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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
215,358 | What do you call a ship that's not in water and therefore cannot be mobilized? For example, if a ship is under repair at a port and is on land, what adjective do you use? I thought about landlocked, but I am not sure if it can be used this way. I usually see it used to describe countries without access to the sea, and while it may be used to describe ships, they probably refer to decommissioned ships. | 2019/06/20 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/215358",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/93377/"
] | A ship that has been removed from the water for repair is **in dry dock**.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dry-dock>
To my knowledge, it is not at all common to say that a ship is "landlocked," whether it has been decommissioned or not; as you have noted, "landlocked" commonly describes countries (or states, or what have you) that lack access to the sea. It can also mean "confined to fresh water by some barrier" (as in "landlocked salmon") or "living or located away from the ocean" (as in "a landlocked sailor"), but it would be unusual to use it to describe a ship that has been removed from the water for repair.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landlocked> | If you're asking for a word meaning the ship is not currently on water, perhaps "Ashore" or "Onshore" will do?
<https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/ashore#ashore__4>
<https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/onshore#onshore__1>
>
> Onshore / Ashore: on land, and not on the sea
>
>
> |
105,855 | One bright Monday morning, I drove to work and parked my car in Lot A. That morning, others also parked in Lot A, and we all found each other’s parking jobs to be satisfactory.
That afternoon, a co-worker, who was a nervous driver, and who was my neighbor at home, asked me to ride with her to provide moral support. She was parked in Lot B, and we rode in her car.
The next morning, Tuesday, she drove me back to work, and she parked in Lot B as usual. That Tuesday afternoon, I walked to Lot A and was quite embarrassed to see that my car was parked across four different parking spots, and crooked, exactly where I had parked it in on Monday morning. How did this happen?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEeeY.jpg) | 2020/12/19 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/105855",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/61364/"
] | A possibility is that on Monday your parking lot was
>
> covered in snow. Cars were parked aligned with each other, but not exactly with the painted parking lines. The snow may also explain why your co-worker was concerned. Then, after the other cars in Lot A left later on Monday, the snow was cleared, leaving your car out of position, and the new arrivals on Tue parked in the painted spaces.
>
>
> | Perhaps,
>
> You parked the car correctly but the lot got repainted and since you were the only one not driving back in your car, it got misplaced.
>
>
> |
105,855 | One bright Monday morning, I drove to work and parked my car in Lot A. That morning, others also parked in Lot A, and we all found each other’s parking jobs to be satisfactory.
That afternoon, a co-worker, who was a nervous driver, and who was my neighbor at home, asked me to ride with her to provide moral support. She was parked in Lot B, and we rode in her car.
The next morning, Tuesday, she drove me back to work, and she parked in Lot B as usual. That Tuesday afternoon, I walked to Lot A and was quite embarrassed to see that my car was parked across four different parking spots, and crooked, exactly where I had parked it in on Monday morning. How did this happen?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEeeY.jpg) | 2020/12/19 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/105855",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/61364/"
] | This happened to me in a commuter parking lot in New England in January.
>
> When you parked either it was snowing or some snow on the ground. Everyone parked as they saw fit but not knowing where the actual spaces were. You parked parallel to the other cars. Next day the snow had been melted (or the lot was cleaned nicely) so everyone knew where to park!
>
>
> | Perhaps,
>
> You parked the car correctly but the lot got repainted and since you were the only one not driving back in your car, it got misplaced.
>
>
> |
105,855 | One bright Monday morning, I drove to work and parked my car in Lot A. That morning, others also parked in Lot A, and we all found each other’s parking jobs to be satisfactory.
That afternoon, a co-worker, who was a nervous driver, and who was my neighbor at home, asked me to ride with her to provide moral support. She was parked in Lot B, and we rode in her car.
The next morning, Tuesday, she drove me back to work, and she parked in Lot B as usual. That Tuesday afternoon, I walked to Lot A and was quite embarrassed to see that my car was parked across four different parking spots, and crooked, exactly where I had parked it in on Monday morning. How did this happen?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GEeeY.jpg) | 2020/12/19 | [
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/105855",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com",
"https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/users/61364/"
] | A possibility is that on Monday your parking lot was
>
> covered in snow. Cars were parked aligned with each other, but not exactly with the painted parking lines. The snow may also explain why your co-worker was concerned. Then, after the other cars in Lot A left later on Monday, the snow was cleared, leaving your car out of position, and the new arrivals on Tue parked in the painted spaces.
>
>
> | This happened to me in a commuter parking lot in New England in January.
>
> When you parked either it was snowing or some snow on the ground. Everyone parked as they saw fit but not knowing where the actual spaces were. You parked parallel to the other cars. Next day the snow had been melted (or the lot was cleaned nicely) so everyone knew where to park!
>
>
> |
5,756 | Which one of the following statements is correct:
>
> 1. I deployed something to the test server.
> 2. I deployed something on the test server.
>
>
> | 2010/11/28 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5756",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/2425/"
] | I would say it depends where you are deploying. Deploying "to" the test server implies a remote operation - HTTP / ssh / ftp, amongst others. Deploying "on" the test server implies that you are at the console/GUI of the server, whether it be physically (touching the keyboard and mouse) or virtually (VNC or similar application that acts on the server itself). | Your examples require articles:
>
> I deployed something to *the* test server.
>
> I deployed something on *the* test server.
>
Otherwise, these two are exactly equivalent. |
297,291 | I am looking for an answer that is just a bit deeper than "because copper has a full 3d shell, thus no unpaired electrons".
Iron has a magnetic moment of 2.2 bohr magnetons per atom. You can explain this by starting with the number of valence electrons in an isolated iron atom (8) and then using Hall voltage measurements that show there is about 1 electron (I think the exact measurement is 0.95) per atom in the conduction band, leaving 7 electrons in the 3d band. Of those 7 electrons, 4.6 electrons per atom have a common spin (let's say up) and 2.4 have opposite (down) spin because of the exchange interaction, which gives 4.6 - 2.4 = 2.2.
I can do the same with Co and Ni, using 0.6 conduction electron per atom for both and allowing 5 electrons to be spin up, since exchange interaction energy gain cannot be compensated by promoting electrons to higher energy levels. That gives 1.6 b.m. per atom for Co and 0.6 b.m. per atom for Ni.
Now, I would like to apply a similar reasoning to explain why copper is not ferromagnetic. Copper has 11 valence electrons, but Hall voltage gives about 1.3 conduction electron per atom, leaving 9.7 electrons in the 3d band. Why doesn't copper end up with 5 electrons with spin up and 4.7 with spin down, thus giving it 0.3 bohr magneton per atom? | 2016/12/08 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297291",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/103864/"
] | Your starting point here seems to be something like the Stoner model of band ferromagnetism. The [Stoner criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_criterion) involves the dispersion of the band, which is much greater for the Cu *4sp* band than for the transition-metal *3d* bands.
But that is not the way I think about magnetism in these materials. My background is taking local ionic moments as the starting point. The band model is very inadequate in describing the electron correlations in such narrow bands. That can be done by including the Hubbard *U* in model calcutions or also in band structure calculation (for example LDA+U). | Ferromagnetism is not all about the magnetic moment of atoms constituting the solid/material. If that would be the case, then not only would copper be ferromagnetic but a lot of other atoms would, too.
There must be an [exchange interaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_interaction) which allows nearby atom spins to lign up somewhat in a same direction, forming what is known as magnetic domains. Only when one combines a non zero net magnetic moment of atoms with a favorable exchange interaction that one obtains ferromagnetism. The latter is what copper is missing. |
32,266 | Is it a wife's duty to have sex after marriage? If yes, could you please quote which Hindu scripture says so? | 2019/01/28 | [
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/32266",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com",
"https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/users/17388/"
] | >
> Is a wife duty bound to do sex after marriage?
>
>
>
**Yes, both husband and wife are required to have sex in marriage after every menstrual period.**
Verses from various [*Dharma Shastras*](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199821.html#comparative-notes):
>
> Manusmriti 3.45 - **One should observe the rule of approaching (one’s wife) during the period of her season**,—ever attached to his own wife. In
> consideration of her he may approach her with a desire for sexual
> intercourse, except on the sacred days.
>
>
> Gautama (5.1-2).—‘He shall approach her during the season; or on all
> days except those that have been prohibited.’
>
>
> Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.1.15, 18).—‘By approaching his wife during
> the seasons, one maintains one’s vows; even during the intervening
> days, ho should approach only his wife.’
>
>
> Vaśiṣṭha (12.18).—‘He should have intercourse only with his wife,
> during her seasons, except the forbidden days.’
>
>
> Viṣṇu (69.1).—‘He shall not approach his wife on the eighth,
> fourteenth and fifteenth days of the fortnight.’
