark on the back and light belly, but it's a reptile in a separate group from snakes.
Now for the lighter tail there are several possible explanations for the evolutionary "usefulness" of this adaptation:
*Warning.*
The species with this pattern signals to predators that it is nasty or deadly to eat. An example of this on Earth would be the [Yellow-banded Poison-dart frog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-banded_poison_dart_frog), but in the case of your creature, the absence of melanocytes in the tail might be accompanied by a reflective inner layer, not of visible light so much, but of ultraviolet perhaps - this supposes that your equivalent predator species has eyes that see in that part of the spectrum as bees and other creatures can.
*Decoy.*
Many lizards and some spiders, crabs and creatures such as starfish practice [autotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotomy), the ability to detach a body-part when attacked to allow the creature to escape being eaten. In the case of some lizards the tail wiggles frantically for some time to keep the predator busy trying to eat it. All the creatures mentioned can regrow that body-part to decoy again. Under decoy, there's another interesting category of [mimicry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry): many creatures, amphibians, insects etc. have evolved to look like another species which is poisonous, this deters predators.
*Lure.*
Some spiders, deep-sea fish,, insects and snakes use body-pars as a means of attracting their dinner to approach. The [Akistrodon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agkistrodon_taylori#Feeding), a type of snake related to the pit-viper is a bit slow-moving, so like it's meals delivered. It has a light coloured tail, which it wiggles invitingly to look like a delicious worm or grub, this attracts the interest of small rodents, and amphibians which would normally feed on such treats. Once in range they're easily snapped-up and devoured by the snake. Strangley, there is a creature that uses sexual allure to attract it's meals too: the [Photuris firefly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photuris) has a dirty trick, it mimics the female flashing signals of other fireflys, attracting males which then promptly get devoured. You didn't ask about a glowing tail, but I thought I'd place the option there anyhow.
*Mating display.*
Now, [peafowl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl) have an obvious display in the males. The peacock's massive colourfull tail which they spread and jiggle at the females in a sort of dance is tremendously costly in terms of the male's resources, it slows them down, makes them more likely to get eaten. It's a real effort for the male to survive and grow such a tail to get to the point of reproduction - it is therefore seen as a sign of strength vigor, fitness and generally very attractive to females. Seems paradoxical, but it works for them. Your creature, under danger of aerial attack, would seem foolish to grow a conspicuous light-coloured tail, but maybe such a bold strategy is attractive to the female of the species. (Or vice-versa re. the sexes if you wish). | Artificial selection
====================
Sometimes people just want a pet that has the traits of an earthworm.
The [smooth fox terrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_Fox_Terrier) is a dog breed that is white, with a dark head and optionally some large dark spots on the neck or torso. Sometimes they don't have those spots, so they are effectively what you are looking for.
 |
203,141 | I have created a few creatures with a pattern based on that of the earthworm (head and foremost back-portion is dark, belly and rear is paler). Both of these creatures have eyes, and on one creature the pattern is on the hair, not the skin. However, I have recently discovered that the earthworm's distinctive pattern is actually used to detect light without eyes, which is not a necessary feature when the creature actually has eyes. What other reason could there be for this pattern to arise? | 2021/05/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203141",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75161/"
] | What is the Motivation?
-----------------------
To answer this question, we need to understand a lot more about what motivates the creatures with this body plan + Eyes. You don't tell us anything about the individual species, what they eat, where they live, or what eats them. I'll assume you want us to create species that look like this. The reasons are as diverse as the motives and driving forces of a species (and yes, impressing the opposite sex is ***ALWAYS*** a possible motive). First, let's assume something *like* an earthworm.
Mimicry:
--------
* So our organism is the pseudo-worm, a parasitic organism with a life cycle that has one phase in the soil. Animals see an 'earthworm' and come down to eat it. The pseudo-worm is swallowed whole by things that eat earthworms. But at that point, the critter starts doing all the grisly things to the animal that 'ate' it that parasites can do. Have fun! It can drill a hole in a bird's skull and take control, making the bird first seek out an opposite-sex pseudo-worm to eat, then spend weeks shedding baby psuedo-worms into the environment.
* OR earthworms in your world are poisonous to many species, except for a few killer snails. Despite the dull appearance, many predators avoid earthworms out of fear. The vision of your species means that it can outmaneuver the snails that can digest the poisonous worms, but still not get eaten by the fast things that are smart enough not to eat poison worms.
* For things that aren't like earth worms, mimicry may allow an animal to infiltrate a herd for protection. I know a certain sheep dog that looks just like the sheep he works with, and the sheep seem to almost accept him as a member (although I personally don't find sheep terribly bright). A symbiotic relationship may depend on inter-species appearance and communication based on visual signals important to the other species.
**Pack communication & tactics**:
---------------------------------
Now lets assume a pack/herd animal.
* Your animals signal submission to the pack with light fur. So females avoid aggression during mating when they present their back ends, and any member of the pack submits by rolling over and showing their light belly. Dark heads signal aggression and dominance, and are presented to assert rank.
* When hunting, a predator wants to be undetectable to its prey, but recognizable to its pack. The dark, camouflaged face is towards the prey, while the visible hind (and belly, for prone pack mates and those in burrows) is presented to the pack.
* A prey herd animal might have the opposite strategy. The visible face is used to draw the attention of predators to females defending young or large males defending the herd, while the camouflaged light belly and hind quarters are presented to the predator chasing them.
Give me a set of driving forces, and we can select a specific cause for your species. | **Adaptation to predation.**
The "earthworm-a-likes" are adapted to survive predation from above (voles, birds even the occasional fox). The knack to this is to look dark against the dark soil beneath them (it presupposes that they spend time on the surface during the day - perhaps like real earthworms when it rains, they come to the surface to avoid drowning.)
[Melanosomes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanosome) (what makes dark-skin dark and gives you a sun-tan) in skin cells have the special knack of reducing skin cancer by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from your Sun. This means that in response to light from above there would be an adaptive advantage to those that get the dark pigment on their dorsal sides, their backs.
There's simply no need to have any dark pigment on the underbelly (the ventral side), and the stimulation of sunlight to grow the pigment would be absent.
Another adaptation to favour a light belly might be a tendency to swim in (or cross) fish-infested-waters - the light belly against the sky would be less conspicuous visually (when seen from the underneath against the light sky), and be less likely to attract the attention of the hungry ones below, and conversely a dark back against the water would be less visible to hungry flying creatures. You see this in most shallow-water fish.
The adaptation to having eyes is so ubiquitous, so useful in mate-finding, feeding, finding shelter, avoidance of (or freezing to be less visible to) predator animals, that yes, you can absolutely justify its existence.
For segmentation like worms, there are all sorts of insect larvae which, like caterpillars, have those periodic bulges, and move with rhythmic muscular contractions. Their eyes are a bit different, but they work just fine. The [Leatherjacket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_fly) (crane-fly larva) is a nice example (although a bit stumpy and fat compared to worms), living underground much of the time, but they appear sometimes when it rains (their eyesight is pretty awful, but they can detect light just fine).
For another reference, you can take a look at the [slow-worm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_worm) - it looks a bit like a snake, dark on the back and light belly, but it's a reptile in a separate group from snakes.
Now for the lighter tail there are several possible explanations for the evolutionary "usefulness" of this adaptation:
*Warning.*
The species with this pattern signals to predators that it is nasty or deadly to eat. An example of this on Earth would be the [Yellow-banded Poison-dart frog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-banded_poison_dart_frog), but in the case of your creature, the absence of melanocytes in the tail might be accompanied by a reflective inner layer, not of visible light so much, but of ultraviolet perhaps - this supposes that your equivalent predator species has eyes that see in that part of the spectrum as bees and other creatures can.
*Decoy.*
Many lizards and some spiders, crabs and creatures such as starfish practice [autotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotomy), the ability to detach a body-part when attacked to allow the creature to escape being eaten. In the case of some lizards the tail wiggles frantically for some time to keep the predator busy trying to eat it. All the creatures mentioned can regrow that body-part to decoy again. Under decoy, there's another interesting category of [mimicry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry): many creatures, amphibians, insects etc. have evolved to look like another species which is poisonous, this deters predators.
*Lure.*
Some spiders, deep-sea fish,, insects and snakes use body-pars as a means of attracting their dinner to approach. The [Akistrodon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agkistrodon_taylori#Feeding), a type of snake related to the pit-viper is a bit slow-moving, so like it's meals delivered. It has a light coloured tail, which it wiggles invitingly to look like a delicious worm or grub, this attracts the interest of small rodents, and amphibians which would normally feed on such treats. Once in range they're easily snapped-up and devoured by the snake. Strangley, there is a creature that uses sexual allure to attract it's meals too: the [Photuris firefly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photuris) has a dirty trick, it mimics the female flashing signals of other fireflys, attracting males which then promptly get devoured. You didn't ask about a glowing tail, but I thought I'd place the option there anyhow.
*Mating display.*
Now, [peafowl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl) have an obvious display in the males. The peacock's massive colourfull tail which they spread and jiggle at the females in a sort of dance is tremendously costly in terms of the male's resources, it slows them down, makes them more likely to get eaten. It's a real effort for the male to survive and grow such a tail to get to the point of reproduction - it is therefore seen as a sign of strength vigor, fitness and generally very attractive to females. Seems paradoxical, but it works for them. Your creature, under danger of aerial attack, would seem foolish to grow a conspicuous light-coloured tail, but maybe such a bold strategy is attractive to the female of the species. (Or vice-versa re. the sexes if you wish). |
203,141 | I have created a few creatures with a pattern based on that of the earthworm (head and foremost back-portion is dark, belly and rear is paler). Both of these creatures have eyes, and on one creature the pattern is on the hair, not the skin. However, I have recently discovered that the earthworm's distinctive pattern is actually used to detect light without eyes, which is not a necessary feature when the creature actually has eyes. What other reason could there be for this pattern to arise? | 2021/05/22 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203141",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/75161/"
] | What is the Motivation?
