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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It really depends on your project. I'll try to give you some hints, but it can't be comprehensive.
**Localization**
First thing to take into account is the localization. If your fields can be used by a customer from any country, you must consider allowing non alphanumeric characters, and therefore test it. This can lead to some issues, depending on the type of your application (e.g. breaking HMI). If it should not allow non-ASCII characters, you should start with that. Try Japanese or Arabic and see what happens.
**Application type**
The type of your application is the second thing i would take into account.
If you are on a web application, you'll probably care about special characters, as they can be used in [Regular Expressions](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Regular_expression). It can be the source of many issues if it is not correctly handled by the code.
If your application implies some memory management (e.g. embedded development), the size of the fields will probably be important to test. This can overlap with localization tests, as non ASCII characters can take more space.
**Functional constraints**
The constraints of your application should naturally imply all limitations for your fields. Does the company only send products to the US? Are some fields created with values from a database (e.g. Country)? Is there a norm for your field (e.g. IP address)?
**Monkey Testing**
These tests should be done on any fields, as they don't require much time or functional comprehension. Just try typing as many characters as you can and see what happens. I have already seen HMI broken because of no character limit on a textfield. Copying and pasting a very long Lorem Ipsum can lead to interesting things too.
As i said in the introduction, this is in **no way comprehensive**. Your question, as i understand it, is about the complete work of testing and can't be answered in a few lines. You should find many questions and answers for your problem with Google. I can only invite you to read these as much as you can and **create your own testing process for your specific application**. | At least, it should be alphanumeric, plus ',', '.', '-', '#', '/' (e.g. "Washington, D.C", or "New-York"). Possibly there could be more special characters, and in some cases it could allow hieroglyphs.
The most accurate answer for your question should be in specification of the product you test. And if there is none, try asking managers or developers, which characters should be allowed and which shouldn't. |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It should be depends on your application, in your application country field should be dropdown values means system has to filter state based on country which user selected. Else country should be text field means it should accept character, some special characters etc | please check this link from w3schools.....
[java script validations](http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_form_validation.asp)
thanks
**Prakash Nanda** |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It really depends on your project. I'll try to give you some hints, but it can't be comprehensive.
**Localization**
First thing to take into account is the localization. If your fields can be used by a customer from any country, you must consider allowing non alphanumeric characters, and therefore test it. This can lead to some issues, depending on the type of your application (e.g. breaking HMI). If it should not allow non-ASCII characters, you should start with that. Try Japanese or Arabic and see what happens.
**Application type**
The type of your application is the second thing i would take into account.
If you are on a web application, you'll probably care about special characters, as they can be used in [Regular Expressions](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Regular_expression). It can be the source of many issues if it is not correctly handled by the code.
If your application implies some memory management (e.g. embedded development), the size of the fields will probably be important to test. This can overlap with localization tests, as non ASCII characters can take more space.
**Functional constraints**
The constraints of your application should naturally imply all limitations for your fields. Does the company only send products to the US? Are some fields created with values from a database (e.g. Country)? Is there a norm for your field (e.g. IP address)?
**Monkey Testing**
These tests should be done on any fields, as they don't require much time or functional comprehension. Just try typing as many characters as you can and see what happens. I have already seen HMI broken because of no character limit on a textfield. Copying and pasting a very long Lorem Ipsum can lead to interesting things too.
As i said in the introduction, this is in **no way comprehensive**. Your question, as i understand it, is about the complete work of testing and can't be answered in a few lines. You should find many questions and answers for your problem with Google. I can only invite you to read these as much as you can and **create your own testing process for your specific application**. | It should be depends on your application, in your application country field should be dropdown values means system has to filter state based on country which user selected. Else country should be text field means it should accept character, some special characters etc |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It should allow some specific special characters which are used in Country/state names. According to me, best option would be providing values in a drop-down, so that user can select desired value from the drop-down and you can put a generic validation message like "Country is required." | please check this link from w3schools.....
[java script validations](http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_form_validation.asp)
thanks
**Prakash Nanda** |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It really depends on your project. I'll try to give you some hints, but it can't be comprehensive.
**Localization**
First thing to take into account is the localization. If your fields can be used by a customer from any country, you must consider allowing non alphanumeric characters, and therefore test it. This can lead to some issues, depending on the type of your application (e.g. breaking HMI). If it should not allow non-ASCII characters, you should start with that. Try Japanese or Arabic and see what happens.
**Application type**
The type of your application is the second thing i would take into account.
If you are on a web application, you'll probably care about special characters, as they can be used in [Regular Expressions](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Regular_expression). It can be the source of many issues if it is not correctly handled by the code.
If your application implies some memory management (e.g. embedded development), the size of the fields will probably be important to test. This can overlap with localization tests, as non ASCII characters can take more space.
**Functional constraints**
The constraints of your application should naturally imply all limitations for your fields. Does the company only send products to the US? Are some fields created with values from a database (e.g. Country)? Is there a norm for your field (e.g. IP address)?
**Monkey Testing**
These tests should be done on any fields, as they don't require much time or functional comprehension. Just try typing as many characters as you can and see what happens. I have already seen HMI broken because of no character limit on a textfield. Copying and pasting a very long Lorem Ipsum can lead to interesting things too.
As i said in the introduction, this is in **no way comprehensive**. Your question, as i understand it, is about the complete work of testing and can't be answered in a few lines. You should find many questions and answers for your problem with Google. I can only invite you to read these as much as you can and **create your own testing process for your specific application**. | It should allow some specific special characters which are used in Country/state names. According to me, best option would be providing values in a drop-down, so that user can select desired value from the drop-down and you can put a generic validation message like "Country is required." |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | So I will try and put an extensive answer to this. The first issue is that this is a text box where an end user can insert data as they please.
Boundary Testing
----------------
Start with [boundary testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_testing), by this I mean find from the business what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. Test at the boundaries of what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. IE, if it's a 10 character limit, attempt with 11 and make sure that it fails.
Special Characters
------------------
Next step would be testing with special characters to ensure they don't cause issue with the system. I have experienced situations where textboxes used [regular expression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression) and any regular expression in the text box would be processed. This could be a major problem. There is several other issues where special characters can cause problems. This includes things like [SQL Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) and [Illegal Characters](http://forums.codeguru.com/showthread.php?350081-Invalid-characters-in-sql).
After all of that, make sure that it actually works and does what it is supposed to. Also, do things like UI validation, back end validation, integration testing and all of the basics that you should be aware of. | please check this link from w3schools.....
[java script validations](http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_form_validation.asp)
thanks
**Prakash Nanda** |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It really depends on your project. I'll try to give you some hints, but it can't be comprehensive.
**Localization**
First thing to take into account is the localization. If your fields can be used by a customer from any country, you must consider allowing non alphanumeric characters, and therefore test it. This can lead to some issues, depending on the type of your application (e.g. breaking HMI). If it should not allow non-ASCII characters, you should start with that. Try Japanese or Arabic and see what happens.
**Application type**
The type of your application is the second thing i would take into account.
If you are on a web application, you'll probably care about special characters, as they can be used in [Regular Expressions](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Regular_expression). It can be the source of many issues if it is not correctly handled by the code.
If your application implies some memory management (e.g. embedded development), the size of the fields will probably be important to test. This can overlap with localization tests, as non ASCII characters can take more space.
**Functional constraints**
The constraints of your application should naturally imply all limitations for your fields. Does the company only send products to the US? Are some fields created with values from a database (e.g. Country)? Is there a norm for your field (e.g. IP address)?
**Monkey Testing**
These tests should be done on any fields, as they don't require much time or functional comprehension. Just try typing as many characters as you can and see what happens. I have already seen HMI broken because of no character limit on a textfield. Copying and pasting a very long Lorem Ipsum can lead to interesting things too.
As i said in the introduction, this is in **no way comprehensive**. Your question, as i understand it, is about the complete work of testing and can't be answered in a few lines. You should find many questions and answers for your problem with Google. I can only invite you to read these as much as you can and **create your own testing process for your specific application**. | please check this link from w3schools.....
[java script validations](http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_form_validation.asp)
thanks
**Prakash Nanda** |
8,780 | What should be proper validations for text fields like country, State, city
i.e. can it be only characters or alphanumeric or can it also include special characters | 2014/06/04 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/6797/"
] | It really depends on your project. I'll try to give you some hints, but it can't be comprehensive.
**Localization**
First thing to take into account is the localization. If your fields can be used by a customer from any country, you must consider allowing non alphanumeric characters, and therefore test it. This can lead to some issues, depending on the type of your application (e.g. breaking HMI). If it should not allow non-ASCII characters, you should start with that. Try Japanese or Arabic and see what happens.
**Application type**
The type of your application is the second thing i would take into account.
If you are on a web application, you'll probably care about special characters, as they can be used in [Regular Expressions](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Regular_expression). It can be the source of many issues if it is not correctly handled by the code.
If your application implies some memory management (e.g. embedded development), the size of the fields will probably be important to test. This can overlap with localization tests, as non ASCII characters can take more space.
**Functional constraints**
The constraints of your application should naturally imply all limitations for your fields. Does the company only send products to the US? Are some fields created with values from a database (e.g. Country)? Is there a norm for your field (e.g. IP address)?
**Monkey Testing**
These tests should be done on any fields, as they don't require much time or functional comprehension. Just try typing as many characters as you can and see what happens. I have already seen HMI broken because of no character limit on a textfield. Copying and pasting a very long Lorem Ipsum can lead to interesting things too.
As i said in the introduction, this is in **no way comprehensive**. Your question, as i understand it, is about the complete work of testing and can't be answered in a few lines. You should find many questions and answers for your problem with Google. I can only invite you to read these as much as you can and **create your own testing process for your specific application**. | So I will try and put an extensive answer to this. The first issue is that this is a text box where an end user can insert data as they please.
Boundary Testing
----------------
Start with [boundary testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_testing), by this I mean find from the business what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. Test at the boundaries of what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. IE, if it's a 10 character limit, attempt with 11 and make sure that it fails.
Special Characters
------------------
Next step would be testing with special characters to ensure they don't cause issue with the system. I have experienced situations where textboxes used [regular expression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression) and any regular expression in the text box would be processed. This could be a major problem. There is several other issues where special characters can cause problems. This includes things like [SQL Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) and [Illegal Characters](http://forums.codeguru.com/showthread.php?350081-Invalid-characters-in-sql).
After all of that, make sure that it actually works and does what it is supposed to. Also, do things like UI validation, back end validation, integration testing and all of the basics that you should be aware of. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Learn Objective-C first. I was in your position and I tried to do MacRuby and didn't get much of anywhere. Now that I've done some Objective-C development, MacRuby is easy, and it's a nice relief to get back to ruby syntax. | Start with Objective C. I tried starting with MacRuby and was floored by the unnecessary underscores in method names. After learning Objective C, I understand MacRuby a lot better. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Start with Objective C. I tried starting with MacRuby and was floored by the unnecessary underscores in method names. After learning Objective C, I understand MacRuby a lot better. | IMO if you are looking at developing applications for the iPhone then you will need to know Objective-C so you may as well start there. I've never used MacRuby but it sounds like it wouldn't be much of a learning curve if you already have a good grasp of Ruby. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Start with Objective C. I tried starting with MacRuby and was floored by the unnecessary underscores in method names. After learning Objective C, I understand MacRuby a lot better. | I think main reason for learn Objective-C are,
1.Apple's Reference, sample, and most of Cocoa codes in the world are written in Objective-C,
so, anyway you have to read many Objective-C codes, to understand Cocoa frameworks.
Once you got knowledge of Cocoa, going back and force between ObjC and ruby is easy.
2.MacRuby does not support iPhone/iPad currently. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Learn Objective-C first. I was in your position and I tried to do MacRuby and didn't get much of anywhere. Now that I've done some Objective-C development, MacRuby is easy, and it's a nice relief to get back to ruby syntax. | Go straight for Objective-C, especially if you're going for iPhone development. You already know Ruby so don't waste any more time. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Go straight for Objective-C, especially if you're going for iPhone development. You already know Ruby so don't waste any more time. | IMO if you are looking at developing applications for the iPhone then you will need to know Objective-C so you may as well start there. I've never used MacRuby but it sounds like it wouldn't be much of a learning curve if you already have a good grasp of Ruby. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Go straight for Objective-C, especially if you're going for iPhone development. You already know Ruby so don't waste any more time. | I think main reason for learn Objective-C are,
1.Apple's Reference, sample, and most of Cocoa codes in the world are written in Objective-C,
so, anyway you have to read many Objective-C codes, to understand Cocoa frameworks.
Once you got knowledge of Cocoa, going back and force between ObjC and ruby is easy.
2.MacRuby does not support iPhone/iPad currently. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Learn Objective-C first. I was in your position and I tried to do MacRuby and didn't get much of anywhere. Now that I've done some Objective-C development, MacRuby is easy, and it's a nice relief to get back to ruby syntax. | IMO if you are looking at developing applications for the iPhone then you will need to know Objective-C so you may as well start there. I've never used MacRuby but it sounds like it wouldn't be much of a learning curve if you already have a good grasp of Ruby. |
3,196,020 | I want to dive into developing applications for the Mac and later also for the iPhone. For me as a Rubyist it is clear that I learn both, MacRuby and Objective-C. The question is only in which order I should do that. Is it easier to learn Objective-C first and then combine the knowledge of both worlds and start learning MacRuby, or is it easier to start with MacRuby to slowly find your way into developing applications for the Mac?
My understanding of the Ruby language is quite good - 5 years of experience, and I also have a decent understanding of C. Just in case that this makes it easier to answer my question. | 2010/07/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3196020",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/114490/"
] | Learn Objective-C first. I was in your position and I tried to do MacRuby and didn't get much of anywhere. Now that I've done some Objective-C development, MacRuby is easy, and it's a nice relief to get back to ruby syntax. | I think main reason for learn Objective-C are,
1.Apple's Reference, sample, and most of Cocoa codes in the world are written in Objective-C,
so, anyway you have to read many Objective-C codes, to understand Cocoa frameworks.
Once you got knowledge of Cocoa, going back and force between ObjC and ruby is easy.
2.MacRuby does not support iPhone/iPad currently. |
827 | The Ghost in *Hamlet* claims to be Hamlet's father's spirit released from Purgatory. Is it possible that the Ghost is lying? Has it been sent from Hell to stir up mischief in Elsinore? (The play does end with a body count of eight.) | 2017/01/24 | [
"https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/827",
"https://literature.stackexchange.com",
"https://literature.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | What do you think the Ghost might be lying about? Claudius definitely murdered his brother, which we find confirmed in the play-within-a-play (act 3 scene 2), and by Claudius's own confession (act 3 scene 3). However, it's true that the Ghost might not be Hamlet's father. In that case, it would still have to know the details of his father's death, and the details of his father's life. Perhaps it is some infernal spirit who has this knowledge. This is actually a very interesting question.
I think there is no definite answer to this question. It's ambiguous. But it is worth asking questions about the Ghost's intent. Consider these words from the Ghost.
>
> Ghost:
>
> I find thee apt;
>
> And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
>
> That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
>
> Wouldst thou not stir in this. (Act I Scene V)
>
>
>
Fathers often tell their sons or daughters what to do, and the Ghost is acting no differently. The Ghost puts quite a lot of pressure on Hamlet when he says this. In case you don't know, Lethe is a river in Greek mythology that, when drunk from, eases one of all their memories and sufferings. By making this comparison, the Ghost is goading Hamlet into action.
Now, consider the rest of the speech.
>
> Ghost:
>
> Now, Hamlet, hear:
>
> 'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
>
> A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
>
> Is by a forged process of my death
>
> Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
>
> The serpent that did sting thy father's life
>
> Now wears his crown. (Act I Scene V)
>
>
>
The serpent metaphor invokes the Devil. It also makes you wonder whether it could be the Devil speaking to Hamlet. In the same way that Claudius pours poison into his brother's ear, the Ghost might be pouring poison into Hamlet's.
And now this last speech is a little unfair.
>
> Ghost:
>
> O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible!
>
> If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not;
>
> Let not the royal bed of Denmark be
>
> A couch for luxury and damned incest.
>
> But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,
>
> Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
>
> Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven
>
> And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
>
> To prick and sting her. Fare thee well at once!
>
> The glow-worm shows the matin to be near,
>
> And 'gins to pale his uneffectual fire:
>
> Adieu, adieu! Hamlet, remember me. (Act I Scene V)
>
>
>
First, the Ghost breaks the earth-shattering news that Hamlet's uncle killed his father. Then, he tells him not to be rash, nor let this taint his mind. But it clearly does taint his mind. After all, Christian values teach us to forgive, not to take revenge. The Ghost is advocating revenge. And that is the chief ambition of the Devil. So, if the Ghost is Hamlet's father, then he is certainly not purifying himself by coming back as a spirit and enticing his son into revenge. That's called temptation. It's fair to question whether this really is Hamlet's father. But I think the play rightfully does not focus on this question. Instead, it focuses on Hamlet's agency, given what he has heard.
In summary, the Ghost speaks truthfully about the murder of Hamlet's father, but it's ambiguous whether the Ghost actually is Hamlet's father. It could be some demon, or the Devil himself. I think it's worth asking why the Ghost says what he does, and advocates what he does. But ultimately, the play is about Hamlet's struggle to find his way out of the maze he ends up in. To revenge himself seems wrong, but not to revenge himself seems equally wrong. He has a hard predicament, and it's enlightening to see how he finally achieves peace. | The answer by ktm5124 and some of the comments on both the question and ktm5124's answer assume the following definition of honest, which is still in use today (quoted from [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/honest)):
>
> Scrupulous with regard to telling the truth; not given to swindling, lying, or fraud; upright.
>
>
>
However, Shakespeare often uses other meanings of "honest", which are no longer current (quoted from *A Shakespeare Glossary* by C. T. Onions, revised by Robert D. Eagleson. Oxford University Press, 1986):
>
> (1) Holding an honourable position, respectable. (...)
>
>
> (4) Not seeming other than it is, genuine. (...)
>
>
>
In [Act 1, scene 4](http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.1.4.html), Hamlet had said to the ghost:
>
> Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,
>
>
>
Spirit of health here means "good spirit", and "of health" contrast with "damn'd".
In [Act 1, scene 5](http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.1.5.html), Hamlet also swears "by Saint Patrick" before saying it is "an honest ghost". Saint Patrick was a keeper of purgatory, which is where the ghost supposedly comes from, whereas a "damned spirit" would come from hell.
However, as Anne Barton points out in the introduction to the New Penguin Shakespeare edition of the play (Penguin, 1980, page 51),
>
> The ending of *Hamlet* resolves nothing that really matters. The nature of the Ghost, the question of what Hamlet ought to have done, the enigma of his delay and his own inability to explain it, (...): these issues, of far more consequence than the killing of Claudius, are left untouched by that killing.
>
>
> |
323,592 | Is the following sentence okay? Does the "love" mean "fall in love with"?
>
> I loved her when I first saw her.
>
>
> | 2022/09/24 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/323592",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/3865/"
] | It doesn't make sense to me, because it claims simultaneity between a verb that usually describes a state (love), and an event (when I first saw her).
It would make more sense to say
*I've loved her since I first saw her.*
On the other hand, you might say
*I loved her manner when I first saw her.*
where *love* describes a reaction more than a persistent state. | I think the sentence should be
>
> I have loved her when I first saw her.
