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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
86,776 | This is a very newbie question.
SSL Pinning is "safe" in assumption that only the real server can decrypt the public key.
By design, it should be almost impossible to find the private key from the public key.
However, is it relatively easy to create a new certificate (private key) that generates the "same" public key which the SSL Pinning trusts?
In order words, how hard is to create a new private key that generates the public key "I want".
For example, if I want to create a new certificate which the public key is:
sha256/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa=
Can I easily do that? | 2020/12/08 | [
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/86776",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/85429/"
] | It's astonishingly difficult.
* With RSA, it's literally a mathematical impossibility.
* With Weierstrass, Montgomery and Edwards elliptic curves, the possibility of generating the same public key from different private key should be impossible assuming the private key scalar value doesn't overflow the order of the generator of the group.
* With Hash-based digital signatures, this may be possible, because the public key is the tree hash of many one-time hash signature public keys. But still, finding such public key collision is as difficult as finding any regular hash collision. (not to mention real-world hash signatures often use randomized hashing).
* Lattice-based schemes have the mathematical possibility of generating colliding public keys if the public component reduces the dimension of the private component, but that's very improbable. However, it should be noted, even the public component are randomly generated in most candidate schemes in NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Project. | With what we know today, there is no practical way to determine the private key that corresponds to a given public key for any widely use public key system. If there was a way to do that then public key crypto wouldn't be secure. |
334,560 | In my language I can say "I don't remember I've ever watched that film" or "Never in my life have I remembered watching that film" to suggest that as far as I can remember I've never done something, or in a stronger sense that I can recall I never did something.
Do you, as a native speaker, use "don't remember" in such sense? Otherwise, what is the natural way to put it across?
Edit: Thanks guys for your inputs, but I still have a question. Let's say somebody told you your friend Ken has a ring, but as far as you know or could recall he doesn't have one. My immediate response would be like "Oh? But I don't remember he ever has a ring" Would this be okay? I know how it sounds, it may sound like I just forgot the fact that he has a ring. What would be a commonly used expression for such situation? | 2016/06/27 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/334560",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/182765/"
] | The first one is simply wrong. The second is grammatically correct but very awkward. You would say
"I don't remember ever watching that film."
and
"I've never watched that film in my life."
The second is more *emphatic* and sure-sounding. In the first, you're allowing for the possibility that you have watched it but can't remember doing so at the moment. | There is a closer use to your examples , but it may be only UK English, which has more circumlocution.
Example .1. "I don't remember if ..."
>
> I don't remember if I've ever watched that film: the book was so
> vivid.
>
> I don't remember if Jeremy was there; I only had eyes for his
> sister.
>
>
>
And .2. for the more emphatic sense: "I would have remembered."
>
> I didn't see the film; I would have remembered.
>
> The letter of
> warning/ apology/ resignation never arrived; I would have remembered.
>
>
>
which, for your example would be:
>
> Never in my life did I see that film with [say, Jack Nicholson] the
> actor; I would have remembered.
>
>
>
**Notice:**
"Never did I see... " (the restriction of diminished opportunity requires an inversion) is slightly more appropriate for portrait...
>
> Dracula Ch16 Never did I see such baffled malice on a face, ...
>
>
> Leigh Hunt - 1837 - Liberalism: Never did I see such a movement of
> generosity and gentleness in all affections , as these children
> evinced...
>
>
> D. H. Lawrence (1885-1930) on James Joyce. Never did I see such
> apparatus got ready for thinking, ...
>
>
>
...but “Never have I seen ...” is more usual with landscape or where the gaze is held.
>
> Old Man and the sea: Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother.
>
>
> Conan Doyle: Never have I seen such a mixture of strength and beauty and grace.
>
>
>
But see the research by SevenSidedDie below which clearly shows "Never have I..." is preferable. |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | It's about as standard procedure as crossing your legs when you're sitting.
Arms in microgravity, without conscious effort to keep them by your body, will tend to extend the elbows to the sides - just like holding knees together when sitting, at least for men, requires active (if minor) effort. Holding arms like this simply prevents sticking elbows into the person next-to, and takes less effort than actively squeezing them along your body.
Compare to these:
* arms loose
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XcVyB.jpg)
* people keeping arms along their body, do this consciously - you can see the positions are forced. Others are either spreading their elbows, or holding their arms.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G6NwH.jpg) | There is no special procedure there - just microgravity.
Note that the one on the left looks like a normal relaxed pose, with his arms dropped down as they would be on Earth.
The other two do look a little "unnatural", but if you ignore their arms being pointed forward, it is exactly the same pose, and just as comfortable with no gravity pulling their arms down. |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | It's about as standard procedure as crossing your legs when you're sitting.
Arms in microgravity, without conscious effort to keep them by your body, will tend to extend the elbows to the sides - just like holding knees together when sitting, at least for men, requires active (if minor) effort. Holding arms like this simply prevents sticking elbows into the person next-to, and takes less effort than actively squeezing them along your body.
Compare to these:
* arms loose
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XcVyB.jpg)
* people keeping arms along their body, do this consciously - you can see the positions are forced. Others are either spreading their elbows, or holding their arms.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G6NwH.jpg) | Offered as a supplement to [@SF's answer](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/21753):
This shows the fully relaxed arm position obtained by a sleeping astronaut.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhYWt.jpg)
From [here](http://www.urban75.org/blog/how-astronauts-sleep-in-space-and-a-fascinating-look-around-the-international-space-station/) |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | It's about as standard procedure as crossing your legs when you're sitting.
Arms in microgravity, without conscious effort to keep them by your body, will tend to extend the elbows to the sides - just like holding knees together when sitting, at least for men, requires active (if minor) effort. Holding arms like this simply prevents sticking elbows into the person next-to, and takes less effort than actively squeezing them along your body.
Compare to these:
* arms loose
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XcVyB.jpg)
* people keeping arms along their body, do this consciously - you can see the positions are forced. Others are either spreading their elbows, or holding their arms.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G6NwH.jpg) | For many astronauts, it is simply a matter of being considerate to your fellow astronaut who is appearing alongside you. It would not be nice to let your arm drift into contact with the other astronaut - astronauts have "personal space'" too.
Plus, I think we'd all agree that Earth-bound humans by and large think the natural position that arms want to attain in microgravity conditions looks "sort of dumb."
Astronauts have egos, too! |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | Offered as a supplement to [@SF's answer](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/21753):
This shows the fully relaxed arm position obtained by a sleeping astronaut.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhYWt.jpg)
From [here](http://www.urban75.org/blog/how-astronauts-sleep-in-space-and-a-fascinating-look-around-the-international-space-station/) | There is no special procedure there - just microgravity.
Note that the one on the left looks like a normal relaxed pose, with his arms dropped down as they would be on Earth.
The other two do look a little "unnatural", but if you ignore their arms being pointed forward, it is exactly the same pose, and just as comfortable with no gravity pulling their arms down. |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | For many astronauts, it is simply a matter of being considerate to your fellow astronaut who is appearing alongside you. It would not be nice to let your arm drift into contact with the other astronaut - astronauts have "personal space'" too.
Plus, I think we'd all agree that Earth-bound humans by and large think the natural position that arms want to attain in microgravity conditions looks "sort of dumb."
Astronauts have egos, too! | There is no special procedure there - just microgravity.
Note that the one on the left looks like a normal relaxed pose, with his arms dropped down as they would be on Earth.
The other two do look a little "unnatural", but if you ignore their arms being pointed forward, it is exactly the same pose, and just as comfortable with no gravity pulling their arms down. |
21,750 | I am watching [live stream from ISS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0) to follow the return of two ISS crew members, [Thomas Pesquet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pesquet) and [Oleg Novitskiy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Novitskiy).
At several moments, they crossed their arms in a not really natural way:
Why do they cross their arms like that? Is that a standard procedure to not touch anything by accident? | 2017/06/02 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18592/"
] | Offered as a supplement to [@SF's answer](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/21753):
This shows the fully relaxed arm position obtained by a sleeping astronaut.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhYWt.jpg)
From [here](http://www.urban75.org/blog/how-astronauts-sleep-in-space-and-a-fascinating-look-around-the-international-space-station/) | For many astronauts, it is simply a matter of being considerate to your fellow astronaut who is appearing alongside you. It would not be nice to let your arm drift into contact with the other astronaut - astronauts have "personal space'" too.
Plus, I think we'd all agree that Earth-bound humans by and large think the natural position that arms want to attain in microgravity conditions looks "sort of dumb."
Astronauts have egos, too! |
181,564 | I have some MySQL replication going on, and want to change the schema of the slave by adding a column. Will this work? | 2010/09/15 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/181564",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/53280/"
] | Yes. Keep in mind, the queries will replicate and execute identically on the slave as with the master. If the column is on the end of the table, it could simply use the default value. If it is in the middle, you could introduce data type conflicts or potentially even replication failure if the insert failed. | Yes it is possible but you have to remember that if you have transaction on master and row level lock on the slave using MyISAM it does the table lock and will be slower. Also, if you want to change the slave to master in case of disaster then you have to remember to change the engine.
Using MyISAM on slave can make your select queries faster. |
181,564 | I have some MySQL replication going on, and want to change the schema of the slave by adding a column. Will this work? | 2010/09/15 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/181564",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/53280/"
] | Yes. Keep in mind, the queries will replicate and execute identically on the slave as with the master. If the column is on the end of the table, it could simply use the default value. If it is in the middle, you could introduce data type conflicts or potentially even replication failure if the insert failed. | Engine changes between Master and Slave are common, but schema differences like that don't tend to work out well in the end - you're just asking for pain in a disaster-recovery situation (You have performed a live DR test, right?). |
13,639,966 | Am facing a little trouble with active reports..
Mine is a report with 20-30 pages with titles and explanations.
under each of the titles there is an image and after that the explanation comes.
So this is like page by page continuously. So each of the pages contains multiples titles and explanations of that. THis is as on the detail section of my report.
But the issue is, in some pages title shows on the bottom of the page and the image and explanation getting moved to the next page since there is no space on that page after the title to accommodate image and explanation. So my question is, is that possible for me to move that part where title is almost at the edge of the pages to the new page. So that that title, image and explanation comes in new page which fixes that awkward feeling.
Requesting your kind attention since this is an emergency requirement in my project.
Thanks in advance | 2012/11/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13639966",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/954093/"
] | If all you're concerned about is that the title is getting split from the rest of the content you can set the KeepTogether property on your section to True, this will cause ActiveReports to try to place all of the content on the same page.
However, in this case you want to add a page break when the content for that section begins at an arbitrary point down on the page.
To do this, you can keep track of the section's top in relation to the page. If it's greater than a certain value, enable a pagebreak control, otherwise keep the pagebreak control disabled. ActiveReports 6 SP2 added the [CurrentLocation](http://www.datadynamics.com/Help/ActiveReports6/webframe.html?topic4456.html) property which can be used to get the location of the section on the page.
There's nothing built-in to handle this. you'd need to keep track of section heights in the BeforePrint events, incrementing a height counter of sorts. | Can you add an extra level of grouping to your report, such that there's a group for each title? Then you can use the new page before/after property to ensure each title gets its own page? Possible downside would be that every title would then get a new page, which might not be what you want |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Yes, it definitely has gained a negative connotation. In much the same way as terms like "teen" or "youth", used as a noun. They are often enough used to refer to people in that group when they are doing something wrong. A small amount of googling reveals a number of news articles about "youths" and "teens" doing things wrong.
Hacker is similar, unless you are in the field of technology, you'll probably only hear the word 'hacker' used to refer to someone breaking through IT security systems.
It is used, within the field, in a positive way, simply meaning that people are using technology in a way it wasn't specifically intended to. If you go to a Hack Day, you won't be stealing data or breaking into people's bank accounts.
However, most people don't know this, but do know that people described as hackers break past security on the internet to steal data or money. So, unfortunately, it's more likely to be understood with a negative connotation. | Back in the mid-sixties we used non-hacker to describe someone not well-versed in copying morse code, but seldom used the positive hacker to identify someone who could keep up with some very fast senders. Non-hacker migrated to a person not adept at a given task ("Barfed after 10 beers - what a non-hacker.) |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | It has gained both a **negative** connotation (which it did since almost the first time the word was published in mainstream literature) and paradoxically it has also gained a **positive** connotation (which, among the general public, is a more recent phenomenon).
The word **hacker** has recently started regaining its original meaning of someone who is skilled at problem solving and workarounds. The term **hack** itself is nowdays used to refer to creative solutions to problems. Websites like hackaday.com and lifehacker.com have been gaining popularity outside the usual geek/tech subculture especially with the rise of Facebook.
At the same time, programmers have begun to accept the term **hacker** that is used with a negative connotation when it relates to someone who exploit other people's systems. This is partly because it's easier to talk to people about computer security using the word "hacker" rather than first explain why the word "hacker" is the wrong word to use.
So depending on context, the word **hacker** can have either positive or negative connotation. When it comes to computers, you sometimes need to clarify which you mean. | Adding to Michael Kay's answer. This is a case of the word meaning different things to different groups. The programming community has always used the term differently from the general public.
The original meaning of the term "hacker" within the programming community was definitely negative. It referred to a moderately skilled programmer who was able to solve problems more by trial and error and perseverance than by having a good understanding of the problem area. And the work of hackers was suspect, because it would often fail in circumstances that the hacker had failed to consider. Programmers would sometimes refer to themselves as hackers while learning to navigate unfamiliar systems, as a way of saying that they were not yet experts. The term "hacker" was somewhat related to the term "kludge," which has retained its largely negative meaning. A hacker would be more likely to use a kludge rather than an elegant solution. But "hacker" was never completely negative the way "hack" (from which it presumably derived) is. A hacker will eventually get the problem (sort of) solved. A hack just doesn't know what he's doing.
The positive meaning started coming about around 1980, entirely through the media and entertainment industry misunderstanding the term and then popularizing the incorrect meaning out in the general culture. This new meaning then partially drifted back into the programming community. The people who "hacked into" computer systems may or may not have referred to themselves as hackers, but once it started showing up in movies, that's what they became. (At the time, I remember them being offended, and preferring the term "cracker"). But in any event, the media types considered defeating security systems to be quite difficult and somewhat glamorous, and presumed that therefore that is what the best of the best programmers would choose to do, and from that decided that the term "hacker" referred to a highly skilled programmer. And that's the meaning that the general public knows.
Within the programming community, the meaning of hacker as someone who defeats security systems has stuck, and is used ubiquitously. But the meaning of "highly skilled programmer" never took hold. It has always meant, and still means, pretty much the opposite. So you have an interesting situation where among the general public the word means one thing, but within the group that it refers to, it means something quite different. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | >
> Has "hacker" still a neutral/positive meaning or has it definitely gained a negative reputation?
>
>
>
Among the general public, hacker still has a negative connotation. With the exception of "life hacks", a fairly new phenomenon, the most usual use of the work hacker in media is related people who commit crimes by computers or other advanced electronic devices.
>
> When did this semantic change happen?
>
>
>
This happened because of years (decades) of media coverage. From my understanding, it started mostly in the late 70's or early 80's, and has persisted to the current day. Since the media considers anyone that's extremely skilled with computers a hacker, and most of what they report are crimes, the negative connotation was bound to happen sooner or later.
>
> What terms are commonly used instead of "hacker" with a positive connotation?
>
>
>
Among ethical hackers, *hacker* is the preferred term, while they use negative terms for other types of "wannabees", such as "script kiddies", "crackers" (people that crack a system for malicious intent), and so on. Real hackers are offended when you include criminals in the same group as them, the same as you'd be offended if you were accused of something you didn't do. Here's the Jargon File's definition of a hacker (which is the hacker's definition of a [hacker](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html)):
>
> hacker: n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
>
>
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who
> prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet
> Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in
> having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system,
> computers and computer networks in particular.
> 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
> 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
> 4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
> 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in ‘a Unix hacker’. (Definitions 1 through 5 are
> correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
> 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
> 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
> 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence password hacker, network hacker.
> The correct term for this sense is cracker.
>
>
> The term ‘hacker’ also tends to connote membership in the global
> community defined by the net (see the network. For discussion of some
> of the basics of this culture, see the How To Become A Hacker FAQ. It
> also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some
> version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic).
>
>
> It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe
> oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a
> meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are
> gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in
> identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are
> not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also geek, wannabee.
>
>
> This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by
> the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a
> report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage
> radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.
>
>
>
While you can use terms like "white hat" or "ethical hacker" as a positive connotation to "outsiders," the truth is that "ethical hacker" is considered redundant, since hackers are, by the subculture's definition, ethical, and most hackers (probably) wouldn't be caught wearing a white hat, unless they really felt the need for irony.
When you're speaking about criminals, try to avoid the term "hacker," because they're not part of that global community/subculture-- there are more appropriate terms for them, even if you might have to explain what you're talking about. The correct term to use when speaking about the global community of skilled computer enthusiasts is "hacker." | Yes, it definitely has gained a negative connotation. In much the same way as terms like "teen" or "youth", used as a noun. They are often enough used to refer to people in that group when they are doing something wrong. A small amount of googling reveals a number of news articles about "youths" and "teens" doing things wrong.
Hacker is similar, unless you are in the field of technology, you'll probably only hear the word 'hacker' used to refer to someone breaking through IT security systems.
It is used, within the field, in a positive way, simply meaning that people are using technology in a way it wasn't specifically intended to. If you go to a Hack Day, you won't be stealing data or breaking into people's bank accounts.
However, most people don't know this, but do know that people described as hackers break past security on the internet to steal data or money. So, unfortunately, it's more likely to be understood with a negative connotation. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Back in the mid-sixties we used non-hacker to describe someone not well-versed in copying morse code, but seldom used the positive hacker to identify someone who could keep up with some very fast senders. Non-hacker migrated to a person not adept at a given task ("Barfed after 10 beers - what a non-hacker.) | As far as computers go, "hacker" *started* with negative connotation. I find the (disorganized) campaign to bleach it (e.g. "white hat" hackers, creating the term "cracker" to take the negative connotations, etc.) a childish reaction to the reality of general perception.
"To hack" is to cleave and cut. Trying to inject benign intent is too subtle. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Ethics aside, let's stick to the word alone. Hacker is used more commonly now in everyday speech with it's original intention thanks to meme culture. I hear "Life-hacker" way more then I hear hacker ( as in someone who gains unlawful access to a computer system ) and I work in an I.T. field. The idea of life hacking takes the word hack to the days of tinkering and finding effective ways to make things work. | Perhaps much of the negative connotation stems from non-native English writers adopting the word in criminal case reporting, whilst remaining clueless about its underlying, more neutral meaning. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Adding to AJFaraday's answer, I can only answer your third question and the term [**white hat**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)) (hacker) is broadly used to distinguish *ethical computer hackers* from criminal hackers. The following Wikipedia article explains:
>
> The term "**white hat**" in Internet slang refers to an *ethical computer
> hacker*, or a *computer security expert*, who specializes in penetration
> testing and in other testing methodologies to ensure the security of
> an organization's information systems. Ethical hacking is a term
> coined by IBM meant to imply a broader category than just penetration
> testing. White-hat hackers may also work in teams called
> "sneakers", red teams, or tiger teams.
>
>
> A *white hat hacker* breaks security for non-malicious reasons, perhaps
> to test their own security system or while working for a security
> company which makes security software...This classification also
> includes individuals who perform penetration tests and vulnerability
> assessments within a contractual agreement.
>
>
>
A *computer security expert* is the general term that has a positive connotation. | Adding to Michael Kay's answer. This is a case of the word meaning different things to different groups. The programming community has always used the term differently from the general public.
The original meaning of the term "hacker" within the programming community was definitely negative. It referred to a moderately skilled programmer who was able to solve problems more by trial and error and perseverance than by having a good understanding of the problem area. And the work of hackers was suspect, because it would often fail in circumstances that the hacker had failed to consider. Programmers would sometimes refer to themselves as hackers while learning to navigate unfamiliar systems, as a way of saying that they were not yet experts. The term "hacker" was somewhat related to the term "kludge," which has retained its largely negative meaning. A hacker would be more likely to use a kludge rather than an elegant solution. But "hacker" was never completely negative the way "hack" (from which it presumably derived) is. A hacker will eventually get the problem (sort of) solved. A hack just doesn't know what he's doing.