-----------------------
To answer this question, we need to understand a lot more about what motivates the creatures with this body plan + Eyes. You don't tell us anything about the individual species, what they eat, where they live, or what eats them. I'll assume you want us to create species that look like this. The reasons are as diverse as the motives and driving forces of a species (and yes, impressing the opposite sex is ***ALWAYS*** a possible motive). First, let's assume something *like* an earthworm.
Mimicry:
--------
* So our organism is the pseudo-worm, a parasitic organism with a life cycle that has one phase in the soil. Animals see an 'earthworm' and come down to eat it. The pseudo-worm is swallowed whole by things that eat earthworms. But at that point, the critter starts doing all the grisly things to the animal that 'ate' it that parasites can do. Have fun! It can drill a hole in a bird's skull and take control, making the bird first seek out an opposite-sex pseudo-worm to eat, then spend weeks shedding baby psuedo-worms into the environment.
* OR earthworms in your world are poisonous to many species, except for a few killer snails. Despite the dull appearance, many predators avoid earthworms out of fear. The vision of your species means that it can outmaneuver the snails that can digest the poisonous worms, but still not get eaten by the fast things that are smart enough not to eat poison worms.
* For things that aren't like earth worms, mimicry may allow an animal to infiltrate a herd for protection. I know a certain sheep dog that looks just like the sheep he works with, and the sheep seem to almost accept him as a member (although I personally don't find sheep terribly bright). A symbiotic relationship may depend on inter-species appearance and communication based on visual signals important to the other species.
**Pack communication & tactics**:
---------------------------------
Now lets assume a pack/herd animal.
* Your animals signal submission to the pack with light fur. So females avoid aggression during mating when they present their back ends, and any member of the pack submits by rolling over and showing their light belly. Dark heads signal aggression and dominance, and are presented to assert rank.
* When hunting, a predator wants to be undetectable to its prey, but recognizable to its pack. The dark, camouflaged face is towards the prey, while the visible hind (and belly, for prone pack mates and those in burrows) is presented to the pack.
* A prey herd animal might have the opposite strategy. The visible face is used to draw the attention of predators to females defending young or large males defending the herd, while the camouflaged light belly and hind quarters are presented to the predator chasing them.
Give me a set of driving forces, and we can select a specific cause for your species. | Artificial selection
====================
Sometimes people just want a pet that has the traits of an earthworm.
The [smooth fox terrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_Fox_Terrier) is a dog breed that is white, with a dark head and optionally some large dark spots on the neck or torso. Sometimes they don't have those spots, so they are effectively what you are looking for.
 |
162,978 | I have an iPhone 5S. I want to see my playlist by albums instead of by songs. When I add an album of songs to the playlist, it shows all the songs. I can do it on iTunes on the computer but it doesn't seem to allow you to show playlist by album instead of by song. | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/162978",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/105648/"
] | Unfortunately you can't do this on your iPhone, but on a mac when you select the playlist you can go to the top right corner and change it from songs to albums for them to be sorted by album. | This option needs to be added on the iPhone.
I like sorting through the music on my phone in Album view and its a big hassle when I have 800+ single songs in my "Gym" Playlist that get lumped in with the full albums I have on the phone.
This has led me to make a separate playlist for the full albums...but you can't view them in any other way except as a list of SONGS in the playlist....its like..damn you can't win. |
157,091 | Can an Obscurus, like the one Newt Scamander has in his briefcase, be transferred to another host? | 2017/04/12 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/157091",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/80837/"
] | Graves clearly thought that this was possible, and Tina was frightened that Newt had an Obscurus in his possession - but Newt was the expert. He assured Graves that it could not hurt anyone and expected him to know it. He explained that it could not survive outside of the container that Newt had created.
>
> NEWT: But it cannot survive outside that box, it could not hurt anyone, Tina!
>
>
>
And when Graves sentences him:
>
> NEWT: You know that can't hurt anyone, you know that!
>
>
>
So it would seem that an Obscurus cannot survive without its host and that Newt, as an expert with knowledge that others didn't have, fashioned a way to keep this one going so that he could study it. But it seems like they cannot transfer hosts and be set free as Graves seemed to have in mind.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if in subsequent films Grindelwald or one of his followers does succeed in weaponising one - but that would seem to require a new discovery in dark magic. | **Not under normal circumstances.**
From what we understand about how an Obscurus is formed, unless the Obscurus was altered in some way, I would think that it could only affect the person whose repressed magic created it. It doesn't seem to be a parasitic force that prefers to attach itself to children who are repressing their magic, and could therefore transfer hosts. It seems like the magic itself turns into the Obscurus after it's been repressed for long enough. It's possible that someone might find a way to transfer an Obscurus to another host, but this seems both unlikely and unnecessary.
Graves asked Newt *"So, it's useless without a host?"*, and seemed displeased at finding out that it was. So I think what Graves was trying to do wasn't transfer the Obscurus to another host. (If that was what he wanted to do, who would he transfer it to? Himself?) It sounds like he just wanted to use it as a weapon without it being in a host.
Weaponizing an Obscurus doesn't have to mean transferring it to another host. Although Newt separated one from its host so he could study it, and not for any nefarious reason, what he did is proof that an Obscurus can be separated from its host. The one Newt has is incapable of hurting anyone or surviving outside of its confines, but Newt would be actively trying to make sure that it couldn't escape or harm anyone. If Grindelwald (or anyone else) was able to create something that could sustain the Obscurus without a host the same way Newt did, but without the bubble around it that Newt had it in, then he could use it as a weapon.
It's also possible that Grindelwald wanted to find a way to get an Obscurus to attach to another host, but this doesn't quite sound like what he was intending to do. For one thing, that would require finding a suitable host to put the Obscurus in once it was separated from the original host. This didn't seem to be his plan. When he was looking for the Obscurial, he didn't appear to have anyone to transfer it to, or any plan for transferring it from the Obscurial.
It looked like he was considering two different options - getting the Obscurial to be on his side so he could convince them to use their Obscurus in the way he wanted, or separating the Obscurus from the Obscurial so he would just have this powerful force to use however he chose. |
286,240 | Turn up and Come up are able to mean "appear"?
When can I use come up or turn up? | 2015/11/10 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/286240",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/146814/"
] | Contrast...
>
> 1: *You never know what will **turn** up*
>
> 2: *You never know what will **come** up*
>
>
>
The specific context may force one interpretation of the other, but I'm sure that *on average* people would use ***turn up*** for desirable future possibilities, and ***come up*** for undesirable ones.
---
For a slightly different meaning, contrast...
>
> 3: *John **turned** up at the pub last night*
>
> 4: *John **came** up at the pub last night*
>
>
>
Again, context can make all the difference. But my *default* assumption would be that if John ***turned up***, that would mean he appeared (unexpectedly) at the pub. If he ***came up***, that probably just means we talked about him, but he wasn't present (he came up in conversation). | When used of people, they have different meanings; only 'turn up' is used as a MWV:
>
> John turned up.
>
>
>
(We didn't know if he was going to come - quite possibly not.)
>
> John came up.
>
>
>
This is probably a straight directional (... the stairs) or slightly metaphorical (... from the Midlands) usage.
When used of making a discovery, only 'turn up' is used:
>
> Look what(/s) turned up in the recycling pile.
>
>
>
With names, only 'come up' is used:
>
> We were thinking of opening batsmen, and your name came up.
>
>
> |
41,674 | >
> Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>
>
>
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness? | 2019/07/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41674",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29934/"
] | **Seek first...then...**
>
> But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33) [ESV]
>
>
>
The Kingdom of God is certainly a Kingdom in which God reigns supreme; as Creator, all creation is part of His Kingdom and one would expect His will to be done throughout. However, it is clear this ideal, or perfect state is not yet present:
>
> ...“Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> Your kingdom come... (Matthew 6:9)
>
>
>
Therefore, the instruction to "*seek first...then...*", like the prayer for the Kingdom to come and the will to be done, indicate there is a present component to the Kingdom of God which may be obtained, despite the "imperfect" conditions within the Kingdom. In other words, in this context, Jesus is not giving instruction to seek the perfection which is future; rather He is saying there are aspects of what is to come which may be found in the present.
**The Kingdom of God**
In Romans, Paul states what constitutes the Kingdom of God:
>
> For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:7)
>
>
>
Thus, at the present, there is a heavenly and earthly aspect to the Kingdom of God. The earthly is made up of the people who are in the Holy Spirit (i.e. have be reborn as children of God) and are following His guidance so as to have His righteousness, peace, and joy. Stated another way, on earth, the Kingdom of God is an outward manifestation of righteousness, peace, and joy which comes from living by the Holy Spirit.
**His Righteousness**
>
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)
>
>
>
The Cambridge commentary gives [this summary](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-17.htm) for the righteousness of God:
>
> Romans 3:26 appears to supply the key to this meaning: the “righteousness of God” is something which is reached, or received, “through faith in Jesus Christ;” and it is “declared” in such a way as to shew Him “just, yet justifying.” On the whole it is most consistent with most passages to explain it of the “righteousness imputed by God” to the believer.