>
>
> Yājñavalkya (1.79-81).—‘Sixteen are the nights of season for women;
> during this season, he shall lie with her on the even nights, avoiding
> the first four nights; acting thus, he would be as good as a Religious
> Student. In approaching his wife, he shall avoid the asterisms of
> Maghā and Mūla. Or, he may approach her according to his desire,
> always bearing in mind what is good for women; he should ever remain
> devoted to his own wife.’
>
>
> Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (1.11.7-8).—‘Having married her, he should go to
> her during her seasons; or whenever they desire.’
>
>
> Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 559).—‘After she has bathed on the
> fourth day, he shall approach her on the even nights.’
>
>
> Ātharvaṇa Śruti (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Those who have recourse to
> sexual intercourse during the day, pour out their life-breath; if one
> has intercourse during the night, it is as good as celibacy.’
>
>
> Śaṅkha-Likhita (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Even during the period, one
> shall not have intercourse during the day.’
>
>
> Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘If a man, when healthy, does not
> approach his wife during the period, he incurs the sin of killing the
> embryo.’
>
>
> Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava, p. 499).—‘Excess of woman’s seed makes the
> progeny female, excess of man’s seed makes the progeny male; therefore
> for increasing his seed, the man shall eat oily and delicious food.’
>
>
>
It is a sin to not approach one's wife:
>
> Manusmriti [9.4](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201362.html) - Censurable is the father who gives her not away
> at the right time; **censurable the husband who approaches her not**; and
> censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take
> care of her.
>
>
> Baudhāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘**If a man approaches not his
> wife during the period, for three years, he incurs the sin of killing
> the embryo.** He who approaches not his wife during the period, and who
> approaches her apart from the period, the sin of both is equal, as
> also that of the man who throws out his semen unnaturally.’
>
>
>
However, the wife must also be willing:
>
> Rules for Sexual Activity, Vishnu Purāṇa 3.11:
>
>
> 111. In proper time, under the influence of an auspicious planet and in an auspicious moment or on even nights (tithis) one should have sex
> with his own wife.
>
>
> 112 – 113. **One should not approach a woman who is unbathed, sick,
> menstruating, unwilling**, angry, un-recommended, pregnant, unskilled
> (adaksinam), in love with another (anya-kamam), lacking in libido
> (akamam) nor committed to another (anya-yoshitam), nor if she is
> hungry or over-fed. He too should also be free from all these
> imperfections.
>
>
> | [Brihadâranyaka Upanishad](http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15098.htm)
Yes, wife has to go by husband's desires and not the vice-versa.
>
> 1. Verily, of created things here earth is the essence; of earth, water; of water, plants; of plants, flowers; of flowers, fruits; of
> fruits, man (purusa); of man, semen.
> 2. Prajâpati ('Lord of creatures') bethought himself: 'Come, let me provide him a firm basis!' So he created woman. When he had created
> her, he revered her below.--Therefore one should revere woman
> below.--He stretched out for himself that stone which projects. With
> that he impregnated her.
> 3. Her lap is a sacrificial altar; her hairs, the sacrificial grass; her skin, the soma-press. The two labia of the vulva are the fire in
> the middle. Verily, indeed, as great as is the world of him who
> sacrifices with the Vâjapeya ('Strength-libation') sacrifice, so great
> is the world of him who practises sexual intercourse, knowing this; he
> turns the good deeds of women to himself. But he who practises sexual
> intercourse without knowing this-women turn his good deeds unto
> themselves.
> 4. This, verily, indeed, it was that Uddâlaka Âruṅi knew when he said:--
>
>
> This, verily, indeed, it was that Nâka Maudgalya knew when he said:--
>
>
> This, verily, indeed, it was that Kumârahârita knew when he said:
> 'Many mortal men, Brahmans by descent, go forth from this world,
> impotent and devoid of merit, namely those who practise sexual
> intercourse without knowing this.'
>
>
> [If] even this much 1 semen is spilled, whether of one asleep or of
> one awake, [5] then he should touch it, or [without touching]
> repeat:--
>
>
> 'What semen has of mine to earth been spilt now, Whate'er to herb has
> flowed, whate'er to water--
>
>
> This very semen I reclaim! Again to me let vigor come! Again, my
> strength; again, my glow! Again the altars and the fire Be found in
> their accustomed place!'
>
>
> Having spoken thus, he should take it with ring-finger and thumb, and
> rub it on between his breasts or his eye-brows.
>
>
> 6. Now, if one should see himself in water, he should recite over it the formula: 'In me be vigor, power, beauty, wealth, merit!'
>
>
> This, verily, indeed, is loveliness among women: when she has removed
> the clothes of her impurity. Therefore when she has removed the
> clothes of her impurity and is beautiful, one should approach and
> invite her.
>
>
> 7. **If she should not grant him his desire, he should bribe her. If she still does not grant him his desire, he should hit her with a stick or
> with his hand, and overcome her, saying: 'With power, with glory I
> take away your glory!' Thus she becomes inglorious.**
> 8. If she should yield to him, he says: 'With power, with glory I give you glory!' Thus they two become glorious.
> 9. The woman whom one may desire with the thought, 'May she enjoy love with me!'--after inserting the member in her, joining mouth with
> mouth, and stroking her lap, he should mutter:--
>
>
> 'Thou that from every limb art come, That from the heart art generate,
> Thou art the essence of the limbs! Distract this woman here in me, As
> if by poisoned arrow pierced!'
>
>
> 10. Now, the woman whom one may desire with the thought, 'May she not conceive offspring!'--after inserting the member in her and joining
> mouth with mouth, he should first inhale, then exhale, and say: 'With
> power, with semen, I reclaim the semen from you!' Thus she comes to be
> without seed.
> 11. Now, the woman whom one may desire with the thought, 'May she conceive!'--after inserting the member in her and joining mouth with
> mouth, he should first exhale, then inhale, and say: 'With power, with
> semen, I deposit semen in you!' Thus she becomes pregnant.
> 12. Now, if one's wife have a paramour, and he hate him, let him put fire in an unannealed vessel, spread out a row of reed arrows in
> inverse order, and therein sacrifice in inverse order those reed arrows, their heads smeared with ghee, saying:--
>
>
> 'You have made a libation in my fire! I take away your in-breath and
> out-breath (prâṅâpânau)--you, so-and-so!
>
>
> You have made a libation in my fire! I take away your sons and cattle
> 1--you, so-and-so!
>
>
> You have made a libation in my fire! I take away your sacrifices and
> meritorious deeds 1--you, so-and-so!
>
>
> You have made a libation in my fire! I take away your hope and
> expectation 1--you, so-and-so!'
>
>
> Verily, he whom a Brahman who knows this curses--he departs from this
> world impotent and devoid of merit. Therefore one should not desire
> dalliance with the spouse of a person learned in sacred lore
> (s'rotriya) who knows this, for indeed he who knows this becomes
> superior. 2
>
>
> 13. **Now, when the monthly sickness comes upon anyone's wife, for three days she should not drink from a metal cup, nor put on fresh clothes.**
> **> Neither a low-caste man nor a low-caste woman nor her husband should touch her. At the
> end of the three nights she should bathe and should have rice
> threshed.**
>
>
> |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | >
> In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another?
>
>
>
**No.** Lane 4 has always been believed to be the "fastest" lane, but there is **[no scientific evidence](http://www.swimcoachingbrain.com/the-ten-myths-of-swimming/)** of such.
---
Michael Phelps on [being in lane 8](http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/swimming/story/_/id/8208314/2012-summer-olympics-michael-phelps-slowest-qualifier-heats-400m-im) for the 400m individual medley final in the 2012 Olympics:
>
> "The only thing that matters is just getting a spot in. You
> can't win the gold medal from the morning."
>
>
>
If any given lane had a "competitive advantage," Phelps would most likely have had a different response.
---
World records, championships, and gold medals have been won from all lanes, especially [lane 1 and lane 8](http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1650%3awinner-from-lane-8-and-1&catid=225%3ahighlight&Itemid=179).
German female swimmer Franziska van Almsick, swimming in lane 8, set a world record by winning the 200m freestyle with a time of 1:56.78 at the 1994 FINA World Championships. Her world record stood for eight years.
Australian male swimmer Kieren Perkins. swimming in lane 8, won gold in the 1500m freestyle with a time of 14:56.40 at the 1996 Olympics.
Chinese female swimmer Luo Xuejuan, swimming in lane 1, set an Olympic record by winning gold in the 100m breaststroke with a time of 1:06.64 at the 2004 Olympics. This was the third fastest time in history, 0.27 seconds off the world record.
---
Historically, world records, championships, and gold medals are won in middle lanes. This is because swimmers win their prelims, heats, etc.
The swimmers are placed in their respective lane based on their time. The fastest time will get lane 4 next round and the eighth-fastest time will get lane 8. Lane placement from fastest to eighth-fastest time: 4,5,3,6,2,7,1,8. | It used to be that lanes 1 and 8 were considered slower due to reflected waves off the side, but modern pools have wave reduction systems so this is no longer the case. |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | >
> In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another?