>
>
>
Because the simple past tense describes something that happened in the past and is no longer happening now and the present perfect tense describes something that happened in the past and continued up to the present. |
133,947 | I am designing a corporate website career page. Should I use a mega menu for the career page? Here are some of the items related to the career page:
1. Who we are!
2. What we do?
3. Life at Our Company!
4. Reasons to join us?
* compensation
* benefits
* work/life | 2020/07/18 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/133947",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/110126/"
] | Welcome Naveed to UXStackExchange.
I think a megamenu is a bit of an overkill with the options you are currently listing.
Here is [an article from NN/G](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/mega-menus-work-well/) with a quote
>
> Mega menus (sometimes spelled “megamenus”) are a type of expandable
> menu in which many choices are displayed in a two-dimensional dropdown
> layout. **They are an excellent design choice for accommodating a large
> number of options or for revealing lower-level site pages at a glance.**
>
>
>
Now, if you plan on adding more options in the future. Like top-level job categories or more resources, then it might indeed be a good idea to go for a mega menu and make it a tad future-proof.
Another thing to consider is the overall aesthetic of your website and what type of users you expect to visit. Will a mega menu perhaps be useful in other aspects of your website? Then you could implement it as a common design/aesthetic component.
Or, will your users be mostly visiting via mobile? Then maybe again a megamenu can work instead of a fiddly dropdown.
Whatever you choose consider the options you are currently offering, the ones you will offer in the future, and the behaviour you expect from your users. If in doubt, it sounds like the perfect excuse for some A/B testing ;) | This decision could arrive after looking at information architecture of the whole website. But, looking at the content you plan to put, it appears that can come on single page instead of links in mega menu |
133,947 | I am designing a corporate website career page. Should I use a mega menu for the career page? Here are some of the items related to the career page:
1. Who we are!
2. What we do?
3. Life at Our Company!
4. Reasons to join us?
* compensation
* benefits
* work/life | 2020/07/18 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/133947",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/110126/"
] | Welcome Naveed to UXStackExchange.
I think a megamenu is a bit of an overkill with the options you are currently listing.
Here is [an article from NN/G](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/mega-menus-work-well/) with a quote
>
> Mega menus (sometimes spelled “megamenus”) are a type of expandable
> menu in which many choices are displayed in a two-dimensional dropdown
> layout. **They are an excellent design choice for accommodating a large
> number of options or for revealing lower-level site pages at a glance.**
>
>
>
Now, if you plan on adding more options in the future. Like top-level job categories or more resources, then it might indeed be a good idea to go for a mega menu and make it a tad future-proof.
Another thing to consider is the overall aesthetic of your website and what type of users you expect to visit. Will a mega menu perhaps be useful in other aspects of your website? Then you could implement it as a common design/aesthetic component.
Or, will your users be mostly visiting via mobile? Then maybe again a megamenu can work instead of a fiddly dropdown.
Whatever you choose consider the options you are currently offering, the ones you will offer in the future, and the behaviour you expect from your users. If in doubt, it sounds like the perfect excuse for some A/B testing ;) | Yes you can only if you have multiple list of job or multiple jobs in different categories then you can show categories in individual columns. |
4,953,347 | I am working in Mac system. Is it possible to run Objective-C programs in Xcode? I am not talking about running iPhone/Mac projects. I am talking about simple Objective-C programs, like we run C programs in C editors. Does Xcode has the provision for this? Or, I have to use some other editors? Which editors I can use?
Please suggest me.. Thanks everyone.. | 2011/02/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4953347",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/491980/"
] | You don't need Xcode to run a program. You can just execute a program from the command line or by double-clicking. (You also do not need an editor to run a C program.) | [This SO link](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2697883/how-do-you-create-a-simple-objective-c-command-line-project-in-xcode) from David Gelhar's comment on my question has the answer for this question. |
4,953,347 | I am working in Mac system. Is it possible to run Objective-C programs in Xcode? I am not talking about running iPhone/Mac projects. I am talking about simple Objective-C programs, like we run C programs in C editors. Does Xcode has the provision for this? Or, I have to use some other editors? Which editors I can use?
Please suggest me.. Thanks everyone.. | 2011/02/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4953347",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/491980/"
] | Foundation is the one that you want
On xcode 4.4 its under OSX -> Application -> Command Line Tool
And change the option to Foundation | [This SO link](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2697883/how-do-you-create-a-simple-objective-c-command-line-project-in-xcode) from David Gelhar's comment on my question has the answer for this question. |
94,592 | Sometimes it might be useful, but mostly just looking cool or impressive to visualize log files (anything from http requests and to bandwith usage to cups of coffee drunk per day).
I know about [Visitorville](http://www.visitorville.com/) which I think look a bit silly, and then there's [gltail](http://www.fudgie.org/).
How do you "visualize" your log files in realtime? | 2008/09/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/94592",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17542/"
] | I mainly use [R](http://www.r-project.org/) to visualize data, but I've heard of [Orange](http://orange.biolab.si/), too. | Using SciTe, Notepad++ or other powerful text editor which have file processing routines, so you can create a script that colorizes parts of the log or just delete some non-important lines from it |
94,592 | Sometimes it might be useful, but mostly just looking cool or impressive to visualize log files (anything from http requests and to bandwith usage to cups of coffee drunk per day).
I know about [Visitorville](http://www.visitorville.com/) which I think look a bit silly, and then there's [gltail](http://www.fudgie.org/).
How do you "visualize" your log files in realtime? | 2008/09/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/94592",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17542/"
] | You may take a look at Apache Chainsaw. This nifty tool allows Log incomes from nearly everyqhere and has live filtering and colering. If you have an already written Log, I'm not sure if it can read it, it's been a while since I used it last time (was very usefull for the prototyping phase of our JBoss server) | We use [Awk](http://www.vectorsite.net/tsawk.html) and Perl scripts to parse the log files and create summary reports and "databases" (technically databases in that each row corresponds to a unique event with many columns of data about that event, but not stored in a traditional database format. We're moving in that direction). I like Awk because you can very quickly search for specific strings in the log files using regex, keep counters and gather data from the log file entries, and do all kinds of calculations with that data. Then use your favorite plotting software. We use Excel, mainly because that's what was here before I started this job. I prefer MATLAB and it's open-source cousin, [Octave](http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/), which is built on gnuplot. |
94,592 | Sometimes it might be useful, but mostly just looking cool or impressive to visualize log files (anything from http requests and to bandwith usage to cups of coffee drunk per day).
I know about [Visitorville](http://www.visitorville.com/) which I think look a bit silly, and then there's [gltail](http://www.fudgie.org/).
How do you "visualize" your log files in realtime? | 2008/09/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/94592",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17542/"
] | There is also the logstalgia tool. Visualizes Apache logs. See <http://code.google.com/p/logstalgia/> for more details and a youtube video. | You could take a look at this. <http://www.intalisys.com>. 3D realtime vis app |
94,592 | Sometimes it might be useful, but mostly just looking cool or impressive to visualize log files (anything from http requests and to bandwith usage to cups of coffee drunk per day).
I know about [Visitorville](http://www.visitorville.com/) which I think look a bit silly, and then there's [gltail](http://www.fudgie.org/).
How do you "visualize" your log files in realtime? | 2008/09/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/94592",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17542/"
] | I prefer [Sawmill](http://www.sawmill.net/features.html) for visualizing data. You can basically throw any log file against it, and it will not only autodetect its structure\*, but will also decide on how to analyze it. Even if you have a custom log file, you can still define what and how shall be analyzed and visualized. | Using SciTe, Notepad++ or other powerful text editor which have file processing routines, so you can create a script that colorizes parts of the log or just delete some non-important lines from it |
94,592 | Sometimes it might be useful, but mostly just looking cool or impressive to visualize log files (anything from http requests and to bandwith usage to cups of coffee drunk per day).
I know about [Visitorville](http://www.visitorville.com/) which I think look a bit silly, and then there's [gltail](http://www.fudgie.org/).
How do you "visualize" your log files in realtime? | 2008/09/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/94592",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17542/"
] | You may take a look at Apache Chainsaw. This nifty tool allows Log incomes from nearly everyqhere and has live filtering and colering. If you have an already written Log, I'm not sure if it can read it, it's been a while since I used it last time (was very usefull for the prototyping phase of our JBoss server) | Google has released the [Visualization API](http://code.google.com/apis/visualization/) that is probably flexible enough to help you:
>
> The Google Visualization API lets you access multiple sources of structured data that you can display, choosing from a large selection of visualizations. The Google Visualization API also provides a platform that can be used to create, share and reuse visualizations written by the developer community at large.
>
>
>
It requires some Javascript knowledge and includes Google Docs integration, Spreadsheet integration. Check out the [Gallery](http://code.google.com/apis/visualization/documentation/gallery.html) for some examples. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | My two biggest mistakes are:
1. I expect the world to fall in love with my project as soon as I post it anywhere. If I don't get immediate feedback how great I am, I quickly lose interest.
2. When I get quick feedback, I often don't respond on a timely basis because I have so many projects. | The first pitfall is to start a new project when there are already plenty of existing projects that are planning to do the same thing. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | Choosing the wrong license (for different values of 'wrong') is a common pitfall. Two examples:
1.) If you're using a license that does not allow for relicensing under different terms *and* you accept contributors code, you need to keep in mind that the code suddenly is not *yours* anymore. This is fine for some hobby project, but might limit your commercial options later. Of course, it also limits other's commercial options too.
An example for this is the GPL. Include contributed code under this license and you're bound to the GPL yourself and can't decide to dual-license later (unless you nail this down for every contributor). Even a simple change of the license to a similar OpenSource license is impossible: See the linux kernel - it's bound to GPL V2 and can't be updated to GPL V3.
2.) If you're using a permissive license (e. g. Apache, MIT, BSD) you need to keep in mind that not only you can go commercial and close the code later, but anybody else can do so too.
Don't get me wrong: I like the GPL, I'm happily contributing to GPL projects and am glad that these projects exist. I also like BSD, Apache, MIT (the permissive ones) and am contributing to projects that others exploit commercially, e.g. through "Enterprise Editions" of the software that I'm getting OpenSource. It's all fair game - you just have to be sure what options you want to have later. None is better, they're just different. | **"Eat Your Own Dog Food."**
Be your first user. This is good:
* to know what you're doing
* to motivate yourself
* to get early feedback
I think it's nearly impossible to write open source software you're not using yourself.
"Eat Your Own Dog Food" tries to break out of the vicious circle: Nobody uses the software because it is not useable; it is not useable because there is no user feedback. Try to develop something that is useful for you and see if it sticks and gains some traction.
Besides using the software yourself “**Release Often, Release Early**”. With release I do not mean publishing some source zip somewhere but a real end to end release. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | Currently I am starting a blog based on a talk that I have given on the FrOSCon here in germany.
[First article: There shall be light – things to keep in mind when starting a project](http://www.openprojectguide.org/2009/11/13/there-shall-be-light-things-to-keep-in-mind-when-starting-a-project/)
Maybe this helps. I don't know how long it will take to write the following 19 blog posts.
I'll answer clinton here:
Not so obvious stuff for new users is:
For User focused software:
* getting started guide (Get the software to run quickly)
* screenshots! Users love screenshots and too few projects provide them
For developer centric software:
* getting started guide ("get to code quickly" for example by explaining dependencies, structure, compile and start process)
* code of conduct
I'll think a little bit more about it and add it here. | Positively super great documentation is a must. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | Choosing the wrong license (for different values of 'wrong') is a common pitfall. Two examples:
1.) If you're using a license that does not allow for relicensing under different terms *and* you accept contributors code, you need to keep in mind that the code suddenly is not *yours* anymore. This is fine for some hobby project, but might limit your commercial options later. Of course, it also limits other's commercial options too.
An example for this is the GPL. Include contributed code under this license and you're bound to the GPL yourself and can't decide to dual-license later (unless you nail this down for every contributor). Even a simple change of the license to a similar OpenSource license is impossible: See the linux kernel - it's bound to GPL V2 and can't be updated to GPL V3.
2.) If you're using a permissive license (e. g. Apache, MIT, BSD) you need to keep in mind that not only you can go commercial and close the code later, but anybody else can do so too.
Don't get me wrong: I like the GPL, I'm happily contributing to GPL projects and am glad that these projects exist. I also like BSD, Apache, MIT (the permissive ones) and am contributing to projects that others exploit commercially, e.g. through "Enterprise Editions" of the software that I'm getting OpenSource. It's all fair game - you just have to be sure what options you want to have later. None is better, they're just different. | Currently I am starting a blog based on a talk that I have given on the FrOSCon here in germany.
[First article: There shall be light – things to keep in mind when starting a project](http://www.openprojectguide.org/2009/11/13/there-shall-be-light-things-to-keep-in-mind-when-starting-a-project/)
Maybe this helps. I don't know how long it will take to write the following 19 blog posts.
I'll answer clinton here:
Not so obvious stuff for new users is:
For User focused software:
* getting started guide (Get the software to run quickly)
* screenshots! Users love screenshots and too few projects provide them
For developer centric software:
* getting started guide ("get to code quickly" for example by explaining dependencies, structure, compile and start process)
* code of conduct
I'll think a little bit more about it and add it here. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | My two biggest mistakes are:
1. I expect the world to fall in love with my project as soon as I post it anywhere. If I don't get immediate feedback how great I am, I quickly lose interest.
2. When I get quick feedback, I often don't respond on a timely basis because I have so many projects. | Currently I am starting a blog based on a talk that I have given on the FrOSCon here in germany.
[First article: There shall be light – things to keep in mind when starting a project](http://www.openprojectguide.org/2009/11/13/there-shall-be-light-things-to-keep-in-mind-when-starting-a-project/)
Maybe this helps. I don't know how long it will take to write the following 19 blog posts.
I'll answer clinton here:
Not so obvious stuff for new users is:
For User focused software:
* getting started guide (Get the software to run quickly)
* screenshots! Users love screenshots and too few projects provide them
For developer centric software:
* getting started guide ("get to code quickly" for example by explaining dependencies, structure, compile and start process)
* code of conduct
I'll think a little bit more about it and add it here. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | My two biggest mistakes are:
1. I expect the world to fall in love with my project as soon as I post it anywhere. If I don't get immediate feedback how great I am, I quickly lose interest.
2. When I get quick feedback, I often don't respond on a timely basis because I have so many projects. | Positively super great documentation is a must. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | Choosing the wrong license (for different values of 'wrong') is a common pitfall. Two examples:
1.) If you're using a license that does not allow for relicensing under different terms *and* you accept contributors code, you need to keep in mind that the code suddenly is not *yours* anymore. This is fine for some hobby project, but might limit your commercial options later. Of course, it also limits other's commercial options too.
An example for this is the GPL. Include contributed code under this license and you're bound to the GPL yourself and can't decide to dual-license later (unless you nail this down for every contributor). Even a simple change of the license to a similar OpenSource license is impossible: See the linux kernel - it's bound to GPL V2 and can't be updated to GPL V3.
2.) If you're using a permissive license (e. g. Apache, MIT, BSD) you need to keep in mind that not only you can go commercial and close the code later, but anybody else can do so too.
Don't get me wrong: I like the GPL, I'm happily contributing to GPL projects and am glad that these projects exist. I also like BSD, Apache, MIT (the permissive ones) and am contributing to projects that others exploit commercially, e.g. through "Enterprise Editions" of the software that I'm getting OpenSource. It's all fair game - you just have to be sure what options you want to have later. None is better, they're just different. | Positively super great documentation is a must. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | Choosing the wrong license (for different values of 'wrong') is a common pitfall. Two examples:
1.) If you're using a license that does not allow for relicensing under different terms *and* you accept contributors code, you need to keep in mind that the code suddenly is not *yours* anymore. This is fine for some hobby project, but might limit your commercial options later. Of course, it also limits other's commercial options too.
An example for this is the GPL. Include contributed code under this license and you're bound to the GPL yourself and can't decide to dual-license later (unless you nail this down for every contributor). Even a simple change of the license to a similar OpenSource license is impossible: See the linux kernel - it's bound to GPL V2 and can't be updated to GPL V3.
2.) If you're using a permissive license (e. g. Apache, MIT, BSD) you need to keep in mind that not only you can go commercial and close the code later, but anybody else can do so too.
Don't get me wrong: I like the GPL, I'm happily contributing to GPL projects and am glad that these projects exist. I also like BSD, Apache, MIT (the permissive ones) and am contributing to projects that others exploit commercially, e.g. through "Enterprise Editions" of the software that I'm getting OpenSource. It's all fair game - you just have to be sure what options you want to have later. None is better, they're just different. | The first pitfall is to start a new project when there are already plenty of existing projects that are planning to do the same thing. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | My two biggest mistakes are:
1. I expect the world to fall in love with my project as soon as I post it anywhere. If I don't get immediate feedback how great I am, I quickly lose interest.
2. When I get quick feedback, I often don't respond on a timely basis because I have so many projects. | **"Eat Your Own Dog Food."**
Be your first user. This is good:
* to know what you're doing
* to motivate yourself
* to get early feedback
I think it's nearly impossible to write open source software you're not using yourself.
"Eat Your Own Dog Food" tries to break out of the vicious circle: Nobody uses the software because it is not useable; it is not useable because there is no user feedback. Try to develop something that is useful for you and see if it sticks and gains some traction.
Besides using the software yourself “**Release Often, Release Early**”. With release I do not mean publishing some source zip somewhere but a real end to end release. |
1,845,912 | The [producing open-source software book](http://producingoss.com/) is a gold mine of information on starting open-source projects. Yet I am hoping to learn more from the experience of stackoverflow users and was wondering what are the mistakes you made when starting a new open-source project (or difficulties you encountered when attempting to contribute to a new project), and how would you avoid these traps to become a successful project\*?
\*\*Successful loosely defined as a project that is used, and attracts active contributors.\* | 2009/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1845912",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/216287/"
] | The first pitfall is to start a new project when there are already plenty of existing projects that are planning to do the same thing. | Positively super great documentation is a must. |
57,802,864 | I'm using angular material and we have input type text. The goal is to present numbers like this:
* 2 000.02
* 3 000.00
* 433 232 223.21
In short I want to present values with spaces every 3 digits but to backend I want to send same value but without spaces.
So far I add spaces using regexp to every 3 digits and on ngOnDestroy I was removing them. This component has to do it because I have a lot of services along the way. This approach does not work because first I send post, then we navigate and destroy components so I still send values with spaces.
Wondering if there is smart way to solve this. Something like separate input actual value from presentation value, mask or something. | 2019/09/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/57802864",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11216150/"
] | If you're accessing secrets from EC2 instance, ECS docker container, Lambda function, you can use Roles with policy that allows access to Secrets Manager.
if IAM Role is not an option, You can use Federation Login to get temporary credentials (IAM Role) with policy that allows access to Secrets Manager. | As @Tomasz Breś said, you can use federation if you are already using an on-premis Auth system like [Active directory or Kerberos](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-implement-federated-api-and-cli-access-using-saml-2-0-and-ad-fs/).
If you do not have any type of credentials already on the box, you are left with two choices: store your creds in a file and use file system permissions to protect them, or use hardware like an HSM or TPM to encrypt or store your creds.
In any case, when you store creds on the box (even AD/Kerberos), you should ensure only the application owner has access to that box (in the case of a stand alone app and not a shared CLI). You should also harden the box by turning off all un-necessary software and access methods. |
319,112 | I have a hard drive with the following layout:
I want to delete the first two partitions (a 243 MB Linux swap partition and a 5.87 GB root partition). Problem is, every time I deleted them, Windows would also delete Drive G: and H:, leaving only drive F: intact. Deleting the two Linux partitions using GParted from a Live CD also gave the same result. I've attempted this multiple times now and, after each attempt, TestDisk always managed to recover all the deleted partitions.