>
>
>
Romans 3:26 in context:
>
> 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was **to show his righteousness at the present time**, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3)
>
>
>
The complete significance of the "righteousness of God" can lead to a complex discussion, but there is a simplicity to the instruction to "seek His righteousness." This is something to do in the present time, that is to say, now on earth. Hence, the full nature of God's righteousness may be future, but by faith in redemption that is in Christ Jesus, it may be found in the present. | God's kingdom is a kingdom in which God is supreme. His purposes, his will, his initiatives, his honour and his glory are all supreme.
No earthly kingdom has ever attained to this. King David said at the end of his life :
>
> The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue ... the God of Israel said "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God ... and as the light of the morning the sun riseth, a morning without clouds, as the tender grass out of the earth by clear shining after rain".
>
>
> Although my house be not so with God ; yet hath he made an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure. II Samuel 23: 3 -5 KJV.
>
>
>
David admitted that the house of David had not attained to what was needed in a kingdom of God, yet he knew that God had made an everlasting covenant and God, himself, would bring in such a kingdom.
The second Psalm shows what God would do to bring in such a kingdom :
>
> Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion ... Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:6,7.
>
>
>
Without redemption, without sin-bearing, without sacrifice, without death, without bloodshed - there could never be a kingdom in which God would reign, properly, in the willing heart, over men.
There is but one King of kings. There is but one Lord of Lords.
Only with his incarnation - in another humanity than that of Adam - can the kingdom be established.
He was offered all the kingdoms of the world - and the glory of them - in a moment of time by the one who, lawfully, possessed them all - having brought mankind into subjection to law and sin and death, Matthew 4:8.
Jesus refused it all. For only through sacrificial offering, through sin-bearing, through death and resurrection could there ever be a kingdom of God established in righteousness.
Only through justification by faith could the citizens of such a kingdom be righteous in God's sight and be worthy to be a part of God's heritage.
Therefore, saith Jesus, seek ye first the kingdom of God (as he sought it, through his own offering and sufferings and death) and seek his righteousness (God's righteousness, realised only through redemption and the shedding of blood).
For God's kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. |
41,674 | >
> Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>
>
>
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness? | 2019/07/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41674",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29934/"
] | **Seek first...then...**
>
> But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33) [ESV]
>
>
>
The Kingdom of God is certainly a Kingdom in which God reigns supreme; as Creator, all creation is part of His Kingdom and one would expect His will to be done throughout. However, it is clear this ideal, or perfect state is not yet present:
>
> ...“Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> Your kingdom come... (Matthew 6:9)
>
>
>
Therefore, the instruction to "*seek first...then...*", like the prayer for the Kingdom to come and the will to be done, indicate there is a present component to the Kingdom of God which may be obtained, despite the "imperfect" conditions within the Kingdom. In other words, in this context, Jesus is not giving instruction to seek the perfection which is future; rather He is saying there are aspects of what is to come which may be found in the present.
**The Kingdom of God**
In Romans, Paul states what constitutes the Kingdom of God:
>
> For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:7)
>
>
>
Thus, at the present, there is a heavenly and earthly aspect to the Kingdom of God. The earthly is made up of the people who are in the Holy Spirit (i.e. have be reborn as children of God) and are following His guidance so as to have His righteousness, peace, and joy. Stated another way, on earth, the Kingdom of God is an outward manifestation of righteousness, peace, and joy which comes from living by the Holy Spirit.
**His Righteousness**
>
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)
>
>
>
The Cambridge commentary gives [this summary](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-17.htm) for the righteousness of God:
>
> Romans 3:26 appears to supply the key to this meaning: the “righteousness of God” is something which is reached, or received, “through faith in Jesus Christ;” and it is “declared” in such a way as to shew Him “just, yet justifying.” On the whole it is most consistent with most passages to explain it of the “righteousness imputed by God” to the believer.
>
>
>
Romans 3:26 in context:
>
> 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was **to show his righteousness at the present time**, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3)
>
>
>
The complete significance of the "righteousness of God" can lead to a complex discussion, but there is a simplicity to the instruction to "seek His righteousness." This is something to do in the present time, that is to say, now on earth. Hence, the full nature of God's righteousness may be future, but by faith in redemption that is in Christ Jesus, it may be found in the present. | Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness.
**What is Gods Kingdom?**
Jesus in his famous "Sermon on the Mount" taught his followers to pray "let your Kingdom come." Millions of people are familiar with this famous prayer,so what is God's Kingdom?
In a vision given to prophet Daniel ,we read that God establishes a Kingdom in Heaven, with the resurrected Jesus Christ enthroned as King of God's kingdom. Daniel wrote:
Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)
The Son of Man Presented
>
> 13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds
> of heaven One like a Son of Man {Jesus} was coming, And He came up to
> the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
>
>
> 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the
> peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His
> dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His
> kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
>
>
>
In Daniel chapter 2 we read about a dream that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had, about a huge statute representing a succession of world powers and which dream Daniel interprets. That God establishes a Kingdom that will destroy all these human kingdoms and it will last forever.(recommend reading chapter 2) Daniel reveals the dream to the King. :
Daniel 2:28,44 (NRSV)
>
> 28 "But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has
> disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the end of days.
> Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed were these."
>
>
> 44 "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a
> kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left
> to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to
> an end, and it shall stand forever."
>
>
>
Jesus during his earthly ministry, told his Apostles that they, and others selected from people of all nations of the earth, will rule as Priests and Kings over the earth:
Luke 22:28-29 (NRSV)
>
> 28 “You are those who have stood by me in my trials; 29 and I confer
> on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom.
>
>
>
Revelation 5:9-10 (NRSV)
>
> 9 "They sing a new song:“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open
> its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for
> God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; 10 **you
> have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they
> will reign on earth.”**
>
>
>
We have seen that Jesus has been given ruler-ship over the nations , peoples and languages and that those associated with Him will reign as Priests and King over the earth. The subjects of the Kingdom will be those that first seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and those resurrected to life on earth, they will also have the opportunity to seek God's righteousness and live. (John 5:28-29)
The Bible describes the blessing and conditions that people will enjoy under God's Kingdom. A few are listed below.
**Death and mourning will be done away with.**
Revelation 21:3-4 (NRSV)
>
> 3 "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home[a]
> of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his
> peoples, and God himself will be with them; 4 he will wipe every tear
> from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain
> will be no more, for the first things have passed away."
>
>
>
**My chosen ones will enjoy the work of their hands.**
Isaiah 65:21-22 (NRSV)
>
> 21 "They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant
> vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another
> inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat for like the days of a
> tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy
> the work of their hands."
>
>
>
**Abundance of peace and prosperity.**
Psalm 37:11 (KJV)
>
> 11 "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves
> in the abundance of peace."
>
>
>
**Resurrection of the dead.**
John 5:28-29 (NRSV)
>
> 28 "Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who
> are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who
> have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done
> evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
>
>
>
**The prophet Isaiah eloquently describes the conditions under God's Kingdom that people will enjoy.**
Isaiah 11:6-9 (NRSV)
>
> 6 "The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with
> the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little
> child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze, their
> young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the
> ox."
>
>
> 8 "The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the
> weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. 9 They will not
> hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full
> of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
>
>
>
**What is God's Righteousness?**
God as the creator has the right to set the standards for what is good or what is bad, what is right or what is wrong ,(Revelation 4:11) we simply do not live by our own standards. We obey God's laws, not out of fear of punishment, but because we love Him , value our relationship and want to please Him.
Luke in writing about the parents of John the Baptist, the two faithful servants of God, Zechariah and Elizabeth, summed up, what is God's righteousness.
Luke 1:6-7 (NRSV)
>
> 6 "Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly
> according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But
> they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were
> getting on in years."
>
>
>
Paul pointed to a danger,when he wrote to his follow countrymen,they were trying to establish their own righteousness and not knowing about God's righteousness.
Romans 10:2-3 (NASB)
>
> 2 "For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in
> accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness
> and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to
> the righteousness of God."
>
>
>
To avoid the above danger we must continuously seek knowledge based on God's word, so that we get better acquainted and deepen our relationship with God, and his son Jesus. Jesus said:
John 17:3 Amplified Bible (AMP)
>
> 3 "Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true
> [supreme and sovereign] God, and [in the same manner know] Jesus [as
> the] Christ whom You have sent."
>
>
> |
41,674 | >
> Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>
>
>
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness? | 2019/07/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41674",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29934/"
] | **Seek first...then...**
>
> But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33) [ESV]
>
>
>
The Kingdom of God is certainly a Kingdom in which God reigns supreme; as Creator, all creation is part of His Kingdom and one would expect His will to be done throughout. However, it is clear this ideal, or perfect state is not yet present:
>
> ...“Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> Your kingdom come... (Matthew 6:9)
>
>
>
Therefore, the instruction to "*seek first...then...*", like the prayer for the Kingdom to come and the will to be done, indicate there is a present component to the Kingdom of God which may be obtained, despite the "imperfect" conditions within the Kingdom. In other words, in this context, Jesus is not giving instruction to seek the perfection which is future; rather He is saying there are aspects of what is to come which may be found in the present.
**The Kingdom of God**
In Romans, Paul states what constitutes the Kingdom of God:
>
> For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:7)
>
>
>
Thus, at the present, there is a heavenly and earthly aspect to the Kingdom of God. The earthly is made up of the people who are in the Holy Spirit (i.e. have be reborn as children of God) and are following His guidance so as to have His righteousness, peace, and joy. Stated another way, on earth, the Kingdom of God is an outward manifestation of righteousness, peace, and joy which comes from living by the Holy Spirit.
**His Righteousness**
>
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)
>
>
>
The Cambridge commentary gives [this summary](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-17.htm) for the righteousness of God:
>
> Romans 3:26 appears to supply the key to this meaning: the “righteousness of God” is something which is reached, or received, “through faith in Jesus Christ;” and it is “declared” in such a way as to shew Him “just, yet justifying.” On the whole it is most consistent with most passages to explain it of the “righteousness imputed by God” to the believer.