>
>
>
**No.** Lane 4 has always been believed to be the "fastest" lane, but there is **[no scientific evidence](http://www.swimcoachingbrain.com/the-ten-myths-of-swimming/)** of such.
---
Michael Phelps on [being in lane 8](http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/swimming/story/_/id/8208314/2012-summer-olympics-michael-phelps-slowest-qualifier-heats-400m-im) for the 400m individual medley final in the 2012 Olympics:
>
> "The only thing that matters is just getting a spot in. You
> can't win the gold medal from the morning."
>
>
>
If any given lane had a "competitive advantage," Phelps would most likely have had a different response.
---
World records, championships, and gold medals have been won from all lanes, especially [lane 1 and lane 8](http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1650%3awinner-from-lane-8-and-1&catid=225%3ahighlight&Itemid=179).
German female swimmer Franziska van Almsick, swimming in lane 8, set a world record by winning the 200m freestyle with a time of 1:56.78 at the 1994 FINA World Championships. Her world record stood for eight years.
Australian male swimmer Kieren Perkins. swimming in lane 8, won gold in the 1500m freestyle with a time of 14:56.40 at the 1996 Olympics.
Chinese female swimmer Luo Xuejuan, swimming in lane 1, set an Olympic record by winning gold in the 100m breaststroke with a time of 1:06.64 at the 2004 Olympics. This was the third fastest time in history, 0.27 seconds off the world record.
---
Historically, world records, championships, and gold medals are won in middle lanes. This is because swimmers win their prelims, heats, etc.
The swimmers are placed in their respective lane based on their time. The fastest time will get lane 4 next round and the eighth-fastest time will get lane 8. Lane placement from fastest to eighth-fastest time: 4,5,3,6,2,7,1,8. | The reason the fastest swimmer is placed in the center lanes is because it's believed to be the "coveted" lane. This is due to the fact that from lanes 4-5, you have the greatest visibility of swimmers in the other lanes. This is an advantage because in competitive races, athletes are known to perform better when they realize a competitor is close.
Also, if a swimmer breathes to the right or left, he will always be able to see half of the field, whereas swimmers in the edge lanes don't have this advantage. |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | >
> In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another?
>
>
>
**No.** Lane 4 has always been believed to be the "fastest" lane, but there is **[no scientific evidence](http://www.swimcoachingbrain.com/the-ten-myths-of-swimming/)** of such.
---
Michael Phelps on [being in lane 8](http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/swimming/story/_/id/8208314/2012-summer-olympics-michael-phelps-slowest-qualifier-heats-400m-im) for the 400m individual medley final in the 2012 Olympics:
>
> "The only thing that matters is just getting a spot in. You
> can't win the gold medal from the morning."
>
>
>
If any given lane had a "competitive advantage," Phelps would most likely have had a different response.
---
World records, championships, and gold medals have been won from all lanes, especially [lane 1 and lane 8](http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1650%3awinner-from-lane-8-and-1&catid=225%3ahighlight&Itemid=179).
German female swimmer Franziska van Almsick, swimming in lane 8, set a world record by winning the 200m freestyle with a time of 1:56.78 at the 1994 FINA World Championships. Her world record stood for eight years.
Australian male swimmer Kieren Perkins. swimming in lane 8, won gold in the 1500m freestyle with a time of 14:56.40 at the 1996 Olympics.
Chinese female swimmer Luo Xuejuan, swimming in lane 1, set an Olympic record by winning gold in the 100m breaststroke with a time of 1:06.64 at the 2004 Olympics. This was the third fastest time in history, 0.27 seconds off the world record.
---
Historically, world records, championships, and gold medals are won in middle lanes. This is because swimmers win their prelims, heats, etc.
The swimmers are placed in their respective lane based on their time. The fastest time will get lane 4 next round and the eighth-fastest time will get lane 8. Lane placement from fastest to eighth-fastest time: 4,5,3,6,2,7,1,8. | Apart from the physical differences, swimmers may gain psychological advantages, and the lane in which this happens depends on the swimmer.
I have met professional swimmers who like to swim in lanes that are near the side, stating reasons which include being able to monitor all 7 other swimmers during 1 breath, as opposed to 2 breaths if the swimmer was near the middle lane.
However, that swimmer specialised in freestyle, and the opposite may be true for breaststrokers and butterflyers, who may see other swimmers more clearly in the middle lanes.
In the end, it all depends on the swimmer. |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | The reason the fastest swimmer is placed in the center lanes is because it's believed to be the "coveted" lane. This is due to the fact that from lanes 4-5, you have the greatest visibility of swimmers in the other lanes. This is an advantage because in competitive races, athletes are known to perform better when they realize a competitor is close.
Also, if a swimmer breathes to the right or left, he will always be able to see half of the field, whereas swimmers in the edge lanes don't have this advantage. | It used to be that lanes 1 and 8 were considered slower due to reflected waves off the side, but modern pools have wave reduction systems so this is no longer the case. |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | It used to be that lanes 1 and 8 were considered slower due to reflected waves off the side, but modern pools have wave reduction systems so this is no longer the case. | Apart from the physical differences, swimmers may gain psychological advantages, and the lane in which this happens depends on the swimmer.
I have met professional swimmers who like to swim in lanes that are near the side, stating reasons which include being able to monitor all 7 other swimmers during 1 breath, as opposed to 2 breaths if the swimmer was near the middle lane.
However, that swimmer specialised in freestyle, and the opposite may be true for breaststrokers and butterflyers, who may see other swimmers more clearly in the middle lanes.
In the end, it all depends on the swimmer. |
1,326 | Upon observing swimming competitions in the Olympics, it is not clear to me whether one of the eight lanes is more advantageous versus another. I've seen vague claims but nothing backed up with science.
**In competitive swimming, is there an advantage to being in one lane or another? Furthermore, does the stroke (ie: breast, fly, freestyle, etc.) affect this effect?** | 2012/08/03 | [
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/1326",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com",
"https://sports.stackexchange.com/users/181/"
] | The reason the fastest swimmer is placed in the center lanes is because it's believed to be the "coveted" lane. This is due to the fact that from lanes 4-5, you have the greatest visibility of swimmers in the other lanes. This is an advantage because in competitive races, athletes are known to perform better when they realize a competitor is close.
Also, if a swimmer breathes to the right or left, he will always be able to see half of the field, whereas swimmers in the edge lanes don't have this advantage. | Apart from the physical differences, swimmers may gain psychological advantages, and the lane in which this happens depends on the swimmer.
I have met professional swimmers who like to swim in lanes that are near the side, stating reasons which include being able to monitor all 7 other swimmers during 1 breath, as opposed to 2 breaths if the swimmer was near the middle lane.
However, that swimmer specialised in freestyle, and the opposite may be true for breaststrokers and butterflyers, who may see other swimmers more clearly in the middle lanes.
In the end, it all depends on the swimmer. |
167,192 | Looking for a word: essentially, it should be a noun. Described as: turning well-intended actions into ill-intended actions in rhetoric (i.e., by committing intentional fallacies or disrupting the counterpart). Possible definition: "the process by which descriptions of actions are turned into accusations". Also, a good synonym?
Let's look at an example, then:
-------------------------------
I think you're really good at '~ion'--painting things in a positive light, or at least remaining optimistic. It's the opposite of '~ion', whereby people turn my past against me, or insist on pessimism.
Possible:
---------
Reticence or interdiction; veto or blackballing; repudiation, rejection, or derision; counfouding, contrition, or impeding?
Update
------
I'm really looking for an utterance that encompasses the initial state of neutrality or even goodness. While demonizing and vilification fit, I'm hesitant to concede that they imply a full transformation, exclusively in delusion, from good to evil. I'm trying to put a word to this thing I've noticed that so many people seem to do: it's the opposite of coping: it's some mechanism of hysteria or obstruction/disruption--some kind of mayhem. It's important to me that I be able to find a concise, descriptive phrase (it doesn't need to be a single word).
Update 2
--------
I went with `swaying`, from Robert Frost's 'The Sound of Trees'. I think it captures the essence of what I'm looking for and encapsulates everything else mentioned. I was basically seeking a hyponym for the other words listed that had to do with people throwing off their responsibilities, if even by turning negative to positive. If anyone has other terms that are more widely known, please update your answers or add a new answer. Thank you. | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/167192",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13766/"
] | I think the simple answer to your question is **perversion**.
>
> the process of affecting something good or right in a negative way so
> that it becomes something bad or wrong
>
>
>
But I also think the general term **distortion** (or twist) works here too but it can go both ways.
>
> the action of giving a misleading account or impression.