The positive meaning started coming about around 1980, entirely through the media and entertainment industry misunderstanding the term and then popularizing the incorrect meaning out in the general culture. This new meaning then partially drifted back into the programming community. The people who "hacked into" computer systems may or may not have referred to themselves as hackers, but once it started showing up in movies, that's what they became. (At the time, I remember them being offended, and preferring the term "cracker"). But in any event, the media types considered defeating security systems to be quite difficult and somewhat glamorous, and presumed that therefore that is what the best of the best programmers would choose to do, and from that decided that the term "hacker" referred to a highly skilled programmer. And that's the meaning that the general public knows.
Within the programming community, the meaning of hacker as someone who defeats security systems has stuck, and is used ubiquitously. But the meaning of "highly skilled programmer" never took hold. It has always meant, and still means, pretty much the opposite. So you have an interesting situation where among the general public the word means one thing, but within the group that it refers to, it means something quite different. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Adding to Michael Kay's answer. This is a case of the word meaning different things to different groups. The programming community has always used the term differently from the general public.
The original meaning of the term "hacker" within the programming community was definitely negative. It referred to a moderately skilled programmer who was able to solve problems more by trial and error and perseverance than by having a good understanding of the problem area. And the work of hackers was suspect, because it would often fail in circumstances that the hacker had failed to consider. Programmers would sometimes refer to themselves as hackers while learning to navigate unfamiliar systems, as a way of saying that they were not yet experts. The term "hacker" was somewhat related to the term "kludge," which has retained its largely negative meaning. A hacker would be more likely to use a kludge rather than an elegant solution. But "hacker" was never completely negative the way "hack" (from which it presumably derived) is. A hacker will eventually get the problem (sort of) solved. A hack just doesn't know what he's doing.
The positive meaning started coming about around 1980, entirely through the media and entertainment industry misunderstanding the term and then popularizing the incorrect meaning out in the general culture. This new meaning then partially drifted back into the programming community. The people who "hacked into" computer systems may or may not have referred to themselves as hackers, but once it started showing up in movies, that's what they became. (At the time, I remember them being offended, and preferring the term "cracker"). But in any event, the media types considered defeating security systems to be quite difficult and somewhat glamorous, and presumed that therefore that is what the best of the best programmers would choose to do, and from that decided that the term "hacker" referred to a highly skilled programmer. And that's the meaning that the general public knows.
Within the programming community, the meaning of hacker as someone who defeats security systems has stuck, and is used ubiquitously. But the meaning of "highly skilled programmer" never took hold. It has always meant, and still means, pretty much the opposite. So you have an interesting situation where among the general public the word means one thing, but within the group that it refers to, it means something quite different. | Perhaps much of the negative connotation stems from non-native English writers adopting the word in criminal case reporting, whilst remaining clueless about its underlying, more neutral meaning. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | >
> Has "hacker" still a neutral/positive meaning or has it definitely gained a negative reputation?
>
>
>
Among the general public, hacker still has a negative connotation. With the exception of "life hacks", a fairly new phenomenon, the most usual use of the work hacker in media is related people who commit crimes by computers or other advanced electronic devices.
>
> When did this semantic change happen?
>
>
>
This happened because of years (decades) of media coverage. From my understanding, it started mostly in the late 70's or early 80's, and has persisted to the current day. Since the media considers anyone that's extremely skilled with computers a hacker, and most of what they report are crimes, the negative connotation was bound to happen sooner or later.
>
> What terms are commonly used instead of "hacker" with a positive connotation?
>
>
>
Among ethical hackers, *hacker* is the preferred term, while they use negative terms for other types of "wannabees", such as "script kiddies", "crackers" (people that crack a system for malicious intent), and so on. Real hackers are offended when you include criminals in the same group as them, the same as you'd be offended if you were accused of something you didn't do. Here's the Jargon File's definition of a hacker (which is the hacker's definition of a [hacker](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html)):
>
> hacker: n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
>
>
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who
> prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet
> Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in
> having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system,
> computers and computer networks in particular.
> 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
> 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
> 4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
> 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in ‘a Unix hacker’. (Definitions 1 through 5 are
> correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
> 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
> 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
> 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence password hacker, network hacker.
> The correct term for this sense is cracker.
>
>
> The term ‘hacker’ also tends to connote membership in the global
> community defined by the net (see the network. For discussion of some
> of the basics of this culture, see the How To Become A Hacker FAQ. It
> also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some
> version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic).
>
>
> It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe
> oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a
> meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are
> gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in
> identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are
> not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also geek, wannabee.
>
>
> This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by
> the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a
> report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage
> radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.
>
>
>
While you can use terms like "white hat" or "ethical hacker" as a positive connotation to "outsiders," the truth is that "ethical hacker" is considered redundant, since hackers are, by the subculture's definition, ethical, and most hackers (probably) wouldn't be caught wearing a white hat, unless they really felt the need for irony.
When you're speaking about criminals, try to avoid the term "hacker," because they're not part of that global community/subculture-- there are more appropriate terms for them, even if you might have to explain what you're talking about. The correct term to use when speaking about the global community of skilled computer enthusiasts is "hacker." | Ethics aside, let's stick to the word alone. Hacker is used more commonly now in everyday speech with it's original intention thanks to meme culture. I hear "Life-hacker" way more then I hear hacker ( as in someone who gains unlawful access to a computer system ) and I work in an I.T. field. The idea of life hacking takes the word hack to the days of tinkering and finding effective ways to make things work. |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | I don't think the original connotation was entirely positive. A hacker would write effective code to get something done quickly, but it might not be a well-engineered solution. | Back in the mid-sixties we used non-hacker to describe someone not well-versed in copying morse code, but seldom used the positive hacker to identify someone who could keep up with some very fast senders. Non-hacker migrated to a person not adept at a given task ("Barfed after 10 beers - what a non-hacker.) |
309,268 | are the adverbs interchangeable in this case, or would you prefer one over another?
I want to state that the graph does not comprise any vertices other than the ones that are contained in one of the sets A and B. | 2016/02/23 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309268",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/150331/"
] | Adding to AJFaraday's answer, I can only answer your third question and the term [**white hat**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)) (hacker) is broadly used to distinguish *ethical computer hackers* from criminal hackers. The following Wikipedia article explains:
>
> The term "**white hat**" in Internet slang refers to an *ethical computer
> hacker*, or a *computer security expert*, who specializes in penetration
> testing and in other testing methodologies to ensure the security of
> an organization's information systems. Ethical hacking is a term
> coined by IBM meant to imply a broader category than just penetration
> testing. White-hat hackers may also work in teams called
> "sneakers", red teams, or tiger teams.
>
>
> A *white hat hacker* breaks security for non-malicious reasons, perhaps
> to test their own security system or while working for a security
> company which makes security software...This classification also
> includes individuals who perform penetration tests and vulnerability
> assessments within a contractual agreement.
>
>
>
A *computer security expert* is the general term that has a positive connotation. | Back in the mid-sixties we used non-hacker to describe someone not well-versed in copying morse code, but seldom used the positive hacker to identify someone who could keep up with some very fast senders. Non-hacker migrated to a person not adept at a given task ("Barfed after 10 beers - what a non-hacker.) |
57,122 | My cousin and I are still in school, but something funky is going on with our graduation.
My cousin is two years older than me, just one grade above me, yet we both just finished middle school and are going into high school at the same time.
My cousin is a great student, and has never been held back, and neither have I.
How could it be that my cousin and I are going into high school at the same time? How am I two years younger than him but just one grade below him? | 2017/11/20 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/57122",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/42028/"
] | The easy bit: How are you two years younger, but only one grade lower:
>
> The school year runs from early Autumn to mid Summer (specific months fairly variable) - you were born in August, and are thus one of the youngest in your school year, your cousin was born in September two years earlier, and is thus one of the oldest in their year. There's almost exactly two years between you.
>
>
>
The harder bit: How are you going into high school at the same time:
>
> We're told that neither of you were held back a grade. We're not told that neither of you managed to skip forward. Your cousin's a great student, but you're really exceptional, and have in fact skipped a grade - the last one of middle school, it appears.
>
>
> | I won't repeat the easy bit that logician already explained well.
A more plausible part for the hard bit of both entering high school, no insult to any ones academic abilities ;) would be:
>
> Your in different school districts which start high school at a different grade. One may start high school at 8th and another 7th or 9th for example. Thus your still one grade year apart but still entering high school at the same time.
>
>
> |
1,396 | >
> "What is all this?" demanded another voice peremptorily; and Mrs. Reed came along the corridor, her cap flying wide, her gown rustling stormily. "Abbot and Bessie, I believe I gave orders that Jane Eyre **should** be left in the red-room till I came to her myself."
>
> (Jane Eyre)
>
>
>
Can *should* be omitted, as in "The king commanded that all the people [should] be assembled at once."? | 2013/02/12 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1396",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/504/"
] | If 'should' is kept as it is, it won't make much of a difference. You can write it without 'should' too. What is the context in your phrase? If it is a 'compulsion', then you may replace 'should' with 'must'. | I think they are similar but not the same.
The phrase "The king commanded that all the people should be assembled at once.", while technically correct, makes it seem that the king's command was optional. Probably not.
Also in the first example, "orders" and "should" do not really convey the same intent.
In context it may make sense though.
I think better phrases would be "The king commanded that all the people are to be assembled at once." and "Abbot and Bessie, I believe I gave orders that Jane Eyre is to be left in the red-room till I came to her myself." |
1,396 | >
> "What is all this?" demanded another voice peremptorily; and Mrs. Reed came along the corridor, her cap flying wide, her gown rustling stormily. "Abbot and Bessie, I believe I gave orders that Jane Eyre **should** be left in the red-room till I came to her myself."
>
> (Jane Eyre)
>
>
>
Can *should* be omitted, as in "The king commanded that all the people [should] be assembled at once."? | 2013/02/12 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1396",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/504/"
] | If 'should' is kept as it is, it won't make much of a difference. You can write it without 'should' too. What is the context in your phrase? If it is a 'compulsion', then you may replace 'should' with 'must'. | I think, this is rather a relict of an old form of *be* in the context of intention or obligation:
[World English Dictionary](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/be):
>
> (7) (takes an infinitive) expresses intention, expectation, supposition, or obligation: *the president is to arrive at 9.30; you are not to leave before I say so*
>
>
>
[The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Be):
>
> (2b) To belong; befall: *Peace be unto you. Woe is me.*
>
> (6) To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: *Let the children be.*
>
>
>
In this context, *"I gave orders that Jane Eyre **{was to}** be left in the red-room"*, sounds plausible. |
23,098,205 | I have a Long List Selector. when page loading first then it has 10 items in the list, when user scroll down the list and when he reach to the bottom of the list then I want to add 10 items to the list.
I tried lot of methods to catch the end of the scroll but can't find any event for it in WP8. | 2014/04/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23098205",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3315935/"
] | You can use event ItemRealized on Longlistselector or
Try this
<http://blogs.windows.com/windows_phone/b/wpdev/archive/2012/10/01/how-to-create-an-infinite-scrollable-list-with-longlistselector.aspx> | There is no magic. The trick is same that you tried. I.e. You need to listen to a specific event and load the next 10 item. For a detail code example see [this](http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/wpapps/TwitterSearch-Windows-b7fc4e5e) |
48,482 | I need to pick the brain of someone who knows about networks, specifically how the web functions over broadband.
With dial-up, when working out how long a web page would take to download, you took two factors into account for each file that needed to be downloaded - a fraction of a second for the computer to connect to the server (usually estimated at 0.5 seconds for these purposes), and then a number of seconds to download the file itself. So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.
With broadband the 30 seconds to download the file is massively reduced. My question, though, is how long does the connection part of the process take? Is it the same (0.5 seconds per file), or is it comparably reduced, or is it so tiny as to be virtually unmeasurable? | 2009/07/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/48482",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | What you are talking about is latency vs bandwidth. "[It's the Latency, Stupid.](http://www.stuartcheshire.org/rants/Latency.html)" is an interesting read that talks about this in detail. mh is right that there are a lot of factors. But it general, dial-up modems and satellites have higher latency than most 'broadband' connections. So this could be noticeable for people browsing the web on a dial-up modem.
When you say "So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.", that is not entirely accurate. With TCP, the transmission *control*, acknowledgments are sent to the other end of the connection to confirm that the data was received. The rate at which these are sent is the TCP window size. If the window size is small, and there is high latency, the full bandwidth is not used. So latency can actually effect large file transfers as well. This [TCP Tuning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_tuning) Wikipedia article actually explains it well I think.
You can read more about this [here](http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=2678) too. | How long is a piece of string?
Seriously, there are so many factors that can affect web speed, including - but by no means limited to - number of hops between nodes, router performance, compression overhead, concurrency, server performance and load, client performance, presence or absence of java and/or flash, and so on and so on and so on that there is really no such thing as a one-size-fits-all measurement. |
48,482 | I need to pick the brain of someone who knows about networks, specifically how the web functions over broadband.
With dial-up, when working out how long a web page would take to download, you took two factors into account for each file that needed to be downloaded - a fraction of a second for the computer to connect to the server (usually estimated at 0.5 seconds for these purposes), and then a number of seconds to download the file itself. So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.
With broadband the 30 seconds to download the file is massively reduced. My question, though, is how long does the connection part of the process take? Is it the same (0.5 seconds per file), or is it comparably reduced, or is it so tiny as to be virtually unmeasurable? | 2009/07/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/48482",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | When you say broadband, you are talking about a host of different technologies. Also, there are a lot of different ways a computer is connected to the Internet today. It may be WiMAX, 3G, WiFi, ADSL, Cable, Fibre and what nots. A wired link is usually faster and has less latency than a wireless link. You may actually wish to revisit some of your assumptions made for the estimation.
E.g.
If your users are connected via a home WiFI-ADSL router, a lot also depends on the speed of the router. If the router has a slow processor, it will have problems pushing maximum bandwidth and also higher latency as it takes longer to process the queues.
But for the purpose of your estimation, you seem to be trying to factor it in as a fixed overhead cost. This may be set as a variable K, which can be changed depending on the kinds of connection that you assume it to be. | How long is a piece of string?
Seriously, there are so many factors that can affect web speed, including - but by no means limited to - number of hops between nodes, router performance, compression overhead, concurrency, server performance and load, client performance, presence or absence of java and/or flash, and so on and so on and so on that there is really no such thing as a one-size-fits-all measurement. |
48,482 | I need to pick the brain of someone who knows about networks, specifically how the web functions over broadband.
With dial-up, when working out how long a web page would take to download, you took two factors into account for each file that needed to be downloaded - a fraction of a second for the computer to connect to the server (usually estimated at 0.5 seconds for these purposes), and then a number of seconds to download the file itself. So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.
With broadband the 30 seconds to download the file is massively reduced. My question, though, is how long does the connection part of the process take? Is it the same (0.5 seconds per file), or is it comparably reduced, or is it so tiny as to be virtually unmeasurable? | 2009/07/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/48482",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | What you are talking about is latency vs bandwidth. "[It's the Latency, Stupid.](http://www.stuartcheshire.org/rants/Latency.html)" is an interesting read that talks about this in detail. mh is right that there are a lot of factors. But it general, dial-up modems and satellites have higher latency than most 'broadband' connections. So this could be noticeable for people browsing the web on a dial-up modem.
When you say "So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.", that is not entirely accurate. With TCP, the transmission *control*, acknowledgments are sent to the other end of the connection to confirm that the data was received. The rate at which these are sent is the TCP window size. If the window size is small, and there is high latency, the full bandwidth is not used. So latency can actually effect large file transfers as well. This [TCP Tuning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_tuning) Wikipedia article actually explains it well I think.
You can read more about this [here](http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=2678) too. | On just the broadband bit, forgetting the general internet overheads and home network connection bits, the variability you will see in broadband speeds will be due to the actions of other customers of your broadband supplier.
You may have bought 8MB/s of ADSL connected network bandwidth, which you then find out has a max speed of 6MB/s because of your distance from the telephone exchange. However, at the exchange, perhaps 200 broadband connections are grouped together, over a 32MB/s link to your providers backbone.
If, 4 or 5 other broadband users are downloading large files at the same time, your bandwidth will be reduced. You have no control over this. Its most likely to happen in the evenings, but i can, and does happen at random times. This is called contention. Contention ratios of 50x or 100x are quite common. 50x is better.
With Cable modem access, contention happens on the local loop as well.
However, as a rough guide, have a look at a broadband speed tester, and that will give you as good an answer as any for your data transfer times. |
48,482 | I need to pick the brain of someone who knows about networks, specifically how the web functions over broadband.
With dial-up, when working out how long a web page would take to download, you took two factors into account for each file that needed to be downloaded - a fraction of a second for the computer to connect to the server (usually estimated at 0.5 seconds for these purposes), and then a number of seconds to download the file itself. So a 100k file might take 0.5 second for the connection and 30 seconds to download, meaning that file added 30.5 seconds to the load time for the site.
With broadband the 30 seconds to download the file is massively reduced. My question, though, is how long does the connection part of the process take? Is it the same (0.5 seconds per file), or is it comparably reduced, or is it so tiny as to be virtually unmeasurable? | 2009/07/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/48482",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | When you say broadband, you are talking about a host of different technologies. Also, there are a lot of different ways a computer is connected to the Internet today. It may be WiMAX, 3G, WiFi, ADSL, Cable, Fibre and what nots. A wired link is usually faster and has less latency than a wireless link. You may actually wish to revisit some of your assumptions made for the estimation.
E.g.
If your users are connected via a home WiFI-ADSL router, a lot also depends on the speed of the router. If the router has a slow processor, it will have problems pushing maximum bandwidth and also higher latency as it takes longer to process the queues.
But for the purpose of your estimation, you seem to be trying to factor it in as a fixed overhead cost. This may be set as a variable K, which can be changed depending on the kinds of connection that you assume it to be. | On just the broadband bit, forgetting the general internet overheads and home network connection bits, the variability you will see in broadband speeds will be due to the actions of other customers of your broadband supplier.
You may have bought 8MB/s of ADSL connected network bandwidth, which you then find out has a max speed of 6MB/s because of your distance from the telephone exchange. However, at the exchange, perhaps 200 broadband connections are grouped together, over a 32MB/s link to your providers backbone.
If, 4 or 5 other broadband users are downloading large files at the same time, your bandwidth will be reduced. You have no control over this. Its most likely to happen in the evenings, but i can, and does happen at random times. This is called contention. Contention ratios of 50x or 100x are quite common. 50x is better.
With Cable modem access, contention happens on the local loop as well.
However, as a rough guide, have a look at a broadband speed tester, and that will give you as good an answer as any for your data transfer times. |
5,063,463 | What is the difference between a DataSet and a DataTable in .NET? | 2011/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5063463",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/626113/"
] | Basically a DataSet is a collection of DataTables, possibly including relationships between the tables.
From the [documentation for DataSet](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.dataset.aspx):
>
> The DataSet, which is an in-memory cache of data retrieved from a data source, is a major component of the ADO.NET architecture. The DataSet consists of a collection of DataTable objects that you can relate to each other with DataRelation objects. You can also enforce data integrity in the DataSet by using the UniqueConstraint and ForeignKeyConstraint objects. For further details about working with DataSet objects, see DataSets, DataTables, and DataViews (ADO.NET).
>
>
>
So a DataSet itself doesn't contain the data - that's always within DataTables. The DataSet adds metadata, basically. | Data Table Record Fetch only One Row table at a time. Data Set is a collection of table that means at a time multiple record. |
5,063,463 | What is the difference between a DataSet and a DataTable in .NET? | 2011/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5063463",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/626113/"
] | Basically a DataSet is a collection of DataTables, possibly including relationships between the tables.
From the [documentation for DataSet](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.dataset.aspx):
>
> The DataSet, which is an in-memory cache of data retrieved from a data source, is a major component of the ADO.NET architecture. The DataSet consists of a collection of DataTable objects that you can relate to each other with DataRelation objects. You can also enforce data integrity in the DataSet by using the UniqueConstraint and ForeignKeyConstraint objects. For further details about working with DataSet objects, see DataSets, DataTables, and DataViews (ADO.NET).
>
>
>
So a DataSet itself doesn't contain the data - that's always within DataTables. The DataSet adds metadata, basically. | You could think of a **Dataset** as a database, within which there could be one or more tables. A **DataTable** would be one of the tables within that database.