Any ideas on how to delete these two partitions without affecting the rest? | 2011/08/04 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/319112",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/91579/"
] | My gut says that it has something to do with deleting both of the primary partitions from the disk, leaving only the extended partition on the drive.
What you might need to do is delete 1 partition first, create a new primary partition in its place, then delete the 2nd partition.
Alternatively, backup, repartition the entire drive, then restore. Which would be quite a bit safer. | If your partition table matches the picture, then deleting those two primary partitions involves writing zeroes to exactly two bytes in sector #0 of your disc. This is a fairly routine partition management task, and most partitioning tools are capable of it without incident. There's [an old Microsoft Knowledgebase article](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/249085 "How to") that shows how to do it with Windows NT 5 and the `FDISK` from MS-DOS, even.
But my educated guess is that the pretty picture is hiding the ugly truth that your partition table is in fact mucked up, especially when two different partitioning utilities from two different heritages behave identically. I wouldn't be surprised — given that it is a known failure mode of some tools — if it turns out that your container partition doesn't have the correct length set.
Since your post is short on detail of your partition table content, it is impossible to do anything more than guess, however. |
41,477 | Is there any Java API that is like OpenLayers ?
I would like to display google Maps and Openlayers Maps in a java application | 2012/11/19 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/41477",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/12607/"
] | Is this what you're after?
<http://weblogs.java.net/blog/cajo/archive/2010/10/16/adding-google-maps-your-java-application>
You can also use [Bing](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa907674.aspx) maps with Java, also worth looking at
* [GeoTools](http://www.geotools.org/)
* [NASA Worldwind](http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/)
* [OpenMap](http://openmap.bbn.com/)
There's also a useful list of OpenSource Java GIS software here: <http://java-source.net/open-source/geospatial> | I found also another interesting library : [uDig](http://udig.refractions.net/) |
41,477 | Is there any Java API that is like OpenLayers ?
I would like to display google Maps and Openlayers Maps in a java application | 2012/11/19 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/41477",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/12607/"
] | Is this what you're after?
<http://weblogs.java.net/blog/cajo/archive/2010/10/16/adding-google-maps-your-java-application>
You can also use [Bing](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa907674.aspx) maps with Java, also worth looking at
* [GeoTools](http://www.geotools.org/)
* [NASA Worldwind](http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/)
* [OpenMap](http://openmap.bbn.com/)
There's also a useful list of OpenSource Java GIS software here: <http://java-source.net/open-source/geospatial> | Have a look at [GWT-openlayers](https://bitbucket.org/gwtopenlayers/) a GWT wrapper for OpenLayers, or [Geomajas](http://geomajas.org) a full-blown framework for building GIS web applications. |
41,477 | Is there any Java API that is like OpenLayers ?
I would like to display google Maps and Openlayers Maps in a java application | 2012/11/19 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/41477",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/12607/"
] | Have a look at [GWT-openlayers](https://bitbucket.org/gwtopenlayers/) a GWT wrapper for OpenLayers, or [Geomajas](http://geomajas.org) a full-blown framework for building GIS web applications. | I found also another interesting library : [uDig](http://udig.refractions.net/) |
78,570 | I am on Gnome-Shell and using Ubuntu 11.10.
The problem is after a recent update and also after installing a few extensions, when I logged in to Gnome Shell, I can't find the top panel or AWN. Only the wallpaper is showing and then Conky is displaying.
It also seems to me that for some reason the display effects are not working and that is why AWN is not showing.
Need your help to get back the panel. | 2011/11/12 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/78570",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/8749/"
] | Something similar happened to me. I think the issue is that some of the extensions are buggy and crash the shell. I am not certain but I think this might be because they were badly upgraded from gnome shell 3.0 (I'm not much of an expert as you can probably tell).
Anyway, I fixed problem by logging on in Unity (so I got a fully workable desktop) and then using synaptic to remove packages starting "gnome-shell-extensions-" -
Try removing the alternative menu status one first- that is reported as buggy as far as I can see. | I had the same problem, it's a bug with alternate menu, you must define a user avatar (small picture next your name) and all will be fine. |
228,841 | I have a problem restoring an antique French cast iron wood stove.
As I was derusting it, one of the feet broke loose.
It's the part that was holding it to the body that broke. I guess it's a bold but I am not sure. The reason I am not sure is specifically because I am having a terrible time removing that "bold" to replace it.
Here is a video that describes it: <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W3bWWS2-t0wW4a6ypKrNDTJV4izpnf6_/view?usp=sharing>
I have applied old gasoline on it and let it react for a day, many days in a row. I have tried turning the "screwhead" with a screwdriver, it won't budge. I have filed the part that is stuck in the stove's body to make it flat and tried to turn it with a clamp, to no avail.
The thing that strikes me is that I don't see any "boundary" between what should be the bolt, and the "hole" in which it is supposed to screw. Neither on the stove's body nor on the foot. It looks blended into the "hole", as if it had been welded. I would be very surprised if it was indeed welded in the past, for 2 reasons. First because I wouldn't see the benefit of doing that. Second because I don't see how on Earth one would have managed to do it with the foot in position.
In the video I have already filed around the "bolt", because I was hoping to remove that little "mountain" around it. I removed most of it all right, but it still looks as if it had been welded.
Would anyone have any idea how I could remove the remnants of this "bolt", without damaging the stove any more? Or an alternative solution to getting the foot back into place?
I guess I could remove what is left of the bolt, and drill holes instead. However I am afraid to break the cast iron when doing that. Any idea whether this would be risky or how to go about it.
Thanks a lot in advance for your help!
**About pictures**
I believe the situation is pretty complex and the explanation I give in the video is necessary. However, if you don't have time to watch the video and still want to see pictures, here are some:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dF8Xz.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oIP5u.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aNXrM.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KQOBS.jpg) | 2021/07/10 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/228841",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/69036/"
] | The video worked for me but I believe it is a thru bolt as you can see the head on the other side in one quick segment of the video.
I have had similar issues with bolts in cast (the leg is cast iron) .
I have never found any penetrating oil that will work for most of these cases.
Heat is your friend here. Use a torch to get the metal red hot!
Once the metal is red hot and while still glowing red the bolt able to be removed.
I have done this many times on cast using oxygen acetylene and mapp has torches.
If you do not have a torch a muffler shop may do it for a few bucks I learned this trick decades back and it has never failed me even welding a nut on a stripped bolt head usually will get it hot enough that it can be removed but I do that with a wire welder but stick can work if you have a small enough rod.
Give heat a try and let us know. | You will need to drill out the "stove" bolt. It has rusted and the rust expanded locking in the remains of the bolt . Chances are slim and none that you will be able to rotate the weakened bolt body , with any treatment. I would grind the head flat; center punch the center of the bolt; and use a small bit- smaller than 1/8"( 3mm) if possible . Then use a larger bit. Be careful, the cast iron will drill much easier than the steel bolt. |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | The key here is that the Mjolnir we see in *Avengers: Endgame* is from the past/a different timeline. I believe it comes from the *Thor: The Dark World* time, so 2013, whereas the events of *Thor: Ragnarok* take place in 2017 and so Odin had not died yet with respect to that Mjolnir’s enchantment.
Objects taken out of their timelines still function as they did in their original timeline even if that object was destroyed in the timeline they are brought into. Whilst we see this with Mjolnir, we also see it with the Infinity Stones; if it didn’t work this way the whole Time Heist and plot of *Avengers: Endgame* would not have worked.
However, it is also worth noting that the enchantment on the hammer is:
>
> **Odin:** Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.
>
>
> *Thor*
>
>
>
The enchantment then seems to engrave a rune on Mjolnir and so it is bound to the hammer. It doesn’t appear to need any further involvement from Odin to work properly. However, as we don’t *really* see Mjolnir post Odin’s death, as of course it is destroyed by Hela almost immediately afterwards, we can’t say for sure whether or not his death would have affected the enchantment anyway.
The short answer to your question though is: of course the enchantment should stay and give people Thor’s powers **because it does** as we see with Cap. | You are working under a false assumption.
=========================================
It should be remembered that it's a different Mjolnir from **before Ragnarok**....so it will still have the enchantment. Odin isn't dead when Thor regains that hammer in *Endgame*....as that sequence takes place before Odin's death...even assuming the enchantment fades on his demise.
Mjolnir was destroyed in *Ragnarok* and this hammer is from before that movie took place. It's just brought forward in time. |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | The key here is that the Mjolnir we see in *Avengers: Endgame* is from the past/a different timeline. I believe it comes from the *Thor: The Dark World* time, so 2013, whereas the events of *Thor: Ragnarok* take place in 2017 and so Odin had not died yet with respect to that Mjolnir’s enchantment.
Objects taken out of their timelines still function as they did in their original timeline even if that object was destroyed in the timeline they are brought into. Whilst we see this with Mjolnir, we also see it with the Infinity Stones; if it didn’t work this way the whole Time Heist and plot of *Avengers: Endgame* would not have worked.
However, it is also worth noting that the enchantment on the hammer is:
>
> **Odin:** Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.
>
>
> *Thor*
>
>
>
The enchantment then seems to engrave a rune on Mjolnir and so it is bound to the hammer. It doesn’t appear to need any further involvement from Odin to work properly. However, as we don’t *really* see Mjolnir post Odin’s death, as of course it is destroyed by Hela almost immediately afterwards, we can’t say for sure whether or not his death would have affected the enchantment anyway.
The short answer to your question though is: of course the enchantment should stay and give people Thor’s powers **because it does** as we see with Cap. | You are starting from an assumption which has no basis anywhere in canon.
What has some basis in canon is [a line said by Doctor Strange in *Avengers: Infinity War*:](https://transcripts.fandom.com/wiki/Avengers:_Infinity_War)
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: It's a simple spell but quite unbreakable.
>
>
> Ebony Maw: Then I'll take it off your corpse.
>
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: **You'll find... removing a dead man's spell... troublesome.**
>
>
>
He is the Sorcerer Supreme, with some understanding of Asgardian magic even. It seems like the death of Odin actually made it harder to remove the enchantment of Mjölnir.
Some people may think that Hela proves my idea above wrong. I have a few things to say in support of my idea:
* *"seems like"* is not the same as *"proves without a doubt"*;
* Just the same, *"harder"* does not mean *"impossible"*;
* I don't see enchantment removal in the Mjölnir destruction scene, I see a non-indestructible object being broken. Give me your keys and I am able to total your car without removing its paint job. |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | The key here is that the Mjolnir we see in *Avengers: Endgame* is from the past/a different timeline. I believe it comes from the *Thor: The Dark World* time, so 2013, whereas the events of *Thor: Ragnarok* take place in 2017 and so Odin had not died yet with respect to that Mjolnir’s enchantment.
Objects taken out of their timelines still function as they did in their original timeline even if that object was destroyed in the timeline they are brought into. Whilst we see this with Mjolnir, we also see it with the Infinity Stones; if it didn’t work this way the whole Time Heist and plot of *Avengers: Endgame* would not have worked.
However, it is also worth noting that the enchantment on the hammer is:
>
> **Odin:** Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.
>
>
> *Thor*
>
>
>
The enchantment then seems to engrave a rune on Mjolnir and so it is bound to the hammer. It doesn’t appear to need any further involvement from Odin to work properly. However, as we don’t *really* see Mjolnir post Odin’s death, as of course it is destroyed by Hela almost immediately afterwards, we can’t say for sure whether or not his death would have affected the enchantment anyway.
The short answer to your question though is: of course the enchantment should stay and give people Thor’s powers **because it does** as we see with Cap. | >
> Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened?
>
>
>
This appears to be based on the assumption that the enchantment Odin made will end when he dies.
In Thor: Ragnarok, Odin says of Hela:
>
> THOR: I've stopped Ragnarok. I put an end to Surtur.
>
>
> ODIN : No. It has already begun. She's coming. My life was all that held her back, but my time has come. I cannot keep her away any longer.
>
>
>
The implication is that Odin is no longer able to stop Hela from returning once he dies. Hela is a sentient being who is trying to escape her imprisonment, so it makes sense that Odin is actively opposing her (even if that is done in a some subconscious or off-screen manner).
It doesn't follow that Odin also has to actively maintain the enchantment he put on Mjölnir, which is a magical (but inanimate) object.
We see Hela catch and destroy Mjölnir shortly after Odin passes away, and Thor is visibly shocked at this. But we have never seen a "senior" Asgardian attempt to destroy Mjölnir before; Hela may have been able to do so anyway if she weren't imprisoned. Thor may simply not have encountered anyone with both the will and ability to do so before now.
**In summary: There's nothing that explicitly states that Mjölnir should lose its enchantments after Ragnarok.** |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | You are starting from an assumption which has no basis anywhere in canon.
What has some basis in canon is [a line said by Doctor Strange in *Avengers: Infinity War*:](https://transcripts.fandom.com/wiki/Avengers:_Infinity_War)
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: It's a simple spell but quite unbreakable.
>
>
> Ebony Maw: Then I'll take it off your corpse.
>
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: **You'll find... removing a dead man's spell... troublesome.**
>
>
>
He is the Sorcerer Supreme, with some understanding of Asgardian magic even. It seems like the death of Odin actually made it harder to remove the enchantment of Mjölnir.
Some people may think that Hela proves my idea above wrong. I have a few things to say in support of my idea:
* *"seems like"* is not the same as *"proves without a doubt"*;
* Just the same, *"harder"* does not mean *"impossible"*;
* I don't see enchantment removal in the Mjölnir destruction scene, I see a non-indestructible object being broken. Give me your keys and I am able to total your car without removing its paint job. | You are working under a false assumption.
=========================================
It should be remembered that it's a different Mjolnir from **before Ragnarok**....so it will still have the enchantment. Odin isn't dead when Thor regains that hammer in *Endgame*....as that sequence takes place before Odin's death...even assuming the enchantment fades on his demise.
Mjolnir was destroyed in *Ragnarok* and this hammer is from before that movie took place. It's just brought forward in time. |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | You are working under a false assumption.
=========================================
It should be remembered that it's a different Mjolnir from **before Ragnarok**....so it will still have the enchantment. Odin isn't dead when Thor regains that hammer in *Endgame*....as that sequence takes place before Odin's death...even assuming the enchantment fades on his demise.
Mjolnir was destroyed in *Ragnarok* and this hammer is from before that movie took place. It's just brought forward in time. | >
> Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened?
>
>
>
This appears to be based on the assumption that the enchantment Odin made will end when he dies.
In Thor: Ragnarok, Odin says of Hela:
>
> THOR: I've stopped Ragnarok. I put an end to Surtur.
>
>
> ODIN : No. It has already begun. She's coming. My life was all that held her back, but my time has come. I cannot keep her away any longer.
>
>
>
The implication is that Odin is no longer able to stop Hela from returning once he dies. Hela is a sentient being who is trying to escape her imprisonment, so it makes sense that Odin is actively opposing her (even if that is done in a some subconscious or off-screen manner).
It doesn't follow that Odin also has to actively maintain the enchantment he put on Mjölnir, which is a magical (but inanimate) object.
We see Hela catch and destroy Mjölnir shortly after Odin passes away, and Thor is visibly shocked at this. But we have never seen a "senior" Asgardian attempt to destroy Mjölnir before; Hela may have been able to do so anyway if she weren't imprisoned. Thor may simply not have encountered anyone with both the will and ability to do so before now.
**In summary: There's nothing that explicitly states that Mjölnir should lose its enchantments after Ragnarok.** |
217,820 | The enchantment on Thor's hammer laid out by Odin prevents anyone "not worthy" to wield it as we can see on the famous Arthuresque scene on *Avengers: Age of Ultron*.
This enchantment, pronounced by Odin in the first *Thor* movie goes:
>
> Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, shall posses the power of Thor.
>
>
>
One of the biggest moments of *Avengers: Endgame* comes close to the end when
>
> Captain America picks up Thor's Hammer and gains the power of Thor, while Thor screams "I knew it".
>
>
>
However, given at the beginning of *Thor: Ragnarok* we see that:
>
> Odin dies of old age.
>
>
>
Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened? | 2019/08/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/217820",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4295/"
] | You are starting from an assumption which has no basis anywhere in canon.
What has some basis in canon is [a line said by Doctor Strange in *Avengers: Infinity War*:](https://transcripts.fandom.com/wiki/Avengers:_Infinity_War)
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: It's a simple spell but quite unbreakable.
>
>
> Ebony Maw: Then I'll take it off your corpse.
>
>
> Doctor Stephen Strange: **You'll find... removing a dead man's spell... troublesome.**
>
>
>
He is the Sorcerer Supreme, with some understanding of Asgardian magic even. It seems like the death of Odin actually made it harder to remove the enchantment of Mjölnir.
Some people may think that Hela proves my idea above wrong. I have a few things to say in support of my idea:
* *"seems like"* is not the same as *"proves without a doubt"*;
* Just the same, *"harder"* does not mean *"impossible"*;
* I don't see enchantment removal in the Mjölnir destruction scene, I see a non-indestructible object being broken. Give me your keys and I am able to total your car without removing its paint job. | >
> Since the enchantment of the hammer comes from Odin and, from my understanding, it is that enchantment that grants the power of Thor to anyone weilding the hammer, shouldn't the enchantment laid out on top of the hammer have dissipated and therefore those not have happened?
>
>
>
This appears to be based on the assumption that the enchantment Odin made will end when he dies.
In Thor: Ragnarok, Odin says of Hela:
>
> THOR: I've stopped Ragnarok. I put an end to Surtur.
>
>
> ODIN : No. It has already begun. She's coming. My life was all that held her back, but my time has come. I cannot keep her away any longer.
>
>
>
The implication is that Odin is no longer able to stop Hela from returning once he dies. Hela is a sentient being who is trying to escape her imprisonment, so it makes sense that Odin is actively opposing her (even if that is done in a some subconscious or off-screen manner).
It doesn't follow that Odin also has to actively maintain the enchantment he put on Mjölnir, which is a magical (but inanimate) object.
We see Hela catch and destroy Mjölnir shortly after Odin passes away, and Thor is visibly shocked at this. But we have never seen a "senior" Asgardian attempt to destroy Mjölnir before; Hela may have been able to do so anyway if she weren't imprisoned. Thor may simply not have encountered anyone with both the will and ability to do so before now.
**In summary: There's nothing that explicitly states that Mjölnir should lose its enchantments after Ragnarok.** |
3,489,534 | I'm using a 3d engine and need to translate between 3d world space and 2d screen space using perspective projection, so I can place 2d text labels on items in 3d space.
I've seen a few posts of various answers to this problem but they seem to use components I don't have.
I have a Camera object, and can only set it's current position and lookat position, it cannot roll. The camera is moving along a path and certain target object may appear in it's view then disappear.
I have only the following values
* lookat position
* position
* vertical FOV
* Z far
* Z near
* and obviously the position of the target object.
Can anyone please give me an algorithm that will do this using just these components?
Many thanks. | 2010/08/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3489534",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/195875/"
] | all graphics engines use matrices to transform between different coordinats systems. Indeed OpenGL and DirectX uses them, because they are the standard way.
Cameras usually construct the matrices using the parameters you have:
* view matrix (transform the world to position in a way you look at it from the camera position), it uses lookat position and camera position (also the up vector which usually is 0,1,0)
* projection matrix (transforms from 3D coordinates to 2D Coordinates), it uses the fov, near, far and aspect.
You could find information of how to construct the matrices in internet searching for the opengl functions that create them:
* gluLookat creates a viewmatrix
* gluPerspective: creates the projection matrix
But I cant imagine an engine that doesnt allow you to get these matrices, because I can ensure you they are somewhere, the engine is using it.