>
>
> | ... vilify ... I guess ... you need context to say that .. heheh
Don't vilify me! Your compassion is revolting. I would rather you say so much as doing. |
167,192 | Looking for a word: essentially, it should be a noun. Described as: turning well-intended actions into ill-intended actions in rhetoric (i.e., by committing intentional fallacies or disrupting the counterpart). Possible definition: "the process by which descriptions of actions are turned into accusations". Also, a good synonym?
Let's look at an example, then:
-------------------------------
I think you're really good at '~ion'--painting things in a positive light, or at least remaining optimistic. It's the opposite of '~ion', whereby people turn my past against me, or insist on pessimism.
Possible:
---------
Reticence or interdiction; veto or blackballing; repudiation, rejection, or derision; counfouding, contrition, or impeding?
Update
------
I'm really looking for an utterance that encompasses the initial state of neutrality or even goodness. While demonizing and vilification fit, I'm hesitant to concede that they imply a full transformation, exclusively in delusion, from good to evil. I'm trying to put a word to this thing I've noticed that so many people seem to do: it's the opposite of coping: it's some mechanism of hysteria or obstruction/disruption--some kind of mayhem. It's important to me that I be able to find a concise, descriptive phrase (it doesn't need to be a single word).
Update 2
--------
I went with `swaying`, from Robert Frost's 'The Sound of Trees'. I think it captures the essence of what I'm looking for and encapsulates everything else mentioned. I was basically seeking a hyponym for the other words listed that had to do with people throwing off their responsibilities, if even by turning negative to positive. If anyone has other terms that are more widely known, please update your answers or add a new answer. Thank you. | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/167192",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13766/"
] | I think the simple answer to your question is **perversion**.
>
> the process of affecting something good or right in a negative way so
> that it becomes something bad or wrong
>
>
>
But I also think the general term **distortion** (or twist) works here too but it can go both ways.
>
> the action of giving a misleading account or impression.
>
>
> | Someone can *put the worst possible construction* on your action, *see it in a negative light* or *intentionally misinterpret* it. They can also *set you up to fail* or *frame* you. They can *denigrate, slander, smear, badmouth, defame* and *libel* you. They can also *project their failures / faults / shortcomings* onto you, as well as *{see / look for} evil where there is none*. |
167,192 | Looking for a word: essentially, it should be a noun. Described as: turning well-intended actions into ill-intended actions in rhetoric (i.e., by committing intentional fallacies or disrupting the counterpart). Possible definition: "the process by which descriptions of actions are turned into accusations". Also, a good synonym?
Let's look at an example, then:
-------------------------------
I think you're really good at '~ion'--painting things in a positive light, or at least remaining optimistic. It's the opposite of '~ion', whereby people turn my past against me, or insist on pessimism.
Possible:
---------
Reticence or interdiction; veto or blackballing; repudiation, rejection, or derision; counfouding, contrition, or impeding?
Update
------
I'm really looking for an utterance that encompasses the initial state of neutrality or even goodness. While demonizing and vilification fit, I'm hesitant to concede that they imply a full transformation, exclusively in delusion, from good to evil. I'm trying to put a word to this thing I've noticed that so many people seem to do: it's the opposite of coping: it's some mechanism of hysteria or obstruction/disruption--some kind of mayhem. It's important to me that I be able to find a concise, descriptive phrase (it doesn't need to be a single word).
Update 2
--------
I went with `swaying`, from Robert Frost's 'The Sound of Trees'. I think it captures the essence of what I'm looking for and encapsulates everything else mentioned. I was basically seeking a hyponym for the other words listed that had to do with people throwing off their responsibilities, if even by turning negative to positive. If anyone has other terms that are more widely known, please update your answers or add a new answer. Thank you. | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/167192",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13766/"
] | I think the simple answer to your question is **perversion**.
>
> the process of affecting something good or right in a negative way so
> that it becomes something bad or wrong
>
>
>
But I also think the general term **distortion** (or twist) works here too but it can go both ways.
>
> the action of giving a misleading account or impression.
>
>
> | You might want to consider "**diabolization**" and "**denigration**."
>
> [**diabolize**](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diabolize): to represent as or make diabolical.
>
>
> [**denigrate**](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate): to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance,; belittle; disparage -- *also:* to make black; blacken.
>
>
> |
167,192 | Looking for a word: essentially, it should be a noun. Described as: turning well-intended actions into ill-intended actions in rhetoric (i.e., by committing intentional fallacies or disrupting the counterpart). Possible definition: "the process by which descriptions of actions are turned into accusations". Also, a good synonym?
Let's look at an example, then:
-------------------------------
I think you're really good at '~ion'--painting things in a positive light, or at least remaining optimistic. It's the opposite of '~ion', whereby people turn my past against me, or insist on pessimism.
Possible:
---------
Reticence or interdiction; veto or blackballing; repudiation, rejection, or derision; counfouding, contrition, or impeding?
Update
------
I'm really looking for an utterance that encompasses the initial state of neutrality or even goodness. While demonizing and vilification fit, I'm hesitant to concede that they imply a full transformation, exclusively in delusion, from good to evil. I'm trying to put a word to this thing I've noticed that so many people seem to do: it's the opposite of coping: it's some mechanism of hysteria or obstruction/disruption--some kind of mayhem. It's important to me that I be able to find a concise, descriptive phrase (it doesn't need to be a single word).
Update 2
--------
I went with `swaying`, from Robert Frost's 'The Sound of Trees'. I think it captures the essence of what I'm looking for and encapsulates everything else mentioned. I was basically seeking a hyponym for the other words listed that had to do with people throwing off their responsibilities, if even by turning negative to positive. If anyone has other terms that are more widely known, please update your answers or add a new answer. Thank you. | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/167192",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/13766/"
] | I think the simple answer to your question is **perversion**.
>
> the process of affecting something good or right in a negative way so
> that it becomes something bad or wrong
>
>
>
But I also think the general term **distortion** (or twist) works here too but it can go both ways.
>
> the action of giving a misleading account or impression.
>
>
> | This sounds like **[innuendo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innuendo)**.
>
> An innuendo is an **insinuation or intimation** about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion.
>
>
> In the latter sense **the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.**
>
>
> The term **sexual innuendo** has acquired a specific meaning, namely that of a "risqué" double entendre by playing on **a possibly sexual interpretation of an otherwise innocent uttering.**
>
>
> For example: **"We need to go deeper" can be seen as both a request for further inquiry on any given issue or a request to go deeper into an orifice.**
>
>
>
---
**Examples:** (from the book "Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse" *edited by Ferenc Kiefer, István Kenesei, Robert M. Harnish*)
>
> From Fischer(1970): A ship captain, annoyed by his first-mate's drunkenness, wrote in the daily log, "The first-mate was drunk all day." The first-mate took issue with this entry, and the next day wrote, "The captain was sober all day."
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> A conversation between administrator over the merits of having a particular teacher serve as a guidance counselor on sex education for high school boys. One said, "Well, I would certainly agree that Mr. Jenkins is quite qualified to discuss all aspects of homosexual behavior."
>
>
> |
115,298 | Why I can't change the network to Ropsten Test Network? It doesn't show up in pop up menu.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w8rRi.png) | 2021/12/09 | [
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/115298",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com",
"https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/users/87573/"
] | It's off by default, in extended settings.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/R50Ku.png) | 1..Go to setting.
2. advanced
3. Show test networks "checkbox enabled"
4. Now you can network. |
230,653 | Context: I'm constructing a CNN classifier for text categorization. I have a dataset with 20 different classes and approximately 20,000 labeled features (the 20 News Group dataset for those interested).
I'm wondering if I'm training my model on too many epochs, which would make it really good at categorizing the features from my training dataset, but unable to adapt to new / slightly different inputs. Is that what we call "overfitting"? The term is not clear to me.
Also I would like to clarify the term "convergence" of a neural network. Is this convergence attained when the accuracy starts plateauing? Or is it related to the loss value? | 2016/08/19 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/230653",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/127872/"
] | Pankaj Daga's expansion is great, I'll take care of the illustration. Here is a typical curve when training a neural networks:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fS5V0.png)
The reported F1-score for the test set should to be the F1-score of the test set of the epoch where the F1-score of the validation set was the highest. (this is called "test best" on the figure) | Your comment regarding the epoch is true. So, if you use too few epoches, you may underfit and using too many epoches can result in overfitting. As you know you can always increase the *training accuracy* arbitrarily by increasing model complexity and increasing the number of epoch steps. One way to try and alleviate this problem could be through early stopping. In pseudocode:
* Split data into training, validation and test sets.
* At every epoch or every `N` epoch:
+ evaluate network error on validation dataset.
+ if the validation error is lower than previous best, save network to epoch.
* The final model is the one with the best performance on validation set.
This is very similar to the classical cross validation techniques you use in machine learning approaches.