So, in summary:
**DataSet** <--> **Database**
**DataTable** <--> a **table** within a database. |
5,063,463 | What is the difference between a DataSet and a DataTable in .NET? | 2011/02/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5063463",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/626113/"
] | You could think of a **Dataset** as a database, within which there could be one or more tables. A **DataTable** would be one of the tables within that database.
So, in summary:
**DataSet** <--> **Database**
**DataTable** <--> a **table** within a database. | Data Table Record Fetch only One Row table at a time. Data Set is a collection of table that means at a time multiple record. |
39,072,303 | I want to create a Java Servlet. I know nothing about the Java ecosystem except a tiny bit of the Java language.
I already had JDK 1.8.0\_65 on my machine and JRE 6 as well.
I looked up [this article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html). It said I could use Glassfish as the application server. Java 7 EE comes with Glashfish 4.
So, I went to [this page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/downloads/java-ee-sdk-7-downloads-1956236.html) and downloaded the **Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 7 SDK Update 2** for Windows. I am running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium. It is presently a 128 MB download.
To install it, I looked up the very unhelpful instructions on [this web page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/documentation/javaee7sdk-install-1957708.html#install). That didn't help me because this page says almost nothing except: please unzip your download and then ???, and then profit.
But [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsq3H0LNj8) helped me. Here's what I did.
I unzipped the folder and placed the uncompressed folder in my **%Program Files%\Java** folder. Then I ran the **%Program Files%\Java\java\_ee\_sdk-7u1\glassfish4\glassfish\bin\startserv.bat** file and browsed to the Url **<http://localhost:4848>** and the Glassfish Console started up just fine.
Then as per the instructions in the **Creating a project** section on [this page](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html), I opened up the **IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition 2016.2.1** IDE, which I already had installed previously, and clicked the **Create New Project** menu item in the start-up dialog.
However, in the **New Project** dialog, I do not see the option **Java Enterprise** as the article suggested. This is what my **New Project** dialog looks like.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xWI2a.png)
What do I do now? I just want to create a simple Web application using servlets.
One difference I note is that [the article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html) suggests that I have IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition, which I do not have. Is it not possible to create servlets using the community edition of IntelliJ IDEA? | 2016/08/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39072303",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/303685/"
] | IntelliJ IDEA Comunity Edition can't create Java Enterprise applications, but Ultimate Edition can ([IntelliJ IDEA Editions comparison matrix](https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html)). Use it, or some another free IDE [Eclipse](https://eclipse.org/), [Netbeans](https://netbeans.org/) etc. | Netbeans is your best option to **just make it work right now** If you download the Java EE version of netbeans everything is ready to go. Also most of the canonical getting started documentation focuses on/ is highly coupled with Netbeans development.
This is a Netbeans focus/opinionated setup guide from oracle.
<https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/tutorial/usingexamples001.htm> |
39,072,303 | I want to create a Java Servlet. I know nothing about the Java ecosystem except a tiny bit of the Java language.
I already had JDK 1.8.0\_65 on my machine and JRE 6 as well.
I looked up [this article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html). It said I could use Glassfish as the application server. Java 7 EE comes with Glashfish 4.
So, I went to [this page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/downloads/java-ee-sdk-7-downloads-1956236.html) and downloaded the **Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 7 SDK Update 2** for Windows. I am running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium. It is presently a 128 MB download.
To install it, I looked up the very unhelpful instructions on [this web page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/documentation/javaee7sdk-install-1957708.html#install). That didn't help me because this page says almost nothing except: please unzip your download and then ???, and then profit.
But [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsq3H0LNj8) helped me. Here's what I did.
I unzipped the folder and placed the uncompressed folder in my **%Program Files%\Java** folder. Then I ran the **%Program Files%\Java\java\_ee\_sdk-7u1\glassfish4\glassfish\bin\startserv.bat** file and browsed to the Url **<http://localhost:4848>** and the Glassfish Console started up just fine.
Then as per the instructions in the **Creating a project** section on [this page](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html), I opened up the **IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition 2016.2.1** IDE, which I already had installed previously, and clicked the **Create New Project** menu item in the start-up dialog.
However, in the **New Project** dialog, I do not see the option **Java Enterprise** as the article suggested. This is what my **New Project** dialog looks like.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xWI2a.png)
What do I do now? I just want to create a simple Web application using servlets.
One difference I note is that [the article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html) suggests that I have IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition, which I do not have. Is it not possible to create servlets using the community edition of IntelliJ IDEA? | 2016/08/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39072303",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/303685/"
] | IntelliJ IDEA Comunity Edition can't create Java Enterprise applications, but Ultimate Edition can ([IntelliJ IDEA Editions comparison matrix](https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html)). Use it, or some another free IDE [Eclipse](https://eclipse.org/), [Netbeans](https://netbeans.org/) etc. | I don't think intellij idea will read what you installed. Try using maven, and select webapp. Then search for the maven respiratory for servlets. I'm note even sure it will work. Your best bet for a free ide would be eclipse. Its not the best for beginners, but it's better than netbeans. Or you could simply waste your money on the paid version. |
39,072,303 | I want to create a Java Servlet. I know nothing about the Java ecosystem except a tiny bit of the Java language.
I already had JDK 1.8.0\_65 on my machine and JRE 6 as well.
I looked up [this article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html). It said I could use Glassfish as the application server. Java 7 EE comes with Glashfish 4.
So, I went to [this page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/downloads/java-ee-sdk-7-downloads-1956236.html) and downloaded the **Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 7 SDK Update 2** for Windows. I am running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium. It is presently a 128 MB download.
To install it, I looked up the very unhelpful instructions on [this web page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/documentation/javaee7sdk-install-1957708.html#install). That didn't help me because this page says almost nothing except: please unzip your download and then ???, and then profit.
But [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsq3H0LNj8) helped me. Here's what I did.
I unzipped the folder and placed the uncompressed folder in my **%Program Files%\Java** folder. Then I ran the **%Program Files%\Java\java\_ee\_sdk-7u1\glassfish4\glassfish\bin\startserv.bat** file and browsed to the Url **<http://localhost:4848>** and the Glassfish Console started up just fine.
Then as per the instructions in the **Creating a project** section on [this page](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html), I opened up the **IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition 2016.2.1** IDE, which I already had installed previously, and clicked the **Create New Project** menu item in the start-up dialog.
However, in the **New Project** dialog, I do not see the option **Java Enterprise** as the article suggested. This is what my **New Project** dialog looks like.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xWI2a.png)
What do I do now? I just want to create a simple Web application using servlets.
One difference I note is that [the article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html) suggests that I have IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition, which I do not have. Is it not possible to create servlets using the community edition of IntelliJ IDEA? | 2016/08/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39072303",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/303685/"
] | IntelliJ IDEA Comunity Edition can't create Java Enterprise applications, but Ultimate Edition can ([IntelliJ IDEA Editions comparison matrix](https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html)). Use it, or some another free IDE [Eclipse](https://eclipse.org/), [Netbeans](https://netbeans.org/) etc. | No you cannot create Enterprise applications in intellij community ,But you can run the servlets using google appengine in intellij community.I recommend you read this [post](https://medium.com/@rameshlingappa/google-appengine-with-gradle-intellij-dc881230662e) |
39,072,303 | I want to create a Java Servlet. I know nothing about the Java ecosystem except a tiny bit of the Java language.
I already had JDK 1.8.0\_65 on my machine and JRE 6 as well.
I looked up [this article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html). It said I could use Glassfish as the application server. Java 7 EE comes with Glashfish 4.
So, I went to [this page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/downloads/java-ee-sdk-7-downloads-1956236.html) and downloaded the **Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 7 SDK Update 2** for Windows. I am running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium. It is presently a 128 MB download.
To install it, I looked up the very unhelpful instructions on [this web page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/documentation/javaee7sdk-install-1957708.html#install). That didn't help me because this page says almost nothing except: please unzip your download and then ???, and then profit.
But [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsq3H0LNj8) helped me. Here's what I did.
I unzipped the folder and placed the uncompressed folder in my **%Program Files%\Java** folder. Then I ran the **%Program Files%\Java\java\_ee\_sdk-7u1\glassfish4\glassfish\bin\startserv.bat** file and browsed to the Url **<http://localhost:4848>** and the Glassfish Console started up just fine.
Then as per the instructions in the **Creating a project** section on [this page](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html), I opened up the **IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition 2016.2.1** IDE, which I already had installed previously, and clicked the **Create New Project** menu item in the start-up dialog.
However, in the **New Project** dialog, I do not see the option **Java Enterprise** as the article suggested. This is what my **New Project** dialog looks like.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xWI2a.png)
What do I do now? I just want to create a simple Web application using servlets.
One difference I note is that [the article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html) suggests that I have IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition, which I do not have. Is it not possible to create servlets using the community edition of IntelliJ IDEA? | 2016/08/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39072303",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/303685/"
] | Netbeans is your best option to **just make it work right now** If you download the Java EE version of netbeans everything is ready to go. Also most of the canonical getting started documentation focuses on/ is highly coupled with Netbeans development.
This is a Netbeans focus/opinionated setup guide from oracle.
<https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/tutorial/usingexamples001.htm> | I don't think intellij idea will read what you installed. Try using maven, and select webapp. Then search for the maven respiratory for servlets. I'm note even sure it will work. Your best bet for a free ide would be eclipse. Its not the best for beginners, but it's better than netbeans. Or you could simply waste your money on the paid version. |
39,072,303 | I want to create a Java Servlet. I know nothing about the Java ecosystem except a tiny bit of the Java language.
I already had JDK 1.8.0\_65 on my machine and JRE 6 as well.
I looked up [this article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html). It said I could use Glassfish as the application server. Java 7 EE comes with Glashfish 4.
So, I went to [this page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/downloads/java-ee-sdk-7-downloads-1956236.html) and downloaded the **Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 7 SDK Update 2** for Windows. I am running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium. It is presently a 128 MB download.
To install it, I looked up the very unhelpful instructions on [this web page](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/documentation/javaee7sdk-install-1957708.html#install). That didn't help me because this page says almost nothing except: please unzip your download and then ???, and then profit.
But [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsq3H0LNj8) helped me. Here's what I did.
I unzipped the folder and placed the uncompressed folder in my **%Program Files%\Java** folder. Then I ran the **%Program Files%\Java\java\_ee\_sdk-7u1\glassfish4\glassfish\bin\startserv.bat** file and browsed to the Url **<http://localhost:4848>** and the Glassfish Console started up just fine.
Then as per the instructions in the **Creating a project** section on [this page](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html), I opened up the **IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition 2016.2.1** IDE, which I already had installed previously, and clicked the **Create New Project** menu item in the start-up dialog.
However, in the **New Project** dialog, I do not see the option **Java Enterprise** as the article suggested. This is what my **New Project** dialog looks like.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xWI2a.png)
What do I do now? I just want to create a simple Web application using servlets.
One difference I note is that [the article](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/developing-a-java-ee-application.html) suggests that I have IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition, which I do not have. Is it not possible to create servlets using the community edition of IntelliJ IDEA? | 2016/08/22 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/39072303",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/303685/"
] | Netbeans is your best option to **just make it work right now** If you download the Java EE version of netbeans everything is ready to go. Also most of the canonical getting started documentation focuses on/ is highly coupled with Netbeans development.
This is a Netbeans focus/opinionated setup guide from oracle.
<https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/tutorial/usingexamples001.htm> | No you cannot create Enterprise applications in intellij community ,But you can run the servlets using google appengine in intellij community.I recommend you read this [post](https://medium.com/@rameshlingappa/google-appengine-with-gradle-intellij-dc881230662e) |
63,644 | As the title reads, it seems very confusing what actually kills a Transformer.
>
> Case 1: Jazz is ripped apart by Megatron in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 2: Megatron is killed by the AllSpark in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 3: Megatron is brought back to life by the AllSpark shard and given parts by a Decepticon *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 4: Optimus Prime is killed by Megatron in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 5: Optimus Prime is brought back to life by Sam Witwicky by fusion of the Matrix of Leadership in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 6: Optimus Prime rips The Fallen's Spark out in *Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 7: Megatron is killed by Optimus Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 8: Ironhide is killed by Sentinel Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 9: Optimus Prime has a shell lodged in his chest area and remains dormant for years until Cade Yeager dislodges it in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
> Case 10: Ratchet is killed by Lockdown in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.*
>
>
>
> Case 11: Megatron is infused into a new Transformer shell by Joshua Joyce as a new Transformer Galvatron in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
As you can see from the cases above, some remain dead, others are given life by the AllSpark/Matrix of Leadership or are simply rebuilt.
So the question stands, do Transformers actually die, given that some Transformers remain dead and others are brought back to life? | 2014/07/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63644",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1338/"
] | The AllSpark and The Matrix of Leadership were special artifacts, that had sufficient energy to reignite a Transformer's Spark.
Other than that, Transformers can die for sure. In all the cases you mentioned, the Transformer had died, except Case 8.
>
> **Case 8**: Optimus Prime was not dead, simply dormant and very very weak because of his last encounter with Lockdown.
>
> **Case 9**: It wasn't Joshua Joyce's doing, but rather the remnant memories of Megatron had corrupted the Anti-Optimus he was building, resulting in a reborn Megatron.
>
>
>
To generalize, damage to a Transformer's Spark effectively kills it. Also, physically ripping out a Transformer's Spark from the body kills it. This is seen:
1. In *Revenge of the Fallen* we see that JetFire rips out his spark so that Prime can take his parts.
2. Again, in *Revenge of the Fallen*, Optimus kills The Fallen by ripping out his spark in the final battle.
>
> 3. In *Age of Extinction*, Lockdown kills Ratchet by finally ripping out his Spark.
>
>
>
Transformers can be killed by decapitation and similar means, in pretty much the same manner as humans can be.
The only reason the resurrections happened was because the Transformers body was intact, and that there was a compatible power source at the end.
After browsing for a while, I found the exact cause of Ironhide's death. Sentinel hit him with something that is called ["Cosmic Rust"](https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cosmic_Rust_%28disease%29) in the *Transformers* universe. | I believe that it is not exactly 'life' that is being taken or given to the Transformers by the AllSpark, but it is the 'life source'. In *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*, Optimus explains how Earth was first used to extract life source by detonating "Seeds" during the Cretaceous Period. So the life of Transformers needs a foundation, or a life source (which is the AllSpark, I believe), to be able to sustain and function as living entities.
With the explanation above, it can be concluded that Transformers are alive because of their 'life source' which gives them a 'life'. And so this 'life' can be given or taken at will by others. As for physical damage, Transformers can be 'repaired' literally.
We did see, in *Transformers 3*, that a cellphone being hit by the Cube's energy "Transforms" it. But I am not sure if that is how all Transformers are created. |
63,644 | As the title reads, it seems very confusing what actually kills a Transformer.
>
> Case 1: Jazz is ripped apart by Megatron in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 2: Megatron is killed by the AllSpark in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 3: Megatron is brought back to life by the AllSpark shard and given parts by a Decepticon *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 4: Optimus Prime is killed by Megatron in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 5: Optimus Prime is brought back to life by Sam Witwicky by fusion of the Matrix of Leadership in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 6: Optimus Prime rips The Fallen's Spark out in *Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 7: Megatron is killed by Optimus Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 8: Ironhide is killed by Sentinel Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 9: Optimus Prime has a shell lodged in his chest area and remains dormant for years until Cade Yeager dislodges it in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
> Case 10: Ratchet is killed by Lockdown in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.*
>
>
>
> Case 11: Megatron is infused into a new Transformer shell by Joshua Joyce as a new Transformer Galvatron in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
As you can see from the cases above, some remain dead, others are given life by the AllSpark/Matrix of Leadership or are simply rebuilt.
So the question stands, do Transformers actually die, given that some Transformers remain dead and others are brought back to life? | 2014/07/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63644",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1338/"
] | Yes. There are several ways I'm aware of that can destroy or 'kill' a Transformer.
1. Method one: use a blaster. In the *TR* movie Megatron kills all the Autobots on the shuttle to Earth. And in the battle of Autobot city, I'm sure he killed some more. And when Megatron becomes Galvatron he kills Starscream.
2. Method two: acid. In the G1 series Optimus Prime almost gets killed by Starscream and Shockwave, if anyone remembers 'The Search for Alpha Trion'. Elita has a right to be afraid. Starscream basically, when he dips that pole into the vat of acid, says (not in words, but in actions) 'This is what's going to happen.' So yeah, you get the picture.
3. Method three: using strength. What I mean by this is 'Kill with your bare hands.' In one of the live action movies, one of the Autobots is ripped in half (It might have been Jazz).
4. Method four; sharp objects. There are indeed what I have been led to believe, are lightsabers. Now they have not been used to kill one yet but I am led to believe that they probably can. Think *Star Wars* for a second. And there's not just lightsabers either, there's claws, shards of metal, etc. Like in *Transformers: Prime*, when Arachnid kills Tailgate. I'm pretty sure she sliced him. Also in *Transformers: Prime* Starscream (I think it's Starscream) stabs Cliffjumper. Yeah claws, or sharp fingers.
5. Method five: force and energy depletion. Yup, it's on the list. Again I am referring to the 'The Search for Alpha Trion', (G1 is a good friend of mine!) where Elita is dying of force depletion. And in 'Dweller in the Depths' and 'Call of the Primitives' Transformers have energy withdrawn from them. It's also necessary that they recharge or I'm assuming they'll die.
So there you have it, at least five ways Transformers can 'die'. Sorry if most of my answer refers to G1, but that is the series I'm most familiar with. | I believe that it is not exactly 'life' that is being taken or given to the Transformers by the AllSpark, but it is the 'life source'. In *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*, Optimus explains how Earth was first used to extract life source by detonating "Seeds" during the Cretaceous Period. So the life of Transformers needs a foundation, or a life source (which is the AllSpark, I believe), to be able to sustain and function as living entities.
With the explanation above, it can be concluded that Transformers are alive because of their 'life source' which gives them a 'life'. And so this 'life' can be given or taken at will by others. As for physical damage, Transformers can be 'repaired' literally.
We did see, in *Transformers 3*, that a cellphone being hit by the Cube's energy "Transforms" it. But I am not sure if that is how all Transformers are created. |
63,644 | As the title reads, it seems very confusing what actually kills a Transformer.
>
> Case 1: Jazz is ripped apart by Megatron in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 2: Megatron is killed by the AllSpark in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 3: Megatron is brought back to life by the AllSpark shard and given parts by a Decepticon *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 4: Optimus Prime is killed by Megatron in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 5: Optimus Prime is brought back to life by Sam Witwicky by fusion of the Matrix of Leadership in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 6: Optimus Prime rips The Fallen's Spark out in *Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 7: Megatron is killed by Optimus Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 8: Ironhide is killed by Sentinel Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 9: Optimus Prime has a shell lodged in his chest area and remains dormant for years until Cade Yeager dislodges it in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
> Case 10: Ratchet is killed by Lockdown in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.*
>
>
>
> Case 11: Megatron is infused into a new Transformer shell by Joshua Joyce as a new Transformer Galvatron in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
As you can see from the cases above, some remain dead, others are given life by the AllSpark/Matrix of Leadership or are simply rebuilt.
So the question stands, do Transformers actually die, given that some Transformers remain dead and others are brought back to life? | 2014/07/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63644",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1338/"
] | The AllSpark and The Matrix of Leadership were special artifacts, that had sufficient energy to reignite a Transformer's Spark.
Other than that, Transformers can die for sure. In all the cases you mentioned, the Transformer had died, except Case 8.
>
> **Case 8**: Optimus Prime was not dead, simply dormant and very very weak because of his last encounter with Lockdown.
>
> **Case 9**: It wasn't Joshua Joyce's doing, but rather the remnant memories of Megatron had corrupted the Anti-Optimus he was building, resulting in a reborn Megatron.
>
>
>
To generalize, damage to a Transformer's Spark effectively kills it. Also, physically ripping out a Transformer's Spark from the body kills it. This is seen:
1. In *Revenge of the Fallen* we see that JetFire rips out his spark so that Prime can take his parts.
2. Again, in *Revenge of the Fallen*, Optimus kills The Fallen by ripping out his spark in the final battle.
>
> 3. In *Age of Extinction*, Lockdown kills Ratchet by finally ripping out his Spark.