>
>
>
Romans 3:26 in context:
>
> 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was **to show his righteousness at the present time**, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3)
>
>
>
The complete significance of the "righteousness of God" can lead to a complex discussion, but there is a simplicity to the instruction to "seek His righteousness." This is something to do in the present time, that is to say, now on earth. Hence, the full nature of God's righteousness may be future, but by faith in redemption that is in Christ Jesus, it may be found in the present. | The kingdom of God is the polity established by God in the heavens to dispense God's truth, righteousness and justice. In the first century this power and authority was embodied in the Judean leaders; the chief priests, regular priests, scribes, pharisees and the Sadducees:
>
> [Mat 21:33-46 NASB] (33) "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. (34) "When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. (35) "The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. (36) "Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. (37) "But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' (38) "But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' (39) "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. (40) "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?" (41) They said to Him, **"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons."** (42) Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'? (43) "**Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.** (44) "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." (45) **When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.** (46) When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
>
>
>
Jesus told the Jerusalem leadership that the kingdom of God would be given to a people bringing forth the fruit thereof. This "fruit" is what God seeks and what the disciples were to seek:
>
> [Phl 1:11 NASB] (11) having been filled with **the fruit of righteousness** which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
>
>
> [Heb 12:11 NASB] (11) All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful **fruit of righteousness**.
>
>
>
Update
Jesus' mission to establish the kingdom of God was predicted long ago:
>
> [Isa 2:1-4 NLT] (1) This is a vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: (2) **In the last days**, the mountain of the LORD's house will be the highest of all--the most important place on earth. It will be raised above the other hills, and people from all over the world will stream there to worship. (3) People from many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of Jacob's God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths." **For the LORD's teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem.** (4) The LORD will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore.
>
>
>
In order to accomplish this it was necessary to resurrect the diaspora/lost sheep of Israel (Ezekiel 37, Acts 2) through a new covenant (Jeremiah 31), judge the current government (Ezekiel 34, Matthew 25), make the old covenant "disappear" by the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24, Hebrews 8:13 (below), gather in the 144,000 lost sheep and establish a glorified version of Jerusalem (Revelation 20-21):
>
> [Heb 8:13 NET] (13) When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging **is about to** disappear.
>
>
>
The "about to" occurred roughly 40 years after Jesus' public ministry.
The rulers of the kingdom of God are the 144,000 aka the "one stick" of Ezekiel 37. In this way is fulfilled:
>
> [Isa 2:3, 6 NLT] (3) People from many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of Jacob's God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths." **For the LORD's teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem.** ... (6) **For the LORD has rejected his people, the descendants of Jacob**, because they have filled their land with practices from the East and with sorcerers, as the Philistines do. They have made alliances with pagans.
>
>
>
Coincidentally, the 144,000 constitute the bride of Christ, also described as the bride of the new Jerusalem:
>
> [Hos 2:19-20 NASB] (19) "**I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me** in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, (20) And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the LORD.
>
>
> [Isa 62:1-7 NKJV] (1) For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, And her salvation as a lamp that burns. (2) The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. **You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.** (3) You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God. (4) **You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married.** (5) For **as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you**; And **as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you.** (6) I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent, (7) And give Him no rest till He establishes And till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
>
>
> |
41,674 | >
> Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>
>
>
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness? | 2019/07/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41674",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29934/"
] | God's kingdom is a kingdom in which God is supreme. His purposes, his will, his initiatives, his honour and his glory are all supreme.
No earthly kingdom has ever attained to this. King David said at the end of his life :
>
> The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue ... the God of Israel said "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God ... and as the light of the morning the sun riseth, a morning without clouds, as the tender grass out of the earth by clear shining after rain".
>
>
> Although my house be not so with God ; yet hath he made an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure. II Samuel 23: 3 -5 KJV.
>
>
>
David admitted that the house of David had not attained to what was needed in a kingdom of God, yet he knew that God had made an everlasting covenant and God, himself, would bring in such a kingdom.
The second Psalm shows what God would do to bring in such a kingdom :
>
> Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion ... Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:6,7.
>
>
>
Without redemption, without sin-bearing, without sacrifice, without death, without bloodshed - there could never be a kingdom in which God would reign, properly, in the willing heart, over men.
There is but one King of kings. There is but one Lord of Lords.
Only with his incarnation - in another humanity than that of Adam - can the kingdom be established.
He was offered all the kingdoms of the world - and the glory of them - in a moment of time by the one who, lawfully, possessed them all - having brought mankind into subjection to law and sin and death, Matthew 4:8.
Jesus refused it all. For only through sacrificial offering, through sin-bearing, through death and resurrection could there ever be a kingdom of God established in righteousness.
Only through justification by faith could the citizens of such a kingdom be righteous in God's sight and be worthy to be a part of God's heritage.
Therefore, saith Jesus, seek ye first the kingdom of God (as he sought it, through his own offering and sufferings and death) and seek his righteousness (God's righteousness, realised only through redemption and the shedding of blood).
For God's kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. | Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness.
**What is Gods Kingdom?**
Jesus in his famous "Sermon on the Mount" taught his followers to pray "let your Kingdom come." Millions of people are familiar with this famous prayer,so what is God's Kingdom?
In a vision given to prophet Daniel ,we read that God establishes a Kingdom in Heaven, with the resurrected Jesus Christ enthroned as King of God's kingdom. Daniel wrote:
Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)
The Son of Man Presented
>
> 13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds
> of heaven One like a Son of Man {Jesus} was coming, And He came up to
> the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
>
>
> 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the
> peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His
> dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His
> kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
>
>
>
In Daniel chapter 2 we read about a dream that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had, about a huge statute representing a succession of world powers and which dream Daniel interprets. That God establishes a Kingdom that will destroy all these human kingdoms and it will last forever.(recommend reading chapter 2) Daniel reveals the dream to the King. :
Daniel 2:28,44 (NRSV)
>
> 28 "But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has
> disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the end of days.
> Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed were these."
>
>
> 44 "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a
> kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left
> to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to
> an end, and it shall stand forever."
>
>
>
Jesus during his earthly ministry, told his Apostles that they, and others selected from people of all nations of the earth, will rule as Priests and Kings over the earth:
Luke 22:28-29 (NRSV)
>
> 28 “You are those who have stood by me in my trials; 29 and I confer
> on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom.
>
>
>
Revelation 5:9-10 (NRSV)
>
> 9 "They sing a new song:“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open
> its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for
> God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; 10 **you
> have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they
> will reign on earth.”**
>
>
>
We have seen that Jesus has been given ruler-ship over the nations , peoples and languages and that those associated with Him will reign as Priests and King over the earth. The subjects of the Kingdom will be those that first seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and those resurrected to life on earth, they will also have the opportunity to seek God's righteousness and live. (John 5:28-29)
The Bible describes the blessing and conditions that people will enjoy under God's Kingdom. A few are listed below.
**Death and mourning will be done away with.**
Revelation 21:3-4 (NRSV)
>
> 3 "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home[a]
> of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his
> peoples, and God himself will be with them; 4 he will wipe every tear
> from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain
> will be no more, for the first things have passed away."
>
>
>
**My chosen ones will enjoy the work of their hands.**
Isaiah 65:21-22 (NRSV)
>
> 21 "They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant
> vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another
> inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat for like the days of a
> tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy
> the work of their hands."
>
>
>
**Abundance of peace and prosperity.**
Psalm 37:11 (KJV)
>
> 11 "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves
> in the abundance of peace."
>
>
>
**Resurrection of the dead.**
John 5:28-29 (NRSV)
>
> 28 "Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who
> are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who
> have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done
> evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
>
>
>
**The prophet Isaiah eloquently describes the conditions under God's Kingdom that people will enjoy.**
Isaiah 11:6-9 (NRSV)
>
> 6 "The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with
> the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little
> child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze, their
> young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the
> ox."
>
>
> 8 "The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the
> weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. 9 They will not
> hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full
> of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
>
>
>
**What is God's Righteousness?**
God as the creator has the right to set the standards for what is good or what is bad, what is right or what is wrong ,(Revelation 4:11) we simply do not live by our own standards. We obey God's laws, not out of fear of punishment, but because we love Him , value our relationship and want to please Him.
Luke in writing about the parents of John the Baptist, the two faithful servants of God, Zechariah and Elizabeth, summed up, what is God's righteousness.
Luke 1:6-7 (NRSV)
>
> 6 "Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly
> according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But
> they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were
> getting on in years."
>
>
>
Paul pointed to a danger,when he wrote to his follow countrymen,they were trying to establish their own righteousness and not knowing about God's righteousness.
Romans 10:2-3 (NASB)
>
> 2 "For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in
> accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness
> and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to
> the righteousness of God."
>
>
>
To avoid the above danger we must continuously seek knowledge based on God's word, so that we get better acquainted and deepen our relationship with God, and his son Jesus. Jesus said:
John 17:3 Amplified Bible (AMP)
>
> 3 "Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true
> [supreme and sovereign] God, and [in the same manner know] Jesus [as
> the] Christ whom You have sent."
>
>
> |
41,674 | >
> Matthew 6:33 (KJV): But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>
>
>
What exactly is Gods Kingdom and his righteousness? | 2019/07/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41674",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29934/"
] | God's kingdom is a kingdom in which God is supreme. His purposes, his will, his initiatives, his honour and his glory are all supreme.