Regarding convergence, you usually say the network has converged to some local minima if your error metric and weights are relatively constant over several iterations. |
126,785 | >
> Captain, if they attack us , what do we do?
>
>
>
I am a bit confused over whether or not "what do we do?" Is correct in the previous context. Do we
use the future simple tense instead? | 2017/04/17 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/126785",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/53850/"
] | **"How do you do?"** is technically a question, but really, it's just an expression. One person says, **"How do you do?"**, and the other person does not answer, because no answer is needed.
If you prefer, you can answer, but you have to say, *"Very well, thank you, and you?"*. You aren't allowed to launch into an explanation of exactly how well you are or are not doing and why.
This is less about English as a language than manners in the English-speaking world. | "**How do you do?**" a formal greeting for someone that you have not met before. It's not a question but a fixed expression. It was once commonplace, especially among the English upper classes. It's not a question asking about someone's health.
If somebody says "**How do you do?**" to you, the polite way to reply is "**How do you do?**". It is not meant as a question and an answer is not expected.
*Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892*
* **Lord Darlington**: How do you do, Lady Windermere?
* **Lady Windermere**: How do you do, Lord Darlington?
This is traditionally British formal English. Stilted and old-fashioned nowadays.
Sometimes people reply with "**Hello**" or "**Pleased to meet you**".
**Interesting notes:**
* In the 16-18 centuries there was a phrase in use **"How do you?"** that is an equivalent of our present day **"How are you?"**.
* An old-fashioned phrase **"[How do you do](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/how-do-you-do)"** means *"a difficult, worrying, and unpleasant situation"* |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | The Rules
---------
It is always good to go back to first principles and look at what the rules actually say. From the [Basic Rules (pp. 33-34)](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment) (Player's Handbook is identical I believe; p. 122), I have highlighted what I consider to be key points:
>
> **Alignment**
>
>
> A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which *broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes*. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
>
>
> [...] *Individuals might vary significantly* from that typical behavior, and *few people are perfectly and consistently faithful* to the precepts of their alignment.
>
>
> **Alignment in the Multiverse**
>
>
> For many thinking creatures, *alignment is a moral choice*. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other *humanoid races can choose* whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos.
>
>
> Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather *it is lawful evil in its essence*. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.
>
>
>
The overarching concept is one of choice (unless you are a devil etc.); to my mind, the alignment written on a character sheet is aspirational - this is the type of person the character *wants* to be; not who they *are*.
This contrasts sharply with the earliest editions of D&D where the consequences of consistently acting outside alignment were severe (loss of a level in AD&D - a fate worse than death for a character!)
The problem of Evil (and Good)
------------------------------
How do you recognize an evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) act? Are they objectively quantifiable or are they contextual?
The problem is akin to that addressed by [Justice Stewart](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) when considering pornography:
>
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. **But I know it when I see it**, ...
>
>
>
Similarly, evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) is hard to define **but I know it when I see it**!
Part of the problem is that even after several thousand years of thinking about this stuff, there is no consensus of what "good" is: is it altruism, utilitarianism, liberalism, egalitarianism, something else? Similarly with "law", do we need: democracy, communism, feudalism, socialism, something else?
I contend that the ethical content of an act is a combination of its consequences and the **intent** of the perpetrator. This is reflected in most judicial systems: to be a crime the perpetrator must have [criminal intent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29).
Under the RAW, an act done by an angel is both Lawful and Good simply because an angel is doing it. Equally, the *same* act is both Chaotic and Evil if done by a demon for the same reason. It is within the DMs purview to decide that there may be acts that one can perform which the other is incapable of but I argue that these should be the exception rather than the rule. For example, both should be able to comfort or kill a child in the right circumstances; in either case an angel acting for the greater good and a demon acting on a titillating whim.
When the act is done by a PC, things really get confusing.
Reading the description of the alignments as they apply to those with moral agency, it is clear that you do not have to be vicious to be evil nor does being good mean you can't be vicious. As written, good is synonymous with altruism, evil with selfishness, law with community and chaos with individuality. An evil character may kill with regret, a good character with satisfaction, what matters is the motive for the killing.
The Specifics
-------------
The druid is acting bang on to his personality, he has no reverence for society, either the broader state or his current companions: chaotic to the core. Although he is clearly putting self interest first here, it is clear that he does not consider depriving his companions of their "fair share" to be either evil or good: in his mind it doesn't hurt them and he can use the money for useful stuff like saving the forest. The question of goodness comes when the fighter or paladin needs the money for something - will the druid give it to him?
You give no information about the the paladin except his alignment. He is clearly *not* acting to his alignment; he is not showing loyalty to the fighter (chaotic) and is acting in the paladin's own self interest (evil). Oh well, the paladin set high ideals for himself and failed to live up to them, don't we all? Maybe he will feel guilty about his small acts of Chaotic Evil, maybe he won't. Of course, maybe he doesn't like the fighter, maybe he feels he has earned the extra money, maybe he feels the fighter would just blow it on drink while he can use it to help the poor (that is, the poor who are not innkeepers).
Unless he is breaking his oath (which he isn't because he hasn't taken it yet) there are *no* in game consequences. You have some interesting opportunities, however, when he does reach 3rd level: perhaps he *can't* take his oath. Some quests to find out why and to make amends might be in order, hmmm?
Summary
-------
To my mind, alignment for PCs is a role-playing guide like traits and flaws. I consider them as aspirations of who the character would like to be and I don't see it as the DMs role to castigate them when they turn out to be someone else so long as everyone is having fun.
If you really want to meddle in this, then some positive reinforcement through inspiration when the character plays to their alignment *at a cost* is the way to go. | Stealing (from the general public or from other PCs) isn't necessarily evil (if what and how much you steal does no harm, it's no worse than neutral on the good vs. evil spectrum), but it's certainly chaotic (putting your own needs or desires ahead of those of the group you've chosen to join). One can be genuinely evil and still lawful (a dedicated assistant to a genocidal dictator, like Himmler), one can be decidedly good and still chaotic (Robin Hood is a borderline example; Johnny Appleseed is probably a better one).
These actions could indicate a shift of the druid from chaotic good toward chaotic neutral, but I'd be more concerned about the (lawful good) paladin just going along with the actions -- that would seem like a shift toward both chaos and good vs. evil neutrality on his part (regardless of his state relative to vows he hasn't taken yet). |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | **Mechanically speaking alignment has little to no bearing on play as per the 5e rules.**
The PHB and basic rules mention alignment a lot, and its specifically described in detail in chapter 4 of the PHB, but how to implement it beyond a notation on a Player's character sheet is not given any space.
There a few optional rulesets in the DMG that hinge on using alignment to show corruption or character change over time, but again the mechanical impact is limited and not given anything but a brief description.
**Ultimately alignment's impact is between you and your players.**
As with many things int 5e, the impact of alignment and its importance to your campaign is largely dependent upon DM fiat and the social contract that is setup between the DM and the players. Alignment can serve as hard rules, limiting player actions lest they change alignment and lose access to certain features (as some previous editions handled it) or it can simply be used as a helpful guideline for good roleplay.
**Addressing your specific situation**
Ultimately morality is in the eye of the beholder, if you are looking to find out if the Druid's morality should change/his actions are against his alignment you should ask the player if the druid would think stealing/hiding a larger share of the loot would be considered wrong by his life experience and how he was raised. If his PC would see it as natural (working to help the greater good but also help himself in the process) then you should not instigate any alignment change. However he may get a reputation among groups and settlements for his greedy nature which may hamper his actions.
**My Advice as a GM**
Talk to your players out of character (all of them together) to see what their expectations are and where they would like the game to go. Ultimately whether you make Alignment have mechanical weight should be a decision made with everyone in mind, not one specific player or your own opinion. Personally I think 5e works best with alignment only serving as a moral guidestick to influence roleplay and that heavy mechanical weight hanging off alignment is best left to the previous editions that exercised it. | Stealing (from the general public or from other PCs) isn't necessarily evil (if what and how much you steal does no harm, it's no worse than neutral on the good vs. evil spectrum), but it's certainly chaotic (putting your own needs or desires ahead of those of the group you've chosen to join). One can be genuinely evil and still lawful (a dedicated assistant to a genocidal dictator, like Himmler), one can be decidedly good and still chaotic (Robin Hood is a borderline example; Johnny Appleseed is probably a better one).
These actions could indicate a shift of the druid from chaotic good toward chaotic neutral, but I'd be more concerned about the (lawful good) paladin just going along with the actions -- that would seem like a shift toward both chaos and good vs. evil neutrality on his part (regardless of his state relative to vows he hasn't taken yet). |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | These are evil acts, but not necessarily out of character.
==========================================================
Stealing is chaotic, and stealing for your own gain (which both of these cases are) is evil. However, alignment does not dictate a character's actions, it reflects them. If your players frequently take these kinds of actions, you may well be justified in changing their alignment to reflect their true nature.