>
>
>
Transformers can be killed by decapitation and similar means, in pretty much the same manner as humans can be.
The only reason the resurrections happened was because the Transformers body was intact, and that there was a compatible power source at the end.
After browsing for a while, I found the exact cause of Ironhide's death. Sentinel hit him with something that is called ["Cosmic Rust"](https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cosmic_Rust_%28disease%29) in the *Transformers* universe. | To answer the question may take a bit of long-winded explanation but the simplest answer is that yes, they can die.
What exactly kills a Transformer is based upon what continuity they are in. For example in most continuities, extinguishing the spark is the only sure way to kill one, i.e.:
* Rampage being stabbed in the heart in *Beast Wars*,
* Lockdown dying in a similar fashion in *Age of Extinction*,
* Optimus being stabbed through the chest in RoTF,
* the Autobots aboard the shuttle all being shot in the chest repeatedly in the original 80s movie.
However, in IDW continuity Rossum's trio is a series of interconnected organs in which damage to the brain or transformation cog can also cause death. There are anomalies in all of these however, such as Starscream's ghost in G1, Rampage in *Beast Wars* not requiring energon to live, and the Primes in the movie continuity living on despite their physical bodies being lifeless husks in Egypt. |
63,644 | As the title reads, it seems very confusing what actually kills a Transformer.
>
> Case 1: Jazz is ripped apart by Megatron in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 2: Megatron is killed by the AllSpark in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 3: Megatron is brought back to life by the AllSpark shard and given parts by a Decepticon *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 4: Optimus Prime is killed by Megatron in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 5: Optimus Prime is brought back to life by Sam Witwicky by fusion of the Matrix of Leadership in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 6: Optimus Prime rips The Fallen's Spark out in *Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 7: Megatron is killed by Optimus Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 8: Ironhide is killed by Sentinel Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 9: Optimus Prime has a shell lodged in his chest area and remains dormant for years until Cade Yeager dislodges it in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
> Case 10: Ratchet is killed by Lockdown in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.*
>
>
>
> Case 11: Megatron is infused into a new Transformer shell by Joshua Joyce as a new Transformer Galvatron in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
As you can see from the cases above, some remain dead, others are given life by the AllSpark/Matrix of Leadership or are simply rebuilt.
So the question stands, do Transformers actually die, given that some Transformers remain dead and others are brought back to life? | 2014/07/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63644",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1338/"
] | The AllSpark and The Matrix of Leadership were special artifacts, that had sufficient energy to reignite a Transformer's Spark.
Other than that, Transformers can die for sure. In all the cases you mentioned, the Transformer had died, except Case 8.
>
> **Case 8**: Optimus Prime was not dead, simply dormant and very very weak because of his last encounter with Lockdown.
>
> **Case 9**: It wasn't Joshua Joyce's doing, but rather the remnant memories of Megatron had corrupted the Anti-Optimus he was building, resulting in a reborn Megatron.
>
>
>
To generalize, damage to a Transformer's Spark effectively kills it. Also, physically ripping out a Transformer's Spark from the body kills it. This is seen:
1. In *Revenge of the Fallen* we see that JetFire rips out his spark so that Prime can take his parts.
2. Again, in *Revenge of the Fallen*, Optimus kills The Fallen by ripping out his spark in the final battle.
>
> 3. In *Age of Extinction*, Lockdown kills Ratchet by finally ripping out his Spark.
>
>
>
Transformers can be killed by decapitation and similar means, in pretty much the same manner as humans can be.
The only reason the resurrections happened was because the Transformers body was intact, and that there was a compatible power source at the end.
After browsing for a while, I found the exact cause of Ironhide's death. Sentinel hit him with something that is called ["Cosmic Rust"](https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cosmic_Rust_%28disease%29) in the *Transformers* universe. | Yes. There are several ways I'm aware of that can destroy or 'kill' a Transformer.
1. Method one: use a blaster. In the *TR* movie Megatron kills all the Autobots on the shuttle to Earth. And in the battle of Autobot city, I'm sure he killed some more. And when Megatron becomes Galvatron he kills Starscream.
2. Method two: acid. In the G1 series Optimus Prime almost gets killed by Starscream and Shockwave, if anyone remembers 'The Search for Alpha Trion'. Elita has a right to be afraid. Starscream basically, when he dips that pole into the vat of acid, says (not in words, but in actions) 'This is what's going to happen.' So yeah, you get the picture.
3. Method three: using strength. What I mean by this is 'Kill with your bare hands.' In one of the live action movies, one of the Autobots is ripped in half (It might have been Jazz).
4. Method four; sharp objects. There are indeed what I have been led to believe, are lightsabers. Now they have not been used to kill one yet but I am led to believe that they probably can. Think *Star Wars* for a second. And there's not just lightsabers either, there's claws, shards of metal, etc. Like in *Transformers: Prime*, when Arachnid kills Tailgate. I'm pretty sure she sliced him. Also in *Transformers: Prime* Starscream (I think it's Starscream) stabs Cliffjumper. Yeah claws, or sharp fingers.
5. Method five: force and energy depletion. Yup, it's on the list. Again I am referring to the 'The Search for Alpha Trion', (G1 is a good friend of mine!) where Elita is dying of force depletion. And in 'Dweller in the Depths' and 'Call of the Primitives' Transformers have energy withdrawn from them. It's also necessary that they recharge or I'm assuming they'll die.
So there you have it, at least five ways Transformers can 'die'. Sorry if most of my answer refers to G1, but that is the series I'm most familiar with. |
63,644 | As the title reads, it seems very confusing what actually kills a Transformer.
>
> Case 1: Jazz is ripped apart by Megatron in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 2: Megatron is killed by the AllSpark in *Transformers*
>
>
>
> Case 3: Megatron is brought back to life by the AllSpark shard and given parts by a Decepticon *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 4: Optimus Prime is killed by Megatron in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 5: Optimus Prime is brought back to life by Sam Witwicky by fusion of the Matrix of Leadership in *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 6: Optimus Prime rips The Fallen's Spark out in *Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen*
>
>
>
> Case 7: Megatron is killed by Optimus Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 8: Ironhide is killed by Sentinel Prime in *Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon*
>
>
>
> Case 9: Optimus Prime has a shell lodged in his chest area and remains dormant for years until Cade Yeager dislodges it in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
> Case 10: Ratchet is killed by Lockdown in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.*
>
>
>
> Case 11: Megatron is infused into a new Transformer shell by Joshua Joyce as a new Transformer Galvatron in *Transformers 4: Age of Extinction*
>
>
>
As you can see from the cases above, some remain dead, others are given life by the AllSpark/Matrix of Leadership or are simply rebuilt.
So the question stands, do Transformers actually die, given that some Transformers remain dead and others are brought back to life? | 2014/07/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63644",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1338/"
] | Yes. There are several ways I'm aware of that can destroy or 'kill' a Transformer.
1. Method one: use a blaster. In the *TR* movie Megatron kills all the Autobots on the shuttle to Earth. And in the battle of Autobot city, I'm sure he killed some more. And when Megatron becomes Galvatron he kills Starscream.
2. Method two: acid. In the G1 series Optimus Prime almost gets killed by Starscream and Shockwave, if anyone remembers 'The Search for Alpha Trion'. Elita has a right to be afraid. Starscream basically, when he dips that pole into the vat of acid, says (not in words, but in actions) 'This is what's going to happen.' So yeah, you get the picture.
3. Method three: using strength. What I mean by this is 'Kill with your bare hands.' In one of the live action movies, one of the Autobots is ripped in half (It might have been Jazz).
4. Method four; sharp objects. There are indeed what I have been led to believe, are lightsabers. Now they have not been used to kill one yet but I am led to believe that they probably can. Think *Star Wars* for a second. And there's not just lightsabers either, there's claws, shards of metal, etc. Like in *Transformers: Prime*, when Arachnid kills Tailgate. I'm pretty sure she sliced him. Also in *Transformers: Prime* Starscream (I think it's Starscream) stabs Cliffjumper. Yeah claws, or sharp fingers.
5. Method five: force and energy depletion. Yup, it's on the list. Again I am referring to the 'The Search for Alpha Trion', (G1 is a good friend of mine!) where Elita is dying of force depletion. And in 'Dweller in the Depths' and 'Call of the Primitives' Transformers have energy withdrawn from them. It's also necessary that they recharge or I'm assuming they'll die.
So there you have it, at least five ways Transformers can 'die'. Sorry if most of my answer refers to G1, but that is the series I'm most familiar with. | To answer the question may take a bit of long-winded explanation but the simplest answer is that yes, they can die.
What exactly kills a Transformer is based upon what continuity they are in. For example in most continuities, extinguishing the spark is the only sure way to kill one, i.e.:
* Rampage being stabbed in the heart in *Beast Wars*,
* Lockdown dying in a similar fashion in *Age of Extinction*,
* Optimus being stabbed through the chest in RoTF,
* the Autobots aboard the shuttle all being shot in the chest repeatedly in the original 80s movie.
However, in IDW continuity Rossum's trio is a series of interconnected organs in which damage to the brain or transformation cog can also cause death. There are anomalies in all of these however, such as Starscream's ghost in G1, Rampage in *Beast Wars* not requiring energon to live, and the Primes in the movie continuity living on despite their physical bodies being lifeless husks in Egypt. |
62,736 | I've come across a university where I'm required to give details about my undergraduate program (including course transcripts). Nothing else has been mentioned about this submission. What should I include in this and how should I go about writing this part? | 2016/02/03 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/62736",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48675/"
] | My undergrad program was unique because I got field placements and collected original data. I presented in the student papers session at conference. We had a small campus and professors lived among us. We went to their houses for meals and knew their kids. In addition to being a top ranked, blah blah blah, we had this. Most undergrads are just taking classes and seeing TA's alot. My professors taught all classes and no TA's. No class was above 20 students in my major. No lecture hall except the 101 course, 60 students. What is unique and why is it better? My school had essay on every exam no matter the field. Multiple choice for quiz only. What beyond a textbook and the title of the course did you actually get for the money you paid for the class. Tell them that. | The basic problem that a section of this type is attempting to address is that there is a vast diversity of undergraduate educations out there, and the faculty evaluating your application may not be familiar with your particular university or program. Even a transcript is not sufficient, as the "same" course at two different universities may have radically different content and level of educational quality.
Thus, faculty are likely to find value in knowing things like:
* What textbooks did you use?
* Was there lots of laboratory or project work, or was it all theory?
* How big did the classes tend to be, and how much interaction did you have with faculty?
* How well ranked is the university?
* Where do the students tend to come from, and where do they tend to go afterwards? |
42,009 | How does Victor Wooten do that super-fast tremolo plucking? It looks like his fingers are always curled and right on top of the strings. Is he *slapping* with 3 or 4 fingers rapidly or is he plucking with fingertips? | 2016/02/18 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/42009",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/1344/"
] | Victor Wooten thumb slaps and plucks lower strings on down and up strokes, as you would expect, but he uses a range of techniques with his fingers:
* plucking
* rasgueado
* slapping
A lot of his technique is aimed at rapid and precise percussive impacts.
It's worth watching the [4 YouTube videos](http://youtu.be/U-N54p2YlQg) he did on technique, but he has a wide range of training materials if you are really interested. | Alright, after watching the videos carefully, I think the specific trick I was after is basically the same as a classical guitar tremolo, like in *Recuerdos de la Alahambra*, ie. *p-a-m-i*, but all on one string (the high G). And, of course, it's a lot fleshier than on the guitar. All *apoyando*, no nail.
So basically, you pinch the string with all three fingers *and* the thumb, and snap each one off, quickly in sequence. Or you could slap the thumb. |
102,284 | I've been playing on Inferno for a while now, and I constantly feel like I'm running out of mana during fights. I understand that mana will never be unlimited and I'll have to use some conservation techniques, but it would be nice to boost my starting pool, which is currently at 877.
Are there stats that boost maximum mana for Witch Doctors? Are there other ways to increase maximum mana that are permanent?
I'm not looking for temporary solutions, like keeping 5 stacks of Soul Harvest at all times.
**Edit:**
I'm already sporting a ceremonial knife, mask, and mojo. I'd be looking for something beyond the inherent increase on WD specific items.
I also understand that the answer may be "There is nothing you can do beyond skills and WD equipment." | 2013/01/21 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/102284",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/25094/"
] | Maximum mana can be increased by use of passives (Spiritual Attunement is the only one I can think of off-hand), or items (mojos, voodoo masks, and ceremonial knives can all roll +maximum mana, and possibly some legendary items).
However, increasing maximum mana is not the most effective way to avoid running out during a fight.
It is generally more effective to increase your mana regeneration rate, reduce the mana cost of your spells, use one of the methods of gaining mana from killing enemies, or, better yet, combining them.
Much like +max mana, +mana regen can be found on mojos, voodoo masks, and ceremonial knives. In addition, the Zunimassa's set bonuses can give you additional mana regen. Even when spamming spells with a high mana cost (like Bears), mana regen helps a lot.
You can also get a small increase in mana regen from the templar follower, or much larger temporary boosts from empowerment shrines and the Big Bad Voodoo skill.
The Soul Harvest and Spirit Walk runes that return mana, are not terribly effective, and frequently there are better choices. Rush of Essence can be useful if you are focusing on the skills it affects in your build.
The bonus from Spiritual Attunement also increases your mana regen by a small amount (more so if you also have +max mana items).
Blood Ritual, on the other hand, reduces the cost of all of your spells by 15%. This can be quite significant, particularly for the big-hitter spells. You can also find items that reduce the casting cost of certain spells by a flat amount.
Finally, there are some ways of triggering additional mana gain that can be quite effective. The Zunimassa's top set bonus also gives mana for each enemy killed, in addition to the base regen rate.
The passive Gruesome Feast gives you 10% of your total mana every time you pick up a health globe, in addition to a major, but short-lived, buff to your intelligence. There are several ways to increase the number of globes that you can get, so this can be a fairly useful passive.
Grave Injustice gives you 2% of your life and mana for each enemy killed in your pickup range, in addition to lowering cooldowns. This can add up very quickly if you have a high pickup radius and are killing very quickly.
In general, combining some or all of these is the best way of increasing your ability to continually cast. However, be warned that at very high MP levels, mana regen that is related to killing enemies becomes very unreliable, simply because you aren't killing that fast. | Some [Mojos](http://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/mojo/#type=legendary) have max mana increase stats, as do many other WD class-specific items.
You can use the D3 WD [class builder](http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/witch-doctor) to look for skills that increase max mana or mana regen. Spiritual Attunement, for example, increases max mana by 20%. There is also a number of skills that give mana regen which you might find useful as well. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | Man needs philosophy to operate. Even if he is not consciously aware of it, he operates by a particular philosophy. Typically, he operates by the philosophy given to him when he was growing up. Usually, it's a mixed bag of a variety of philosophy. There are those who seeks to be fully integrated and so they pursue a specific philosophy and try to adopt it to their life. It could be a religion. Or it could be Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
The consequence of their life depends on the philosophy that they choose to apply to their life. The standard that the philosophy holds as "the good" determines those consequences.
Choose carefully. You only have one life. | The dictionary definition of philosophy is, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."
To answer, philosophy is not entirely about living, but answers about life in general are sought out within philosophy. Of course, the answers to questions about knowledge, reality, and existence may effect how we live, but it is not to say that philosophy is purely about living.
Involving the restriction of thought, it's self-evident that we damage our ability to explore other forms of wisdom. This is a worry of mine as I see more people in society either narrowing their view extremely and calling themselves "open minded" or, instead, choosing to not think at all. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | The "purpose" of Philosophy depends much on the attitude of the philosopher. In [The Philosophy of Bergson](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Bergson_(Russell)), Bertrand Russell wrote,
>
> The classification of philosophies is effected, as a rule, either by their methods or by their results: “empirical” and “a priori” is a classification by methods, “realist” and “idealist” is a classification by results. An attempt to classify Bergson’s philosophy in either of these ways is hardly likely to be successful, since it cuts across all the recognized divisions.
>
>
> But there is another way of classifying philosophies, less precise, but perhaps more helpful to the non-philosophical; in this way, the principle of division is according to the predominant desire which has led the philosopher to philosophize. Thus we shall have philosophies of feeling, inspired by the love of happiness; theoretical philosophies, inspired by the love of knowledge; and practical philosophies, inspired by the love of action.
>
>
> Among philosophies of feeling we shall place all those which are primarily optimistic or pessimistic, all those that offer schemes of salvation or try to prove that salvation is impossible; to this class belong most religious philosophies. Among theoretical philosophies we shall place most of the great systems; for though the desire for knowledge is rare, it has been the source of most of what is best in philosophy. Practical philosophies, on the other hand, will be those which regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity. Philosophies of this type would have been common among Western Europeans if philosophers had been average men; as it is, they have been rare until recent times, in fact their chief representatives are the pragmatists and M. Bergson. In the rise of this type of philosophy we may see, as M. Bergson himself does, the revolt of the modern man of action against the authority of Greece, and more particularly of Plato; or we may connect it, as Dr. Schiller apparently would, with imperialism and the motorcar. The modern world calls for such a philosophy, and the success which it has achieved is therefore not surprising.
>
>
>
According to Russell, in the Western tradition, the pragmatists are among those whose philosophies focus on "how to live," or as Russell puts it, they "regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity."
The pragmatist [William James wrote](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm),
>
> In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: "There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them."
>
>
> I think with Mr. Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me. And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy which is so important in each of us is not a technical matter; it is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly got from books; it is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos.
>
>
>
And he concludes his essay [The Will to Believe](http://educ.jmu.edu//%7Eomearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html) with a quote from James FitzJames Stephens:
>
> I began by a reference to Fitz James Stephen; let me end by a quotation from him. " What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. . . . In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If wc decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
>
>
>
I guess the point of all this is that there are schools of thought in Western philosophy that consider "action", or "how to live", to be one of the primary subjects of philosophy.
Add to that the fact that ethics is a huge subject in philosophy, and that religion is concerned primarily with "how to live", and it is pretty clear that "knowing how to live" is very much a part of modern Western philosophy. | The dictionary definition of philosophy is, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."
To answer, philosophy is not entirely about living, but answers about life in general are sought out within philosophy. Of course, the answers to questions about knowledge, reality, and existence may effect how we live, but it is not to say that philosophy is purely about living.
Involving the restriction of thought, it's self-evident that we damage our ability to explore other forms of wisdom. This is a worry of mine as I see more people in society either narrowing their view extremely and calling themselves "open minded" or, instead, choosing to not think at all. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | Much of Western philosophy, from Plato to Kant and Sartre to Rawls, does address problems relating to "how to live," how to be just, what is wisdom, and so forth. Though with more specialization and greater emphasis on *theoria* than *praxis*.
There is a historical issue here. With the emergence of modernity after, roughly, Descartes, the studies of "physics" and "theology" began to draw apart from the more unified approach of "metaphysics." This left philosophy in a state of potential downsizing and job insecurity. With the rise of empiricism and logical positivism in the early 20th century, many philosophers began to believe that "value" or "ought" questions, while important, could never be settled by either reason or evidence. They must be abandoned to religion, politics, sociology, custom, cultural consensus, etc.
Henceforth, the role of *philosophy* in what is called the Analytical or Anglo-American tradition was to act as the "under laborer" of science, as Locke put it. Only the scientific method, as it evolved creatively, could secure genuine, actionable knowledge, and philosophy could in turn help clarify the logic, epistemology, and meaning of science. This was never entirely true, and Analytical philosophy did return to "values" in such famous works as Rawls' Theory of Justice.
Meanwhile, a very large branch of so-called Continental philosophy, following from Kant and German idealism, never did give up on questions of *how to live and act*. This is especially apparent in Heidegger and the subsequent existentialists, such as Sartre, as well as in the various Marxist and Freudian traditions, which do emphasize *praxis*. While many philosophy departments continue to emphasize the "scientific" aspects you cite, things are today far more heterogenous than they were even in the 1970s.
Eastern philosophy has influenced Western philosophy, from Pythagoras and Plato through Schopenhauer. Today, there is some admittedly marginal interest in, say, Zen practices,even in relation to cognitive sciences. But I would say that the cultural development of "explanation" has simply diverged in different cultures. It underwent a historically unique "critical" turn in the West, for better or worse. But this is hardly to say: Game over. Taken as a historical whole, the majority of Western philosophy is concerned with wisdom and "how to live," with one answer being "scientifically." | The dictionary definition of philosophy is, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."