No earthly kingdom has ever attained to this. King David said at the end of his life :
>
> The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue ... the God of Israel said "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God ... and as the light of the morning the sun riseth, a morning without clouds, as the tender grass out of the earth by clear shining after rain".
>
>
> Although my house be not so with God ; yet hath he made an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure. II Samuel 23: 3 -5 KJV.
>
>
>
David admitted that the house of David had not attained to what was needed in a kingdom of God, yet he knew that God had made an everlasting covenant and God, himself, would bring in such a kingdom.
The second Psalm shows what God would do to bring in such a kingdom :
>
> Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion ... Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:6,7.
>
>
>
Without redemption, without sin-bearing, without sacrifice, without death, without bloodshed - there could never be a kingdom in which God would reign, properly, in the willing heart, over men.
There is but one King of kings. There is but one Lord of Lords.
Only with his incarnation - in another humanity than that of Adam - can the kingdom be established.
He was offered all the kingdoms of the world - and the glory of them - in a moment of time by the one who, lawfully, possessed them all - having brought mankind into subjection to law and sin and death, Matthew 4:8.
Jesus refused it all. For only through sacrificial offering, through sin-bearing, through death and resurrection could there ever be a kingdom of God established in righteousness.
Only through justification by faith could the citizens of such a kingdom be righteous in God's sight and be worthy to be a part of God's heritage.
Therefore, saith Jesus, seek ye first the kingdom of God (as he sought it, through his own offering and sufferings and death) and seek his righteousness (God's righteousness, realised only through redemption and the shedding of blood).
For God's kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. | The kingdom of God is the polity established by God in the heavens to dispense God's truth, righteousness and justice. In the first century this power and authority was embodied in the Judean leaders; the chief priests, regular priests, scribes, pharisees and the Sadducees:
>
> [Mat 21:33-46 NASB] (33) "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. (34) "When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. (35) "The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. (36) "Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. (37) "But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' (38) "But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' (39) "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. (40) "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?" (41) They said to Him, **"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons."** (42) Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'? (43) "**Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.** (44) "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." (45) **When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.** (46) When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
>
>
>
Jesus told the Jerusalem leadership that the kingdom of God would be given to a people bringing forth the fruit thereof. This "fruit" is what God seeks and what the disciples were to seek:
>
> [Phl 1:11 NASB] (11) having been filled with **the fruit of righteousness** which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
>
>
> [Heb 12:11 NASB] (11) All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful **fruit of righteousness**.
>
>
>
Update
Jesus' mission to establish the kingdom of God was predicted long ago:
>
> [Isa 2:1-4 NLT] (1) This is a vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: (2) **In the last days**, the mountain of the LORD's house will be the highest of all--the most important place on earth. It will be raised above the other hills, and people from all over the world will stream there to worship. (3) People from many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of Jacob's God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths." **For the LORD's teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem.** (4) The LORD will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore.
>
>
>
In order to accomplish this it was necessary to resurrect the diaspora/lost sheep of Israel (Ezekiel 37, Acts 2) through a new covenant (Jeremiah 31), judge the current government (Ezekiel 34, Matthew 25), make the old covenant "disappear" by the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24, Hebrews 8:13 (below), gather in the 144,000 lost sheep and establish a glorified version of Jerusalem (Revelation 20-21):
>
> [Heb 8:13 NET] (13) When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging **is about to** disappear.
>
>
>
The "about to" occurred roughly 40 years after Jesus' public ministry.
The rulers of the kingdom of God are the 144,000 aka the "one stick" of Ezekiel 37. In this way is fulfilled:
>
> [Isa 2:3, 6 NLT] (3) People from many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of Jacob's God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths." **For the LORD's teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem.** ... (6) **For the LORD has rejected his people, the descendants of Jacob**, because they have filled their land with practices from the East and with sorcerers, as the Philistines do. They have made alliances with pagans.
>
>
>
Coincidentally, the 144,000 constitute the bride of Christ, also described as the bride of the new Jerusalem:
>
> [Hos 2:19-20 NASB] (19) "**I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me** in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, (20) And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the LORD.
>
>
> [Isa 62:1-7 NKJV] (1) For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, And her salvation as a lamp that burns. (2) The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. **You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.** (3) You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God. (4) **You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married.** (5) For **as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you**; And **as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you.** (6) I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent, (7) And give Him no rest till He establishes And till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
>
>
> |
303,391 | Consider a typical mathematical sentence defining two tuples: (s\_i)\_{i=1}^n and (t\_i)\_{i=1}^n:
>
> Let (s\_i)\_{i=1}^n = X (,) and (t\_i)\_{i=1}^n = Y.
>
>
>
The parens around the comma mean that it's unclear whether the comma actually belongs there.
Is the comma before “and”
1. necessary,
2. forbidden,
3. optional without a change in the meaning, or
4. optional with a change in the meaning?
I know a rule saying that, in general, the comma is necessary if two independent long sentences are joined by “and” and forbidden if both of them are short (I think, 4 words at most). Because of maths, no idea. It's not even clear to me what the structure of the whole sentence is: two independent clauses with omitted second “let” (“Let (s\_i)\_{i=1}^n = X (,) and [let] (t\_i)\_{i=1}^n = Y.“) or one single clause with two objects. | 2021/12/03 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/303391",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | *To be to X* means to plan/need/have to do X because something requires, compels, or forces it.
It doesn't mean X has been done yet.
It's often used as a polite but firm imperative, and used to talk about an action that an employer or law is requiring. Hence the formal "flavor" of the construction.
>
> If you were to question me about the matter, I would deny all knowledge.
>
>
>
Speaker is communicating an assumption that the person asking a question wouldn't be doing it because the speaker wanted to, but because the speaker was required to.
>
> Were you to question me about the matter, I would deny all knowledge.
>
>
>
Use subjunctive mood for extra formal flavor, or this may be normal preference for BrE.
>
> If you questioned me about the matter, I would deny all knowledge.
>
>
>
No such assumption, and any idea of formality is purely because "questioning" often describes things in the context of an official or important business or legal process. | Including ***are to*** or not in OP's context changes the meaning significantly...
>
> 1: *If you go to university, you might learn quantum electrodynamics*
>
> It's possible that by going to uni, you might learn QED (but you might not go anyway)
>
>
>
>
> 2: *If you **are to** go1 to university, you must learn quantum electrodynamics*
>
> Learning QED (now) is a *requirement* for entering uni (if you don't learn it you won't get in)
>
>
>
---
Note that OP's more formal "inversion" can only carry the *first* sense above...
>
> 3: ***Were you to** go to university, you might learn quantum electrodynamics*
>
>
>
---
1 You might find it easier to parse the construction ***If you are to [do something]*** after considering a "non-conditional" reference to future activity: *I **am to** go to London tomorrow* *( = I **will** go...)*.
The effect of including ***are to*** in OP's context is to change the "condition" queried by ***if*** from being a matter of whether ***in the future**, you **will** go to uni,* to a matter of whether ***at time of speaking**, your "**current** state" is that you intend/are expected to go to uni.* |
143,342 | I met the [Kirchhoff circuit laws](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) in the past, but now I'm trying to associate them with a practical representation to be sure to understand them.
Let's start with the Kirchhoff current law: If I say that the electrons are like water going though a pipe, it can clearly be understood that the water flow will be divided when meeting a junction.
The problem is how to understand (practically and physically) the voltage law - what analogy can I use to understand it? | 2014/10/27 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/143342",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/62862/"
] | Suppose your pipes form a loop i.e. water can flow through the pipes and get back to where it started. As the water flows round the loop there will be some places where pressure rises (e.g. a pump = battery) and some places where pressure falls (e.g. a restriction = resistor). However if the water goes all the way round the loop back to its starting point the pressure must be the same as when it started. So along the loop the pressure rises and the pressure falls must balance out, so that the total pressure change round the loop is zero.
And this is the same as Kirchoff's Voltage Law. In the hydraulic analogy a pressure change is equivalent to a voltage change. So if you go round a loop measuring all the voltage increases and all the voltage decreases then when you return to the starting point the total voltage change must be zero. | The Kirchoff Voltage law states that the sum of emfs in a circuit is equal to the total potential drop in the circuit.
So for a simple example, where you a 6V cell, for example, and 2 resistors in series.
The 6V cell can be seen as a place where the water is given potential energy - if we imagine a ramp, it would be the water being pumped up to the top of the ramp.
The water then flows along a straight path (wires assuming 0 resistance) until it meets a resistor. A resistor can be seen as another ramp, however since there are 2 resistors, (assume they are the same resistance, however this doesn't really matter) all the potential cannot be dropped across one resistor so this ramp is smaller than the ramp up from the 6V battery. As water falls down this ramp, it loses potential energy - this is 'the same' as the drop in potential difference across a resistor.
You may ask - but the water speeds up when it falls down the ramp? well for this we should assume that there is no gain in kinetic energy and all gained kinetic energy is dissipated falling down the ramp - this can be analogous to current remaining constant in a series circuit. |
143,342 | I met the [Kirchhoff circuit laws](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws) in the past, but now I'm trying to associate them with a practical representation to be sure to understand them.
Let's start with the Kirchhoff current law: If I say that the electrons are like water going though a pipe, it can clearly be understood that the water flow will be divided when meeting a junction.
The problem is how to understand (practically and physically) the voltage law - what analogy can I use to understand it? | 2014/10/27 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/143342",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/62862/"
] | Suppose your pipes form a loop i.e. water can flow through the pipes and get back to where it started. As the water flows round the loop there will be some places where pressure rises (e.g. a pump = battery) and some places where pressure falls (e.g. a restriction = resistor). However if the water goes all the way round the loop back to its starting point the pressure must be the same as when it started. So along the loop the pressure rises and the pressure falls must balance out, so that the total pressure change round the loop is zero.