Exactly what changes you make to their alignment, and how drastic a change, depends on their actions. If the examples you've given are the extent of what they've done, and they've counter-balanced that with many more acts of selfless good, then their alignment might not change at all. If they do this kind of thing often, but also do acts of good in roughly equal measure, then their alignment might change to neutral. If these actions reflect their primary nature and there are few, if any, selfless acts to counter-balance it, they might well change to an evil alignment.
However, it is important to note that, just as a good alignment does not prevent a character from performing evil acts, nor does an evil alignment prevent a character from perform good acts. Your players' characters will remain the same characters, no matter their alignment. Changing their alignment to evil won't automatically cause them to start kicking puppies and killing people for no reason ([evil is nothing if not reasoned](http://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/11/09/digger-264/)). Neither will it cause people to run in fear, or try to kill them, or treat them any differently at all, unless their actions cause them to.
**Alignment is, above all, meant to be an aid to role-playing**, to help your players think more about their characters actions. Not acting within their alignment is not a failure, and does not deserve punishment. Their actions can, and often should, have consequences, but those should follow logically from the actions they're taking, not because they've failed to be the kind of saintly heroes you might have expected them to be. | **Whether or not you obey the law in and of itself is measured on a scale of Lawful to Chaotic. Your motivations for (not?) obeying the law are what determines the Good to Evil axis.**
An evil character can steal from the rich and give to the poor - not because he cares about the poor, but he really wanted to see how steamed his rival got when his precious gold was missing. A good character might steal someone's only horse because they need to either stop Baron von Evil with a stolen horse, or walk and be too late to stop the ritual. He might also steal the horse so that Plucky the Brash Level 1 Fighter doesn't try to fight a dragon and die senselessly. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | The Rules
---------
It is always good to go back to first principles and look at what the rules actually say. From the [Basic Rules (pp. 33-34)](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment) (Player's Handbook is identical I believe; p. 122), I have highlighted what I consider to be key points:
>
> **Alignment**
>
>
> A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which *broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes*. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
>
>
> [...] *Individuals might vary significantly* from that typical behavior, and *few people are perfectly and consistently faithful* to the precepts of their alignment.
>
>
> **Alignment in the Multiverse**
>
>
> For many thinking creatures, *alignment is a moral choice*. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other *humanoid races can choose* whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos.
>
>
> Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather *it is lawful evil in its essence*. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.
>
>
>
The overarching concept is one of choice (unless you are a devil etc.); to my mind, the alignment written on a character sheet is aspirational - this is the type of person the character *wants* to be; not who they *are*.
This contrasts sharply with the earliest editions of D&D where the consequences of consistently acting outside alignment were severe (loss of a level in AD&D - a fate worse than death for a character!)
The problem of Evil (and Good)
------------------------------
How do you recognize an evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) act? Are they objectively quantifiable or are they contextual?
The problem is akin to that addressed by [Justice Stewart](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) when considering pornography:
>
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. **But I know it when I see it**, ...
>
>
>
Similarly, evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) is hard to define **but I know it when I see it**!
Part of the problem is that even after several thousand years of thinking about this stuff, there is no consensus of what "good" is: is it altruism, utilitarianism, liberalism, egalitarianism, something else? Similarly with "law", do we need: democracy, communism, feudalism, socialism, something else?
I contend that the ethical content of an act is a combination of its consequences and the **intent** of the perpetrator. This is reflected in most judicial systems: to be a crime the perpetrator must have [criminal intent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29).
Under the RAW, an act done by an angel is both Lawful and Good simply because an angel is doing it. Equally, the *same* act is both Chaotic and Evil if done by a demon for the same reason. It is within the DMs purview to decide that there may be acts that one can perform which the other is incapable of but I argue that these should be the exception rather than the rule. For example, both should be able to comfort or kill a child in the right circumstances; in either case an angel acting for the greater good and a demon acting on a titillating whim.
When the act is done by a PC, things really get confusing.
Reading the description of the alignments as they apply to those with moral agency, it is clear that you do not have to be vicious to be evil nor does being good mean you can't be vicious. As written, good is synonymous with altruism, evil with selfishness, law with community and chaos with individuality. An evil character may kill with regret, a good character with satisfaction, what matters is the motive for the killing.
The Specifics
-------------
The druid is acting bang on to his personality, he has no reverence for society, either the broader state or his current companions: chaotic to the core. Although he is clearly putting self interest first here, it is clear that he does not consider depriving his companions of their "fair share" to be either evil or good: in his mind it doesn't hurt them and he can use the money for useful stuff like saving the forest. The question of goodness comes when the fighter or paladin needs the money for something - will the druid give it to him?
You give no information about the the paladin except his alignment. He is clearly *not* acting to his alignment; he is not showing loyalty to the fighter (chaotic) and is acting in the paladin's own self interest (evil). Oh well, the paladin set high ideals for himself and failed to live up to them, don't we all? Maybe he will feel guilty about his small acts of Chaotic Evil, maybe he won't. Of course, maybe he doesn't like the fighter, maybe he feels he has earned the extra money, maybe he feels the fighter would just blow it on drink while he can use it to help the poor (that is, the poor who are not innkeepers).
Unless he is breaking his oath (which he isn't because he hasn't taken it yet) there are *no* in game consequences. You have some interesting opportunities, however, when he does reach 3rd level: perhaps he *can't* take his oath. Some quests to find out why and to make amends might be in order, hmmm?
Summary
-------
To my mind, alignment for PCs is a role-playing guide like traits and flaws. I consider them as aspirations of who the character would like to be and I don't see it as the DMs role to castigate them when they turn out to be someone else so long as everyone is having fun.
If you really want to meddle in this, then some positive reinforcement through inspiration when the character plays to their alignment *at a cost* is the way to go. | These are evil acts, but not necessarily out of character.
==========================================================
Stealing is chaotic, and stealing for your own gain (which both of these cases are) is evil. However, alignment does not dictate a character's actions, it reflects them. If your players frequently take these kinds of actions, you may well be justified in changing their alignment to reflect their true nature.
Exactly what changes you make to their alignment, and how drastic a change, depends on their actions. If the examples you've given are the extent of what they've done, and they've counter-balanced that with many more acts of selfless good, then their alignment might not change at all. If they do this kind of thing often, but also do acts of good in roughly equal measure, then their alignment might change to neutral. If these actions reflect their primary nature and there are few, if any, selfless acts to counter-balance it, they might well change to an evil alignment.
However, it is important to note that, just as a good alignment does not prevent a character from performing evil acts, nor does an evil alignment prevent a character from perform good acts. Your players' characters will remain the same characters, no matter their alignment. Changing their alignment to evil won't automatically cause them to start kicking puppies and killing people for no reason ([evil is nothing if not reasoned](http://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/11/09/digger-264/)). Neither will it cause people to run in fear, or try to kill them, or treat them any differently at all, unless their actions cause them to.
**Alignment is, above all, meant to be an aid to role-playing**, to help your players think more about their characters actions. Not acting within their alignment is not a failure, and does not deserve punishment. Their actions can, and often should, have consequences, but those should follow logically from the actions they're taking, not because they've failed to be the kind of saintly heroes you might have expected them to be. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | The Rules
---------
It is always good to go back to first principles and look at what the rules actually say. From the [Basic Rules (pp. 33-34)](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment) (Player's Handbook is identical I believe; p. 122), I have highlighted what I consider to be key points:
>
> **Alignment**
>
>
> A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which *broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes*. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
>
>
> [...] *Individuals might vary significantly* from that typical behavior, and *few people are perfectly and consistently faithful* to the precepts of their alignment.
>
>
> **Alignment in the Multiverse**
>
>
> For many thinking creatures, *alignment is a moral choice*. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other *humanoid races can choose* whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos.
>
>
> Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather *it is lawful evil in its essence*. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.
>
>
>
The overarching concept is one of choice (unless you are a devil etc.); to my mind, the alignment written on a character sheet is aspirational - this is the type of person the character *wants* to be; not who they *are*.
This contrasts sharply with the earliest editions of D&D where the consequences of consistently acting outside alignment were severe (loss of a level in AD&D - a fate worse than death for a character!)
The problem of Evil (and Good)
------------------------------
How do you recognize an evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) act? Are they objectively quantifiable or are they contextual?
The problem is akin to that addressed by [Justice Stewart](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) when considering pornography:
>
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. **But I know it when I see it**, ...
>
>
>
Similarly, evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) is hard to define **but I know it when I see it**!
Part of the problem is that even after several thousand years of thinking about this stuff, there is no consensus of what "good" is: is it altruism, utilitarianism, liberalism, egalitarianism, something else? Similarly with "law", do we need: democracy, communism, feudalism, socialism, something else?
I contend that the ethical content of an act is a combination of its consequences and the **intent** of the perpetrator. This is reflected in most judicial systems: to be a crime the perpetrator must have [criminal intent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29).