To answer, philosophy is not entirely about living, but answers about life in general are sought out within philosophy. Of course, the answers to questions about knowledge, reality, and existence may effect how we live, but it is not to say that philosophy is purely about living.
Involving the restriction of thought, it's self-evident that we damage our ability to explore other forms of wisdom. This is a worry of mine as I see more people in society either narrowing their view extremely and calling themselves "open minded" or, instead, choosing to not think at all. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | Man needs philosophy to operate. Even if he is not consciously aware of it, he operates by a particular philosophy. Typically, he operates by the philosophy given to him when he was growing up. Usually, it's a mixed bag of a variety of philosophy. There are those who seeks to be fully integrated and so they pursue a specific philosophy and try to adopt it to their life. It could be a religion. Or it could be Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
The consequence of their life depends on the philosophy that they choose to apply to their life. The standard that the philosophy holds as "the good" determines those consequences.
Choose carefully. You only have one life. | How to live has been a main topic for many philosophers throughout time, and in many different places, including figures as diverse and influential as Plato, Confucius, and Sartre. However, there are also philosophers who have considered and concentrated on very different types of questions. In modern analytic philosophy, for example, big general questions are discouraged. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | The "purpose" of Philosophy depends much on the attitude of the philosopher. In [The Philosophy of Bergson](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Bergson_(Russell)), Bertrand Russell wrote,
>
> The classification of philosophies is effected, as a rule, either by their methods or by their results: “empirical” and “a priori” is a classification by methods, “realist” and “idealist” is a classification by results. An attempt to classify Bergson’s philosophy in either of these ways is hardly likely to be successful, since it cuts across all the recognized divisions.
>
>
> But there is another way of classifying philosophies, less precise, but perhaps more helpful to the non-philosophical; in this way, the principle of division is according to the predominant desire which has led the philosopher to philosophize. Thus we shall have philosophies of feeling, inspired by the love of happiness; theoretical philosophies, inspired by the love of knowledge; and practical philosophies, inspired by the love of action.
>
>
> Among philosophies of feeling we shall place all those which are primarily optimistic or pessimistic, all those that offer schemes of salvation or try to prove that salvation is impossible; to this class belong most religious philosophies. Among theoretical philosophies we shall place most of the great systems; for though the desire for knowledge is rare, it has been the source of most of what is best in philosophy. Practical philosophies, on the other hand, will be those which regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity. Philosophies of this type would have been common among Western Europeans if philosophers had been average men; as it is, they have been rare until recent times, in fact their chief representatives are the pragmatists and M. Bergson. In the rise of this type of philosophy we may see, as M. Bergson himself does, the revolt of the modern man of action against the authority of Greece, and more particularly of Plato; or we may connect it, as Dr. Schiller apparently would, with imperialism and the motorcar. The modern world calls for such a philosophy, and the success which it has achieved is therefore not surprising.
>
>
>
According to Russell, in the Western tradition, the pragmatists are among those whose philosophies focus on "how to live," or as Russell puts it, they "regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity."
The pragmatist [William James wrote](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm),
>
> In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: "There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them."
>
>
> I think with Mr. Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me. And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy which is so important in each of us is not a technical matter; it is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly got from books; it is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos.
>
>
>
And he concludes his essay [The Will to Believe](http://educ.jmu.edu//%7Eomearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html) with a quote from James FitzJames Stephens:
>
> I began by a reference to Fitz James Stephen; let me end by a quotation from him. " What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. . . . In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If wc decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
>
>
>
I guess the point of all this is that there are schools of thought in Western philosophy that consider "action", or "how to live", to be one of the primary subjects of philosophy.
Add to that the fact that ethics is a huge subject in philosophy, and that religion is concerned primarily with "how to live", and it is pretty clear that "knowing how to live" is very much a part of modern Western philosophy. | How to live has been a main topic for many philosophers throughout time, and in many different places, including figures as diverse and influential as Plato, Confucius, and Sartre. However, there are also philosophers who have considered and concentrated on very different types of questions. In modern analytic philosophy, for example, big general questions are discouraged. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | Much of Western philosophy, from Plato to Kant and Sartre to Rawls, does address problems relating to "how to live," how to be just, what is wisdom, and so forth. Though with more specialization and greater emphasis on *theoria* than *praxis*.
There is a historical issue here. With the emergence of modernity after, roughly, Descartes, the studies of "physics" and "theology" began to draw apart from the more unified approach of "metaphysics." This left philosophy in a state of potential downsizing and job insecurity. With the rise of empiricism and logical positivism in the early 20th century, many philosophers began to believe that "value" or "ought" questions, while important, could never be settled by either reason or evidence. They must be abandoned to religion, politics, sociology, custom, cultural consensus, etc.
Henceforth, the role of *philosophy* in what is called the Analytical or Anglo-American tradition was to act as the "under laborer" of science, as Locke put it. Only the scientific method, as it evolved creatively, could secure genuine, actionable knowledge, and philosophy could in turn help clarify the logic, epistemology, and meaning of science. This was never entirely true, and Analytical philosophy did return to "values" in such famous works as Rawls' Theory of Justice.
Meanwhile, a very large branch of so-called Continental philosophy, following from Kant and German idealism, never did give up on questions of *how to live and act*. This is especially apparent in Heidegger and the subsequent existentialists, such as Sartre, as well as in the various Marxist and Freudian traditions, which do emphasize *praxis*. While many philosophy departments continue to emphasize the "scientific" aspects you cite, things are today far more heterogenous than they were even in the 1970s.
Eastern philosophy has influenced Western philosophy, from Pythagoras and Plato through Schopenhauer. Today, there is some admittedly marginal interest in, say, Zen practices,even in relation to cognitive sciences. But I would say that the cultural development of "explanation" has simply diverged in different cultures. It underwent a historically unique "critical" turn in the West, for better or worse. But this is hardly to say: Game over. Taken as a historical whole, the majority of Western philosophy is concerned with wisdom and "how to live," with one answer being "scientifically." | How to live has been a main topic for many philosophers throughout time, and in many different places, including figures as diverse and influential as Plato, Confucius, and Sartre. However, there are also philosophers who have considered and concentrated on very different types of questions. In modern analytic philosophy, for example, big general questions are discouraged. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | The "purpose" of Philosophy depends much on the attitude of the philosopher. In [The Philosophy of Bergson](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Bergson_(Russell)), Bertrand Russell wrote,
>
> The classification of philosophies is effected, as a rule, either by their methods or by their results: “empirical” and “a priori” is a classification by methods, “realist” and “idealist” is a classification by results. An attempt to classify Bergson’s philosophy in either of these ways is hardly likely to be successful, since it cuts across all the recognized divisions.
>
>
> But there is another way of classifying philosophies, less precise, but perhaps more helpful to the non-philosophical; in this way, the principle of division is according to the predominant desire which has led the philosopher to philosophize. Thus we shall have philosophies of feeling, inspired by the love of happiness; theoretical philosophies, inspired by the love of knowledge; and practical philosophies, inspired by the love of action.
>
>
> Among philosophies of feeling we shall place all those which are primarily optimistic or pessimistic, all those that offer schemes of salvation or try to prove that salvation is impossible; to this class belong most religious philosophies. Among theoretical philosophies we shall place most of the great systems; for though the desire for knowledge is rare, it has been the source of most of what is best in philosophy. Practical philosophies, on the other hand, will be those which regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity. Philosophies of this type would have been common among Western Europeans if philosophers had been average men; as it is, they have been rare until recent times, in fact their chief representatives are the pragmatists and M. Bergson. In the rise of this type of philosophy we may see, as M. Bergson himself does, the revolt of the modern man of action against the authority of Greece, and more particularly of Plato; or we may connect it, as Dr. Schiller apparently would, with imperialism and the motorcar. The modern world calls for such a philosophy, and the success which it has achieved is therefore not surprising.
>
>
>
According to Russell, in the Western tradition, the pragmatists are among those whose philosophies focus on "how to live," or as Russell puts it, they "regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity."
The pragmatist [William James wrote](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm),
>
> In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: "There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them."
>
>
> I think with Mr. Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me. And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy which is so important in each of us is not a technical matter; it is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly got from books; it is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos.
>
>
>
And he concludes his essay [The Will to Believe](http://educ.jmu.edu//%7Eomearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html) with a quote from James FitzJames Stephens:
>
> I began by a reference to Fitz James Stephen; let me end by a quotation from him. " What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. . . . In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If wc decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
>
>
>
I guess the point of all this is that there are schools of thought in Western philosophy that consider "action", or "how to live", to be one of the primary subjects of philosophy.
Add to that the fact that ethics is a huge subject in philosophy, and that religion is concerned primarily with "how to live", and it is pretty clear that "knowing how to live" is very much a part of modern Western philosophy. | Man needs philosophy to operate. Even if he is not consciously aware of it, he operates by a particular philosophy. Typically, he operates by the philosophy given to him when he was growing up. Usually, it's a mixed bag of a variety of philosophy. There are those who seeks to be fully integrated and so they pursue a specific philosophy and try to adopt it to their life. It could be a religion. Or it could be Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
The consequence of their life depends on the philosophy that they choose to apply to their life. The standard that the philosophy holds as "the good" determines those consequences.
Choose carefully. You only have one life. |
32,472 | I read some arguments in this forum about Western vs Eastern viewpoints. And about the idea that modern-Western thought applies Science principles and eastern, being older merely applies a more rudimentary logic, or so implied. This 'judgment' goes along with the idea that the purpose of Philosophers is to ferret out truth.
I would want to argue that that isn't the only purpose, that ferreting out is just a tactic to resolve subjects. I would say a large purpose to it is knowing how to live.
I'm suggesting that Philosophy still retains a purpose that created it, answering the question, "How best to live in a world were much of it is unknowable?" In this case I see the pursuit as one where you muddle through the best you can, with what you do know, including the tactic of Science, Logic, investigation and testing.
But if the Eastern and the Am-Orient way of the shaman is, "Let's just dance" and see what pops up, I see some useful philosophic, if a bit archaic wisdom in that too. It does answer the question, "How do I live though this?"
The problem with our modern approach is that western thought tends to diminish the value of methods navigating the unknowable and focus only on the known, or deriving the known. Any basis of touchy-feely, fuzzy logic for example would tend to be disrespected.
I see Philosophy as a part of wisdom, not the other way around. What else, what other sources of wisdom do we ignore, restricting ourselves to modern thinking?
Am I all wet, or does any of that makes sense? | 2016/02/26 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32472",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19552/"
] | The "purpose" of Philosophy depends much on the attitude of the philosopher. In [The Philosophy of Bergson](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Bergson_(Russell)), Bertrand Russell wrote,
>
> The classification of philosophies is effected, as a rule, either by their methods or by their results: “empirical” and “a priori” is a classification by methods, “realist” and “idealist” is a classification by results. An attempt to classify Bergson’s philosophy in either of these ways is hardly likely to be successful, since it cuts across all the recognized divisions.
>
>
> But there is another way of classifying philosophies, less precise, but perhaps more helpful to the non-philosophical; in this way, the principle of division is according to the predominant desire which has led the philosopher to philosophize. Thus we shall have philosophies of feeling, inspired by the love of happiness; theoretical philosophies, inspired by the love of knowledge; and practical philosophies, inspired by the love of action.
>
>
> Among philosophies of feeling we shall place all those which are primarily optimistic or pessimistic, all those that offer schemes of salvation or try to prove that salvation is impossible; to this class belong most religious philosophies. Among theoretical philosophies we shall place most of the great systems; for though the desire for knowledge is rare, it has been the source of most of what is best in philosophy. Practical philosophies, on the other hand, will be those which regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity. Philosophies of this type would have been common among Western Europeans if philosophers had been average men; as it is, they have been rare until recent times, in fact their chief representatives are the pragmatists and M. Bergson. In the rise of this type of philosophy we may see, as M. Bergson himself does, the revolt of the modern man of action against the authority of Greece, and more particularly of Plato; or we may connect it, as Dr. Schiller apparently would, with imperialism and the motorcar. The modern world calls for such a philosophy, and the success which it has achieved is therefore not surprising.
>
>
>
According to Russell, in the Western tradition, the pragmatists are among those whose philosophies focus on "how to live," or as Russell puts it, they "regard action as the supreme good, considering happiness an effect and knowledge a mere instrument of successful activity."
The pragmatist [William James wrote](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm),
>
> In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: "There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them."
>
>
> I think with Mr. Chesterton in this matter. I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds. You know the same of me. And yet I confess to a certain tremor at the audacity of the enterprise which I am about to begin. For the philosophy which is so important in each of us is not a technical matter; it is our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means. It is only partly got from books; it is our individual way of just seeing and feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos.
>
>
>
And he concludes his essay [The Will to Believe](http://educ.jmu.edu//%7Eomearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html) with a quote from James FitzJames Stephens:
>
> I began by a reference to Fitz James Stephen; let me end by a quotation from him. " What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. . . . In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If wc decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."
>
>
>
I guess the point of all this is that there are schools of thought in Western philosophy that consider "action", or "how to live", to be one of the primary subjects of philosophy.
Add to that the fact that ethics is a huge subject in philosophy, and that religion is concerned primarily with "how to live", and it is pretty clear that "knowing how to live" is very much a part of modern Western philosophy. | Much of Western philosophy, from Plato to Kant and Sartre to Rawls, does address problems relating to "how to live," how to be just, what is wisdom, and so forth. Though with more specialization and greater emphasis on *theoria* than *praxis*.
There is a historical issue here. With the emergence of modernity after, roughly, Descartes, the studies of "physics" and "theology" began to draw apart from the more unified approach of "metaphysics." This left philosophy in a state of potential downsizing and job insecurity. With the rise of empiricism and logical positivism in the early 20th century, many philosophers began to believe that "value" or "ought" questions, while important, could never be settled by either reason or evidence. They must be abandoned to religion, politics, sociology, custom, cultural consensus, etc.
Henceforth, the role of *philosophy* in what is called the Analytical or Anglo-American tradition was to act as the "under laborer" of science, as Locke put it. Only the scientific method, as it evolved creatively, could secure genuine, actionable knowledge, and philosophy could in turn help clarify the logic, epistemology, and meaning of science. This was never entirely true, and Analytical philosophy did return to "values" in such famous works as Rawls' Theory of Justice.
Meanwhile, a very large branch of so-called Continental philosophy, following from Kant and German idealism, never did give up on questions of *how to live and act*. This is especially apparent in Heidegger and the subsequent existentialists, such as Sartre, as well as in the various Marxist and Freudian traditions, which do emphasize *praxis*. While many philosophy departments continue to emphasize the "scientific" aspects you cite, things are today far more heterogenous than they were even in the 1970s.
Eastern philosophy has influenced Western philosophy, from Pythagoras and Plato through Schopenhauer. Today, there is some admittedly marginal interest in, say, Zen practices,even in relation to cognitive sciences. But I would say that the cultural development of "explanation" has simply diverged in different cultures. It underwent a historically unique "critical" turn in the West, for better or worse. But this is hardly to say: Game over. Taken as a historical whole, the majority of Western philosophy is concerned with wisdom and "how to live," with one answer being "scientifically." |
19,615 | When visiting my girlfriend's family, my girlfriend and I will usually wind up on a couch with the typical light-cuddling of a couple in a room with other people--legs across the other's lap, leaning on each other, arms around shoulders, etc.
Thing is, she and her sister also tend to do that stuff when the two of them are on a couch together. When that happens, I don't presume to join them. I don't want to make her sister uncomfortable. But when my girlfriend and I are like that already on the couch, her sister has no problem with hopping in and making it a cuddle pile.
However, even though she made it this way, the sister seems somewhat uncomfortable with her and I touching anywhere and seems really uncomfortable whenever I move in any way that changes how we are touching even slightly--even if I'm moving away from her.
I don't want her to do this if she's gonna be uncomfortable and thereby make me uncomfortable. I also don't want to 'lose territory' on my SO to her, like when I have my arm around my SO, and have to take it off to do something for a second, and then when I go to put it back, her sister's arm is now there, and her body language is not inviting our arms to both be there. I don't like that.
**How can I effectively talk to her sister about this?**
My goal is to set boundaries so that we don't have to be uncomfortable with each other. How do I open this discussion? I don't want to creep her out obviously and I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to cuddle her, I just feel uncomfortable, but like not because I'd feel uncomfortable with us touching, but because I dunno how she feels. How can we have a conversation about this? | 2018/10/29 | [
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/19615",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com",
"https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/13953/"
] | You and the sister of your girlfriend belong to different world. Her world is her family world. Your world is with your girlfriend. The meeting point of these 2 worlds is your girlfriend.
In my opinion, if you try to reach the sister of your girlfriend directly, this will be at best awkward. You may need to involve your girlfriend.
I would talk to my girlfriend about all of this. Then it will mostly depend on the opinion of your girlfriend on the problem. She will set the boundaries (or not..) accordingly with her sister. And that will be infinitely more efficient than if you try to set the boundary directly with her sister, who might take it defensively, or jealously, or whatever. | **You don't have to confront her**, you need to show your girlfriend's sister you aren't an invader and/or a threat.
Your problem
============
Let's start with the "When visiting my girlfriend's family". This is an important point.
Your girlfriend and her sister are in their safe family zone, in which you have been trusted enough to be invited. Even more, your question suggests that physical closeness with your girlfriend in her family presence is **totally acceptable**.
You have to consider that each individual of this family has a point of view on you and your behaviour, and **will act accordingly**.
This means that your girlfriend's sister could see your actions during these family events as partly intrusive, and her behaviour could be translated like the following:
* **I am here too**, please don't forget my existence
* I feel like I need to defend **closeness** to my sister
This also means, other members (possibly parents) of your girlfriend's family could have a link to this situation, either directly or not.
As a family outsider, you have very little to none possibilities to counterweight these influence efficiently.
However, your relation to your girlfriend's sister is **very likely the key here**.
Improving this relation, will be rewarding and showing of your care towards your girlfriend and her family.
Possible Solutions
==================
*- Without girlfriend's influence :*
1- **Try to know who she is, and what she likes**. Speak to her of unrelated subject and show interest in her person, this will reduce the possible tense between the both of you and start a link. If this is already the case, maintain and improve that link.
This will improve the image she has of you, and could destroy the possible "competition" here.
2- **Give her space to cuddle**. Make sure she understand you will never be in the way if she wants to feel close to her sister.
In these family events, your girlfriend's sister should be able to cuddle her sister if both of them want it. Let them decide what kind of behaviour they enjoy in this new configuration. Your girlfriend will send you hints on how and when she would like you interact with her, or with her sister. In this way you possibly get her to help you without asking.
3- Take the time to **discuss about this with her sister** (*risky in my opinion*).
**EDIT Why its risky:** *Confront her directly makes this situation real, and is likely to create conflicts. On the other hand, if you try to deal with it by showing a different attitude, you can make this problem disappear and create a healthy relation with her sister in the meantime.*
Find a good moment to have this discussion when you can have a quick discussion during a few minutes without being interrupted.
>
> I can see you and 'GF' are pretty close, that's really nice! She's
> lucky to have you.
>
>
>
Imply the fact that you are okay with this, and you want her and your girlfriend happiness. She'll also know you recognize her positive impact.
Then slightly indicate that you want to **find your place**
>
> I enjoy those moments with your family, I hope you don't mind if we cuddle sometime..
>
>
>
The trick is to state that you want to be on her side, without showing as a threat. **You're here**. But you're **not imposing yourself**.
There are no safe way of doing it : **you will expose yourself.** So pick the best/positive side: your girlfriend/her sister.
You could add a family or personnal story of your own to help her empathize with your situation.
*- With girlfriend's influence :*
4 - Tell your girlfriend you think this is something about this and ask her how you should do it. The fact that you ask, will probably give you at least hints, or even make her act on it in a way she decides.
5 - ask your girlfriend about her sister. Try to know her, show interest in her. Ask her to organize a meeting with the three of you. It would be even better with her boyfriend and/or friends. Be very specific on the interest you have in her, you just want to know her better and nothing more. **This behaviour might create tension** between all people involved.