And this is the same as Kirchoff's Voltage Law. In the hydraulic analogy a pressure change is equivalent to a voltage change. So if you go round a loop measuring all the voltage increases and all the voltage decreases then when you return to the starting point the total voltage change must be zero. | As you said, current is like water flow, similarly voltage is like water level and voltage difference like difference of water level. We know that water flow from higher level to lower level like current flow from higher voltage to lower voltage. Voltage difference means there is a difference of charge, i.e., a difference in the number of electrons. Now, if we consider a circular current loop as two water vessels connected by a narrow tube and in equilibrium we see that the water level difference becomes zero. Similarly, voltage drops around a closed path must be zero in equilibrium, i.e., net flow of electrons is zero. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | An outbound proxy server can provide more than one benefit to your network:
* Content Caching - instead of 25 people hitting your DSL connection with slashdot & fark page reloads the content can be cached on an internal server. This will speed up access to external sites, especially when the images are cached at the proxy.
* Content Monitoring - you can always go back and look at the logs if you like.
* Content Filtering - virus scanning, etc.
* Access Restrictions - generally, surfing porn on the bank teller computers is a no-no.
* User Identification - perhaps you would like to know **who** is surfing all day
The answer to the question "when do we need to move to a web proxy" is generally answered by "when you need one of the above functions".
You need Content Caching when you're sending "a lot" of traffic through your internet connection. Perhaps the connection is slow, or perhaps you're getting overage charges that you'd like to avoid.
As for the other functions, you need a proxy when you want to perform that function. There are generally other ways to accomplish those functions as well, yes, but a proxy is usually the "easiest". | At my current job we use a filter as a result of people watching streaming video on and off their lunch breaks. We have a rotating lunch schedule so as group1 is off for lunch, group2 is still working. This was killing our bandwidth to the outside world, as a result we purchased a Barracuda Web filter. It works just fine, our need was to open up expensive bandwidth.
It also helped clean up some spyware/general internet crap throughout our network, which was a nice bonus. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | An outbound proxy server can provide more than one benefit to your network:
* Content Caching - instead of 25 people hitting your DSL connection with slashdot & fark page reloads the content can be cached on an internal server. This will speed up access to external sites, especially when the images are cached at the proxy.
* Content Monitoring - you can always go back and look at the logs if you like.
* Content Filtering - virus scanning, etc.
* Access Restrictions - generally, surfing porn on the bank teller computers is a no-no.
* User Identification - perhaps you would like to know **who** is surfing all day
The answer to the question "when do we need to move to a web proxy" is generally answered by "when you need one of the above functions".
You need Content Caching when you're sending "a lot" of traffic through your internet connection. Perhaps the connection is slow, or perhaps you're getting overage charges that you'd like to avoid.
As for the other functions, you need a proxy when you want to perform that function. There are generally other ways to accomplish those functions as well, yes, but a proxy is usually the "easiest". | Perhaps the document you where reading was talking about a web-cache instead of just a proxy/gateway? A cache is a proxy that stores frequently visited pages and delivers them to your clients instead of making a request across your wan link every time someone on your network requests something.
On one networks with around ~100 users I tend to see that about 25-30% of the requests are served from the cache, of course this only amounts to about a 8-12% savings in bandwidth, because stuff that is frequently re-used tends to be smaller files.
If you have limited bandwidth caching does help speed things up a bit. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | Myself, I installed a Web Proxy to provide a local cache. We had a setup with about 40 users.I used a dedicated Linux Server with a [Squid proxy](http://www.squid-cache.org/) on it so I cannot talk of the Barracuda web filter. I setup our gateway to enable [transparent proxying](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/TransparentProxy.html) so nobody would see the difference. With time, some limited filtering was added (some known bad sites) and I moved our DNS forwarding to [OpenDNS](http://www.opendns.com/) to reduce de risk of people ending up on fishing sites. As for you, we never looked at limiting peoples access to the internet.
The benifits I got from adding a local cache were:
* Reduced the office internet connection bandwith usage (download speed got a little faster in genera).
* Lowered by almost 40% the total amount of data downloaded over the internet.
* Content filtering of well known fishing and exploit sites.
My understanding is that with the basic [Barracuda Web Filter](http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/web-filter-features.php) is really there to prevent poeple from surfing unappropriate content or use IM. The larger versions seems to include caching. From my experience I would not setup a web filter without caching because I would feel I do not get any kind of return on investment by just filtering peoples connections. | When a company reaches a certain size, your legal department will force you to start censoring web access due to sexual harassment risks. A proxy makes this easier to implement.
Basically anything that a woman wants it to be is sexual harassment in the US. With the custom of laying out offices so that everyone can see everyone else's monitor, this creates a huge risk.
Just because there's obviously nothing wrong with it or no way a reasonable person could be offended doesn't mean it isn't sexual harassment.
How large a company depends on the industry, where in the world you are, and how many women are working there. Usually a company can withstand one incident before a crackdown. The company's role is to show that they're doing something about it, it doesn't matter that it is impossible to prevent.
I would set up a proxy from day one, this way you can restrict non-IT people more heavily than IT people, and make it less likely that the company will force something extremely restrictive on everyone.
And you NEED the logging if you're running a serious business. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | I've heard similar a number of times and in my experience it doesn't work. Education of users is the way.
Included in my duties is maintaining an office network of ~50 computers and we don't have a proxy solution in place. What I do though is to immediately firewall someone off if they are causing problems. Then go and talk to them and explain why I have done it.
This might seem a little harsh but it works wonders, they soon realize what they can and can't do and generally users don't do the same thing twice.
Note that I probably have 1 incident a month where I have to firewall someone off and they will generally be allowed back on as soon as I have finished speaking to them. | Perhaps the document you where reading was talking about a web-cache instead of just a proxy/gateway? A cache is a proxy that stores frequently visited pages and delivers them to your clients instead of making a request across your wan link every time someone on your network requests something.
On one networks with around ~100 users I tend to see that about 25-30% of the requests are served from the cache, of course this only amounts to about a 8-12% savings in bandwidth, because stuff that is frequently re-used tends to be smaller files.
If you have limited bandwidth caching does help speed things up a bit. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | An outbound proxy server can provide more than one benefit to your network:
* Content Caching - instead of 25 people hitting your DSL connection with slashdot & fark page reloads the content can be cached on an internal server. This will speed up access to external sites, especially when the images are cached at the proxy.
* Content Monitoring - you can always go back and look at the logs if you like.
* Content Filtering - virus scanning, etc.
* Access Restrictions - generally, surfing porn on the bank teller computers is a no-no.
* User Identification - perhaps you would like to know **who** is surfing all day
The answer to the question "when do we need to move to a web proxy" is generally answered by "when you need one of the above functions".
You need Content Caching when you're sending "a lot" of traffic through your internet connection. Perhaps the connection is slow, or perhaps you're getting overage charges that you'd like to avoid.
As for the other functions, you need a proxy when you want to perform that function. There are generally other ways to accomplish those functions as well, yes, but a proxy is usually the "easiest". | I've heard similar a number of times and in my experience it doesn't work. Education of users is the way.
Included in my duties is maintaining an office network of ~50 computers and we don't have a proxy solution in place. What I do though is to immediately firewall someone off if they are causing problems. Then go and talk to them and explain why I have done it.
This might seem a little harsh but it works wonders, they soon realize what they can and can't do and generally users don't do the same thing twice.
Note that I probably have 1 incident a month where I have to firewall someone off and they will generally be allowed back on as soon as I have finished speaking to them. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | Myself, I installed a Web Proxy to provide a local cache. We had a setup with about 40 users.I used a dedicated Linux Server with a [Squid proxy](http://www.squid-cache.org/) on it so I cannot talk of the Barracuda web filter. I setup our gateway to enable [transparent proxying](http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/TransparentProxy.html) so nobody would see the difference. With time, some limited filtering was added (some known bad sites) and I moved our DNS forwarding to [OpenDNS](http://www.opendns.com/) to reduce de risk of people ending up on fishing sites. As for you, we never looked at limiting peoples access to the internet.
The benifits I got from adding a local cache were:
* Reduced the office internet connection bandwith usage (download speed got a little faster in genera).
* Lowered by almost 40% the total amount of data downloaded over the internet.
* Content filtering of well known fishing and exploit sites.
My understanding is that with the basic [Barracuda Web Filter](http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/web-filter-features.php) is really there to prevent poeple from surfing unappropriate content or use IM. The larger versions seems to include caching. From my experience I would not setup a web filter without caching because I would feel I do not get any kind of return on investment by just filtering peoples connections. | At my current job we use a filter as a result of people watching streaming video on and off their lunch breaks. We have a rotating lunch schedule so as group1 is off for lunch, group2 is still working. This was killing our bandwidth to the outside world, as a result we purchased a Barracuda Web filter. It works just fine, our need was to open up expensive bandwidth.
It also helped clean up some spyware/general internet crap throughout our network, which was a nice bonus. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | Perhaps the document you where reading was talking about a web-cache instead of just a proxy/gateway? A cache is a proxy that stores frequently visited pages and delivers them to your clients instead of making a request across your wan link every time someone on your network requests something.
On one networks with around ~100 users I tend to see that about 25-30% of the requests are served from the cache, of course this only amounts to about a 8-12% savings in bandwidth, because stuff that is frequently re-used tends to be smaller files.
If you have limited bandwidth caching does help speed things up a bit. | When a company reaches a certain size, your legal department will force you to start censoring web access due to sexual harassment risks. A proxy makes this easier to implement.