Once you have those matrices, you multiply them, to get the viewprojeciton matrix. This matrix transform from World coordinates to Screen Coordinates. So just multiply the matrix with the position you want to know (in vector 4 format, being the 4º component 1.0).
But wait, the result will be in homogeneous coordinates, you need to divide X,Y,Z of the resulting vector by W, and then you have the position in Normalized screen coordinates (0 means the center, 1 means right, -1 means left, etc).
From here it is easy to transform multiplying by width and height.
I have some slides explaining all this here: <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13crrSCPonJcxAjGaS5HJOat3MpE0lmEtqxeVr4tVLDs/present?slide=id.i0>
Good luck :)
P.S: when you work with 3D it is really important to understand the three matrices (model, view and projection), otherwise you will stumble every time. | >
> so I can place 2d text labels on items
> in 3d space
>
>
>
Have you looked up "billboard" techniques? Sometimes just knowing the right term to search under is all you need. This refers to polygons (typically rectangles) that always face the camera, regardless of camera position or orientation. |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | It is unarguable that the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ is foundational to the gospel (or 'good news') that Christians proclaim. But as you said yourself in your comments, *"The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred."* Which is why the gospel the disciples shared in Luke 9:6 was, basically, the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had arrived. As healing was part of the proof of the Messiah (foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures), healing accompanied their message.
Recall that John the Baptist had prepared the people for the Messiah's ministry by calling them to repent and be baptised. This, too, fulfilled the ancient prophecies about the coming Messiah. Only if people responded in faith would they be prepared to receive the message Christ brought.
Going further back in time, people of faith like Abraham and Moses had glimpses of the future good news of the glory to be revealed (in Christ). See Hebrews 11:4-26.
Clearly, there was progression of understanding as time revealed more and more about how God's kingdom would have the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, as its King. Once Christ arrived and began his ministry, those who put faith in him learned more and more about this glorious good news. Luke's gospel account opens up with, "The ***beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ***, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." But despite Jesus telling them (on three occasions) that he would suffer, die and be raised, they could not understand that until after it had all happened. THEN the glory of the risen Christ illumined their understanding and their message.
So, to stick purely to your question (though far more could be said as to what the whole gospel message is), ***pre-resurrection gospel preaching was pointing to Christ as the foretold Messiah; post-resurrection gospel preaching included the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as proof positive that he truly is the Messiah, the King of God's Kingdom.***
It only remains to be said that, in actuality, the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7) in all its fullness is everything about Christ in the entire Bible. He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel. He is the King of God's kingdom, so **if you want to understand what the kingdom of God is all about, you have to understand exactly who Jesus is**. That is why false gospel messages are preached by those who have a false understanding of who Jesus is. That is why what is revealed about Christ in the last book of the Bible is just as much about the gospel as is John the Baptist's preparatory gospel message. After all, that book starts by saying "The revelation OF Jesus Christ" - it's all about who Jesus Christ is now, after his ascension. We see him depicted in kingly power in heaven, and learn of further ancient scripture prophecies he fulfills. That is why all who claim they have had revelations about Christ after that last book of the Bible was written, turn out to be false prophets with a false gospel.
Everything we need to know about the gospel is in the Bible, and the first bits of information start in the book of Genesis (3:15), the final bits being in the last book of the Bible, which prepares believers for his stupendous return to deal with all those who refuse to obey the everlasting gospel proclaimed by an angel, just before Christ descends in judgment (Rev. 14:6-7). But those who obey the basic element of the gospel (to repentantly put faith in Christ) can progress to a fuller understanding of the gospel. And the more the Bible is heeded, in all it has to teach us about Christ, the greater our grasp of the gospel will be. | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
======================================================================================================
Short Answer
------------
The same gospel. Jesus was preaching different aspects of the same gospel in both Luke 9:6 and Luke 18:31-34
Long Answer
-----------
**We've got some explaining to do...**
---
As the OP correctly assessed there is only one Gospel as one might gather from Paul:
>
> 6 **I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.** 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: **If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.** -Galatians 1:6-9
>
>
>
As far as Paul is concerned anyone who preaches a different Gospel from the gospel of Christ is to be accursed. So it's highly unlikely that Paul was teaching a gospel any different than what Jesus taught.
**So why the confusion about which gospel is which?**
I can identify two closely related fundamental reasons why various accounts of the gospel seem so confusing to most readers:
1. We thought we could get a simple, precise, and definitive soundbite summary of the gospel from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
And...
2. Consequently, we didn't really know what the gospel was in the first place.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people don't know about the good news regarding the salvation that has been made available through Jesus Christ. Everyone has varying degrees of understanding about that.
It's that we didn't really know how to identify the gospel in its entirety - the big picture that Jesus and Paul both had in mind when they spoke of the same gospel in varying ways from varying vantage points.
**What Paul actually says 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,**
>
> 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:** that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
>
>
>
What Paul actually says in the beginning of verse 3 could be translated more literally as ***"For I delivered to you among firsts* (or among things of first importance) *what I also received..."***
This is a noteworthy distinction. Instead of Paul describing the following facts as THE most important with respect to the gospel, Paul states that the following facts that he's about to list are AMONG the things that are most important. **Paul was not trying to provide a succinct summary of the Gospel as he implicitly acknowledges that there are other things that also rank first in importance.** Instead, he is specifically highlighting this chain of events not simply because they are absolutely necessary for there to be any good news at all, but because they directly contradict the specific misconceptions and heresy regarding the bodily resurrection he intended to address in the rest of chapter 15.
>
> Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? - 1 Corinthians 15:12
>
>
>
Again it's not about providing a soundbite summary. He wanted to remind the Corinthians about the Gospel in this specific and critical regard so he could proceed to disabuse them of their nonsense as he had done throughout the first letter to the Corinthians.
**So how is the Gospel described as a whole?**
We all know gospel means good news and as we already saw in the Galatians chapter 1 verse 7, Paul described it as the "gospel of Christ." Being that he referred to it as the gospel of Christ and not of Paul perhaps we should let Christ explain to us what this good news is all about.:
>
> *but he said to them, **“I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God** to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”* -Luke 4:43
>
>
>
This is how Jesus ultimately describes the gospel: as good news about the kingdom of God. Indeed announcing the good news of the kingdom of God is integral to his very purpose on Earth and all that he said and did leading up to his crucifixion. If we take Jesus seriously and truly want to have a handle on what the gospel is, we need to try to understand it from within the kingdom framework with which he understood it.
**Ok, so what's the good news of the kingdom of God?**
If I had to pick one verse then to summarize the gospel of the kingdom of God in its entirety, according to Jesus, it would be from the Lord's Prayer:
>
> 9 ...“Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> **10 Your kingdom come,
> your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.**
>
>
>
In verse 10 Jesus seems to be employing Hebrew parallelism where what he says is so nice, he had to say it twice, but in a different way so as to drive the point home. For God's kingdom to come, to Jesus, is for God's will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Think about what that means for the fullness of God's will to do be done on Earth just as it is in heaven: No sin. No pain. No sickness. No death. What would be required to bring this about would be nothing less than a new creation: A complete spiritual and physical renovation of the cosmic order.
This is exactly what is described at the end of Revelation:
>
> Revelation 21:1-4 1 **Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,** for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, **“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man.** He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and **death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore,** for the former things have passed away.”
>
> 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, **“Behold, I am making all things new...**” - Revelation 21:1-5
>
>
>
**Consider the last kingdom of God**
In the garden of Eden where God created man in his image as a biological class of ruling representatives over all of God's creation.
>
> 27 So **God created man in his own image,**
>
> in the image of God he created him;
>
> male and female he created them.
>
> 28 And God blessed them. **And God said** to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and **subdue it, and have dominion over** the fish of the sea and over the birds of **the heavens and over** every living thing that moves on **the earth.”** -Genesis 1:27-28
>
>
>
That kingdom was lost because God's firstborn human, Adam, disobeyed. So in order to have the good news of a new creation kingdom, God needed a new firstborn human, a new Adam who, through obeying to the point of death, earns the right to rule over God's new creation not just for himself, but also for all his brothers and sisters who will rule the kingdom with him in everlasting glory... judging angels and whatnot (1 Cor 15:20-21, Romans 5:12-20, Phil 2:8-11, Heb 5:7-10, 2 Tim 2:12a, Rom 8:16-18, 1 Cor 6:3)
So the gospel is a pretty big narrative including a lot of moving parts, but they all fit inside this New Creation Kingdom concept, where God rescues the creation (Rom 8:19-23) by raising up his perfect and now proven image and, in the process, lift up his formerly fallen human images who will all rule his creation in righteousness and obedience unlike before.
>
> 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that **the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.** 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. -Romans 8:19-24
>
>
>
Because the perfectly faithful Christ has ultimate rule over creation, even if one of God's images sins all of creation will not be lost the way it was before due to the sin of the first Adam (not Eve) because the New Adam, Jesus, never sins.
**So scoping back down to Luke**
**In Chapter 18:31-34,** Jesus was trying to mentally prepare his disciples for what must be accomplished for him to earn the right to rule God's coming kingdom and blaze a path (as the Way) for humanity from this creation to the next.
**In Chapter 9:6,** he and his disciples are announcing the reality of God's coming kingdom and preparing the heart of the people for their role in the kingdom for God as co-rulers with Christ where power is given not to those who pursue power and gain in this creation, but to those who are patient and nobly seek out the righteousness of God in the new creation. The healings themselves are a message, a foretaste of God's intention to physically renovate and refresh God's people and the whole world.
**When we apply the new creation kingdom framework**
to the gospel as discussed in the scriptures, it's easy to understand how all of what Christ did and spoke and what Paul spoke was all about that gospel which is far grander than any story ever told. |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | It is unarguable that the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ is foundational to the gospel (or 'good news') that Christians proclaim. But as you said yourself in your comments, *"The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred."* Which is why the gospel the disciples shared in Luke 9:6 was, basically, the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had arrived. As healing was part of the proof of the Messiah (foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures), healing accompanied their message.
Recall that John the Baptist had prepared the people for the Messiah's ministry by calling them to repent and be baptised. This, too, fulfilled the ancient prophecies about the coming Messiah. Only if people responded in faith would they be prepared to receive the message Christ brought.
Going further back in time, people of faith like Abraham and Moses had glimpses of the future good news of the glory to be revealed (in Christ). See Hebrews 11:4-26.
Clearly, there was progression of understanding as time revealed more and more about how God's kingdom would have the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, as its King. Once Christ arrived and began his ministry, those who put faith in him learned more and more about this glorious good news. Luke's gospel account opens up with, "The ***beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ***, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." But despite Jesus telling them (on three occasions) that he would suffer, die and be raised, they could not understand that until after it had all happened. THEN the glory of the risen Christ illumined their understanding and their message.
So, to stick purely to your question (though far more could be said as to what the whole gospel message is), ***pre-resurrection gospel preaching was pointing to Christ as the foretold Messiah; post-resurrection gospel preaching included the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as proof positive that he truly is the Messiah, the King of God's Kingdom.***
It only remains to be said that, in actuality, the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7) in all its fullness is everything about Christ in the entire Bible. He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel. He is the King of God's kingdom, so **if you want to understand what the kingdom of God is all about, you have to understand exactly who Jesus is**. That is why false gospel messages are preached by those who have a false understanding of who Jesus is. That is why what is revealed about Christ in the last book of the Bible is just as much about the gospel as is John the Baptist's preparatory gospel message. After all, that book starts by saying "The revelation OF Jesus Christ" - it's all about who Jesus Christ is now, after his ascension. We see him depicted in kingly power in heaven, and learn of further ancient scripture prophecies he fulfills. That is why all who claim they have had revelations about Christ after that last book of the Bible was written, turn out to be false prophets with a false gospel.
Everything we need to know about the gospel is in the Bible, and the first bits of information start in the book of Genesis (3:15), the final bits being in the last book of the Bible, which prepares believers for his stupendous return to deal with all those who refuse to obey the everlasting gospel proclaimed by an angel, just before Christ descends in judgment (Rev. 14:6-7). But those who obey the basic element of the gospel (to repentantly put faith in Christ) can progress to a fuller understanding of the gospel. And the more the Bible is heeded, in all it has to teach us about Christ, the greater our grasp of the gospel will be. | Let us be very clear that the fact of Jesus death and resurrection is a series of facts, in themselves, that are unrelated to humans. The central part of the gospel is God's LOVE for us by which He extends to us His GRACE.
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to send His Son Jesus
* It was love initiating grace that motivated Jesus to die on the cross
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to forgive us our sins
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to want to take forgiven sinners to heaven
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to transform sinners to be able to love God at all!
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to heal the sick and raise the dead, at no cost the anyone
As evidence for these assertions let me quote:
* John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
* Eph 2:8-10 - For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.
* Rom 3:21-26 - But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are **justified freely by His grace** through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
* Matt 4:23 - Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
* Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed
* Luke 7:22 - So He replied, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. See also Matt 11:5.
Thus, the gospel involved God's free and undeserved love for us by which He extends to us free grace to forgive, to heal, free from sin, to raise us at the end of time and take us to heaven. God proved to all that He was justified in this action by giving the greatest gift in the universe - the gift of His Son Jesus who died to save us.
Let me put this more strongly, if the gospel consisted only of a story of the death of Jesus and His resurrection - great as it was, then the gospel would be powerless to have any affect on me. However, God used these events to extend grace to use and save us and transform us.
* Rom 1:16, 17 - I am not ashamed of the **gospel**, because it **is the power of God** for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The Gospel is the whole story of salvation!
**APPENDIX - 1 John 4:7-21**
>
> **7** Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. **8** Whoever
> does not love does not know God, because God is love.
>
>
> **9** This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. **10**
> And love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us
> and sent His Son as the atoning sacrificed for our sins.
>
>
> **11** Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. **12** No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. **13** By this we know
> that we remain in Him, and He in us: He has given us of His Spirit.
> **14** And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
>
>
> **15** If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. **16** And we have come to know and believe the
> love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides
> in God, and God in him. **17** In this way, love has been perfected
> among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for
> in this world we are just like Him.
>
>
> **18** There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been
> perfected in love. **19 We love because He first loved us.**
>
>
> **20** If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen,
> cannot love God, whom he has not seen. **21** And we have this
> commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.
>
>
> |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | It is unarguable that the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ is foundational to the gospel (or 'good news') that Christians proclaim. But as you said yourself in your comments, *"The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred."* Which is why the gospel the disciples shared in Luke 9:6 was, basically, the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had arrived. As healing was part of the proof of the Messiah (foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures), healing accompanied their message.
Recall that John the Baptist had prepared the people for the Messiah's ministry by calling them to repent and be baptised. This, too, fulfilled the ancient prophecies about the coming Messiah. Only if people responded in faith would they be prepared to receive the message Christ brought.
Going further back in time, people of faith like Abraham and Moses had glimpses of the future good news of the glory to be revealed (in Christ). See Hebrews 11:4-26.
Clearly, there was progression of understanding as time revealed more and more about how God's kingdom would have the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, as its King. Once Christ arrived and began his ministry, those who put faith in him learned more and more about this glorious good news. Luke's gospel account opens up with, "The ***beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ***, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." But despite Jesus telling them (on three occasions) that he would suffer, die and be raised, they could not understand that until after it had all happened. THEN the glory of the risen Christ illumined their understanding and their message.
So, to stick purely to your question (though far more could be said as to what the whole gospel message is), ***pre-resurrection gospel preaching was pointing to Christ as the foretold Messiah; post-resurrection gospel preaching included the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as proof positive that he truly is the Messiah, the King of God's Kingdom.***
It only remains to be said that, in actuality, the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7) in all its fullness is everything about Christ in the entire Bible. He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel. He is the King of God's kingdom, so **if you want to understand what the kingdom of God is all about, you have to understand exactly who Jesus is**. That is why false gospel messages are preached by those who have a false understanding of who Jesus is. That is why what is revealed about Christ in the last book of the Bible is just as much about the gospel as is John the Baptist's preparatory gospel message. After all, that book starts by saying "The revelation OF Jesus Christ" - it's all about who Jesus Christ is now, after his ascension. We see him depicted in kingly power in heaven, and learn of further ancient scripture prophecies he fulfills. That is why all who claim they have had revelations about Christ after that last book of the Bible was written, turn out to be false prophets with a false gospel.
Everything we need to know about the gospel is in the Bible, and the first bits of information start in the book of Genesis (3:15), the final bits being in the last book of the Bible, which prepares believers for his stupendous return to deal with all those who refuse to obey the everlasting gospel proclaimed by an angel, just before Christ descends in judgment (Rev. 14:6-7). But those who obey the basic element of the gospel (to repentantly put faith in Christ) can progress to a fuller understanding of the gospel. And the more the Bible is heeded, in all it has to teach us about Christ, the greater our grasp of the gospel will be. | We have to understand that Jesus came to be a "Messiah-King" to the Jews as prophesied in the Old Testament. In light of this we must consider the first stage of Jesus ministry, as given in Matttew 4:17, preaching about the "Kingdom of God/Heaven- to the Jews only[since He was born, raised and travelled to preach this "Kingdom" message- we can say -the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark1:15)to only the inhabitants of the the country-particularly to Israel people].
When the Jews rejected or does not heed to His message, He started His mission of saving the sinful world by His death on the cross(this we can find in "Matt 16:21"-which shows the gradual change).
Before His death and the resurrection, there could not be any preaching on the "gospel of the grace of God". So there is quite a difference between the "Gospel of the Kingdom of God- preached till His death and resurrection and the "Gospel of the grace of God- which includes the death and resurrection of the Lord.
We can say there are two aspects in His First Coming -to be a Messiah-King to the Jews and a Saviour to the entire world as well as in His Second coming- Rapture and coming with the Church on to Mount Olivet.
So we can rightly assume- the disciples preached "the gospel of the Kingdom of God"- before the death and Resurrection of Jesus and then "the Gospel of the Grace of God"
The verse John 1:17- the "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"- was effectual only after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | It is unarguable that the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ is foundational to the gospel (or 'good news') that Christians proclaim. But as you said yourself in your comments, *"The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred."* Which is why the gospel the disciples shared in Luke 9:6 was, basically, the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had arrived. As healing was part of the proof of the Messiah (foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures), healing accompanied their message.
Recall that John the Baptist had prepared the people for the Messiah's ministry by calling them to repent and be baptised. This, too, fulfilled the ancient prophecies about the coming Messiah. Only if people responded in faith would they be prepared to receive the message Christ brought.
Going further back in time, people of faith like Abraham and Moses had glimpses of the future good news of the glory to be revealed (in Christ). See Hebrews 11:4-26.
Clearly, there was progression of understanding as time revealed more and more about how God's kingdom would have the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, as its King. Once Christ arrived and began his ministry, those who put faith in him learned more and more about this glorious good news. Luke's gospel account opens up with, "The ***beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ***, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." But despite Jesus telling them (on three occasions) that he would suffer, die and be raised, they could not understand that until after it had all happened. THEN the glory of the risen Christ illumined their understanding and their message.
So, to stick purely to your question (though far more could be said as to what the whole gospel message is), ***pre-resurrection gospel preaching was pointing to Christ as the foretold Messiah; post-resurrection gospel preaching included the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as proof positive that he truly is the Messiah, the King of God's Kingdom.***
It only remains to be said that, in actuality, the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7) in all its fullness is everything about Christ in the entire Bible. He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel. He is the King of God's kingdom, so **if you want to understand what the kingdom of God is all about, you have to understand exactly who Jesus is**. That is why false gospel messages are preached by those who have a false understanding of who Jesus is. That is why what is revealed about Christ in the last book of the Bible is just as much about the gospel as is John the Baptist's preparatory gospel message. After all, that book starts by saying "The revelation OF Jesus Christ" - it's all about who Jesus Christ is now, after his ascension. We see him depicted in kingly power in heaven, and learn of further ancient scripture prophecies he fulfills. That is why all who claim they have had revelations about Christ after that last book of the Bible was written, turn out to be false prophets with a false gospel.