My experience
=============
I use to spend a lot of time at my girlfriends family house during the summer.
She had both a little brother and sister. The age gap may be a difference here, but I had a very similar issue with her little sister.
I applied both first solutions and it worked really well. I actually had a really enjoyable relation with the little sister afterwards as we both started to like each other.
Little tips
===========
Don't underestimate your body language. Cuddle your girlfriend in front of her family is not totally harmless. It can imply a lot to her family and feel particular to some of them.
keep in mind this might be some sort of group response, and not only the fact that her sister just want to cuddle. |
13,552 | I toured a facility recently and saw a number of abbreviated side workstations connected to one man mixing suites with a mysterious red button cabled box. I asked my tour guide if it was the mixer chair ejection button. The tour guide said that it was for the "laugh man." He said that a laugh man comes in and sweetens production laugh tracks for sitcoms with a collection of SFX he carries with him that contains incredible variations of crowd reactions without identifiable language. (Thus, it can also be used as the M&E laugh track as well.) He says they take about an 1.5 hours to sweeten a 30 minute show and then they are done.
I would have assumed the laugh track would have been created in editorial by the sound editor. I have certainly been charged with that mission before.
Have you ever been a laugh man? Where does one get this mysterious ubiquitous walla? How do you use that red button. Tell me more. | 2012/04/15 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/13552",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/6487/"
] | To add mystery to your quest , once the laugh man has come and gone and the mix is done .. the tone guy is called in. He too comes with a box BUT his is filled with tone. Generally they have various tones in their box and skillfully applies his expertize to the master. and just like that before your can say dolby on ,, he is gone ! | Check it out! An article about Laughman, Bickelhaupt. Crazy interesting! <http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/laughtracks-2011-12/> |
441,156 | Consider a neutral atom. An external force acts on one of its valence electron so that it brings this valence electron to infinity away from the rest of the atom. The electron's kinetic energy does not change during this process. In other words, at every instant of time the external force is equal (or infinitesimally equal) and opposite to the attraction force of the rest of the atom on the electron.
If we do this, the final sum of mass of the electron at infinity and the mass of the rest of the atom will be larger than the initial mass of the atom. Does this mean that at every instant of time, when the external force is applied on the electron, the mass of the electron increases? But then the net force on the electron is zero so why will its mass change? | 2018/11/15 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/441156",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/208833/"
] | The mass of the electron is the same whether it is in some bound state with an ion or free. The mass of an atom depends on its state. When an electron is gradually brought from the ground state via excited states to a continuum state the mass of the combined system increases. The potential energy increases, while the kinetic energy decreases. | You are confusing classical with quantum regimes. The atom has the electrons in orbitals with definite energy, one cannot apply a continuous force of the kind you imagine to free an electron from an atom. It is *interactions and not forces* in the quantum regime. Only a photon with the appropriate quantized energy will do it, (or even higher if in a more complicated interaction of atom photon scattering).
[Take a hydrogen atom.](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html) For the electron to leave the proton at least 13.6 ev by a photon have to be provided to the atom, and the electron will be free. From then on to get more energy it will again need interactions with fields which can be continuous to take it to infinity by conservation of momentum, but the solutions of the hydrogen wavefunction will no longer be available to the electron. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | This is a matter of connotation.
It's entirely *possible* for the term 'filthy rich' to be taken as an offense, if the person saying it intends it as such. Certainly, if there is resentment behind the words, then the 'filthy' part could be emphasized to be an insult.
However, it's equally likely to be used in a completely benign way, usually among those who are rich or who don't terribly mind a person being rich.
You certainly wouldnt' want to use it if you're trying to 'properly address' someone's wealth - it's slang, and slang is never appropriate to use when speaking formally. But in casual conversation, you could very easily get away with saying it, so long as the context you are saying it in doesn't imply an insult, or emphasize the 'filthy' part of 'filthy rich'. | No you should not find this phrase offensive, unless you went to Eaton. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | I would not take offense at that statement. The actual comment in question was:
>
> I do mention that it is unkind to waste anybody's time, and interviewing if you have no intention of taking the job - lying as you put it - is wasting somebody's time. Besides of course he is really available for work, unless his parents are filthy rich everybody needs some form of income.
>
>
>
First of all, the author of the comment is not really talking about you and is not suggesting anything about your parents. The subject here is *everyone*, not you. The comment simply states that everyone needs income unless they are being supported by rich parents. It is not in any way suggesting that you do or do not need income or have such parents.
That said, and contrary to @EdwinAshworth's answer, *filthy rich* carries no negative connotations for me other than the concept of being extremely wealthy. This may itself be considered offensive by people but as far as I am concerned, *filthy rich* does not imply any kind of dishonesty. At least, no more so than *extremely rich* or similar phrases. This is supported by the definitions listed [here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/filthy+rich) and [here](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/filthy+rich).
So, the only negative connotation of filthy rich is that one is *too* rich. So much so that it is considered excessive. For example, somebody who owns 3 houses and 5 cars may be considered *rich*. One who owns 15 houses and 100 cars would be considered *filthy rich*.
However, Edwin tends to know what he's talking about and you also seem to have found a definition suggesting that the term has negative connotations so I guess it must have in certain dialects or contexts. I certainly do not read it as being intended to be offensive in the comment you are asking about however. | I don't think the term *filthy* when added in front of *rich* means that the money was earned by dishonest or unethical means. I think it means instead that the person is very rich *and* **they spend their money in ways that are overly excessive and not modest**. For example, buying and driving around a very expensive car with unnecessary embellishments (diamond-encrusted steering wheel, etc), or being excessive with their spending in other ways. This lack of modesty stirs jealousy and contempt among those less rich, generating negative emotions and creating such terms as a result. I've also heard the words *disgusting* and *appalling* applied to these same types of wealthy people too.
So, yes, it has a negative connotation to it, but my interpretation is that the negativity is mainly due to the way that the money is spent, not how it is earned. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | This is a matter of connotation.
It's entirely *possible* for the term 'filthy rich' to be taken as an offense, if the person saying it intends it as such. Certainly, if there is resentment behind the words, then the 'filthy' part could be emphasized to be an insult.
However, it's equally likely to be used in a completely benign way, usually among those who are rich or who don't terribly mind a person being rich.
You certainly wouldnt' want to use it if you're trying to 'properly address' someone's wealth - it's slang, and slang is never appropriate to use when speaking formally. But in casual conversation, you could very easily get away with saying it, so long as the context you are saying it in doesn't imply an insult, or emphasize the 'filthy' part of 'filthy rich'. | It's a term where there is certainly a connotation of something-not-quite-proper. Thus, one would be ill advised to write to royalty say: 'Ma'am, As you are filthy rich, would you please consider buying Accrington Stamford a new centre forward?'
However, one can imagine Bob Hope and Bing Crosby happily accusing each other of being filthy rich (and each letting the other pay for the drinks). Connotations are nebulous (and sometimes unpredictable) things – one has to consider one's audience. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | I don't think the term *filthy* when added in front of *rich* means that the money was earned by dishonest or unethical means. I think it means instead that the person is very rich *and* **they spend their money in ways that are overly excessive and not modest**. For example, buying and driving around a very expensive car with unnecessary embellishments (diamond-encrusted steering wheel, etc), or being excessive with their spending in other ways. This lack of modesty stirs jealousy and contempt among those less rich, generating negative emotions and creating such terms as a result. I've also heard the words *disgusting* and *appalling* applied to these same types of wealthy people too.
So, yes, it has a negative connotation to it, but my interpretation is that the negativity is mainly due to the way that the money is spent, not how it is earned. | No you should not find this phrase offensive, unless you went to Eaton. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | Filthy rich means you're so wealthy, it's practically obscene. (Note: It's the wealth itself that is filthy, not the people with the wealth, or even the way in which they got it.)
But in your context, I wouldn't take it as an insult in any case, since it was expressed as a conditional ("unless his parents are filthy rich") which does NOT imply anyone actually thinks your parents ARE filthy rich.
All this statement really means is "his parents probably aren't rich to the point that he can afford to not work."
If you're really in the mood to be insulted, I suppose you could take offense at the implications for your work ethic. | No you should not find this phrase offensive, unless you went to Eaton. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | Filthy rich means you're so wealthy, it's practically obscene. (Note: It's the wealth itself that is filthy, not the people with the wealth, or even the way in which they got it.)
But in your context, I wouldn't take it as an insult in any case, since it was expressed as a conditional ("unless his parents are filthy rich") which does NOT imply anyone actually thinks your parents ARE filthy rich.
All this statement really means is "his parents probably aren't rich to the point that he can afford to not work."
If you're really in the mood to be insulted, I suppose you could take offense at the implications for your work ethic. | It's a term where there is certainly a connotation of something-not-quite-proper. Thus, one would be ill advised to write to royalty say: 'Ma'am, As you are filthy rich, would you please consider buying Accrington Stamford a new centre forward?'
However, one can imagine Bob Hope and Bing Crosby happily accusing each other of being filthy rich (and each letting the other pay for the drinks). Connotations are nebulous (and sometimes unpredictable) things – one has to consider one's audience. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | This is a matter of connotation.
It's entirely *possible* for the term 'filthy rich' to be taken as an offense, if the person saying it intends it as such. Certainly, if there is resentment behind the words, then the 'filthy' part could be emphasized to be an insult.
However, it's equally likely to be used in a completely benign way, usually among those who are rich or who don't terribly mind a person being rich.
You certainly wouldnt' want to use it if you're trying to 'properly address' someone's wealth - it's slang, and slang is never appropriate to use when speaking formally. But in casual conversation, you could very easily get away with saying it, so long as the context you are saying it in doesn't imply an insult, or emphasize the 'filthy' part of 'filthy rich'. | I don't think the term *filthy* when added in front of *rich* means that the money was earned by dishonest or unethical means. I think it means instead that the person is very rich *and* **they spend their money in ways that are overly excessive and not modest**. For example, buying and driving around a very expensive car with unnecessary embellishments (diamond-encrusted steering wheel, etc), or being excessive with their spending in other ways. This lack of modesty stirs jealousy and contempt among those less rich, generating negative emotions and creating such terms as a result. I've also heard the words *disgusting* and *appalling* applied to these same types of wealthy people too.
So, yes, it has a negative connotation to it, but my interpretation is that the negativity is mainly due to the way that the money is spent, not how it is earned. |
137,545 | I am looking for a word or phrase that communicates a program's phase after it's pilot phase (sorry for the redundancy)
So if HUD has a pilot program right now, but I want to formulate a question of when will this program be (blank this is word I am looking for)
Thank you | 2013/11/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/137545",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/31003/"
] | Filthy rich means you're so wealthy, it's practically obscene. (Note: It's the wealth itself that is filthy, not the people with the wealth, or even the way in which they got it.)
But in your context, I wouldn't take it as an insult in any case, since it was expressed as a conditional ("unless his parents are filthy rich") which does NOT imply anyone actually thinks your parents ARE filthy rich.
All this statement really means is "his parents probably aren't rich to the point that he can afford to not work."
If you're really in the mood to be insulted, I suppose you could take offense at the implications for your work ethic. | I don't think the term *filthy* when added in front of *rich* means that the money was earned by dishonest or unethical means. I think it means instead that the person is very rich *and* **they spend their money in ways that are overly excessive and not modest**. For example, buying and driving around a very expensive car with unnecessary embellishments (diamond-encrusted steering wheel, etc), or being excessive with their spending in other ways. This lack of modesty stirs jealousy and contempt among those less rich, generating negative emotions and creating such terms as a result. I've also heard the words *disgusting* and *appalling* applied to these same types of wealthy people too.
So, yes, it has a negative connotation to it, but my interpretation is that the negativity is mainly due to the way that the money is spent, not how it is earned. |
638,753 | Well, everyone knows (I mean a lot of superpower users) that all kinds of multimedia applications need to read a part of the media files into the memory, and after processing, play that part for the user.For example, when you want to play an mp3 file using WMP, first it reads a chunk of data from the hard disk, and then plays that section, and if you check WMP's disk I/O activity during play time (using Process Hacker, or Process Explorer, or simply Task Manager), you would notice that based on the bitrate of the file, WMP keeps reading from the hard drive.
Now my question is this:
Does anyone here know any media player, or music player application which would instead of keeping reading from the mp3 files directly from the hard drive, would just load the whole file into the memory and play it from there (Something like what my old portable CD-Player does to save energy. I have tested it this way: I insert a disk, then make it think (stupid little machine:) that the door is closed so it could play the disk (I have been careful about the laser thingy), then I hit the play button and I could watch what is going on inside: It starts spinning my CD till it finds the first track, then it again keeps spinning for about 45 seconds until it has loaded the whole mp3 song into its memory (it is made in japan, and I paid a good load of money to buy it about 13 years ago, so it has a huge memory, I sometimes wanted to find the memory chipset and use it in my electronic projects, but I simply couldn't hurt it), and when the whole song is in the memory, the engine's electricity is cut, but the CD is still spinning and this way it charges the batteries a little bit(according to the manual), when the song is about to finish (about 10 seconds to end) it starts the engine again, and based on the program (if any) goes for the next track, and this keeps going on till the disk or the program or the batter are ended or ran out.
I know this would not be practical for really huge video files on PCs with low RAM, like trying to play an 8GB movie using this technique, but I am sure this would not be a problem for mp3 files of less than 50MB or even 200MB. Also we shouldn't forget that we could split the files, like the application reads 5MB of the file into the memory, plays it, then goes for the next 5MB.
So is there any applications out there for windows that would load the whole song(media file) into the memory? Or is there even a way to write such a program?
Thank you so much for your time and answer. You can not imagine how much I would be thankful to you if you help me. | 2013/08/30 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/638753",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/212148/"
] | The Nullsoft MPEG audio decoder for Winamp allows user controllable file buffering, I have it set at 16MiB which will load almost every file I have directly to RAM before playing.
In fact, most media players have a certain amount of prebuffering and a certain read rate, the read rate may be hard coded (say 128KiB at a time) or variable based on the average bitrate of the file.
Some media players may use their 'network buffering' setting for local content buffering as well, the best way to tell for sure is to increase the buffer and load the file, and see if the read behavior changes. | I think the setting (described here <http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=182563>) as Preferences > Plugins > Input > Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder > Full File Buffering does that (Winamp 5.622) |
119,592 | In the open scenes of the Blues Brothers (1980), we see Jake Blues paroled from jail for good behavior. Is it ever explained, in this movie, or the sequel, or in any other media, why he had been incarcerated in the first place? | 2023/02/17 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/119592",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/940/"
] | Reading through [a transcript](https://www.scripts.com/script.php?id=the_blues_brothers_4392&p=5) of the movie we see:
>
> The reason he got locked in the slammer in the first place...
>
>
> was for sticking up a gas station to cover you guys.
>
>
> You're kidding.
>
>
> He pulled that job to pay for the band's room-service tab...
>
>
> from that Kiwanis gig in Coal City.
>
>
> You did?
>
>
> That's right.
>
>
> So I don't want to hear any more of this small-change sh\*t.
>
>
>
(I cleaned it up some) | Presumably a robbery.
[In the script](https://www.scribd.com/doc/170707935/blues-brothers-original-script), there is this line:
>
> SISTER MARY: So now, what do you two have planned... another cheap robbery...?
>
>
>
But I don't think it is in the movie. |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | >
> **[surpass](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surpass)** sur·pass /sərˈpas/
>
> **1.** exceed; be greater than. be better than.
>
>
>
alternative synonyms: *transcend*; *outdo*; *outshine*; *outclass*; *improve on*; *top*; *trump*; *better*.
>
> The cover **outshines** the original (etc.)
>
>
>
The following search: [cover song "outshines the original"](https://www.google.it/search?q=the%20cover%20outshines&oq=the%20cover%20outshines&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.6978j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=cover%20song%20%22outshine%20the%20original%22&start=0) on Google produced a respectable 82,300 results. It is nowhere high a number as "[be better than](https://www.google.it/search?q=the%20cover%20outshines&oq=the%20cover%20outshines&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.6978j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=cover%20song%20%22better%20than%20the%20original%22&start=20)" (26,800,000 results) but the OP asked for a snappier one word expression, the term *outshine* is not only shorter but it is more striking and less cliché. | You can also say-
* The cover song **[scored over](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/score)** the original. |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | To *be better than* something is to ***[eclipse](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eclipse)*** it, depriving it of significance:
>
> Jill's cover of *Nothing Else Matters* ***eclipses*** the original.
>
>
>
Also see: [best](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/best), [trounce](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/trounce), [upstage](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/upstage) | This phrase may be used to express the same idea:
>
> He made it his own.
>
>
> |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | To *be better than* something is to ***[eclipse](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eclipse)*** it, depriving it of significance:
>
> Jill's cover of *Nothing Else Matters* ***eclipses*** the original.
>
>
>
Also see: [best](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/best), [trounce](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/trounce), [upstage](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/upstage) | All of the phrases provided above are just that -- phrases, and there are nuances to the different verbs that people suggest (supersede, scale, transcend, eclipse). But no, there is no single word in English that means "a copy that is better than the original." Given all the clunky phrases suggested, I think we need one. Maybe you could create it? |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | A useful word to describe this concept is *supersede*, though I would use it carefully when talking about music. Some songs do supersede the original version, Santana's, *She's Not There*, as at the time it was a very modern version compared to the original and is frequently regarded as his song , but certain purists would be horified at that notion. | I suggest the word "refine", as in the cover songs **refine** the originals or (if you need a noun) are **refinements** of the originals.
From the [Mirriam-Webster dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refine) - "Refine: to improve (something) by making small changes" |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | For a noun, which seems to be what you are looking for, try **improvement**, e.g. "Of the three covers we heard tonight, only two were improvements on the original songs." | This phrase may be used to express the same idea:
>
> He made it his own.
>
>
> |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | I suggest the word "refine", as in the cover songs **refine** the originals or (if you need a noun) are **refinements** of the originals.
From the [Mirriam-Webster dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refine) - "Refine: to improve (something) by making small changes" | In the context of music, "outperforms" would be an interesting variant of 'surpasses'. ("Band A's cover of The Song outperformed Band B's original in every way.")
Or, perhaps, "overshadows" (especially if the original song was by Cliff Richard and the, err, Shadows). |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | **transcendent**; adjective, tran·scen·dent -[MW](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcendent)
>
> a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
>
> b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
>
>
>
Johnny Cash's rendition of *Hurt* is **transcendent**; I can't stand Reznor's voice (just an example, the reverse is actually true for me).
Or you could say:
Johnny Cash's rendition of *Hurt* is **[better than the original copy]**; I can't stand Reznor's voice. | In the context of music, "outperforms" would be an interesting variant of 'surpasses'. ("Band A's cover of The Song outperformed Band B's original in every way.")
Or, perhaps, "overshadows" (especially if the original song was by Cliff Richard and the, err, Shadows). |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | A useful word to describe this concept is *supersede*, though I would use it carefully when talking about music. Some songs do supersede the original version, Santana's, *She's Not There*, as at the time it was a very modern version compared to the original and is frequently regarded as his song , but certain purists would be horified at that notion. | This phrase may be used to express the same idea:
>
> He made it his own.
>
>
> |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | For a noun, which seems to be what you are looking for, try **improvement**, e.g. "Of the three covers we heard tonight, only two were improvements on the original songs." | A useful word to describe this concept is *supersede*, though I would use it carefully when talking about music. Some songs do supersede the original version, Santana's, *She's Not There*, as at the time it was a very modern version compared to the original and is frequently regarded as his song , but certain purists would be horified at that notion. |
233,891 | I want to use that word to talk about the cover songs which are better than the original songs.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. However, I am specifically looking for a single word replacement for "a copy which is better than the original." | 2015/03/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/233891",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/92171/"
] | A useful word to describe this concept is *supersede*, though I would use it carefully when talking about music. Some songs do supersede the original version, Santana's, *She's Not There*, as at the time it was a very modern version compared to the original and is frequently regarded as his song , but certain purists would be horified at that notion. | You can also say-
* The cover song **[scored over](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/score)** the original. |
230,988 | I made an arena, and it can kill everything but I can't make it all the way to round 15. I'm doing it with melee: dragon armor and a mushroom spear. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/q3N17.jpg) | 2015/08/06 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/230988",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/120566/"
] | Maybe this is a silly answer but I found that it was trivial to get to Wave 15 with one other player fighting with me in a simple arena made of a dirt pit with a couple levels of platforms. We both had level-appropriate equipment (we only used our characters while playing on our specific world together) and could effectively kill anything within seconds of it spawning, going through multiple waves every minute.