Basically anything that a woman wants it to be is sexual harassment in the US. With the custom of laying out offices so that everyone can see everyone else's monitor, this creates a huge risk.
Just because there's obviously nothing wrong with it or no way a reasonable person could be offended doesn't mean it isn't sexual harassment.
How large a company depends on the industry, where in the world you are, and how many women are working there. Usually a company can withstand one incident before a crackdown. The company's role is to show that they're doing something about it, it doesn't matter that it is impossible to prevent.
I would set up a proxy from day one, this way you can restrict non-IT people more heavily than IT people, and make it less likely that the company will force something extremely restrictive on everyone.
And you NEED the logging if you're running a serious business. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | An outbound proxy server can provide more than one benefit to your network:
* Content Caching - instead of 25 people hitting your DSL connection with slashdot & fark page reloads the content can be cached on an internal server. This will speed up access to external sites, especially when the images are cached at the proxy.
* Content Monitoring - you can always go back and look at the logs if you like.
* Content Filtering - virus scanning, etc.
* Access Restrictions - generally, surfing porn on the bank teller computers is a no-no.
* User Identification - perhaps you would like to know **who** is surfing all day
The answer to the question "when do we need to move to a web proxy" is generally answered by "when you need one of the above functions".
You need Content Caching when you're sending "a lot" of traffic through your internet connection. Perhaps the connection is slow, or perhaps you're getting overage charges that you'd like to avoid.
As for the other functions, you need a proxy when you want to perform that function. There are generally other ways to accomplish those functions as well, yes, but a proxy is usually the "easiest". | When a company reaches a certain size, your legal department will force you to start censoring web access due to sexual harassment risks. A proxy makes this easier to implement.
Basically anything that a woman wants it to be is sexual harassment in the US. With the custom of laying out offices so that everyone can see everyone else's monitor, this creates a huge risk.
Just because there's obviously nothing wrong with it or no way a reasonable person could be offended doesn't mean it isn't sexual harassment.
How large a company depends on the industry, where in the world you are, and how many women are working there. Usually a company can withstand one incident before a crackdown. The company's role is to show that they're doing something about it, it doesn't matter that it is impossible to prevent.
I would set up a proxy from day one, this way you can restrict non-IT people more heavily than IT people, and make it less likely that the company will force something extremely restrictive on everyone.
And you NEED the logging if you're running a serious business. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | I've heard similar a number of times and in my experience it doesn't work. Education of users is the way.
Included in my duties is maintaining an office network of ~50 computers and we don't have a proxy solution in place. What I do though is to immediately firewall someone off if they are causing problems. Then go and talk to them and explain why I have done it.
This might seem a little harsh but it works wonders, they soon realize what they can and can't do and generally users don't do the same thing twice.
Note that I probably have 1 incident a month where I have to firewall someone off and they will generally be allowed back on as soon as I have finished speaking to them. | At my current job we use a filter as a result of people watching streaming video on and off their lunch breaks. We have a rotating lunch schedule so as group1 is off for lunch, group2 is still working. This was killing our bandwidth to the outside world, as a result we purchased a Barracuda Web filter. It works just fine, our need was to open up expensive bandwidth.
It also helped clean up some spyware/general internet crap throughout our network, which was a nice bonus. |
5,480 | Right now we have about a 25-30 PC network, connected to the internet with a run-of-the-mill SonicWall Firewall/Router device. There isn't much filtering / blocking other than outgoing SMTP (for viruses etc.). I recall reading that at some point a network/company reaches critical mass and needs to send things through a web proxy/gateway... but not why!
My guess is maybe for content filtering (don't visit porn sites, etc.) and/or virus stuff (so they don't download virus infected files), but do we need a dedicated device for that? Why won't things like Cisco ASAs do the job? What other reasons would we have for doing that? How might I determine if/when we need to move to a web proxy?
Currently we have no plans of monitoring/limiting web access and each desktop has antivirus installed. | 2009/05/06 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/5480",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1478/"
] | At my current job we use a filter as a result of people watching streaming video on and off their lunch breaks. We have a rotating lunch schedule so as group1 is off for lunch, group2 is still working. This was killing our bandwidth to the outside world, as a result we purchased a Barracuda Web filter. It works just fine, our need was to open up expensive bandwidth.
It also helped clean up some spyware/general internet crap throughout our network, which was a nice bonus. | When a company reaches a certain size, your legal department will force you to start censoring web access due to sexual harassment risks. A proxy makes this easier to implement.
Basically anything that a woman wants it to be is sexual harassment in the US. With the custom of laying out offices so that everyone can see everyone else's monitor, this creates a huge risk.
Just because there's obviously nothing wrong with it or no way a reasonable person could be offended doesn't mean it isn't sexual harassment.
How large a company depends on the industry, where in the world you are, and how many women are working there. Usually a company can withstand one incident before a crackdown. The company's role is to show that they're doing something about it, it doesn't matter that it is impossible to prevent.
I would set up a proxy from day one, this way you can restrict non-IT people more heavily than IT people, and make it less likely that the company will force something extremely restrictive on everyone.
And you NEED the logging if you're running a serious business. |
369,594 | In my understanding, evolutionary architecture boils down to making architecture easy to modify. Now architecture is often defined as the things that you should get right early because they will be hard to change later.
How does this fit together? Is there any difference between evolutionary architecture and simply minimizing the amount of architecture? | 2018/04/18 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/369594",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/217956/"
] | Neal Ford's keynote on Evolutionary Architecture can be found [here.](http://nealford.com/downloads/Evolutionary_Architecture_Keynote_by_Neal_Ford.pdf)
Paraphrasing:
>
> Architecture is the decisions
> that you wish you could get right early
> in a project, things that people perceive
> as hard to change. But what if we built
> architectures that expect
> change?
>
>
> An evolutionary architecture supports
> incremental, guided change as a first
> principle across multiple dimensions.
>
>
>
He goes on to describe different architectural scenarios, starting with Big Ball of Mud, layered architectures, microkernels and REST, and culminating in microservices, which he says have *n* dimensions of evolutionary capability (where *n* is the number of distinct microservices).
According to Ford, evolutionary architectures:
* Are [loosely-coupled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(computer_programming)) and highly [cohesive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_(computer_science)),
* Are composable; components can be assembled to create new architectures,
* Can be changed incrementally, without requiring an architectural overhaul.
You can think of Evolutionary Architecture as a meta-architecture, if you like; an architecture of architectures. Guidance that dictates design principles that promote casting things in clay instead of stone. | Yes, it is a contradiction if you are making everything easy to change indiscriminately. If you have to add code to make something "easier to change" (with "easier" poorly defined, as here), then you have made it harder to change, simply because you added code. On the other hand, if you know exactly what will be changing, which is highly unlikely, the additional code should not be viewed as unnecessary complexity.
Making things "easy to change" is probably the main reason much modern software has become so bloated and difficult to change. |
251,077 | Whenever I write a question (on Stack Overflow at least) it removes the greeting I put in the message.
What is the reason for this?
It was just removed here as well. | 2014/03/27 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/251077",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/2139370/"
] | The consensus is that salutations in a question (or answer, for that matter) [are noise](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950) and should be edited out.
All they do is take screen real-estate, require reading and parsing (or parsing out) by those who read the question and are not relevant to the issue at hand.
So people edit them out. | Not only do editors remove noise from posts, [the system automatically removes common greetings](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/93989/280467) from the posts on its own. |
2,951 | Is it possible to move the "All" Jenkins tab from the main view all the way right? It's just my browsing preference to see it at the end to not obstruct my always specific habit of using views. In other words, I would like my first view to be what I see at the beginning on the left. | 2017/12/22 | [
"https://devops.stackexchange.com/questions/2951",
"https://devops.stackexchange.com",
"https://devops.stackexchange.com/users/3920/"
] | One option is to add a new view, remove the "All" view, create a new view, select "All" and let it start with "z", e.g. "z-all" as the view is sorted alphabetically.
There is [an open issue](https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-4242) that indicates that the ordering of tabs in Jenkins is alphabetically sorted and cannot be changed at the moment, e.g. change the order manually. | I don't have currently any Jenkins instance to test it but what worked 4 years ago is that when you rename tab if you place a space (" ") symbol as name prefix and save it does not show up (since HTML hides trailing and leading spaces) but it takes part in alphabet sorting. So you could move part of tabs to the left or right, or even mix them all as you wish. |
129,526 | Which best fits this sentence?
>
> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
>
>
> 1. mandatory
> 2. **a** mandatory
>
>
>
When I try to search, I found both of them in use and I got confused. | 2017/05/15 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/129526",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/55325/"
] | In both the cases, *mandatory* is an adjective. What you're missing is the context.
1. >
> is mandatory
>
>
>
2. >
> is a mandatory
>
>
>
Structure #1 is obvious.
>
> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is **mandatory**.
>
>
>
Structure #2 doesn't stand alone. *Mandatory* is describing a noun and whatever it is describing must follow.
>
> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is **a mandatory** condition.
>
>
> | *Mandatory* can be used as a noun, as can virtually any other adjective. For example, Russian communists used to be called "Reds" after the color they identified their movement with. High-beam headlights for a long time were called "brights"—an adjective serving as a noun. There are countless other examples in English.
The primary use of the word *mandatory* is as an adjective, but it could be used as a noun under the right circumstances. For example,
>
> There are certain mandatories that must be followed to do this job correctly: be attentive, be prompt, be courteous.
>
>
>
Compare this with the adjectival phrase "nice to have," which is turned into a noun with increasing frequency:
>
> That is not a mandatory condition, but we all feel it is a "nice-to-have."