Under the RAW, an act done by an angel is both Lawful and Good simply because an angel is doing it. Equally, the *same* act is both Chaotic and Evil if done by a demon for the same reason. It is within the DMs purview to decide that there may be acts that one can perform which the other is incapable of but I argue that these should be the exception rather than the rule. For example, both should be able to comfort or kill a child in the right circumstances; in either case an angel acting for the greater good and a demon acting on a titillating whim.
When the act is done by a PC, things really get confusing.
Reading the description of the alignments as they apply to those with moral agency, it is clear that you do not have to be vicious to be evil nor does being good mean you can't be vicious. As written, good is synonymous with altruism, evil with selfishness, law with community and chaos with individuality. An evil character may kill with regret, a good character with satisfaction, what matters is the motive for the killing.
The Specifics
-------------
The druid is acting bang on to his personality, he has no reverence for society, either the broader state or his current companions: chaotic to the core. Although he is clearly putting self interest first here, it is clear that he does not consider depriving his companions of their "fair share" to be either evil or good: in his mind it doesn't hurt them and he can use the money for useful stuff like saving the forest. The question of goodness comes when the fighter or paladin needs the money for something - will the druid give it to him?
You give no information about the the paladin except his alignment. He is clearly *not* acting to his alignment; he is not showing loyalty to the fighter (chaotic) and is acting in the paladin's own self interest (evil). Oh well, the paladin set high ideals for himself and failed to live up to them, don't we all? Maybe he will feel guilty about his small acts of Chaotic Evil, maybe he won't. Of course, maybe he doesn't like the fighter, maybe he feels he has earned the extra money, maybe he feels the fighter would just blow it on drink while he can use it to help the poor (that is, the poor who are not innkeepers).
Unless he is breaking his oath (which he isn't because he hasn't taken it yet) there are *no* in game consequences. You have some interesting opportunities, however, when he does reach 3rd level: perhaps he *can't* take his oath. Some quests to find out why and to make amends might be in order, hmmm?
Summary
-------
To my mind, alignment for PCs is a role-playing guide like traits and flaws. I consider them as aspirations of who the character would like to be and I don't see it as the DMs role to castigate them when they turn out to be someone else so long as everyone is having fun.
If you really want to meddle in this, then some positive reinforcement through inspiration when the character plays to their alignment *at a cost* is the way to go. | I think a better question here would be, is "is being greedy and being good a good combination", as it has less to do with the lawful/chaos scale if you ask me.
Being greedy means you take things that other people possess because you want it, which is not always a problem on the law / chaos scale (a tyrant taxing poor peasants way too much to fill his own coffers is acting perfectly lawful, but he's still a jerk) but it is certainly a problem on the good/evil scale in most cases.
However, stealing is entirely a chaos/law scale slider. "I could use this to do more good than the paladin who will just donate it to his church anyway, so I'll keep it and lie" is lawfully dubious action, but not exactly evil, you're doing it because you intend to use the money for a good goal rather than because you like swimming around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
In the end though, remember that alignment, whether on the good/evil scale or the law/chaos scale is not something that is set in stone. There are plenty of good people with bad habits and plenty of villains with redeeming qualities and it doesn't automatically make them "neutral" simply because not ALL their traits are lawful/good/etc. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | The Rules
---------
It is always good to go back to first principles and look at what the rules actually say. From the [Basic Rules (pp. 33-34)](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment) (Player's Handbook is identical I believe; p. 122), I have highlighted what I consider to be key points:
>
> **Alignment**
>
>
> A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which *broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes*. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
>
>
> [...] *Individuals might vary significantly* from that typical behavior, and *few people are perfectly and consistently faithful* to the precepts of their alignment.
>
>
> **Alignment in the Multiverse**
>
>
> For many thinking creatures, *alignment is a moral choice*. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other *humanoid races can choose* whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos.
>
>
> Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather *it is lawful evil in its essence*. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.
>
>
>
The overarching concept is one of choice (unless you are a devil etc.); to my mind, the alignment written on a character sheet is aspirational - this is the type of person the character *wants* to be; not who they *are*.
This contrasts sharply with the earliest editions of D&D where the consequences of consistently acting outside alignment were severe (loss of a level in AD&D - a fate worse than death for a character!)
The problem of Evil (and Good)
------------------------------
How do you recognize an evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) act? Are they objectively quantifiable or are they contextual?
The problem is akin to that addressed by [Justice Stewart](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) when considering pornography:
>
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. **But I know it when I see it**, ...
>
>
>
Similarly, evil (or good, lawful or chaotic) is hard to define **but I know it when I see it**!
Part of the problem is that even after several thousand years of thinking about this stuff, there is no consensus of what "good" is: is it altruism, utilitarianism, liberalism, egalitarianism, something else? Similarly with "law", do we need: democracy, communism, feudalism, socialism, something else?
I contend that the ethical content of an act is a combination of its consequences and the **intent** of the perpetrator. This is reflected in most judicial systems: to be a crime the perpetrator must have [criminal intent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29).
Under the RAW, an act done by an angel is both Lawful and Good simply because an angel is doing it. Equally, the *same* act is both Chaotic and Evil if done by a demon for the same reason. It is within the DMs purview to decide that there may be acts that one can perform which the other is incapable of but I argue that these should be the exception rather than the rule. For example, both should be able to comfort or kill a child in the right circumstances; in either case an angel acting for the greater good and a demon acting on a titillating whim.
When the act is done by a PC, things really get confusing.
Reading the description of the alignments as they apply to those with moral agency, it is clear that you do not have to be vicious to be evil nor does being good mean you can't be vicious. As written, good is synonymous with altruism, evil with selfishness, law with community and chaos with individuality. An evil character may kill with regret, a good character with satisfaction, what matters is the motive for the killing.
The Specifics
-------------
The druid is acting bang on to his personality, he has no reverence for society, either the broader state or his current companions: chaotic to the core. Although he is clearly putting self interest first here, it is clear that he does not consider depriving his companions of their "fair share" to be either evil or good: in his mind it doesn't hurt them and he can use the money for useful stuff like saving the forest. The question of goodness comes when the fighter or paladin needs the money for something - will the druid give it to him?
You give no information about the the paladin except his alignment. He is clearly *not* acting to his alignment; he is not showing loyalty to the fighter (chaotic) and is acting in the paladin's own self interest (evil). Oh well, the paladin set high ideals for himself and failed to live up to them, don't we all? Maybe he will feel guilty about his small acts of Chaotic Evil, maybe he won't. Of course, maybe he doesn't like the fighter, maybe he feels he has earned the extra money, maybe he feels the fighter would just blow it on drink while he can use it to help the poor (that is, the poor who are not innkeepers).
Unless he is breaking his oath (which he isn't because he hasn't taken it yet) there are *no* in game consequences. You have some interesting opportunities, however, when he does reach 3rd level: perhaps he *can't* take his oath. Some quests to find out why and to make amends might be in order, hmmm?
Summary
-------
To my mind, alignment for PCs is a role-playing guide like traits and flaws. I consider them as aspirations of who the character would like to be and I don't see it as the DMs role to castigate them when they turn out to be someone else so long as everyone is having fun.
If you really want to meddle in this, then some positive reinforcement through inspiration when the character plays to their alignment *at a cost* is the way to go. | In general terms, lawfulness of an action by itself has no bearing on goodness. As it says in the PHB 122, alignment is a combination of two things. One is personal morality and the other is how they act in society and order. So, in terms of stealing, the reason behind the stealing is what matters to determine if the act is good or not, but not if it is lawful, which, unless you're talking about kinder society, it is not. So, in terms of your Paladin, it would be hard to justify stealing and lying. In fact, the first two oaths, Devotion and Ancients, either directly or indirectly prohibit stealing and the last oath, Vengence, could allow it only if it was directly necessary to exterminate his enemies. So, he could be an oathbreaker paladin technically and the DM should take a hand. As for the Druid, I suppose if he only cares about wildlife to the detriment of humanoids, then that would cover the smugglers if he puts the money to use feeding the animals or something. Honestly, it sounds like chaotic neutral would be a better fit for the Druid and I would probably suggest a change as the DM. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | TL;DR: Deceiving party members and taking more than his fair share of loot is out of alignment for a good character, even if it is lawful for him to do so.
**Goodness and Lawfulfulness are entirely seperate character traits, are therefore each is measured on its own axis: Good vs Evil, and Lawful vs Chaotic.**
Being good does not necessarily incline a character to be lawful, and being lawful does not necessarily incline a character to be good. The same can be said for the opposite ends of the respective scales.
Some people have difficulty distinguishing between good and lawful for cultural socialisation reasons (in the real world we are taught to collapse this distinction), but nevertheless they are in fact unrelated.