Everything's easier with a friend! | Try making a 10 block high, 5 blocks across with lava in the middle farm.
And put water candles (you can find them in the dungeon) inside.
And try having a minion with you to kill them faster. That's what worked for me. And also make sure your on hardmode. |
230,988 | I made an arena, and it can kill everything but I can't make it all the way to round 15. I'm doing it with melee: dragon armor and a mushroom spear. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/q3N17.jpg) | 2015/08/06 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/230988",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/120566/"
] | Maybe this is a silly answer but I found that it was trivial to get to Wave 15 with one other player fighting with me in a simple arena made of a dirt pit with a couple levels of platforms. We both had level-appropriate equipment (we only used our characters while playing on our specific world together) and could effectively kill anything within seconds of it spawning, going through multiple waves every minute.
Everything's easier with a friend! | In the mobile version of Terraria, it won't show you the percentage of the event. The only way to get to wave 15 is to kill a lot of monsters. Kill everything you find insight. Getting a friend or two to help is a good idea too as it makes it way quicker and easier. Also, pinch your screen so that your avatar is really close as it increases the spawn rates off screen, or at least that's what I thought. Your using Dragon Armor and a Melee weapon, so you shouldn't worry too much about not seeing monsters. Use spawn rate increasing items like the Battle Potion and Water Candle. Hope this helps. |
2,494 | I heard that in the offspring of Imam Ali bin Abu-Talib (may Allah be pleased with him and honor his face), there were ones who were called:
* Abu-Bakr
* Omar
* 'Aisha
Is this true? could you mention them (or some at least)? | 2012/09/07 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2494",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/167/"
] | Yes, this is true. I could mention:
**Abu-Bakrs** in the offspring of Imam Ali:
* Abu-Bakr, son of Imam Ali may Allah be pleased with him and honor his face himself and his wife Laila bint (daughter of) Mas'ud.[1](http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=97299)
* [Abu-Bakr](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abi_Bakr_ibn_Hasan), son of Imam Hasan bin Ali may Allah be pleased with both
**Omars** in the offspring of Imam Ali:
* Omar, son of Imam Ali himself and his wife Um Habibah bint Rabi'aa.[1](http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=97299)
* Omar the senior and Omar the junior, sons of Imam Hussein bin Ali may Allah be pleased with both. [citation](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8OEZkHfxEj0J%3aar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A_%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)
* Omar ibn Zain Al-Abideen Ali bin Hussein bin Ali [citation](http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF#.D8.A3.D8.A8.D9.86.D8.A7.D8.A4.D9.87)
**'Aisha's** in the offspring of Imam Ali:
* 'Aisha bint Ali Al-Hadi [citation](http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A#.D9.86.D8.B3.D8.A8.D9.87)
I'll research and improve this question with more figures and citations, Allah willing. | This names are usually used by Sunni Muslims to try to prove Imam Ali a.s. loved the Sunni Caliphs and named his children after them.
**About the Kuniyah Abubakr:**
About Abubakr it is not a name to be given by father of one to the child. Abubakr is a Kuniyah (title) which is given to one by people. Any one called Abubakr has another name. Also Abubakr was a popular Kuniyah used by many of Sahaba and was not a name specific to the Caliph (in Sunni view) Abubakr unlike today that this name is a specific name. If Imam Ali a.s. wanted to use the name of Caliph used his name (Abdu-Kaaba, Ateeq, Abdullah,..) and not his Kuniyah. The name of this son was Abdullah and was martyred in Karbaka.
**Reference:**
>
> قتل عبد الله بن علي بن أبي طالب، وهو ابن خمس وعشرين سنة ولا عقب له.
>
>
>
الاصفهاني، أبو الفرج علي بن الحسين (متوفاي356)، مقاتل الطالبيين، ج 1، ص 22.
**About the name Umar:**
One of habits of Umar (the Caliph in Sunni view) was changing names of people and he changed name of son of Imam Ali a.s. to Umar.
**reference:**
>
> وكان عمر بن الخطاب سمّى عمر بن عليّ بإسمه.
>
>
>
البلاذري، أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر (متوفاي279هـ)، أنساب الأشراف، ج 1، ص 297.
>
> ومولده في أيام عمر. فعمر سماه باسمه.
>
>
>
الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، (متوفاي748هـ)، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 4، ص 134، تحقيق: شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1413هـ.
Only 3 examples of changes of names of other people by Umar with Sunni references:
1. إبراهيم بن الحارث بـ عبد الرحمن.
>
> عبد الرحمن بن الحارث.... كان أبوه سماه إبراهيم فغيّر عمر اسمه.
>
>
>
العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ)، الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة، ج 5، ص 29، تحقيق: علي محمد البجاوي، ناشر: دار الجيل - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1412 - 1992.
2. الأجدع أبى مسروق بـ عبد الرحمن.
>
> الأجدع بن مالك بن أمية الهمداني الوادعي... فسماه عمر عبد الرحمن.
>
>
>
العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل (متوفاي852هـ)، الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة، ج 1، ص 186، رقم: 425، تحقيق: علي محمد البجاوي، ناشر: دار الجيل - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1412 - 1992.
3- ثعلبة بن سعد بـ معلي:
>
> وكان إسم المعلى ثعلبة، فسماه عمر بن الخطاب المعلى.
>
>
>
الصحاري العوتبي، أبو المنذر سلمة بن مسلم بن إبراهيم (متوفاي: 511هـ)، الأنساب، ج 1، ص 250.
**About name Uthman:**
Imam Ali (a.s) himself said that:
>
> I named my son Uthman for my brother Uthman Ibn Mzoun
>
>
>
**Sunni reference**
>
> إنّما سمّيته بإسم أخي عثمان بن مظعون.
>
>
>
الاصفهاني، أبو الفرج علي بن الحسين (متوفاي356)، مقاتل الطالبيين، ج 1، ص 23.
Also Ibn Hajar Asqalani recorded the names of 26 of sahaba with name of Uthman:
>
> . عثمان بن ابوجهم الأسلمي؛ 2. عثمان بن حكيم بن ابوالأوقص؛ 3. عثمان بن
> حميد بن زهير بن الحارث؛ 4. عثمان بن حنيف بالمهملة؛ 5. عثمان بن ربيعة
> بن أهبان؛ 6. عثمان بن ربيعة الثقفي؛ 7. عثمان بن سعيد بن أحمر؛ 8. عثمان
> بن شماس بن الشريد؛ 9. عثمان بن طلحة بن ابوطلحة؛ 10. عثمان بن ابوالعاص؛
> 11. عثمان بن عامر بن عمرو؛ 12. عثمان بن عامر بن معتب؛ 13. عثمان بن عبد غنم؛ 14. عثمان بن عبيد الله بن عثمان؛ 15. عثمان بن عثمان بن الشريد؛
> 16. عثمان بن عثمان الثقفي؛ 17. عثمان بن عمرو بن رفاعة؛ 18. عثمان بن عمرو الأنصاري؛ 19. عثمان بن عمرو بن الجموح؛ 20. عثمان بن قيس بن
> ابوالعاص؛ 21. عثمان بن مظعون؛ 22. عثمان بن معاذ بن عثمان؛ 23. عثمان بن
> نوفل زعم؛ 24 . عثمان بن وهب المخزومي؛ 25. عثمان الجهني؛ 26. عثمان بن
> عفان.
>
>
>
**reference:**
العسقلاني، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل الشافعي، الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة، ج 4، ص 447 ـ 463، تحقيق: علي محمد البجاوي، ناشر: دار الجيل - بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1412 - 1992
Also the names you mentioned were popular names at that time and does not mean being about Sunni Caliphs.
Also names of children of Imams are not recorded clearly and there are different narrations about number and names of their children that all of them are not authentic.
Also some Shia scholars say Imams sometimes names their children with Sunni names and even married to families of Sunni kings of their times in order to make unity between Shia and Sunni against enemies of Islam and prevent civil wars that lead in weakening of Islam that harms both Shia and Sunni and Islam generally. Like prophet that marries to different tribes of Arabs to unite them in Islam.
An important question from Sunni brothers in this regard is if naming means loving so those who claim to love Ahl Bayt like Umayyads, etc. how many of their children are named after them by names like Ali, Hussain, Fatima,...?
Also Sahih Bukhari says Ali a.s. did not give bayat to Abuabkr until 6 months that peoves he had conflict with Abubakr.
**More Sunni references and detailed answer:**
* [www.valiasr-aj.com](http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/page.php?id=437&bank=question&startrec=2) |
86,519 | I tried to install win 8 on mac using new bootcamp. the problem is that bootcamp formats the drive as Fat 32, and the installation does not start because it needs NTFS format. when format bootcamp drive as NTFS manually and install the win 8, win 8 does not start up. i get the beginning black screen with no change. Can anybody help me here?
Thanks | 2013/03/23 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/86519",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/45866/"
] | You may need to go through a firmware update. Apple noted the issue [here](http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4499). | I prefer to use an app like VMWare Fusion, which enables me to have both OSX and Windows 8 open at the same time. I can even move files from one to the other.
Parallels is a "parallel" app to VMWare Fusion. I prefer the latter.
Stan Kossen |
191,001 | We have recently received a few client contracts where all client files must be encrypted at all times. The challenge we are having is sharing encrypted files and simultaneous access on network shares.
There are thousands of files which need to remain encrypted and accessed by different users and services. Microsoft's encryption hasn't worked very well for us under Windows XP and assigning multiple certificates to a file so multiple people may access them is cumbersome and error-prone.
We are currently using PGP NetShare on our clients folders but are running into issues when multiple people access a file (e.g. Microsoft Access) or viewing thousands of files in a folder (the list keeps refreshing returning your view to the top, Windows Explorer).
We are contacting PGP about these issues, but I thought it a good time to find out what has worked in the wild; what solutions others have come up with to deal with selective file encryption on network shares.
Our basic need to is to restrict file access to only those who are allowed to access the files for a given client. This restriction will be directory based, so there are not files that are encrypted and not-encrypted in the same directory. The files are stored on Windows Server 2008 storage server access via Windows shares. In a best case scenario we would be able to allow a service (using network credentials/user) to access and decrypt the files on a share. Something not possible with PGP NetShare (they can be access, but not decrypted). | 2010/10/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/191001",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1681/"
] | Do the files need to be encrypted, or do you need to keep unauthorized people out? These are two distinct requirements.
I'd consider using a system level encryption on the files, on the Server 2008 computer, BitLocker might work well. Then use IPSec for encrypting LAN traffic. And just use normal access controls for authorization. | EFS is the way to go: <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypting_File_System>
You can allow several users the access to the encrypted files (ie. Windows will encrypt/decrypt the files on the fly for them)
Works very well on Win7 / Windows 2008. |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | I think the whole process indicates order. I am not sure the cross model is relevant. All tribes around the tabernacle seems more appropriate, with the order of breaking camp and movement. Rajaratnam Abel March 17, 2020. | Beyond the rather cool pictorial representations though, this layout brings to fore the discourse around God's desire for structure and order within the ranks the NT Church and the centrality of the Presence and Spirit of the God as symbolised by the Tabernacle to the daily existence and culture of the church, as symbolised by Isreal in this case. This is an issue we still struggle with in our worship services and church organisations today. How much say so do we give the leading and manisfestation of the Spirit relative to our own pre-conceived 'order of service'. Who is at the centre of our local Church structure, the ego and whims of the Senior Pastor or the Holy Spirit? With all the denominations and sects, where is the overarching governance Structure like in the early NT Church? |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If you do the math, you'll find that the greatest number of people were on one side of the tabernacle with the least amount of people directly opposite on the other side. The two remaining sides had roughly equal numbers. Thus, the view from the air would be the form of a cross! Pretty cool, huh?
al | Beyond the rather cool pictorial representations though, this layout brings to fore the discourse around God's desire for structure and order within the ranks the NT Church and the centrality of the Presence and Spirit of the God as symbolised by the Tabernacle to the daily existence and culture of the church, as symbolised by Isreal in this case. This is an issue we still struggle with in our worship services and church organisations today. How much say so do we give the leading and manisfestation of the Spirit relative to our own pre-conceived 'order of service'. Who is at the centre of our local Church structure, the ego and whims of the Senior Pastor or the Holy Spirit? With all the denominations and sects, where is the overarching governance Structure like in the early NT Church? |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | What the above poster that is shooting down the "Cross" theory is forgetting are the tribe of the Levites. They numbered 22,000. We dont find this out in Numbers 2. God keeps it hidden (Numbers 2:33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses.). HOWEVER....Numbers 3:40-43 we learn the Levites number...22,000. So now place the Tabernacle in the middle and generate the Levite tribe around that SHAPE....FACING the direction of movement (Judah). This causes the 22k to form a rectangle facing toward Judahs leg. This brings about a 4/5s ratio approximately. | Beyond the rather cool pictorial representations though, this layout brings to fore the discourse around God's desire for structure and order within the ranks the NT Church and the centrality of the Presence and Spirit of the God as symbolised by the Tabernacle to the daily existence and culture of the church, as symbolised by Isreal in this case. This is an issue we still struggle with in our worship services and church organisations today. How much say so do we give the leading and manisfestation of the Spirit relative to our own pre-conceived 'order of service'. Who is at the centre of our local Church structure, the ego and whims of the Senior Pastor or the Holy Spirit? With all the denominations and sects, where is the overarching governance Structure like in the early NT Church? |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | The cross model is very vital in the arrangement of the camp and the tribes. The reason being that at the center of the cross arrangement( where the Tabernacle/altar was stationed to be administered by the Levi) there was a revelation which foreshadowed the sacrificial offering that will be performed on the the cross of Calvary in which Jesus Christ will be the once and for all ultimate sacrifice. Secondly, the cross model and the pattern was a symbolic guarantee for there security against the attack of the enemies throughout their journey to the promise land. Their failure to maintain that specific pattern will make them vulnerable in my own opinion. Thirdly, the cross model of the pattern of the camp was an indication which foreshadowed that out of the tribes of Israel the sacrificial Lamb of God will come from within the tribes and this was Jesus Christ who came out of the tribe of Judah as the Lamb of God which took away the sin of the world. | Beyond the rather cool pictorial representations though, this layout brings to fore the discourse around God's desire for structure and order within the ranks the NT Church and the centrality of the Presence and Spirit of the God as symbolised by the Tabernacle to the daily existence and culture of the church, as symbolised by Isreal in this case. This is an issue we still struggle with in our worship services and church organisations today. How much say so do we give the leading and manisfestation of the Spirit relative to our own pre-conceived 'order of service'. Who is at the centre of our local Church structure, the ego and whims of the Senior Pastor or the Holy Spirit? With all the denominations and sects, where is the overarching governance Structure like in the early NT Church? |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If taken literally, that is, the tribes must camp specifically in one direction, when viewed from above, the encampment could be taken as forming a cross as shown in this diagram: 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ku6R8.jpg)
However, the individual totals can be depicted as shown, yet the totals along the two axis (see below) do not agree with this picture. The East/West axis (representing the upright) totals 294,500 and the North/South axis (representing the horizontal beam) totals 309,050. The horizontal representation should be longer than the vertical. In addition, if the encampment arrangement is patterned after the order when the people move, the tribe of Judah is misplaced: Judah leads out and should be furthest from the center, not the closest.
More practical would be to take the instructions to mean in the East, in the South, in the West, and in the North. Then the encampment could be pictured like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXlf8.jpg)
Unlike the "cross" arrangement which places some tribes much further from the center, this arrangement has the benefit of locating everyone closest to the Tent of Meeting. It also fits how some events are described. For example, Aaron ran through the camp with incense (Numbers 16:46-47). Finally, when everyone moved, Judah could lead (Numbers 2:9) and the other tribes could follow in a single column, the most likely way of moving.
When a tribe's mother and birth order is factored, there is a distinct pattern:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MZNuT.jpg)
The North and South groups are made from only first and second born except Rachel's; the West group is made from Rachel's first and second sons; the East group from Leah's fourth, fifth, and sixth sons. Thus, there are three groups of first and second born sons, and one group of fourth, fifth, and sixth sons which "face" Levi, the only third son.
---
Note:
1. For example Numbers 22:41. Image from [Gracepoint Berekley Church](http://www.gracepointdevotions.org/2011/02/07/numbers-2-israelite-encampment/) | If you do the math, you'll find that the greatest number of people were on one side of the tabernacle with the least amount of people directly opposite on the other side. The two remaining sides had roughly equal numbers. Thus, the view from the air would be the form of a cross! Pretty cool, huh?
al |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If taken literally, that is, the tribes must camp specifically in one direction, when viewed from above, the encampment could be taken as forming a cross as shown in this diagram: 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ku6R8.jpg)
However, the individual totals can be depicted as shown, yet the totals along the two axis (see below) do not agree with this picture. The East/West axis (representing the upright) totals 294,500 and the North/South axis (representing the horizontal beam) totals 309,050. The horizontal representation should be longer than the vertical. In addition, if the encampment arrangement is patterned after the order when the people move, the tribe of Judah is misplaced: Judah leads out and should be furthest from the center, not the closest.
More practical would be to take the instructions to mean in the East, in the South, in the West, and in the North. Then the encampment could be pictured like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXlf8.jpg)
Unlike the "cross" arrangement which places some tribes much further from the center, this arrangement has the benefit of locating everyone closest to the Tent of Meeting. It also fits how some events are described. For example, Aaron ran through the camp with incense (Numbers 16:46-47). Finally, when everyone moved, Judah could lead (Numbers 2:9) and the other tribes could follow in a single column, the most likely way of moving.
When a tribe's mother and birth order is factored, there is a distinct pattern:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MZNuT.jpg)
The North and South groups are made from only first and second born except Rachel's; the West group is made from Rachel's first and second sons; the East group from Leah's fourth, fifth, and sixth sons. Thus, there are three groups of first and second born sons, and one group of fourth, fifth, and sixth sons which "face" Levi, the only third son.
---
Note:
1. For example Numbers 22:41. Image from [Gracepoint Berekley Church](http://www.gracepointdevotions.org/2011/02/07/numbers-2-israelite-encampment/) | There is a viz on the tubee called Symbolisms Of The Cross In The Old Testament. You will find this as part of that. |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | There is a viz on the tubee called Symbolisms Of The Cross In The Old Testament. You will find this as part of that. | Beyond the rather cool pictorial representations though, this layout brings to fore the discourse around God's desire for structure and order within the ranks the NT Church and the centrality of the Presence and Spirit of the God as symbolised by the Tabernacle to the daily existence and culture of the church, as symbolised by Isreal in this case. This is an issue we still struggle with in our worship services and church organisations today. How much say so do we give the leading and manisfestation of the Spirit relative to our own pre-conceived 'order of service'. Who is at the centre of our local Church structure, the ego and whims of the Senior Pastor or the Holy Spirit? With all the denominations and sects, where is the overarching governance Structure like in the early NT Church? |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If taken literally, that is, the tribes must camp specifically in one direction, when viewed from above, the encampment could be taken as forming a cross as shown in this diagram: 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ku6R8.jpg)
However, the individual totals can be depicted as shown, yet the totals along the two axis (see below) do not agree with this picture. The East/West axis (representing the upright) totals 294,500 and the North/South axis (representing the horizontal beam) totals 309,050. The horizontal representation should be longer than the vertical. In addition, if the encampment arrangement is patterned after the order when the people move, the tribe of Judah is misplaced: Judah leads out and should be furthest from the center, not the closest.
More practical would be to take the instructions to mean in the East, in the South, in the West, and in the North. Then the encampment could be pictured like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXlf8.jpg)
Unlike the "cross" arrangement which places some tribes much further from the center, this arrangement has the benefit of locating everyone closest to the Tent of Meeting. It also fits how some events are described. For example, Aaron ran through the camp with incense (Numbers 16:46-47). Finally, when everyone moved, Judah could lead (Numbers 2:9) and the other tribes could follow in a single column, the most likely way of moving.