>
>
>
This is how people talk in the real world of English, whatever anyone else may tell you. Also note that the plural form, *mandatories*, is [listed by some dictionaries](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mandatory) as a noun all by itself, referring to people who have been given a mandate, or who are *mandataries*. |
129,526 | Which best fits this sentence?
>
> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
>
>
> 1. mandatory
> 2. **a** mandatory
>
>
>
When I try to search, I found both of them in use and I got confused. | 2017/05/15 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/129526",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/55325/"
] | The sentence "X is Y", where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, is an unexceptional sentence. "Jim is old", "cats are friendly", "attendance is mandatory."
The sentence "X is a Y", where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, implies the adjective has been promoted to a noun for some reason.
Almost any adjective can be promoted to a noun, but fairly few ever are. For example, if you said, "Jim is deplorable", you are implying Jim deserves strong condemnation for some reason.
If you said, "Jim is a deplorable", that means something very different.
Last year, Hillary Clinton was running for president and said, "To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of [her opponent Donald] Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it." (Whatever else you say about her remark, she managed to promote six adjectives to nouns.)
In reaction, many Trump supporters tagged themselves "deplorables"; saying "Jim is a deplorable" means specifically he is a Trump supporter.
"Mandatory" has no such widespread use as a noun, but it's easy to see how it could happen in a community. Perhaps in your academic department, some courses are optional and others are mandatory, and this distinction is widely understood; the phrase "a mandatory" might come to mean "a mandatory course" -- just as in the workplace a temporary worker is "a temp", or in a haberdashery a large-size suit (or a large-size customer) is "a large".
Within the context of your department, you might easily say, "Occ Civ [Occidental Civilization] is a mandatory"; out that context, the sentence would be unintelligible. | *Mandatory* can be used as a noun, as can virtually any other adjective. For example, Russian communists used to be called "Reds" after the color they identified their movement with. High-beam headlights for a long time were called "brights"—an adjective serving as a noun. There are countless other examples in English.
The primary use of the word *mandatory* is as an adjective, but it could be used as a noun under the right circumstances. For example,
>
> There are certain mandatories that must be followed to do this job correctly: be attentive, be prompt, be courteous.
>
>
>
Compare this with the adjectival phrase "nice to have," which is turned into a noun with increasing frequency:
>
> That is not a mandatory condition, but we all feel it is a "nice-to-have."
>
>
>
This is how people talk in the real world of English, whatever anyone else may tell you. Also note that the plural form, *mandatories*, is [listed by some dictionaries](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mandatory) as a noun all by itself, referring to people who have been given a mandate, or who are *mandataries*. |
24,187 | In the USSR there flourished some very interesting machines, including the БЭСМ and МЭСМ lines, the Сетунь, the [ЭВМ Стрела](http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/cp0308.htm) and others.
Maybe the most famous ones are
* БЭСМ-4, which is said to have done [the first computer animation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so_HQKv-Bmk),
* the БЭСМ-6, a 48-bit mainframe supporting the Soyuz project sending stuff to outer space,
* or the ternary (not binary!) [Setun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun).
These here computers I've listed look like real successes to me. But then suddenly, around 1980 I would guess, the БЭСМ line stopped being developed any further, the 1801s had their microprograms altered to interpret PDP-11 instructions (this presumably means eschewing the native instruction set they had before, Elektronica NC, about which there is very little information online), chips like the КР1858ВМ1 and other Z80 and 8080 clones started being more common, the [Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba%E2%80%93Kongsberg_scandal), etc etc,
I'm not sure how much of this is to do with miniaturization. In the West there are examples of big machines being later implemented on single chips (Harris 6120, TI9900, etc. etc), but I don't see that kind of thing happen with any of the indigenous Russian designs. So I tentatively suggest that this change was not merely a result of technological advancement, but that interest in Western computers grew, and interest in native computers waned.
Why did this happen? | 2022/03/29 | [
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24187",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/576/"
] | I'm not sure your question is correct. You posit that native Soviet designs were ahead until some point around 1980, when "suddenly" clones of Western designs took over. In fact, Comecon countries started cloning Western machines way earlier. Three examples from the top of my mind, cloning the most successful Western designs of their time:
* There was the [ES EVM (ЕС ЭВМ) series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM) of IBM System/360 / System/370 compatible machines. Work began in 1968, production began in 1972.
* The Hungarian [TPA series](http://hampage.hu/tpa/e_index.html) of machines started with a clone of the PDP-8 in 1968, and later included clones of the PDP-11 (1977) and the VAX.
* Production of the [SM EVM (СМ ЭВМ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_EVM), a Soviet PDP-11 clone, started in 1975.
The [PDP-8 FAQ](https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/%7Ejones/pdp8/faqs/) lists two more Soviet PDP-8 clones (Electronica-100, Saratov-2), but without giving dates. Similarly, the [PDP-11's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11#Unlicensed_clones) has a long list of unlicensed clones from Comecon countries, though I don't know how many of those predate 1980.
It's interesting to compare the BESM-6 (БЭСМ-6) from your question with the ES EVM. Both are mainframes designed in the mid-60s, with production starting in the late 60s and ending (with various modifications and improvements along the way) in the 80s. [355 BESM-6 were made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM-6), but - if you include production in other Comecon countries - [more than 15000 ES EVM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM).
In general, the number of computers produced in the East was rather low: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries) cites a source stating that "by 1972 the Comecon countries had produced around 7,500 computers, compared to 120,000 in the rest of the world." Reproducing Western architectures meant that software was (more or less) readily available (and definitely [easier to smuggle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_computing_technology_smuggling) ;-) ), whereas it had to be rewritten for home grown designs. | 1. Economy of scale.
The "scale" part requires an economy to back the development and the production by buying the products. The iron curtain separated the "west" (an economy with ~1 billion people) and the "east" (~300 million people with much less GDP per capita). Other parts of the world are not counted because they came late to the party.
2. Administrative approach vs free market approach. Only the first western projects were government-run (with the usual governmental overhead). Then, the market took off.
3. A lot of effort in the east went to making the designs intentionally different than the western approach to the same task - and not necessarily better. Here goes Setun as well.
4. Once sufficiently lagged and constrained in R&D resources, the east was much more interested in cloning and reverse-engineering the western designs. This was much more successful than reinventing a wheel after a wheel.
And then, what exactly did the East better? (I am from the East, I know the answer.) |
24,187 | In the USSR there flourished some very interesting machines, including the БЭСМ and МЭСМ lines, the Сетунь, the [ЭВМ Стрела](http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/cp0308.htm) and others.
Maybe the most famous ones are
* БЭСМ-4, which is said to have done [the first computer animation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so_HQKv-Bmk),
* the БЭСМ-6, a 48-bit mainframe supporting the Soyuz project sending stuff to outer space,
* or the ternary (not binary!) [Setun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun).
These here computers I've listed look like real successes to me. But then suddenly, around 1980 I would guess, the БЭСМ line stopped being developed any further, the 1801s had their microprograms altered to interpret PDP-11 instructions (this presumably means eschewing the native instruction set they had before, Elektronica NC, about which there is very little information online), chips like the КР1858ВМ1 and other Z80 and 8080 clones started being more common, the [Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba%E2%80%93Kongsberg_scandal), etc etc,
I'm not sure how much of this is to do with miniaturization. In the West there are examples of big machines being later implemented on single chips (Harris 6120, TI9900, etc. etc), but I don't see that kind of thing happen with any of the indigenous Russian designs. So I tentatively suggest that this change was not merely a result of technological advancement, but that interest in Western computers grew, and interest in native computers waned.
Why did this happen? | 2022/03/29 | [
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24187",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com",
"https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/users/576/"
] | I'm not sure your question is correct. You posit that native Soviet designs were ahead until some point around 1980, when "suddenly" clones of Western designs took over. In fact, Comecon countries started cloning Western machines way earlier. Three examples from the top of my mind, cloning the most successful Western designs of their time:
* There was the [ES EVM (ЕС ЭВМ) series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM) of IBM System/360 / System/370 compatible machines. Work began in 1968, production began in 1972.
* The Hungarian [TPA series](http://hampage.hu/tpa/e_index.html) of machines started with a clone of the PDP-8 in 1968, and later included clones of the PDP-11 (1977) and the VAX.
* Production of the [SM EVM (СМ ЭВМ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_EVM), a Soviet PDP-11 clone, started in 1975.
The [PDP-8 FAQ](https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/%7Ejones/pdp8/faqs/) lists two more Soviet PDP-8 clones (Electronica-100, Saratov-2), but without giving dates. Similarly, the [PDP-11's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11#Unlicensed_clones) has a long list of unlicensed clones from Comecon countries, though I don't know how many of those predate 1980.
It's interesting to compare the BESM-6 (БЭСМ-6) from your question with the ES EVM. Both are mainframes designed in the mid-60s, with production starting in the late 60s and ending (with various modifications and improvements along the way) in the 80s. [355 BESM-6 were made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM-6), but - if you include production in other Comecon countries - [more than 15000 ES EVM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM).
In general, the number of computers produced in the East was rather low: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries) cites a source stating that "by 1972 the Comecon countries had produced around 7,500 computers, compared to 120,000 in the rest of the world." Reproducing Western architectures meant that software was (more or less) readily available (and definitely [easier to smuggle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_computing_technology_smuggling) ;-) ), whereas it had to be rewritten for home grown designs. | There is still development of original computer architectures in Russia, but they don't seem to get used commercially very much. In the post-Soviet era, most businesses preferred imported computers, for both performance and reliability.
The [Elbrus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)) brand name covers several ISAs, which are mostly used in space and defence systems. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.