Everything we need to know about the gospel is in the Bible, and the first bits of information start in the book of Genesis (3:15), the final bits being in the last book of the Bible, which prepares believers for his stupendous return to deal with all those who refuse to obey the everlasting gospel proclaimed by an angel, just before Christ descends in judgment (Rev. 14:6-7). But those who obey the basic element of the gospel (to repentantly put faith in Christ) can progress to a fuller understanding of the gospel. And the more the Bible is heeded, in all it has to teach us about Christ, the greater our grasp of the gospel will be. | As alluded to in one comment, systematic theology has an answer to this question - and *this* answer may differ from that, therefore is for consideration, and requires you to be aware of this.
The ‘Gospel’ means ‘good news’ - and this *term* is a New Testament term. The ‘Gospel’ is the *means* by which man can receive righteousness. Man lost his righteousness via Adam, but can once again attain it via Jesus. And it is Righteousness that brings ‘[eternal] Life.
There are at *least* three different gospels that make righteousness available to man. The first is the Gospel of the Kingdom that John the Baptist heralded, and Jesus offered, up until the Jews rejected Him as Messiah - and, the Kingdom needs Jesus as King. Any ‘righteousness’ needs Him. This Gospel was for the Jews
>
> **MAT 4:23** *And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the* ***gospel of the kingdom*** *and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people*
>
>
>
This is the Gospel that the disciples were preaching. They were ‘disciples’ of Jesus, who was preaching *that* Gospel
The second Gospel is the Gospel that Paul preached. Note - He received this directly from Jesus, in his time spent in Arabia. He purposely did *not* consult the disciples on this, as they had the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was for the Jews.
>
> **ACTS 20:24** *But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the* ***gospel of the grace of
> God.***
>
>
> |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
======================================================================================================
Short Answer
------------
The same gospel. Jesus was preaching different aspects of the same gospel in both Luke 9:6 and Luke 18:31-34
Long Answer
-----------
**We've got some explaining to do...**
---
As the OP correctly assessed there is only one Gospel as one might gather from Paul:
>
> 6 **I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.** 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: **If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.** -Galatians 1:6-9
>
>
>
As far as Paul is concerned anyone who preaches a different Gospel from the gospel of Christ is to be accursed. So it's highly unlikely that Paul was teaching a gospel any different than what Jesus taught.
**So why the confusion about which gospel is which?**
I can identify two closely related fundamental reasons why various accounts of the gospel seem so confusing to most readers:
1. We thought we could get a simple, precise, and definitive soundbite summary of the gospel from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
And...
2. Consequently, we didn't really know what the gospel was in the first place.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people don't know about the good news regarding the salvation that has been made available through Jesus Christ. Everyone has varying degrees of understanding about that.
It's that we didn't really know how to identify the gospel in its entirety - the big picture that Jesus and Paul both had in mind when they spoke of the same gospel in varying ways from varying vantage points.
**What Paul actually says 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,**
>
> 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:** that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
>
>
>
What Paul actually says in the beginning of verse 3 could be translated more literally as ***"For I delivered to you among firsts* (or among things of first importance) *what I also received..."***
This is a noteworthy distinction. Instead of Paul describing the following facts as THE most important with respect to the gospel, Paul states that the following facts that he's about to list are AMONG the things that are most important. **Paul was not trying to provide a succinct summary of the Gospel as he implicitly acknowledges that there are other things that also rank first in importance.** Instead, he is specifically highlighting this chain of events not simply because they are absolutely necessary for there to be any good news at all, but because they directly contradict the specific misconceptions and heresy regarding the bodily resurrection he intended to address in the rest of chapter 15.
>
> Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? - 1 Corinthians 15:12
>
>
>
Again it's not about providing a soundbite summary. He wanted to remind the Corinthians about the Gospel in this specific and critical regard so he could proceed to disabuse them of their nonsense as he had done throughout the first letter to the Corinthians.
**So how is the Gospel described as a whole?**
We all know gospel means good news and as we already saw in the Galatians chapter 1 verse 7, Paul described it as the "gospel of Christ." Being that he referred to it as the gospel of Christ and not of Paul perhaps we should let Christ explain to us what this good news is all about.:
>
> *but he said to them, **“I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God** to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”* -Luke 4:43
>
>
>
This is how Jesus ultimately describes the gospel: as good news about the kingdom of God. Indeed announcing the good news of the kingdom of God is integral to his very purpose on Earth and all that he said and did leading up to his crucifixion. If we take Jesus seriously and truly want to have a handle on what the gospel is, we need to try to understand it from within the kingdom framework with which he understood it.
**Ok, so what's the good news of the kingdom of God?**
If I had to pick one verse then to summarize the gospel of the kingdom of God in its entirety, according to Jesus, it would be from the Lord's Prayer:
>
> 9 ...“Our Father in heaven,
> hallowed be your name.
> **10 Your kingdom come,
> your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.**
>
>
>
In verse 10 Jesus seems to be employing Hebrew parallelism where what he says is so nice, he had to say it twice, but in a different way so as to drive the point home. For God's kingdom to come, to Jesus, is for God's will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Think about what that means for the fullness of God's will to do be done on Earth just as it is in heaven: No sin. No pain. No sickness. No death. What would be required to bring this about would be nothing less than a new creation: A complete spiritual and physical renovation of the cosmic order.
This is exactly what is described at the end of Revelation:
>
> Revelation 21:1-4 1 **Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,** for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, **“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man.** He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and **death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore,** for the former things have passed away.”
>
> 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, **“Behold, I am making all things new...**” - Revelation 21:1-5
>
>
>
**Consider the last kingdom of God**
In the garden of Eden where God created man in his image as a biological class of ruling representatives over all of God's creation.
>
> 27 So **God created man in his own image,**
>
> in the image of God he created him;
>
> male and female he created them.
>
> 28 And God blessed them. **And God said** to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and **subdue it, and have dominion over** the fish of the sea and over the birds of **the heavens and over** every living thing that moves on **the earth.”** -Genesis 1:27-28
>
>
>
That kingdom was lost because God's firstborn human, Adam, disobeyed. So in order to have the good news of a new creation kingdom, God needed a new firstborn human, a new Adam who, through obeying to the point of death, earns the right to rule over God's new creation not just for himself, but also for all his brothers and sisters who will rule the kingdom with him in everlasting glory... judging angels and whatnot (1 Cor 15:20-21, Romans 5:12-20, Phil 2:8-11, Heb 5:7-10, 2 Tim 2:12a, Rom 8:16-18, 1 Cor 6:3)
So the gospel is a pretty big narrative including a lot of moving parts, but they all fit inside this New Creation Kingdom concept, where God rescues the creation (Rom 8:19-23) by raising up his perfect and now proven image and, in the process, lift up his formerly fallen human images who will all rule his creation in righteousness and obedience unlike before.
>
> 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that **the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.** 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. -Romans 8:19-24
>
>
>
Because the perfectly faithful Christ has ultimate rule over creation, even if one of God's images sins all of creation will not be lost the way it was before due to the sin of the first Adam (not Eve) because the New Adam, Jesus, never sins.
**So scoping back down to Luke**
**In Chapter 18:31-34,** Jesus was trying to mentally prepare his disciples for what must be accomplished for him to earn the right to rule God's coming kingdom and blaze a path (as the Way) for humanity from this creation to the next.
**In Chapter 9:6,** he and his disciples are announcing the reality of God's coming kingdom and preparing the heart of the people for their role in the kingdom for God as co-rulers with Christ where power is given not to those who pursue power and gain in this creation, but to those who are patient and nobly seek out the righteousness of God in the new creation. The healings themselves are a message, a foretaste of God's intention to physically renovate and refresh God's people and the whole world.
**When we apply the new creation kingdom framework**
to the gospel as discussed in the scriptures, it's easy to understand how all of what Christ did and spoke and what Paul spoke was all about that gospel which is far grander than any story ever told. | Let us be very clear that the fact of Jesus death and resurrection is a series of facts, in themselves, that are unrelated to humans. The central part of the gospel is God's LOVE for us by which He extends to us His GRACE.
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to send His Son Jesus
* It was love initiating grace that motivated Jesus to die on the cross
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to forgive us our sins
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to want to take forgiven sinners to heaven
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to transform sinners to be able to love God at all!
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to heal the sick and raise the dead, at no cost the anyone
As evidence for these assertions let me quote:
* John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
* Eph 2:8-10 - For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.
* Rom 3:21-26 - But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are **justified freely by His grace** through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
* Matt 4:23 - Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
* Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed
* Luke 7:22 - So He replied, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. See also Matt 11:5.
Thus, the gospel involved God's free and undeserved love for us by which He extends to us free grace to forgive, to heal, free from sin, to raise us at the end of time and take us to heaven. God proved to all that He was justified in this action by giving the greatest gift in the universe - the gift of His Son Jesus who died to save us.
Let me put this more strongly, if the gospel consisted only of a story of the death of Jesus and His resurrection - great as it was, then the gospel would be powerless to have any affect on me. However, God used these events to extend grace to use and save us and transform us.
* Rom 1:16, 17 - I am not ashamed of the **gospel**, because it **is the power of God** for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The Gospel is the whole story of salvation!
**APPENDIX - 1 John 4:7-21**
>
> **7** Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. **8** Whoever
> does not love does not know God, because God is love.
>
>
> **9** This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. **10**
> And love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us
> and sent His Son as the atoning sacrificed for our sins.
>
>
> **11** Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. **12** No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. **13** By this we know
> that we remain in Him, and He in us: He has given us of His Spirit.
> **14** And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
>
>
> **15** If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. **16** And we have come to know and believe the
> love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides
> in God, and God in him. **17** In this way, love has been perfected
> among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for
> in this world we are just like Him.
>
>
> **18** There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been
> perfected in love. **19 We love because He first loved us.**
>
>
> **20** If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen,
> cannot love God, whom he has not seen. **21** And we have this
> commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.
>
>
> |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | It is unarguable that the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ is foundational to the gospel (or 'good news') that Christians proclaim. But as you said yourself in your comments, *"The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred."* Which is why the gospel the disciples shared in Luke 9:6 was, basically, the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had arrived. As healing was part of the proof of the Messiah (foretold in the ancient Hebrew scriptures), healing accompanied their message.
Recall that John the Baptist had prepared the people for the Messiah's ministry by calling them to repent and be baptised. This, too, fulfilled the ancient prophecies about the coming Messiah. Only if people responded in faith would they be prepared to receive the message Christ brought.
Going further back in time, people of faith like Abraham and Moses had glimpses of the future good news of the glory to be revealed (in Christ). See Hebrews 11:4-26.
Clearly, there was progression of understanding as time revealed more and more about how God's kingdom would have the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, as its King. Once Christ arrived and began his ministry, those who put faith in him learned more and more about this glorious good news. Luke's gospel account opens up with, "The ***beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ***, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets..." But despite Jesus telling them (on three occasions) that he would suffer, die and be raised, they could not understand that until after it had all happened. THEN the glory of the risen Christ illumined their understanding and their message.
So, to stick purely to your question (though far more could be said as to what the whole gospel message is), ***pre-resurrection gospel preaching was pointing to Christ as the foretold Messiah; post-resurrection gospel preaching included the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as proof positive that he truly is the Messiah, the King of God's Kingdom.***
It only remains to be said that, in actuality, the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7) in all its fullness is everything about Christ in the entire Bible. He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel. He is the King of God's kingdom, so **if you want to understand what the kingdom of God is all about, you have to understand exactly who Jesus is**. That is why false gospel messages are preached by those who have a false understanding of who Jesus is. That is why what is revealed about Christ in the last book of the Bible is just as much about the gospel as is John the Baptist's preparatory gospel message. After all, that book starts by saying "The revelation OF Jesus Christ" - it's all about who Jesus Christ is now, after his ascension. We see him depicted in kingly power in heaven, and learn of further ancient scripture prophecies he fulfills. That is why all who claim they have had revelations about Christ after that last book of the Bible was written, turn out to be false prophets with a false gospel.
Everything we need to know about the gospel is in the Bible, and the first bits of information start in the book of Genesis (3:15), the final bits being in the last book of the Bible, which prepares believers for his stupendous return to deal with all those who refuse to obey the everlasting gospel proclaimed by an angel, just before Christ descends in judgment (Rev. 14:6-7). But those who obey the basic element of the gospel (to repentantly put faith in Christ) can progress to a fuller understanding of the gospel. And the more the Bible is heeded, in all it has to teach us about Christ, the greater our grasp of the gospel will be. | >
> Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, , and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and .”
> (Mark 1:14-15)
>
>
>
>
> but he said to them, “I must preach the to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”
> (Luke 4:43)
>
>
>
>
> And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the and healing every disease and every affliction.
> (Matthew 9:35)
>
>
>
The is what Jesus preached his entire ministry, and he did not in fact mention his prophesied death until the end of his ministry (halfway through Mark, which starts with "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"). Anytime any writer mentions the gospel of grace, the gospel of God, good news, etc. It is to be read as being synonymous with the . Any meaningful bible study is lost if you believe all the writers are talking about different topics, thankfully they harmonize. |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | We have to understand that Jesus came to be a "Messiah-King" to the Jews as prophesied in the Old Testament. In light of this we must consider the first stage of Jesus ministry, as given in Matttew 4:17, preaching about the "Kingdom of God/Heaven- to the Jews only[since He was born, raised and travelled to preach this "Kingdom" message- we can say -the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark1:15)to only the inhabitants of the the country-particularly to Israel people].
When the Jews rejected or does not heed to His message, He started His mission of saving the sinful world by His death on the cross(this we can find in "Matt 16:21"-which shows the gradual change).
Before His death and the resurrection, there could not be any preaching on the "gospel of the grace of God". So there is quite a difference between the "Gospel of the Kingdom of God- preached till His death and resurrection and the "Gospel of the grace of God- which includes the death and resurrection of the Lord.
We can say there are two aspects in His First Coming -to be a Messiah-King to the Jews and a Saviour to the entire world as well as in His Second coming- Rapture and coming with the Church on to Mount Olivet.
So we can rightly assume- the disciples preached "the gospel of the Kingdom of God"- before the death and Resurrection of Jesus and then "the Gospel of the Grace of God"
The verse John 1:17- the "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"- was effectual only after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. | >
> Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, , and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and .”
> (Mark 1:14-15)
>
>
>
>
> but he said to them, “I must preach the to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”
> (Luke 4:43)
>
>
>
>
> And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the and healing every disease and every affliction.
> (Matthew 9:35)
>
>
>
The is what Jesus preached his entire ministry, and he did not in fact mention his prophesied death until the end of his ministry (halfway through Mark, which starts with "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"). Anytime any writer mentions the gospel of grace, the gospel of God, good news, etc. It is to be read as being synonymous with the . Any meaningful bible study is lost if you believe all the writers are talking about different topics, thankfully they harmonize. |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | As alluded to in one comment, systematic theology has an answer to this question - and *this* answer may differ from that, therefore is for consideration, and requires you to be aware of this.
The ‘Gospel’ means ‘good news’ - and this *term* is a New Testament term. The ‘Gospel’ is the *means* by which man can receive righteousness. Man lost his righteousness via Adam, but can once again attain it via Jesus. And it is Righteousness that brings ‘[eternal] Life.
There are at *least* three different gospels that make righteousness available to man. The first is the Gospel of the Kingdom that John the Baptist heralded, and Jesus offered, up until the Jews rejected Him as Messiah - and, the Kingdom needs Jesus as King. Any ‘righteousness’ needs Him. This Gospel was for the Jews
>
> **MAT 4:23** *And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the* ***gospel of the kingdom*** *and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people*
>
>
>
This is the Gospel that the disciples were preaching. They were ‘disciples’ of Jesus, who was preaching *that* Gospel
The second Gospel is the Gospel that Paul preached. Note - He received this directly from Jesus, in his time spent in Arabia. He purposely did *not* consult the disciples on this, as they had the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was for the Jews.
>
> **ACTS 20:24** *But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the* ***gospel of the grace of
> God.***
>
>
> | Let us be very clear that the fact of Jesus death and resurrection is a series of facts, in themselves, that are unrelated to humans. The central part of the gospel is God's LOVE for us by which He extends to us His GRACE.
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to send His Son Jesus
* It was love initiating grace that motivated Jesus to die on the cross
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to forgive us our sins
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to want to take forgiven sinners to heaven
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to transform sinners to be able to love God at all!
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to heal the sick and raise the dead, at no cost the anyone
As evidence for these assertions let me quote:
* John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
* Eph 2:8-10 - For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.
* Rom 3:21-26 - But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are **justified freely by His grace** through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
* Matt 4:23 - Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
* Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed
* Luke 7:22 - So He replied, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. See also Matt 11:5.
Thus, the gospel involved God's free and undeserved love for us by which He extends to us free grace to forgive, to heal, free from sin, to raise us at the end of time and take us to heaven. God proved to all that He was justified in this action by giving the greatest gift in the universe - the gift of His Son Jesus who died to save us.
Let me put this more strongly, if the gospel consisted only of a story of the death of Jesus and His resurrection - great as it was, then the gospel would be powerless to have any affect on me. However, God used these events to extend grace to use and save us and transform us.
* Rom 1:16, 17 - I am not ashamed of the **gospel**, because it **is the power of God** for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The Gospel is the whole story of salvation!
**APPENDIX - 1 John 4:7-21**
>
> **7** Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. **8** Whoever
> does not love does not know God, because God is love.
>
>
> **9** This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. **10**
> And love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us
> and sent His Son as the atoning sacrificed for our sins.
>
>
> **11** Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. **12** No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. **13** By this we know
> that we remain in Him, and He in us: He has given us of His Spirit.
> **14** And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
>
>
> **15** If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. **16** And we have come to know and believe the
> love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides
> in God, and God in him. **17** In this way, love has been perfected
> among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for
> in this world we are just like Him.
>
>
> **18** There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been
> perfected in love. **19 We love because He first loved us.**
>
>
> **20** If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen,
> cannot love God, whom he has not seen. **21** And we have this
> commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.
>
>
> |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | Gospel / [εὐαγγέλιον](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon//esv/tr/0-1/) simply means "good news" and [predates Christianity](https://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/archives/2010/02/25/pre-Christian-uses-of-gospel) as a general Greek term, so can be understood in a variety of ways depending on the context. After Jesus the term began to accrue increasingly specific theological meaning, particularly as defined by Paul, but that doesn't mean this would be how Jesus or the Apostles would ever have intended the term in the Gospels.
In the text of Luke, the εὐαγγέλιον is introduced by Jesus in what has been described as his 'Kingdom Manifesto' in Luke 4:
>
> The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach **good news** to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
>
>
> [Luke 4:18-19 CSB](https://bible.com/bible/1713/luk.4.18-19.CSB)
>
>
>
Jesus reiterates the term later in the same chapter, specifying that the good news was of the 'Kingdom of God':
>
> But he said to them, “It is necessary for me to proclaim **the good news about the kingdom of God** to the other towns also, because I was sent for this purpose.”