When a tribe's mother and birth order is factored, there is a distinct pattern:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MZNuT.jpg)
The North and South groups are made from only first and second born except Rachel's; the West group is made from Rachel's first and second sons; the East group from Leah's fourth, fifth, and sixth sons. Thus, there are three groups of first and second born sons, and one group of fourth, fifth, and sixth sons which "face" Levi, the only third son.
---
Note:
1. For example Numbers 22:41. Image from [Gracepoint Berekley Church](http://www.gracepointdevotions.org/2011/02/07/numbers-2-israelite-encampment/) | I think the whole process indicates order. I am not sure the cross model is relevant. All tribes around the tabernacle seems more appropriate, with the order of breaking camp and movement. Rajaratnam Abel March 17, 2020. |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If taken literally, that is, the tribes must camp specifically in one direction, when viewed from above, the encampment could be taken as forming a cross as shown in this diagram: 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ku6R8.jpg)
However, the individual totals can be depicted as shown, yet the totals along the two axis (see below) do not agree with this picture. The East/West axis (representing the upright) totals 294,500 and the North/South axis (representing the horizontal beam) totals 309,050. The horizontal representation should be longer than the vertical. In addition, if the encampment arrangement is patterned after the order when the people move, the tribe of Judah is misplaced: Judah leads out and should be furthest from the center, not the closest.
More practical would be to take the instructions to mean in the East, in the South, in the West, and in the North. Then the encampment could be pictured like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXlf8.jpg)
Unlike the "cross" arrangement which places some tribes much further from the center, this arrangement has the benefit of locating everyone closest to the Tent of Meeting. It also fits how some events are described. For example, Aaron ran through the camp with incense (Numbers 16:46-47). Finally, when everyone moved, Judah could lead (Numbers 2:9) and the other tribes could follow in a single column, the most likely way of moving.
When a tribe's mother and birth order is factored, there is a distinct pattern:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MZNuT.jpg)
The North and South groups are made from only first and second born except Rachel's; the West group is made from Rachel's first and second sons; the East group from Leah's fourth, fifth, and sixth sons. Thus, there are three groups of first and second born sons, and one group of fourth, fifth, and sixth sons which "face" Levi, the only third son.
---
Note:
1. For example Numbers 22:41. Image from [Gracepoint Berekley Church](http://www.gracepointdevotions.org/2011/02/07/numbers-2-israelite-encampment/) | What the above poster that is shooting down the "Cross" theory is forgetting are the tribe of the Levites. They numbered 22,000. We dont find this out in Numbers 2. God keeps it hidden (Numbers 2:33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses.). HOWEVER....Numbers 3:40-43 we learn the Levites number...22,000. So now place the Tabernacle in the middle and generate the Levite tribe around that SHAPE....FACING the direction of movement (Judah). This causes the 22k to form a rectangle facing toward Judahs leg. This brings about a 4/5s ratio approximately. |
29,842 | [Numbers 2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV) consists entirely of God giving commandments as to how the Israelite camp should be arranged. From the NIV:
>
> On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Issachar will camp next to them. […]
>
>
> The tribe of Zebulun will be next. […]
>
>
> All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first. […]
>
>
> [The rest of the tribes are described]
>
>
> So the Israelites did everything the Lord commanded Moses; that is the way they encamped under their standards, and that is the way they set out, each of them with their clan and family.
>
>
>
It seems strange to me that God would give explicit instructions as to who should be camped next to whom and the order they should be led, when God seems to be unconcerned with trivial details like that for the rest of the journey. For instance, he doesn't give city planning details for the cities that the Israelites eventually rule.
Considering the narrative of Numbers 2, why did God give instructions about the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps? What purpose did that serve by having God command this arrangement, rather than leaving it up to the personal preference of the tribes to camp wherever they wanted to? | 2017/10/04 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/29842",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/16690/"
] | If taken literally, that is, the tribes must camp specifically in one direction, when viewed from above, the encampment could be taken as forming a cross as shown in this diagram: 1
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ku6R8.jpg)
However, the individual totals can be depicted as shown, yet the totals along the two axis (see below) do not agree with this picture. The East/West axis (representing the upright) totals 294,500 and the North/South axis (representing the horizontal beam) totals 309,050. The horizontal representation should be longer than the vertical. In addition, if the encampment arrangement is patterned after the order when the people move, the tribe of Judah is misplaced: Judah leads out and should be furthest from the center, not the closest.
More practical would be to take the instructions to mean in the East, in the South, in the West, and in the North. Then the encampment could be pictured like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OXlf8.jpg)
Unlike the "cross" arrangement which places some tribes much further from the center, this arrangement has the benefit of locating everyone closest to the Tent of Meeting. It also fits how some events are described. For example, Aaron ran through the camp with incense (Numbers 16:46-47). Finally, when everyone moved, Judah could lead (Numbers 2:9) and the other tribes could follow in a single column, the most likely way of moving.
When a tribe's mother and birth order is factored, there is a distinct pattern:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MZNuT.jpg)
The North and South groups are made from only first and second born except Rachel's; the West group is made from Rachel's first and second sons; the East group from Leah's fourth, fifth, and sixth sons. Thus, there are three groups of first and second born sons, and one group of fourth, fifth, and sixth sons which "face" Levi, the only third son.
---
Note:
1. For example Numbers 22:41. Image from [Gracepoint Berekley Church](http://www.gracepointdevotions.org/2011/02/07/numbers-2-israelite-encampment/) | The cross model is very vital in the arrangement of the camp and the tribes. The reason being that at the center of the cross arrangement( where the Tabernacle/altar was stationed to be administered by the Levi) there was a revelation which foreshadowed the sacrificial offering that will be performed on the the cross of Calvary in which Jesus Christ will be the once and for all ultimate sacrifice. Secondly, the cross model and the pattern was a symbolic guarantee for there security against the attack of the enemies throughout their journey to the promise land. Their failure to maintain that specific pattern will make them vulnerable in my own opinion. Thirdly, the cross model of the pattern of the camp was an indication which foreshadowed that out of the tribes of Israel the sacrificial Lamb of God will come from within the tribes and this was Jesus Christ who came out of the tribe of Judah as the Lamb of God which took away the sin of the world. |
124,222 | I handed my notice in on Monday effective immediately at my current employer as the job was not as described at interview stage.
Rightly or wrongly I have withheld on handed my phone and laptop back in until I have been paid my £200 expenses owed.
I have emailed the director of the company who has been very unprofessional with his worded emails back.
He has said when the items have been returned he will pay my expenses which is fair enough.
I said I would post them today.
At about 4pm he sent me an email (he probably assumed I had posted the items at that point) saying I owe 130 pounds for the Christmas party as I won’t be attending now and asking how I wish to pay this.
I have never at any stage been advised if I don’t attend I would have to pay any cancellation costs and I believe if I hadn’t still had the phone and laptop that I’d had ever received a reply on email.
Where do I stand?
Do I have to pay the costs to a function that was booked in August when I started in November? Can they refuse to pay me? | 2018/12/06 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124222",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95431/"
] | **Give back the equipment and write off the £200**
While you make technically have a case, you're going to spend more money going to court. Secondly, your former employer likely has a lawyer/barrister on retainer. A professional will make sure you spend over £200 is money/time or both.
They DO have a case if you've kept equipment that is not yours. Give that back NOW!
As for the £130 cancellation, did you sign a contract mentioning this? You likely didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm betting the guy is trying to recoup the money, and have a very poor legal leg to stand on. You can try not paying it and just seeing what happens.
The company made decided to play hard-ball "on the priniciple of it." | I am not a lawyer but holding the company's property hostage is probably not the best way to get the money you are owed. In fact, you could be accused of theft. I would return their property, and if the £200 is worth fighting for I would hire a lawyer. |
124,222 | I handed my notice in on Monday effective immediately at my current employer as the job was not as described at interview stage.
Rightly or wrongly I have withheld on handed my phone and laptop back in until I have been paid my £200 expenses owed.
I have emailed the director of the company who has been very unprofessional with his worded emails back.
He has said when the items have been returned he will pay my expenses which is fair enough.
I said I would post them today.
At about 4pm he sent me an email (he probably assumed I had posted the items at that point) saying I owe 130 pounds for the Christmas party as I won’t be attending now and asking how I wish to pay this.
I have never at any stage been advised if I don’t attend I would have to pay any cancellation costs and I believe if I hadn’t still had the phone and laptop that I’d had ever received a reply on email.
Where do I stand?
Do I have to pay the costs to a function that was booked in August when I started in November? Can they refuse to pay me? | 2018/12/06 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124222",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95431/"
] | I am not a lawyer but holding the company's property hostage is probably not the best way to get the money you are owed. In fact, you could be accused of theft. I would return their property, and if the £200 is worth fighting for I would hire a lawyer. | Well, they are scam artists. That demand of theirs is just ridiculous. So you call them again and ask for your money. If they mention the Christmas party, you say that it was a good joke, and you want your money. |
124,222 | I handed my notice in on Monday effective immediately at my current employer as the job was not as described at interview stage.
Rightly or wrongly I have withheld on handed my phone and laptop back in until I have been paid my £200 expenses owed.
I have emailed the director of the company who has been very unprofessional with his worded emails back.
He has said when the items have been returned he will pay my expenses which is fair enough.
I said I would post them today.
At about 4pm he sent me an email (he probably assumed I had posted the items at that point) saying I owe 130 pounds for the Christmas party as I won’t be attending now and asking how I wish to pay this.
I have never at any stage been advised if I don’t attend I would have to pay any cancellation costs and I believe if I hadn’t still had the phone and laptop that I’d had ever received a reply on email.
Where do I stand?
Do I have to pay the costs to a function that was booked in August when I started in November? Can they refuse to pay me? | 2018/12/06 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124222",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95431/"
] | **Give back the equipment and write off the £200**
While you make technically have a case, you're going to spend more money going to court. Secondly, your former employer likely has a lawyer/barrister on retainer. A professional will make sure you spend over £200 is money/time or both.
They DO have a case if you've kept equipment that is not yours. Give that back NOW!
As for the £130 cancellation, did you sign a contract mentioning this? You likely didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm betting the guy is trying to recoup the money, and have a very poor legal leg to stand on. You can try not paying it and just seeing what happens.
The company made decided to play hard-ball "on the priniciple of it." | Well, they are scam artists. That demand of theirs is just ridiculous. So you call them again and ask for your money. If they mention the Christmas party, you say that it was a good joke, and you want your money. |
124,222 | I handed my notice in on Monday effective immediately at my current employer as the job was not as described at interview stage.
Rightly or wrongly I have withheld on handed my phone and laptop back in until I have been paid my £200 expenses owed.
I have emailed the director of the company who has been very unprofessional with his worded emails back.
He has said when the items have been returned he will pay my expenses which is fair enough.
I said I would post them today.
At about 4pm he sent me an email (he probably assumed I had posted the items at that point) saying I owe 130 pounds for the Christmas party as I won’t be attending now and asking how I wish to pay this.
I have never at any stage been advised if I don’t attend I would have to pay any cancellation costs and I believe if I hadn’t still had the phone and laptop that I’d had ever received a reply on email.
Where do I stand?
Do I have to pay the costs to a function that was booked in August when I started in November? Can they refuse to pay me? | 2018/12/06 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124222",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95431/"
] | **Give back the equipment and write off the £200**
While you make technically have a case, you're going to spend more money going to court. Secondly, your former employer likely has a lawyer/barrister on retainer. A professional will make sure you spend over £200 is money/time or both.
They DO have a case if you've kept equipment that is not yours. Give that back NOW!
As for the £130 cancellation, did you sign a contract mentioning this? You likely didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm betting the guy is trying to recoup the money, and have a very poor legal leg to stand on. You can try not paying it and just seeing what happens.
The company made decided to play hard-ball "on the priniciple of it." | Don’t hang onto the equipment, but if they don’t pay your expenses in full, then take a look at the [small claims](https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money) option (assuming you are in the UK, as the currency implies,) as it’s a low cost, low risk option for you.
Unless the cost of the function was something you had a choice about, IANAL but would claim for that if they withheld money for that. |
124,222 | I handed my notice in on Monday effective immediately at my current employer as the job was not as described at interview stage.
Rightly or wrongly I have withheld on handed my phone and laptop back in until I have been paid my £200 expenses owed.
I have emailed the director of the company who has been very unprofessional with his worded emails back.
He has said when the items have been returned he will pay my expenses which is fair enough.
I said I would post them today.
At about 4pm he sent me an email (he probably assumed I had posted the items at that point) saying I owe 130 pounds for the Christmas party as I won’t be attending now and asking how I wish to pay this.
I have never at any stage been advised if I don’t attend I would have to pay any cancellation costs and I believe if I hadn’t still had the phone and laptop that I’d had ever received a reply on email.
Where do I stand?
Do I have to pay the costs to a function that was booked in August when I started in November? Can they refuse to pay me? | 2018/12/06 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124222",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/95431/"
] | Don’t hang onto the equipment, but if they don’t pay your expenses in full, then take a look at the [small claims](https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money) option (assuming you are in the UK, as the currency implies,) as it’s a low cost, low risk option for you.
Unless the cost of the function was something you had a choice about, IANAL but would claim for that if they withheld money for that. | Well, they are scam artists. That demand of theirs is just ridiculous. So you call them again and ask for your money. If they mention the Christmas party, you say that it was a good joke, and you want your money. |
16,221 | I am working at the operations department at a large, mostly Windows based, IT solutions company. Personally I am a Mac user, but I mostly use my Mac in "Mac environments".
We have got an inquiry about getting some Macs into the network domain. The main reason for this is authentication (the Mac users are already members of the domain and would like to login with these credentials), and to mount some network drives.
I have not done this before, and would like to know your ideas of the best way to implement these Macs into the domain. We are looking for free, or at least inexpensive, solution for this. I have looked into some of the solutions out there but would appreciate some feedback from someone who have worked with this in a production environment. | 2009/05/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/16221",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/6712/"
] | See these two questions on Server Fault:
* [How to add a mac to windows Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8006/how-to-add-a-mac-to-windows-active-directory)
* [What are the advantages of adding a Mac to Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8109/what-are-the-advantages-of-adding-a-mac-to-active-directory) | The capability to add them to the domain is free - it's built into OS X and can be automated during deployment using DeployStudio.
Actually managing them with Group Policy-like functionality is a different story - there are some third-party products available like [AdmitMAC](http://www.thursby.com/products/admitmac.html) and [Radmind](http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/) which can help with this.
We have been adding our Mac devices to our domain for a few years now and haven't really encountered any issues with doing this. It simplifies life for the users and keeps authentication consistent. Their network home directories are automatically mapped to a desktop shortcut on login, which is another nice feature. |
16,221 | I am working at the operations department at a large, mostly Windows based, IT solutions company. Personally I am a Mac user, but I mostly use my Mac in "Mac environments".
We have got an inquiry about getting some Macs into the network domain. The main reason for this is authentication (the Mac users are already members of the domain and would like to login with these credentials), and to mount some network drives.
I have not done this before, and would like to know your ideas of the best way to implement these Macs into the domain. We are looking for free, or at least inexpensive, solution for this. I have looked into some of the solutions out there but would appreciate some feedback from someone who have worked with this in a production environment. | 2009/05/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/16221",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/6712/"
] | As already mentioned here, joining a Mac to a Windows domain is relatively easy. Moreover, as of 10.5 it can be done entirely from the command line, including *where* to put the computer if you prefer to put it in a non-default location. In fact, I developed just such a script for our engineers to use as a basis for migrating systems over. I found this document to be an incredible supplement to Apple's own documentation: [Leveraging Active Directory on Mac OS X](http://web.mac.com/bombich/Leveraging_AD_on_MOSXS_2.2.pdf.zip)
However, I have not done converted the Macs in my environment because of the problem with user authorization. I find this to be a big problem, but I also work in Security :) There are AD extensions for the OSX attributes so you can get some of the same levels of configuration that you do with Windows in AD. However, your AD environment must be extended to support them.
If you don't mind having unmanaged machines where anybody with credentials can login, then add them. Having centralized authentication is almost always preferred. Unfortunately, for my systems, this limitation was a show stopper.
There is documentation on setting up an OSX Server as a middle-man between your Macs and the AD servers. You run OpenDirectory in what they call ‘subordinate’ mode. Supposedly, you can then completely manage the Macs as you would ordinarily, except the authentication is passed along to the AD box. The idea being that you will perform your user authorization at the OD server, and join your Macs to it (while also putting them in the AD kerberos domain). It sounds promising, but as I said, I did not have success getting the authorization to work correctly. The instructions are also in the pdf linked above. | See these two questions on Server Fault:
* [How to add a mac to windows Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8006/how-to-add-a-mac-to-windows-active-directory)
* [What are the advantages of adding a Mac to Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8109/what-are-the-advantages-of-adding-a-mac-to-active-directory) |
16,221 | I am working at the operations department at a large, mostly Windows based, IT solutions company. Personally I am a Mac user, but I mostly use my Mac in "Mac environments".
We have got an inquiry about getting some Macs into the network domain. The main reason for this is authentication (the Mac users are already members of the domain and would like to login with these credentials), and to mount some network drives.
I have not done this before, and would like to know your ideas of the best way to implement these Macs into the domain. We are looking for free, or at least inexpensive, solution for this. I have looked into some of the solutions out there but would appreciate some feedback from someone who have worked with this in a production environment. | 2009/05/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/16221",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/6712/"
] | See these two questions on Server Fault:
* [How to add a mac to windows Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8006/how-to-add-a-mac-to-windows-active-directory)
* [What are the advantages of adding a Mac to Active Directory?](https://serverfault.com/questions/8109/what-are-the-advantages-of-adding-a-mac-to-active-directory) | When you say "and to mount some network drives," be aware that Macs cannot access DFS shares without third-party software. AdmitMac claims it works, and it may at this point; when I dealt with it about a year ago DFS access was an unmitigated disaster. |
16,221 | I am working at the operations department at a large, mostly Windows based, IT solutions company. Personally I am a Mac user, but I mostly use my Mac in "Mac environments".
We have got an inquiry about getting some Macs into the network domain. The main reason for this is authentication (the Mac users are already members of the domain and would like to login with these credentials), and to mount some network drives.
I have not done this before, and would like to know your ideas of the best way to implement these Macs into the domain. We are looking for free, or at least inexpensive, solution for this. I have looked into some of the solutions out there but would appreciate some feedback from someone who have worked with this in a production environment. | 2009/05/31 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/16221",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/6712/"
] | As already mentioned here, joining a Mac to a Windows domain is relatively easy. Moreover, as of 10.5 it can be done entirely from the command line, including *where* to put the computer if you prefer to put it in a non-default location. In fact, I developed just such a script for our engineers to use as a basis for migrating systems over. I found this document to be an incredible supplement to Apple's own documentation: [Leveraging Active Directory on Mac OS X](http://web.mac.com/bombich/Leveraging_AD_on_MOSXS_2.2.pdf.zip)
However, I have not done converted the Macs in my environment because of the problem with user authorization. I find this to be a big problem, but I also work in Security :) There are AD extensions for the OSX attributes so you can get some of the same levels of configuration that you do with Windows in AD. However, your AD environment must be extended to support them.
If you don't mind having unmanaged machines where anybody with credentials can login, then add them. Having centralized authentication is almost always preferred. Unfortunately, for my systems, this limitation was a show stopper.
There is documentation on setting up an OSX Server as a middle-man between your Macs and the AD servers. You run OpenDirectory in what they call ‘subordinate’ mode. Supposedly, you can then completely manage the Macs as you would ordinarily, except the authentication is passed along to the AD box. The idea being that you will perform your user authorization at the OD server, and join your Macs to it (while also putting them in the AD kerberos domain). It sounds promising, but as I said, I did not have success getting the authorization to work correctly. The instructions are also in the pdf linked above. | The capability to add them to the domain is free - it's built into OS X and can be automated during deployment using DeployStudio.
Actually managing them with Group Policy-like functionality is a different story - there are some third-party products available like [AdmitMAC](http://www.thursby.com/products/admitmac.html) and [Radmind](http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/) which can help with this.
We have been adding our Mac devices to our domain for a few years now and haven't really encountered any issues with doing this. It simplifies life for the users and keeps authentication consistent. Their network home directories are automatically mapped to a desktop shortcut on login, which is another nice feature. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.