>
>
> [Luke 4:43 CSB](https://bible.com/bible/1713/luk.4.43.CSB)
>
>
>
And from here onwards Jesus' teaching centres on the Kingdom of God, including many of the parables captured in Luke. So when the disciples were preaching the "good news", it would have been about the Kingdom of God and that it had arrived on earth. | Let us be very clear that the fact of Jesus death and resurrection is a series of facts, in themselves, that are unrelated to humans. The central part of the gospel is God's LOVE for us by which He extends to us His GRACE.
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to send His Son Jesus
* It was love initiating grace that motivated Jesus to die on the cross
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to forgive us our sins
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to want to take forgiven sinners to heaven
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to transform sinners to be able to love God at all!
* It was love initiating grace that motivated God to heal the sick and raise the dead, at no cost the anyone
As evidence for these assertions let me quote:
* John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
* Eph 2:8-10 - For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.
* Rom 3:21-26 - But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are **justified freely by His grace** through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
* Matt 4:23 - Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
* Luke 4:18 - “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed
* Luke 7:22 - So He replied, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. See also Matt 11:5.
Thus, the gospel involved God's free and undeserved love for us by which He extends to us free grace to forgive, to heal, free from sin, to raise us at the end of time and take us to heaven. God proved to all that He was justified in this action by giving the greatest gift in the universe - the gift of His Son Jesus who died to save us.
Let me put this more strongly, if the gospel consisted only of a story of the death of Jesus and His resurrection - great as it was, then the gospel would be powerless to have any affect on me. However, God used these events to extend grace to use and save us and transform us.
* Rom 1:16, 17 - I am not ashamed of the **gospel**, because it **is the power of God** for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The Gospel is the whole story of salvation!
**APPENDIX - 1 John 4:7-21**
>
> **7** Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. **8** Whoever
> does not love does not know God, because God is love.
>
>
> **9** This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. **10**
> And love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us
> and sent His Son as the atoning sacrificed for our sins.
>
>
> **11** Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. **12** No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. **13** By this we know
> that we remain in Him, and He in us: He has given us of His Spirit.
> **14** And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
>
>
> **15** If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. **16** And we have come to know and believe the
> love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides
> in God, and God in him. **17** In this way, love has been perfected
> among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for
> in this world we are just like Him.
>
>
> **18** There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been
> perfected in love. **19 We love because He first loved us.**
>
>
> **20** If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen,
> cannot love God, whom he has not seen. **21** And we have this
> commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.
>
>
> |
70,359 | If there is only one gospel, which gospel was being preached in Luke 9:6 which preceded Luke 18:31-34.
>
> Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
> up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the
> Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the
> Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog
> Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”
>
>
> But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning
> was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying.
>
>
>
The apostle Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-4) that the gospel, by which we are saved, is...
>
> 1 **Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,** which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
>
> 3 **For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,**
>
>
>
The gospel in Luke 9:6 would ostensibly have nothing to do with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus since that had not yet occurred.
So what was this other gospel that was being preached by the disciples? | 2021/10/22 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70359",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/45777/"
] | As alluded to in one comment, systematic theology has an answer to this question - and *this* answer may differ from that, therefore is for consideration, and requires you to be aware of this.
The ‘Gospel’ means ‘good news’ - and this *term* is a New Testament term. The ‘Gospel’ is the *means* by which man can receive righteousness. Man lost his righteousness via Adam, but can once again attain it via Jesus. And it is Righteousness that brings ‘[eternal] Life.
There are at *least* three different gospels that make righteousness available to man. The first is the Gospel of the Kingdom that John the Baptist heralded, and Jesus offered, up until the Jews rejected Him as Messiah - and, the Kingdom needs Jesus as King. Any ‘righteousness’ needs Him. This Gospel was for the Jews
>
> **MAT 4:23** *And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the* ***gospel of the kingdom*** *and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people*
>
>
>
This is the Gospel that the disciples were preaching. They were ‘disciples’ of Jesus, who was preaching *that* Gospel
The second Gospel is the Gospel that Paul preached. Note - He received this directly from Jesus, in his time spent in Arabia. He purposely did *not* consult the disciples on this, as they had the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was for the Jews.
>
> **ACTS 20:24** *But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the* ***gospel of the grace of
> God.***
>
>
> | >
> Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, , and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and .”
> (Mark 1:14-15)
>
>
>
>
> but he said to them, “I must preach the to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”
> (Luke 4:43)
>
>
>
>
> And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the and healing every disease and every affliction.
> (Matthew 9:35)
>
>
>
The is what Jesus preached his entire ministry, and he did not in fact mention his prophesied death until the end of his ministry (halfway through Mark, which starts with "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"). Anytime any writer mentions the gospel of grace, the gospel of God, good news, etc. It is to be read as being synonymous with the . Any meaningful bible study is lost if you believe all the writers are talking about different topics, thankfully they harmonize. |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | Typically **hold the knife blade flat in the center of the cutting board you used to give a buffer** if someone bumps into you and **make it clear you have a knife.**
If its food, hot pan, a **knife** or anything let people know you're walking behind them.
I work in a medium sized, crowded kitchen and that's how we are sure to stay safe. **Most of the time we don't even have the cutting board just the knife**; in that case **make it clear you have a knife by holding it moderately up and in front of you**, and **maneuver it vertically up rather than horizontally or down** if you're moving past people and tight gaps. It's **easier for everyone to see and notice** something up high than down by your waist.
Other than that you can get a **knife sheath** or an **apron with a slot** for the knife. (typically aprons only hold pairing knives if any.) | Consider using knives that are pointy AND big at the same time only when absolutely necessary, and carry them point down and/or with non-walkable space below the knife (eg over the counter). If the knife can be SAFELY held at the tip, doing so might be also recommendable.
Try using non-pointy knives as your normal tools if you like large blades: Chinese cleavers, nakiris, tokyo style usubas. They can be held by the blade easily (edge down), and while they can be made wonderfully sharp, they do not have a tip that creates an accidental stabbing hazard (dropping a chinese cleaver on your feet is, of course, inadvisable - tough shoes might be wise). If using something pointy, do take extra care to warn anyone in your path - since that won't happen all the time, attention will be paid. |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | One should try not to situate the cutting station away from the sink. Most of the time you clean what you are going to cut and you have scraps to put down the garbage disposal. If you need to clean the knife you also need to clean the cutting board.
If I had to carry a lone knife around I would extend my arm down the knife next to my thigh blade pointing behind me. I used to work as a cook and that is how I carried my knife to my station. Coming back I would typically have a number of dirty items so I would just place the knife in the bus tray.
Other way is wrist bent with dull side of the knife against your forearm.
Mistake I see is people want to start cooking before they prep. You start producing dirty pans and use up the prep area and things just go to shit. Here is what I recommend:
1. Clean (and disinfect) the kitchen. Sink counter, pots, and dishes
2. Soak and clean vegetables and fruit
3. Cut / prep vegetables and fruit and put them aside
4. Quick clean
5. Cut / prep meats (if marinade then do that first)
6. Cook - clean as you go
7. One full sanitize
8. Assemble / serve | Typically **hold the knife blade flat in the center of the cutting board you used to give a buffer** if someone bumps into you and **make it clear you have a knife.**
If its food, hot pan, a **knife** or anything let people know you're walking behind them.
I work in a medium sized, crowded kitchen and that's how we are sure to stay safe. **Most of the time we don't even have the cutting board just the knife**; in that case **make it clear you have a knife by holding it moderately up and in front of you**, and **maneuver it vertically up rather than horizontally or down** if you're moving past people and tight gaps. It's **easier for everyone to see and notice** something up high than down by your waist.
Other than that you can get a **knife sheath** or an **apron with a slot** for the knife. (typically aprons only hold pairing knives if any.) |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | Typically **hold the knife blade flat in the center of the cutting board you used to give a buffer** if someone bumps into you and **make it clear you have a knife.**
If its food, hot pan, a **knife** or anything let people know you're walking behind them.
I work in a medium sized, crowded kitchen and that's how we are sure to stay safe. **Most of the time we don't even have the cutting board just the knife**; in that case **make it clear you have a knife by holding it moderately up and in front of you**, and **maneuver it vertically up rather than horizontally or down** if you're moving past people and tight gaps. It's **easier for everyone to see and notice** something up high than down by your waist.
Other than that you can get a **knife sheath** or an **apron with a slot** for the knife. (typically aprons only hold pairing knives if any.) | I have been taught to hold the knife by the handle with the blade against my forearm, sharp edge away from the arm. This way you are hardly likely to accidentally stab someone, and if you trip the instinct is to let the knife go as you try and save yourself. Holding the knife straight down against the leg, if you trip and someone tries to catch you, can result in them being injured by the knife, especially if you forget to let go of the knife first. |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | One should try not to situate the cutting station away from the sink. Most of the time you clean what you are going to cut and you have scraps to put down the garbage disposal. If you need to clean the knife you also need to clean the cutting board.
If I had to carry a lone knife around I would extend my arm down the knife next to my thigh blade pointing behind me. I used to work as a cook and that is how I carried my knife to my station. Coming back I would typically have a number of dirty items so I would just place the knife in the bus tray.
Other way is wrist bent with dull side of the knife against your forearm.
Mistake I see is people want to start cooking before they prep. You start producing dirty pans and use up the prep area and things just go to shit. Here is what I recommend:
1. Clean (and disinfect) the kitchen. Sink counter, pots, and dishes
2. Soak and clean vegetables and fruit
3. Cut / prep vegetables and fruit and put them aside
4. Quick clean
5. Cut / prep meats (if marinade then do that first)
6. Cook - clean as you go
7. One full sanitize
8. Assemble / serve | Consider using knives that are pointy AND big at the same time only when absolutely necessary, and carry them point down and/or with non-walkable space below the knife (eg over the counter). If the knife can be SAFELY held at the tip, doing so might be also recommendable.
Try using non-pointy knives as your normal tools if you like large blades: Chinese cleavers, nakiris, tokyo style usubas. They can be held by the blade easily (edge down), and while they can be made wonderfully sharp, they do not have a tip that creates an accidental stabbing hazard (dropping a chinese cleaver on your feet is, of course, inadvisable - tough shoes might be wise). If using something pointy, do take extra care to warn anyone in your path - since that won't happen all the time, attention will be paid. |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | Consider using knives that are pointy AND big at the same time only when absolutely necessary, and carry them point down and/or with non-walkable space below the knife (eg over the counter). If the knife can be SAFELY held at the tip, doing so might be also recommendable.
Try using non-pointy knives as your normal tools if you like large blades: Chinese cleavers, nakiris, tokyo style usubas. They can be held by the blade easily (edge down), and while they can be made wonderfully sharp, they do not have a tip that creates an accidental stabbing hazard (dropping a chinese cleaver on your feet is, of course, inadvisable - tough shoes might be wise). If using something pointy, do take extra care to warn anyone in your path - since that won't happen all the time, attention will be paid. | I have been taught to hold the knife by the handle with the blade against my forearm, sharp edge away from the arm. This way you are hardly likely to accidentally stab someone, and if you trip the instinct is to let the knife go as you try and save yourself. Holding the knife straight down against the leg, if you trip and someone tries to catch you, can result in them being injured by the knife, especially if you forget to let go of the knife first. |
89,488 | How do I carry a knife when moving between my cutting station and the sink for cleaning safely? Any way I hold it feels like I'm either endangering my fellow cooks or myself.
Context: I'm not a chef, I cook at home, but my kitchen is large and there are often multiple people cooking simultaneously (up to 4) | 2018/04/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66869/"
] | One should try not to situate the cutting station away from the sink. Most of the time you clean what you are going to cut and you have scraps to put down the garbage disposal. If you need to clean the knife you also need to clean the cutting board.
If I had to carry a lone knife around I would extend my arm down the knife next to my thigh blade pointing behind me. I used to work as a cook and that is how I carried my knife to my station. Coming back I would typically have a number of dirty items so I would just place the knife in the bus tray.
Other way is wrist bent with dull side of the knife against your forearm.
Mistake I see is people want to start cooking before they prep. You start producing dirty pans and use up the prep area and things just go to shit. Here is what I recommend:
1. Clean (and disinfect) the kitchen. Sink counter, pots, and dishes
2. Soak and clean vegetables and fruit
3. Cut / prep vegetables and fruit and put them aside
4. Quick clean
5. Cut / prep meats (if marinade then do that first)
6. Cook - clean as you go
7. One full sanitize
8. Assemble / serve | I have been taught to hold the knife by the handle with the blade against my forearm, sharp edge away from the arm. This way you are hardly likely to accidentally stab someone, and if you trip the instinct is to let the knife go as you try and save yourself. Holding the knife straight down against the leg, if you trip and someone tries to catch you, can result in them being injured by the knife, especially if you forget to let go of the knife first. |
28,698 | During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?
Reason I ask:
* Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' ['Quinque viae'](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) as the best arguments for the existence of God.
* But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is *any* god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity. | 2014/06/03 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28698",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1100/"
] | Jesus' contemporary followers not only believed in "a god", they had a common understanding of the existence and nature of God, because his mission was to the people of Israel (cf. Jesus answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:14: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"). This is not to assert that *all* of Jesus' followers came from the House of Israel, but before the writings of Paul, we have little evidence of any who were not. With the common understandings, they did not need an explanation of the existence, or nature of God.
If, on the other hand, Jesus had been sent to the Gentiles--the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, &c.--he would have had to expend considerably more time teaching about the nature--though not the existence--of God. Note, though, that in the ancient world, atheism was rather unknown. Most everyone seems to have believed in at least one god, though there was not much consensus about much more than the existence of a god. | >
> *John 10:24-33 (NIV)*
>
>
> The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will
> you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly**.”
> Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I
> do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe
> because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know
> them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall
> never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who
> has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out
> of my Father’s hand. **I and the Father are one**.” Again his Jewish
> opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I
> have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do
> you stone me?”
> **“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God**.”
>
>
>
Jesus did not come to make some apologetic works to proof the existence of God. **Jesus came to prove that He is God** and to prove the power of God to the people.
>
> Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
> among you such a long time? **Anyone who has seen me has seen the
> Father**. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9, NIV)
>
>
> |
28,698 | During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?
Reason I ask:
* Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' ['Quinque viae'](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) as the best arguments for the existence of God.
* But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is *any* god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity. | 2014/06/03 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28698",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1100/"
] | Jesus' contemporary followers not only believed in "a god", they had a common understanding of the existence and nature of God, because his mission was to the people of Israel (cf. Jesus answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:14: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"). This is not to assert that *all* of Jesus' followers came from the House of Israel, but before the writings of Paul, we have little evidence of any who were not. With the common understandings, they did not need an explanation of the existence, or nature of God.
If, on the other hand, Jesus had been sent to the Gentiles--the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, &c.--he would have had to expend considerably more time teaching about the nature--though not the existence--of God. Note, though, that in the ancient world, atheism was rather unknown. Most everyone seems to have believed in at least one god, though there was not much consensus about much more than the existence of a god. | The foundation that God existed was laid long ago as men pondered their existence and place in the universe. This was expanded and reinforced by continuous prophetic utterances over the centuries that have been fulfilled. By the time of Christ’s ministry, the Jews were well grounded in the fact of God’s existence. Here are three foundation blocks.
As you will read, each argument moves from a wide focus into a narrow focus with each dependent yet independent of the other. God exists and extends Himself to us via nature, prophecy, and His Son. Each time God narrows the focus. Consider the creation, but do not worship it. Prophets speak for Me, but if their prophecy fails or leads you away, do not fall away. My Son fulfilled the prophets, by Him were the worlds created, if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father.
ARGUMENT #1
Job is considered by most to be the oldest book in the Bible. He would be the first to lay out a foundation block. Job pondered the visible and knew there must be the Invisible above it who made it. Creation demands a Creator.
>
> Job 31:26-28 [I]f I looked at the sun when it was shining, and the moon advancing as a precious thing, so that my heart was secretly enticed, and my hand threw them a kiss from my mouth, then this also would be iniquity to be judged, for I would have been false to God above.
>
>
>
This powerful argument was brought up in the psalms; for example in this one attributed to Moses.
>
> Psalm 90:2 Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God.
>
>
>
This same argument that the visible requires the Invisible was picked up some 2,000 years later by Paul.
>
> Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
>
>
>
Creation demands a Creator. We are without excuse. And then Paul relates this fact of seeing and not believing or perhaps worse worshipping creation and uses it against those who deny God or worship the creation rather than the Creator, the very thing Job had advised against.
>
> Rom. 1:21-23 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
>
>
>
So, in this argument we find that the creation demands a Creator. Indeed, this is God’s unanswerable argument of His existence.
ARGUMENT #2
Yet of course, people will try to explain away the Creator. So the next argument was established by the prophets of old. The argument is can man know the end from the beginning? The answer is we cannot. Yet God knows and He reveals it to His prophets. He spoke to the prophets. He defined how we would know God is speaking to us.
>
> Num. 12:6 The LORD said, "Hear now my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream.
>
>
> Deut. 18:18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command.
>
>
>
And again, this argument for God is brought up some 2,000 years later in the Book of Hebrews. God exists. He speaks to His people. We know it is God because what He says will come to pass does in fact come to pass.
>
> Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
>
>
>
God spoke to Adam (Gen. 3:9), Noah (Gen. 6:13), Abraham (Gen. 12:1), Moses (Ex. 3:4). As well as the major and minor prophets.
Paul also uses this argument to prove God’s existence.
>
> Rom. 3:1 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
>
>
>
Moreover, man was instructed to write these things down as a witness. There are numerous examples: Ex. 17:14, Deut. 31:24, Hab. 2:2, Mal. 3:16. God wants to be known by His creation!
ARGUMENT #3
Still later, God sent His Son. Again, this was prophesied; it was predicted; and then it was fulfilled. And we see the image of God in the Son. This too proves God exists.
>
> Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
>
>
>
This was made visible 2,000 years ago, written down, and still is known today.
>
> Luke 24:44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
>
>
> John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
>
>
>
This argument builds on the first and second arguments; that God exists and He has revealed Himself not only in nature, but by people who would truly prophesy, and by His Son.
CONCLUSION
God speaks to us in His creation. God speaks to us through His prophets. God speaks to us through His Son. The foundations for the existence of God were laid long ago. Look up. Our Redeemer draws nigh. |
28,698 | During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?
Reason I ask:
* Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' ['Quinque viae'](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) as the best arguments for the existence of God.
* But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is *any* god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity. | 2014/06/03 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28698",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1100/"
] | The most generic Christian answer to this is quite simple: **God did**.
No human—neither Aquinas nor any other philosopher or theologian—"laid the foundation for the existence of God". God has always existed and the impetus for revealing this truth to men has always been on him. This he has done [in spades](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_spades).
* Adam, the first man, walked and talked with God in a very tangible sense even before his wife Eve was created (see [Genesis 2](http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+2/)). Adam had no question about the existence of God or miss-understanding that he was God's creation.
* Throughout the Old Testament we see a God who was repeatedly in contact with his creation making himself known as creator and sovereign God.
>
> **[Hebrews 1:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1:1&version=ESV)** (ESV)
>
> 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
>
>
>
* The Bible is blatantly forward on the issue of the existence of God being clear to *all men* through general revelation without the help of philosophers or theologians.
>
> **[Romans 1:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:20&version=ESV)** (ESV)
>
> 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
>
>
>
This is not to devalue the contributions of Aquinas and others in helping fallible humans to get over themselves, out of the nonsensical funk we work ourselves up into and remind us of immanent truth. There is a time and a place for that. But your question mistakes the nature of their activity. **Man did not create God, nor does he "lay a foundation for his existence"**. God is. And according to Christianity it is incumbent on all men to decide whether they will obey or disobey him. | >
> *John 10:24-33 (NIV)*
>
>
> The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will
> you keep us in suspense? **If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly**.”
> Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I
> do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe
> because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know
> them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall
> never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who
> has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out
> of my Father’s hand. **I and the Father are one**.” Again his Jewish
> opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I
> have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do
> you stone me?”
> **“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God**.”
>
>
>
Jesus did not come to make some apologetic works to proof the existence of God. **Jesus came to prove that He is God** and to prove the power of God to the people.
>
> Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
> among you such a long time? **Anyone who has seen me has seen the
> Father**. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9, NIV)
>
>
> |
28,698 | During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?
Reason I ask:
* Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' ['Quinque viae'](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) as the best arguments for the existence of God.
* But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is *any* god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity. | 2014/06/03 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28698",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1100/"
] | The most generic Christian answer to this is quite simple: **God did**.
No human—neither Aquinas nor any other philosopher or theologian—"laid the foundation for the existence of God". God has always existed and the impetus for revealing this truth to men has always been on him. This he has done [in spades](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_spades).
* Adam, the first man, walked and talked with God in a very tangible sense even before his wife Eve was created (see [Genesis 2](http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+2/)). Adam had no question about the existence of God or miss-understanding that he was God's creation.
* Throughout the Old Testament we see a God who was repeatedly in contact with his creation making himself known as creator and sovereign God.
>
> **[Hebrews 1:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1:1&version=ESV)** (ESV)
>
> 1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
>
>
>
* The Bible is blatantly forward on the issue of the existence of God being clear to *all men* through general revelation without the help of philosophers or theologians.
>
> **[Romans 1:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:20&version=ESV)** (ESV)
>
> 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
>
>
>
This is not to devalue the contributions of Aquinas and others in helping fallible humans to get over themselves, out of the nonsensical funk we work ourselves up into and remind us of immanent truth. There is a time and a place for that. But your question mistakes the nature of their activity. **Man did not create God, nor does he "lay a foundation for his existence"**. God is. And according to Christianity it is incumbent on all men to decide whether they will obey or disobey him. | The foundation that God existed was laid long ago as men pondered their existence and place in the universe. This was expanded and reinforced by continuous prophetic utterances over the centuries that have been fulfilled. By the time of Christ’s ministry, the Jews were well grounded in the fact of God’s existence. Here are three foundation blocks.
As you will read, each argument moves from a wide focus into a narrow focus with each dependent yet independent of the other. God exists and extends Himself to us via nature, prophecy, and His Son. Each time God narrows the focus. Consider the creation, but do not worship it. Prophets speak for Me, but if their prophecy fails or leads you away, do not fall away. My Son fulfilled the prophets, by Him were the worlds created, if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father.
ARGUMENT #1
Job is considered by most to be the oldest book in the Bible. He would be the first to lay out a foundation block. Job pondered the visible and knew there must be the Invisible above it who made it. Creation demands a Creator.
>
> Job 31:26-28 [I]f I looked at the sun when it was shining, and the moon advancing as a precious thing, so that my heart was secretly enticed, and my hand threw them a kiss from my mouth, then this also would be iniquity to be judged, for I would have been false to God above.
>
>
>
This powerful argument was brought up in the psalms; for example in this one attributed to Moses.
>
> Psalm 90:2 Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God.
>
>
>
This same argument that the visible requires the Invisible was picked up some 2,000 years later by Paul.
>
> Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
>
>
>
Creation demands a Creator. We are without excuse. And then Paul relates this fact of seeing and not believing or perhaps worse worshipping creation and uses it against those who deny God or worship the creation rather than the Creator, the very thing Job had advised against.
>
> Rom. 1:21-23 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
>
>
>
So, in this argument we find that the creation demands a Creator. Indeed, this is God’s unanswerable argument of His existence.
ARGUMENT #2
Yet of course, people will try to explain away the Creator. So the next argument was established by the prophets of old. The argument is can man know the end from the beginning? The answer is we cannot. Yet God knows and He reveals it to His prophets. He spoke to the prophets. He defined how we would know God is speaking to us.
>
> Num. 12:6 The LORD said, "Hear now my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream.
>
>
> Deut. 18:18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command.
>
>
>
And again, this argument for God is brought up some 2,000 years later in the Book of Hebrews. God exists. He speaks to His people. We know it is God because what He says will come to pass does in fact come to pass.
>
> Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
>
>
>
God spoke to Adam (Gen. 3:9), Noah (Gen. 6:13), Abraham (Gen. 12:1), Moses (Ex. 3:4). As well as the major and minor prophets.
Paul also uses this argument to prove God’s existence.
>
> Rom. 3:1 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
>
>
>
Moreover, man was instructed to write these things down as a witness. There are numerous examples: Ex. 17:14, Deut. 31:24, Hab. 2:2, Mal. 3:16. God wants to be known by His creation!
ARGUMENT #3
Still later, God sent His Son. Again, this was prophesied; it was predicted; and then it was fulfilled. And we see the image of God in the Son. This too proves God exists.
>
> Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
>
>
>
This was made visible 2,000 years ago, written down, and still is known today.
>
> Luke 24:44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
>
>
> John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
>
>
>
This argument builds on the first and second arguments; that God exists and He has revealed Himself not only in nature, but by people who would truly prophesy, and by His Son.
CONCLUSION
God speaks to us in His creation. God speaks to us through His prophets. God speaks to us through His Son. The foundations for the existence of God were laid long ago. Look up. Our Redeemer draws nigh. |
161,397 | I've met a couple of hackers with infinite health on Dark Souls PC, and filed complaints with Games for Windows Live. Is this effective at all? How and when are players sanctioned?
Also, is there a known bug where someone's healthbar doesn't deplete in PvP? | 2014/03/23 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/161397",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/72302/"
] | Players are not sanctioned for cheating in Dark Souls PC due to the lack of support for GFWL (it being shut-down)
Players are however sanctioned on PSN and Xbox Live (not much use to you but it's relevant to the question)
There is no known bug which would cause a player's health bar not to deplete in PvP. | Going to answer this as gwfl is NO LONGER being shut down. Reports can and will get people banned, though at a frustratingly low rate. It's also (sadly) a pretty common cheat to either constantly set your health to max or set your resistances to max. |
57,443 | I have a Ariens self propelled lawnmower that I happend to hit a iron marker(pipe) with. When the blade hit the pipe, the lawnmower jolted and the engine stopped. I took a look and the blade still intact except for a nick on the edge. I replaced the flywheel key because it got broken when it hit the pipe. the engine turns on but it vibrates in such a way the looks like the shaft might be out of aligment. is there a way to check the aligment? and if so, can it be reset? or is the mower finished? | 2018/07/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/57443",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/40284/"
] | A quick search for "washer fluid MSDS" yields a [material safety datasheet](http://www.consulab.com/files/windshieldwasher.pdf) that lists the flammability limits for methanol as follows:
>
> Lower Explosive Limit (LEL): 6 % (by volume)
>
> Upper Explosive Limit (UEL): 36 % (by volume)
>
> Flash point: 90 °F
>
> Autoignition temperature: 878 °F
>
>
>
So methanol will readily vaporize (flash off) if it comes in contact with a hot surface (90+°F). It will readily ignite without spark above 878 °F. Exhaust manifolds can reach that temperature.
To ignite in the presence of a spark, methanol needs to be within the lower and upper flammability limits, which will be governed by its concentration levels. | Highly unlikely to catch fire. Alcohol level is low , maybe 20 % max. I have added 50 % to water for washer fluid and you get a MUCH stronger alcohol smell in the car than any commercial mix. So there is not enough alcohol vapor to reach the explosive limits in the commercial mix. Dripping hydro carbon onto a hot metal surface has a low risk of ignition. We did a lab test dripping gasoline on a 800 ( +/- ) F steel surface and had no ignition. A spark will ignite it but this is a low risk with modern engines and individual coils ( no bunch of high voltage wires from a distributor leaking sparks ). Warnings such as this are often caused by a single exceptionally unusual case where there was a problem and some lawyer sued somebody. Before your grandfather was born , alcohol water mixes were used in car radiators , this caused fires with large leaks hit the old distributors ( 1940's). |
57,443 | I have a Ariens self propelled lawnmower that I happend to hit a iron marker(pipe) with. When the blade hit the pipe, the lawnmower jolted and the engine stopped. I took a look and the blade still intact except for a nick on the edge. I replaced the flywheel key because it got broken when it hit the pipe. the engine turns on but it vibrates in such a way the looks like the shaft might be out of aligment. is there a way to check the aligment? and if so, can it be reset? or is the mower finished? | 2018/07/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/57443",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/40284/"
] | A quick search for "washer fluid MSDS" yields a [material safety datasheet](http://www.consulab.com/files/windshieldwasher.pdf) that lists the flammability limits for methanol as follows:
>
> Lower Explosive Limit (LEL): 6 % (by volume)
>
> Upper Explosive Limit (UEL): 36 % (by volume)
>
> Flash point: 90 °F
>
> Autoignition temperature: 878 °F
>
>
>
So methanol will readily vaporize (flash off) if it comes in contact with a hot surface (90+°F). It will readily ignite without spark above 878 °F. Exhaust manifolds can reach that temperature.
To ignite in the presence of a spark, methanol needs to be within the lower and upper flammability limits, which will be governed by its concentration levels. | It is all about the concentration of the Alcohol vapours in the air. Both contained in the Fluid itself, and the quantity of the fluid spilled, or in the open air. In cold climates it can be -40C which coincidentally is also -40F, which is over 50% alcohol by volume.
When sprayed from the WW nozzles there is usually insufficient concentration of vapours to be a fire hazard, you may or may not smell the alcohol inside the vehicle.
I have personally investigated a vehicle fire where maybe half a gallon or more was poured on a windshield on a cold morning at engine start-up, it ran down into the heater air intake, the heater blower was on and the sparking brushes ignited the vapours, and the heater ducts essentially became flame throwers, burned up the whole inside of the vehicle in less than 5 minutes. |
57,443 | I have a Ariens self propelled lawnmower that I happend to hit a iron marker(pipe) with. When the blade hit the pipe, the lawnmower jolted and the engine stopped. I took a look and the blade still intact except for a nick on the edge. I replaced the flywheel key because it got broken when it hit the pipe. the engine turns on but it vibrates in such a way the looks like the shaft might be out of aligment. is there a way to check the aligment? and if so, can it be reset? or is the mower finished? | 2018/07/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/57443",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/40284/"
] | According to the Houghton Chemical website (one manufacturer), "The desired percentage of pre-mixed windshield washer fluid is 37% Methanol which yields a freeze point of –20°F." Although various mixes abound on the market, including summer blends and others for relatively temperate regions of the country, freeze protection of -20 seems to be one of the most common that I've seen in stores. If you used the same rating system as with alcoholic beverages containing ethanol, this translates to 74 proof, nearly as much as the 80 proof for typical vodka or gin, both of which can be set on fire with a little patience. | Highly unlikely to catch fire. Alcohol level is low , maybe 20 % max. I have added 50 % to water for washer fluid and you get a MUCH stronger alcohol smell in the car than any commercial mix. So there is not enough alcohol vapor to reach the explosive limits in the commercial mix. Dripping hydro carbon onto a hot metal surface has a low risk of ignition. We did a lab test dripping gasoline on a 800 ( +/- ) F steel surface and had no ignition. A spark will ignite it but this is a low risk with modern engines and individual coils ( no bunch of high voltage wires from a distributor leaking sparks ). Warnings such as this are often caused by a single exceptionally unusual case where there was a problem and some lawyer sued somebody. Before your grandfather was born , alcohol water mixes were used in car radiators , this caused fires with large leaks hit the old distributors ( 1940's). |
57,443 | I have a Ariens self propelled lawnmower that I happend to hit a iron marker(pipe) with. When the blade hit the pipe, the lawnmower jolted and the engine stopped. I took a look and the blade still intact except for a nick on the edge. I replaced the flywheel key because it got broken when it hit the pipe. the engine turns on but it vibrates in such a way the looks like the shaft might be out of aligment. is there a way to check the aligment? and if so, can it be reset? or is the mower finished? | 2018/07/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/57443",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/40284/"
] | Highly unlikely to catch fire. Alcohol level is low , maybe 20 % max. I have added 50 % to water for washer fluid and you get a MUCH stronger alcohol smell in the car than any commercial mix. So there is not enough alcohol vapor to reach the explosive limits in the commercial mix. Dripping hydro carbon onto a hot metal surface has a low risk of ignition. We did a lab test dripping gasoline on a 800 ( +/- ) F steel surface and had no ignition. A spark will ignite it but this is a low risk with modern engines and individual coils ( no bunch of high voltage wires from a distributor leaking sparks ). Warnings such as this are often caused by a single exceptionally unusual case where there was a problem and some lawyer sued somebody. Before your grandfather was born , alcohol water mixes were used in car radiators , this caused fires with large leaks hit the old distributors ( 1940's). | It is all about the concentration of the Alcohol vapours in the air. Both contained in the Fluid itself, and the quantity of the fluid spilled, or in the open air. In cold climates it can be -40C which coincidentally is also -40F, which is over 50% alcohol by volume.
When sprayed from the WW nozzles there is usually insufficient concentration of vapours to be a fire hazard, you may or may not smell the alcohol inside the vehicle.
I have personally investigated a vehicle fire where maybe half a gallon or more was poured on a windshield on a cold morning at engine start-up, it ran down into the heater air intake, the heater blower was on and the sparking brushes ignited the vapours, and the heater ducts essentially became flame throwers, burned up the whole inside of the vehicle in less than 5 minutes. |
57,443 | I have a Ariens self propelled lawnmower that I happend to hit a iron marker(pipe) with. When the blade hit the pipe, the lawnmower jolted and the engine stopped. I took a look and the blade still intact except for a nick on the edge. I replaced the flywheel key because it got broken when it hit the pipe. the engine turns on but it vibrates in such a way the looks like the shaft might be out of aligment. is there a way to check the aligment? and if so, can it be reset? or is the mower finished? | 2018/07/30 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/57443",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/40284/"
] | According to the Houghton Chemical website (one manufacturer), "The desired percentage of pre-mixed windshield washer fluid is 37% Methanol which yields a freeze point of –20°F." Although various mixes abound on the market, including summer blends and others for relatively temperate regions of the country, freeze protection of -20 seems to be one of the most common that I've seen in stores. If you used the same rating system as with alcoholic beverages containing ethanol, this translates to 74 proof, nearly as much as the 80 proof for typical vodka or gin, both of which can be set on fire with a little patience. | It is all about the concentration of the Alcohol vapours in the air. Both contained in the Fluid itself, and the quantity of the fluid spilled, or in the open air. In cold climates it can be -40C which coincidentally is also -40F, which is over 50% alcohol by volume.
When sprayed from the WW nozzles there is usually insufficient concentration of vapours to be a fire hazard, you may or may not smell the alcohol inside the vehicle.
I have personally investigated a vehicle fire where maybe half a gallon or more was poured on a windshield on a cold morning at engine start-up, it ran down into the heater air intake, the heater blower was on and the sparking brushes ignited the vapours, and the heater ducts essentially became flame throwers, burned up the whole inside of the vehicle in less than 5 minutes. |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | SQL Server Reporting, which can be downloaded as part of SQL Server Express 2008. | [Crystal Reports](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Reports) has been available to windows developers as a free reporting system since VB6 (if I'm not mistaken). Free to redistribute and use. |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | SQL Server Reporting, which can be downloaded as part of SQL Server Express 2008. | I understand the desire to stay inexpensive and would vote for SSRS in addition to your SQLite implmentation. However, the Dundas product is fantastic...
I'm not sure who controls the purse strings, but you can make some flashy displays/reports/dashboards with Dundas. We software developers often focus on the code - it's beauty, it's elegance, it's terseness. We often forget that sales drive the existence/continuance of the product. And sales is driven by - ooh, look at that shiney thing! |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | They have a small overview of some open-source reporting tools at csharp-source.net:
<http://csharp-source.net/open-source/charting-and-reporting> | While it's not free but since you brought up your working with Visual Studio Express, a cheaper option than upgrading to a full copy of Visual Studio is [Telerik Reporting](http://www.telerik.com/products/reporting.aspx).
I haven't used it yet but I've had alot of success with their controls in the past and just had my workplace purchase the license that includes all the control and the reporting and at some point I'll be using Telerik reporting personally. |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | Depends on what exactly you expect from a reporting engine but there is some reporting support embedded in SharpDevelop ([SharpDevelop Reports](http://sharpdevelopreports.net/MainPage.ashx)) that can also be used as stand alone.
It is licensed under LPGL, but doesn't provide any charting capabilities. | I understand the desire to stay inexpensive and would vote for SSRS in addition to your SQLite implmentation. However, the Dundas product is fantastic...
I'm not sure who controls the purse strings, but you can make some flashy displays/reports/dashboards with Dundas. We software developers often focus on the code - it's beauty, it's elegance, it's terseness. We often forget that sales drive the existence/continuance of the product. And sales is driven by - ooh, look at that shiney thing! |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | SQL Server Reporting, which can be downloaded as part of SQL Server Express 2008. | They have a small overview of some open-source reporting tools at csharp-source.net:
<http://csharp-source.net/open-source/charting-and-reporting> |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | [Crystal Reports](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Reports) has been available to windows developers as a free reporting system since VB6 (if I'm not mistaken). Free to redistribute and use. | While it's not free but since you brought up your working with Visual Studio Express, a cheaper option than upgrading to a full copy of Visual Studio is [Telerik Reporting](http://www.telerik.com/products/reporting.aspx).
I haven't used it yet but I've had alot of success with their controls in the past and just had my workplace purchase the license that includes all the control and the reporting and at some point I'll be using Telerik reporting personally. |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | Depends on what exactly you expect from a reporting engine but there is some reporting support embedded in SharpDevelop ([SharpDevelop Reports](http://sharpdevelopreports.net/MainPage.ashx)) that can also be used as stand alone.
It is licensed under LPGL, but doesn't provide any charting capabilities. | While it's not free but since you brought up your working with Visual Studio Express, a cheaper option than upgrading to a full copy of Visual Studio is [Telerik Reporting](http://www.telerik.com/products/reporting.aspx).
I haven't used it yet but I've had alot of success with their controls in the past and just had my workplace purchase the license that includes all the control and the reporting and at some point I'll be using Telerik reporting personally. |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | [Crystal Reports](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Reports) has been available to windows developers as a free reporting system since VB6 (if I'm not mistaken). Free to redistribute and use. | I understand the desire to stay inexpensive and would vote for SSRS in addition to your SQLite implmentation. However, the Dundas product is fantastic...
I'm not sure who controls the purse strings, but you can make some flashy displays/reports/dashboards with Dundas. We software developers often focus on the code - it's beauty, it's elegance, it's terseness. We often forget that sales drive the existence/continuance of the product. And sales is driven by - ooh, look at that shiney thing! |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | They have a small overview of some open-source reporting tools at csharp-source.net:
<http://csharp-source.net/open-source/charting-and-reporting> | I understand the desire to stay inexpensive and would vote for SSRS in addition to your SQLite implmentation. However, the Dundas product is fantastic...
I'm not sure who controls the purse strings, but you can make some flashy displays/reports/dashboards with Dundas. We software developers often focus on the code - it's beauty, it's elegance, it's terseness. We often forget that sales drive the existence/continuance of the product. And sales is driven by - ooh, look at that shiney thing! |
1,394,471 | I'm writing desktop app in c# and I need some free reporting system.
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I'm using SQLite as DB. | 2009/09/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1394471",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/141835/"
] | SQL Server Reporting, which can be downloaded as part of SQL Server Express 2008. | While it's not free but since you brought up your working with Visual Studio Express, a cheaper option than upgrading to a full copy of Visual Studio is [Telerik Reporting](http://www.telerik.com/products/reporting.aspx).
I haven't used it yet but I've had alot of success with their controls in the past and just had my workplace purchase the license that includes all the control and the reporting and at some point I'll be using Telerik reporting personally. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | I'm surprised nobody has done this yet...
>
> Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
>
> Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
>
> Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
>
> Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
>
> Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
>
> Arthur: With a torch.
>
> Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
>
> Arthur: So had the stairs.
>
> Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
>
> Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.
>
>
> | The amount of public accessible information in the world is staggering. So I think it's natural that some/a lot/the majority of public accessible information will not get attention from anyone. Even if it concerns a relatively important person. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | There's always the classic: A distraction.
A very common distraction is a war. You might get caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Make the tail wag the dog and start a war with some country nobody likes but that is not really strong enough to have a chance of beating your country. This is most appropriate (if that's the word) when the corruption involved bribes etc. with the defense industry. Hey, you can probably get a lot more bribes by pushing contracts to build war stuff.
Another frequent distraction is a scandal about somebody else. Especially somebody who is already controversial for some reason. Even if you have to plant the evidence with your own sweaty hands. Hey, you are on the committee for the FDA? You can get some cool drugs and plant them on your enemy, then conveniently leak some juicy info to the media. Hey, your enemy has ties to a certain well known family with rumors of something shady? Plant evidence that implicates them in that exact thing. You can fancy it up by making the evidence massively obviously false so that the scandal turns around and becomes a mystery of who did the evidence planting. Which will spiral into conspiracy theories that the target planted the evidence himself to make it look like he is a victim.
A subtle and risky gambit is to leak information about yourself in order to create a scandal that you believe you can weather. If everybody believes you failed to evade taxes, and so owe the government a big stack of cash in fines and penalties, maybe they won't dig for anything else. "He's a tax cheat not a murderer." Or to pull the stunt your enemy gets accused of in the previous paragraph, and leak stupidly obviously fake evidence of the actual scandal. "Oh, that was disproved, forget about it."
If you put enough back-spin on the distraction, you can abscond. You can be in a country that has no extradition with your home country, with the cash, before anybody realizes what is going on. | The amount of public accessible information in the world is staggering. So I think it's natural that some/a lot/the majority of public accessible information will not get attention from anyone. Even if it concerns a relatively important person. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | **The same public figure flooded the media with other information that distracted or obscured the truth**
If the corruption requires at least some dot-connecting to uncover, real world politicians employ what's called the 'dead cat' method: do something so outrageous that everyone's attention is diverted away from the really dangerous stuff to something that's just humiliating or offensive.
Your public figure could also hire journalists to write obvious hit pieces and slander against themselves, so the public won't believe the real corruption if it is reported on. Claim fake news ad nauseam.
It's only after the smokescreen stories are disproved one by one, that the truth can be discovered and effectively brought to public attention. | It could be possible. The way I'm thinking of is having it so that the public figure, A, pulls some strings so that another, even more public figure, B, is under a big scandal, C. Since C is occurring, not many would pay attention if A did action D, thus stopping scandal E from occurring. Then, after C blows over, people won't be too inclined to look for if A did D, which means at worst for A that E would occur later. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | Not naming names for obvious reasons, but the following examples are taken from real life:
* The checks and balances in this country are set in this way: the Senate is the only public body constitutionally allowed to evict a judge from the Supreme Court. No criminal investigation can be carried out against the Senate or its members by any agency without explicit permission from the Supreme Court. There you go. What happens when both of them get corrupted?
* High Profile Politician is friends with the owners of some of the country's widest circulation newspaper and tv channels. Small newspapers might call out the corruption, but the big ones will drown the news with other irrelevant news or outright call it fake news.
* A journalist publishes a scandalous story involving a group of high-profile politicians. A few days before testifying in court, he dies in a weird car accident. In the following weeks, all possible witnesses (including the favorite candidate to win the next presidential elections) die or disappear, one by one. The case goes cold and no other journalist wants to touch the story. | **If it is not too much**
Only the worst and most explicit cases of corruption draw public attention.
If the corrupt public official has the self-control to do most of their work at acceptable quality and only SOME of it is affected by bribes, no one will look twice.
On the other hand, the human nature being what it is, the easy monetary inflow gradually changes one's priorities, as well as risk tolerance. In most cases, as the time passes, the corrupt official imposes increasing pressure at their fellow officials, their bribing clients and their non-bribing clients alike. At some point the corruptioneer's behavior is unacceptable for a great number of people and attracts attention. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | **The same public figure flooded the media with other information that distracted or obscured the truth**
If the corruption requires at least some dot-connecting to uncover, real world politicians employ what's called the 'dead cat' method: do something so outrageous that everyone's attention is diverted away from the really dangerous stuff to something that's just humiliating or offensive.
Your public figure could also hire journalists to write obvious hit pieces and slander against themselves, so the public won't believe the real corruption if it is reported on. Claim fake news ad nauseam.
It's only after the smokescreen stories are disproved one by one, that the truth can be discovered and effectively brought to public attention. | The reports work for an outlet that mostly publishes made up stuff.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J532V.jpg)
The snake eating the man alive was true. People don't check stuff that comes from a source like this. Sources like this are interested in things that are spectacular and wild. In your story, the corruption in question is not run of the mill stuff - it is wacky, involving Imperial Russian gold, Rhodesian separatists, offshore laboratories, snakes, Bowie, and more. But all true and ultimately verifiable. Even when the story is run by an unorthodox Unabomberesque journalist who works for this publication, it is still not checked by the government for a long time. The girlfriend of this journalist's brother hears something about it and prompts a second investigation. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | **No one tried to connect the dots**
Consider following scenario:
* Senator A had sponsored a certain bill;
* This bill directly led to a company B signing a very lucrative government contract;
* Company B has significant business with company C which provides some kind of consulting to Company B;
* Senator A has controlling stake in Company C;
Every link of this chain is potentially known to the public, but unless someone is specifically looking, the whole chain is not visible to anyone;
**No one was looking**
Consider following scenario:
* Senator A had long been dogged by his alleged association with the mob, but he steadfastly denied those allegations;
* Joe Nobody had once visited a restaurant, made a selfie and put it in his Facebook account;
* Little did Joe know that in the background he captured senator A talking to a prominent mob boss;
The evidence was in the plain sight for quite some time, but no one had thought to look for it in that particular place. | There's always the classic: A distraction.
A very common distraction is a war. You might get caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Make the tail wag the dog and start a war with some country nobody likes but that is not really strong enough to have a chance of beating your country. This is most appropriate (if that's the word) when the corruption involved bribes etc. with the defense industry. Hey, you can probably get a lot more bribes by pushing contracts to build war stuff.
Another frequent distraction is a scandal about somebody else. Especially somebody who is already controversial for some reason. Even if you have to plant the evidence with your own sweaty hands. Hey, you are on the committee for the FDA? You can get some cool drugs and plant them on your enemy, then conveniently leak some juicy info to the media. Hey, your enemy has ties to a certain well known family with rumors of something shady? Plant evidence that implicates them in that exact thing. You can fancy it up by making the evidence massively obviously false so that the scandal turns around and becomes a mystery of who did the evidence planting. Which will spiral into conspiracy theories that the target planted the evidence himself to make it look like he is a victim.
A subtle and risky gambit is to leak information about yourself in order to create a scandal that you believe you can weather. If everybody believes you failed to evade taxes, and so owe the government a big stack of cash in fines and penalties, maybe they won't dig for anything else. "He's a tax cheat not a murderer." Or to pull the stunt your enemy gets accused of in the previous paragraph, and leak stupidly obviously fake evidence of the actual scandal. "Oh, that was disproved, forget about it."
If you put enough back-spin on the distraction, you can abscond. You can be in a country that has no extradition with your home country, with the cash, before anybody realizes what is going on. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | **The same public figure flooded the media with other information that distracted or obscured the truth**
If the corruption requires at least some dot-connecting to uncover, real world politicians employ what's called the 'dead cat' method: do something so outrageous that everyone's attention is diverted away from the really dangerous stuff to something that's just humiliating or offensive.
Your public figure could also hire journalists to write obvious hit pieces and slander against themselves, so the public won't believe the real corruption if it is reported on. Claim fake news ad nauseam.
It's only after the smokescreen stories are disproved one by one, that the truth can be discovered and effectively brought to public attention. | Undetected is a relative term.
In an instance of corruption, at the very least the corrupt person knows. And whoever they were corrupt in favour of. Now, say that they are one step removed from being directly bribed. Say for example their father owmed a shop-building company, and they removed an embargo on steel from a country that sold it cheap. Plenty of people can know about that, they were even publicly voting on it. But, how likely is this story to make it to the front page? If they're family is rich, and friendly with the owners of all the major media companies it might not get published at all. To all people save a rounding error it goes undetected, despite technically being public knowledge.
Or for a really juicy one, say your cabinet gets briefed on a foreign virus. Then everyone at that meeting sells stocks in things like travel, buys stocks in things like medical companies. Before the information about the virus goes public. Is this legal? Possibly. Might be insider trading, might technically be something else. The thing is, it can only be noticed a good while after it occurred, meaning it's never fresh news, so probably won't be published, even before you consider some good relations with the owners of the press.
Tl;dr be friends with the people who own the mainstream press and they won't publish until they absolutely have to, letting you keep almost everyone who doesn't personally research it or have involvement be unaware. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | I'm surprised nobody has done this yet...
>
> Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
>
> Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
>
> Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
>
> Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
>
> Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
>
> Arthur: With a torch.
>
> Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
>
> Arthur: So had the stairs.
>
> Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
>
> Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.
>
>
> | This kind of situation is often held up as a consequence of the death of local media. There's less time for journalists to cover court cases, pour over public records and do in-depth investigations that may or may not pan out.
There's a recent case in my municipality where corruption related to building and planning permits recently led to several people being sentenced to jail time. This story was broken by the local newspaper, but only after a regular citizen who suspected something fishy was going on had spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours pouring over public records connecting the dots.
In your case, the corruption by the national-level politician could still be at a local level, quietly enriching him and setting him up for a nice retirement once he leaves congress. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | Undetected is a relative term.
In an instance of corruption, at the very least the corrupt person knows. And whoever they were corrupt in favour of. Now, say that they are one step removed from being directly bribed. Say for example their father owmed a shop-building company, and they removed an embargo on steel from a country that sold it cheap. Plenty of people can know about that, they were even publicly voting on it. But, how likely is this story to make it to the front page? If they're family is rich, and friendly with the owners of all the major media companies it might not get published at all. To all people save a rounding error it goes undetected, despite technically being public knowledge.
Or for a really juicy one, say your cabinet gets briefed on a foreign virus. Then everyone at that meeting sells stocks in things like travel, buys stocks in things like medical companies. Before the information about the virus goes public. Is this legal? Possibly. Might be insider trading, might technically be something else. The thing is, it can only be noticed a good while after it occurred, meaning it's never fresh news, so probably won't be published, even before you consider some good relations with the owners of the press.
Tl;dr be friends with the people who own the mainstream press and they won't publish until they absolutely have to, letting you keep almost everyone who doesn't personally research it or have involvement be unaware. | **If it is not too much**
Only the worst and most explicit cases of corruption draw public attention.
If the corrupt public official has the self-control to do most of their work at acceptable quality and only SOME of it is affected by bribes, no one will look twice.
On the other hand, the human nature being what it is, the easy monetary inflow gradually changes one's priorities, as well as risk tolerance. In most cases, as the time passes, the corrupt official imposes increasing pressure at their fellow officials, their bribing clients and their non-bribing clients alike. At some point the corruptioneer's behavior is unacceptable for a great number of people and attracts attention. |
203,630 | How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records. | 2021/05/31 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/203630",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/71969/"
] | The reports work for an outlet that mostly publishes made up stuff.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J532V.jpg)
The snake eating the man alive was true. People don't check stuff that comes from a source like this. Sources like this are interested in things that are spectacular and wild. In your story, the corruption in question is not run of the mill stuff - it is wacky, involving Imperial Russian gold, Rhodesian separatists, offshore laboratories, snakes, Bowie, and more. But all true and ultimately verifiable. Even when the story is run by an unorthodox Unabomberesque journalist who works for this publication, it is still not checked by the government for a long time. The girlfriend of this journalist's brother hears something about it and prompts a second investigation. | It could be possible. The way I'm thinking of is having it so that the public figure, A, pulls some strings so that another, even more public figure, B, is under a big scandal, C. Since C is occurring, not many would pay attention if A did action D, thus stopping scandal E from occurring. Then, after C blows over, people won't be too inclined to look for if A did D, which means at worst for A that E would occur later. |
115,216 | I am building a small dc motor that is driven by a 2v AA battery. I want the potentiometer to adjust the speed of the motor by increasing and reducing the current through the motor. For this i am using a potentiometer, but the current i have is for very high resistance. What are the common ranges potentiometers operate at? Does it exist a potentiometer that ranges from say 50 ohm - 0 ohm? Or maybe somewhere similar to that? Like the standard range for those meters with the lowest resistance. | 2014/06/13 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/115216",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/18069/"
] | Potentiometers with R = 10Ω have 0-10Ω range.
It's always from 0 to nominal R (+/- tolerance).
Typical potentiometer (and other basic electronic parts) values are defined in IEC 60063. There are few number series - E6 and E12 are very common. In E6 series there are 6 numbers: 10, 15, 22, 33, 47, 68 numbers. E12 series contains 12 numbers. For example - number 47 can be used for 4.7Ω, 47Ω, 470Ω values.
If you need value very close to preferred value - you may have to choose from E96 series (there are 96 numbers), but potentiometers with these values are manufactured in low volumes and it may be hard or impossible to find them on the market.
Closest value to 50Ω in E6 (and E12) series is **47Ω**.
You can read more about electronic parts values [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_number#E_series).
There are linear and logarithmic potentiometers. Linear potentiometers have resistance proportional to slider position (slider at 50% gives 50% resistance etc), logaritmic have logaritmic scale.
---
**Potentiometer used to limit current directly is bad idea for motor speed regulation, because typical potentiometers are not designed for high currents.**
Voltage drop on potentiometer at relatively high current will cause relatively high power loss. At 50% you will waste 50% of power on potentiometer and this power will produce a lot of heat. That heat will damage or completely destroy typical potentiometer.
---
There are potentiometers for higher currents, but they are much more expensive.
For motor speed regulation you should use PWM regulator or at least some regulator with transistor to "amplify current from potentiometer". | Potentiometers for that range do exist (or at least they used to). But they are expensive, waste a lot of energy, and give poor speed regulation.
Google "motor speed controller 3V" for alternatives, for instance
this [one-IC solution](http://www.circuitstoday.com/low-voltage-dc-motor-speed-control-circuit), or this [555-plus-mosfet circuit](http://www.simplecircuitdiagram.com/2009/05/04/motor-speed-control-using-pwm/) (but you will need a MOSFET that operates at 3V gate level). |
16,472 | There is a technique to check if something visually not broken in HTML and CSS markup - [visual regression testing](https://css-tricks.com/visual-regression-testing-with-phantomcss/).
We do following steps:
1. Check everything is ok.
2. Create a test "reference" (creating \*.png files).
3. Change something.
4. Run test and check what changed.
What is better practice - all these "references" should be stored localy or should be commited to repository after check if everything is OK?
Maybe the first case more simple and suitable for single development, but second can be useful if I have team and person with QA role - he can check and create references?
Do you have some experience or thoughts about how this will be on practice? | 2016/01/12 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/16472",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/16013/"
] | My team struggles with a similar issue having multiple input streams, that are running on different iteration/sprint cycles into a common product.
We tried testing in the dev int area for each team for a while and then marking items done at that point, but we quickly discovered that was too early in the process. We could verify that new functionality was working, but we couldn't test at the integration level which was where most of our defects actually occur. So we basically moved our definition of 'done' to be later in the next cycle, I guess you could call that a hardening sprint since it comes after the initial sprint where the dev work occurred or we call it the 'QA Offset'. Our management team really wanted 'testing' to be 'done' during the same section of time as dev, but this just wasn't practical based on the type of system we are testing. We have been attempting to add different layers of automation, to help us get to done earlier, but on a legacy product that can be challenging.
So to answer your original question, we generally monitor the build and whenever there is a large enough quantity of items in it, we will grab them and start testing. Since we build daily it is about every other day that we will restart testing, which includes the new functionality and a mini-smoke to verify that the older items continue to work. | As shown in the other answers and comments this is a common issue that I've seen in several companies that I've worked in. Thinking it through, I suspect most companies struggle with the generic issue of allowing enough time for QA, testing, and automation once the feature is complete.
Generally, people may feel there is no clear guidance in Agile as to how to address this.
I would address this in two ways:
1) Testing happens *before, during and after* dev work. For example, if you practice BDD and write a failing test *before* the app code then you will be one step closer to your goal of keeping up.
2) A little discipline may be desired to allow more time for QA. For example, it's easy to say 'we will change to a process whereby dev works for a week and then QA has a week to test'. In reality, the work is usually not done in the first week and overflows into the second week leading to the same situation again. Try to address this with formal scheduled turnover and mileposts. For instance a calendar reminder "it's Friday, 3 pm. Is your code ready for testing?" You will also need to consider what would dev do for a week if no changes are allowed? Sitting idle for a week isn't going to work. This is a hard problem that is helped by a lot of exploring the issue and factors and by help from more senior folks who have experience in seeing the bigger picture and what would work best for the situation at hand.
In conclusion: You need to have detailed and difficult conversations with all the stakeholders in the development process in an open and caring environment that encourages all points of view in a non-threatening fun workplace where mistakes are just how people learn to do the right thing. In other words, A Good Culture. |
16,472 | There is a technique to check if something visually not broken in HTML and CSS markup - [visual regression testing](https://css-tricks.com/visual-regression-testing-with-phantomcss/).
We do following steps:
1. Check everything is ok.
2. Create a test "reference" (creating \*.png files).
3. Change something.
4. Run test and check what changed.
What is better practice - all these "references" should be stored localy or should be commited to repository after check if everything is OK?
Maybe the first case more simple and suitable for single development, but second can be useful if I have team and person with QA role - he can check and create references?
Do you have some experience or thoughts about how this will be on practice? | 2016/01/12 | [
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/16472",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com",
"https://sqa.stackexchange.com/users/16013/"
] | Testing of a particular feature that is being created in the sprint can be done, only if the developer has developed the feature up to some extent. Meanwhile, when the developer is busy developing the feature, a QA should start working on the test plan/test cases on the basis of the feature specification document or the user stories. If the QA team is automating the test cases and using BDD tools like Cucumber, then he must start writing the Cucumber for the test cases to save time. A QA should be in continuous touch with the developers so that he receives at least a piece of the feature which has been developed.
Once the developed module is received, now a QA has an ample amount of work. He should first do a sanity check of the module received, and quickly log the issues identified in a bug tracking tool. Also, communicate the developer regarding the issue. Side by side he should also automate the test case. This cycle needs to be processed quickly so that each module is tested and delivered without any bug on or before the sprint end date. Thus, in other words, the work of a QA starts as soon as feature specs or user story is received in the sprint and the actual testing can be started as soon as the developer develops some module of the feature. | My idea is preety simple. Prepare regression automation suite and setup in CI & CD pipeline and add this as a post build action.
So for the new deployment it will run can help to do the regression and sanity of the application.
Your focus during the Sprint should be starting automation of repeatative tasks and push this in CI CD pipeline daily.
If automation taking time for some test cases it is better to done Manual as first round and priorities as per need. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.