**Lawful Evil**
For example, it is entirely possible to be lawful evil. This type of character believes in order and authority above all else. He doesn't act out of "evilness", but out of self interest and to enforce the prevailing social order. Fictional example: Darth Vader (bringing order to the galaxy through ruthless oppression). The Lawful evil character is a common trope in film and television, and encompasses characters from bureaucrats to despots who work within the system to benefit themselves at the expense of others, either intentionally or through disregard.
In the real world, the exploitative (but law abiding) employer, the overzealous police officer, the soldier (essentially a mercenary for the state), the usurer (someone who lends you money knowing you will be trapped by the debt) or the member of an oppressive government (i.e. politician) are examples of lawful evil. They are highly immoral but obey the law and respect authority.
**Chaotic Good**
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the chaotic good character. This is the Robin Hood archetype who does good *irrespective* of the law. He doesn't necessarily set out to break the law, but he's perfectly willing to do so to achieve a good outcome. Han Solo is another chaotic good character.
In the real world, the revolutionary fighting for freedom or justice, and citizens who engage in civil disobedience to protest some injustice are examples of chaotic good. You would find this kind of person working for Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace, or joining a revolutionary organisation. They are driven by morality and are willing to break the law if they feel it is unjust and doing so will lead to a better outcome for everyone.
**The Druid**
Application of *good* is somewhat subjective to the character's values, however good aligned characters are generally concerned with the wellbeing of others and society in general, and hold honesty and loyalty to other good characters as important values. They are highly moral, and sometimes criminal.
Greed often leads to evil, but is not necessarily evil in and of itself. It's how the characters acts on his greedy impulses. However, taking more that their fair share and deceiving their party mates, even if it is perfectly legal to do so, is incongruent with a good belief system, and more akin to lawful evil than chaotic good. | In general terms, lawfulness of an action by itself has no bearing on goodness. As it says in the PHB 122, alignment is a combination of two things. One is personal morality and the other is how they act in society and order. So, in terms of stealing, the reason behind the stealing is what matters to determine if the act is good or not, but not if it is lawful, which, unless you're talking about kinder society, it is not. So, in terms of your Paladin, it would be hard to justify stealing and lying. In fact, the first two oaths, Devotion and Ancients, either directly or indirectly prohibit stealing and the last oath, Vengence, could allow it only if it was directly necessary to exterminate his enemies. So, he could be an oathbreaker paladin technically and the DM should take a hand. As for the Druid, I suppose if he only cares about wildlife to the detriment of humanoids, then that would cover the smugglers if he puts the money to use feeding the animals or something. Honestly, it sounds like chaotic neutral would be a better fit for the Druid and I would probably suggest a change as the DM. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | **Whether or not you obey the law in and of itself is measured on a scale of Lawful to Chaotic. Your motivations for (not?) obeying the law are what determines the Good to Evil axis.**
An evil character can steal from the rich and give to the poor - not because he cares about the poor, but he really wanted to see how steamed his rival got when his precious gold was missing. A good character might steal someone's only horse because they need to either stop Baron von Evil with a stolen horse, or walk and be too late to stop the ritual. He might also steal the horse so that Plucky the Brash Level 1 Fighter doesn't try to fight a dragon and die senselessly. | **You seem to be making the assumption that Lawful is the same as Good.** Were it so, there could be no Chaotic Good, no Lawful Evil.
Imagine a society dedicated to the rule of law, upon which a charismatic political bloc comes to hold sway. This bloc utilizes some culturally compelling arguments to select a smaller subset of the population to serve as a scapegoat, to be sacrificed whenever things go sour. The populace and their leaders codify this into law, and suddenly a great injustice is lawful. That's Lawful Evil, and has occurred repeatedly throughout human history. Heck, if you look at history you can practically pick a year at random and this will have happened that year somewhere on earth.
The law is an ass, as George Chapman and Charles Dickens remind us, and Lawful Evil as well as Lawful Neutral are perfect examples of this.
Here's another example: Recall the American Revolutionary War wherein the colonists rejected the King's authority (ie laws) for what they certainly saw as the greater good. This could certainly be called Chaotic Good--an act completely violating the written laws, yet not to oppress any person or cause great bloodshed for its own sake, but to afford a great multitude of people a better life. Possibly it's Neutral Good, as they were not opposed to laws and good order. (If you disagree, again, hey, look, it's an illustration.)
**There are a few methods suggested in the game books on how to handle this mechanically.** Note I neither know nor care which ones--Rule 0 is RAW, the others are just inspiration.
One is to track deeds that violate the two alignment portions (Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil). After X steps away, the player gets a warning in some way (conscience, dreams, deities, etc). After a few more steps, their alignment changes--and any consequences which thereby result. For some characters that's nothing, and that's fine.
However, before even doing this, you should have a talk with your players on 1.) If you even want this in your game, 2.) How to determine these shifts, and 3.) What the impact is in the world. Most players don't seem to care much. Those players who choose a class with alignment restrictions generally care at least a little. Paladins and Clerics should care quite a bit... or at least their deities ought to!
**Here's what I suggest for phasing in Alignment:**
If your world is infused with magic (most are) but your players don't seem to care about alignment, you could go with a purely cosmetic result. Evil characters always manage to catch a shadow, there's a general feeling of ill will about them. Good characters may seem to glow and set people at ease. Lawful characters may resonate with people as trustworthy but a bit boring, while Chaotic ones excite people but don't exactly inspire confidence.
If they like this approach, start giving some mechanical modifiers. Bonuses to interactions, for example. If that goes well, grant an appropriate boon from a deity (their own or one whose alignment matches what the PC is moving to). A healing from the goddess of healing, perhaps, or a warning from the trickster god about a trap the PCs may run into. Let them know it's a deity intervening. Do it more and more as they come deeper into an alignment. Then...
...
... take it away when their alignment shifts. Leave a dead zone before another deity tries to curry their favour. That makes alignment something more than flavour text, but more than just a number and a bonus or penalty. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | I think a better question here would be, is "is being greedy and being good a good combination", as it has less to do with the lawful/chaos scale if you ask me.
Being greedy means you take things that other people possess because you want it, which is not always a problem on the law / chaos scale (a tyrant taxing poor peasants way too much to fill his own coffers is acting perfectly lawful, but he's still a jerk) but it is certainly a problem on the good/evil scale in most cases.
However, stealing is entirely a chaos/law scale slider. "I could use this to do more good than the paladin who will just donate it to his church anyway, so I'll keep it and lie" is lawfully dubious action, but not exactly evil, you're doing it because you intend to use the money for a good goal rather than because you like swimming around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
In the end though, remember that alignment, whether on the good/evil scale or the law/chaos scale is not something that is set in stone. There are plenty of good people with bad habits and plenty of villains with redeeming qualities and it doesn't automatically make them "neutral" simply because not ALL their traits are lawful/good/etc. | **You seem to be making the assumption that Lawful is the same as Good.** Were it so, there could be no Chaotic Good, no Lawful Evil.
Imagine a society dedicated to the rule of law, upon which a charismatic political bloc comes to hold sway. This bloc utilizes some culturally compelling arguments to select a smaller subset of the population to serve as a scapegoat, to be sacrificed whenever things go sour. The populace and their leaders codify this into law, and suddenly a great injustice is lawful. That's Lawful Evil, and has occurred repeatedly throughout human history. Heck, if you look at history you can practically pick a year at random and this will have happened that year somewhere on earth.
The law is an ass, as George Chapman and Charles Dickens remind us, and Lawful Evil as well as Lawful Neutral are perfect examples of this.
Here's another example: Recall the American Revolutionary War wherein the colonists rejected the King's authority (ie laws) for what they certainly saw as the greater good. This could certainly be called Chaotic Good--an act completely violating the written laws, yet not to oppress any person or cause great bloodshed for its own sake, but to afford a great multitude of people a better life. Possibly it's Neutral Good, as they were not opposed to laws and good order. (If you disagree, again, hey, look, it's an illustration.)
**There are a few methods suggested in the game books on how to handle this mechanically.** Note I neither know nor care which ones--Rule 0 is RAW, the others are just inspiration.
One is to track deeds that violate the two alignment portions (Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil). After X steps away, the player gets a warning in some way (conscience, dreams, deities, etc). After a few more steps, their alignment changes--and any consequences which thereby result. For some characters that's nothing, and that's fine.
However, before even doing this, you should have a talk with your players on 1.) If you even want this in your game, 2.) How to determine these shifts, and 3.) What the impact is in the world. Most players don't seem to care much. Those players who choose a class with alignment restrictions generally care at least a little. Paladins and Clerics should care quite a bit... or at least their deities ought to!
**Here's what I suggest for phasing in Alignment:**
If your world is infused with magic (most are) but your players don't seem to care about alignment, you could go with a purely cosmetic result. Evil characters always manage to catch a shadow, there's a general feeling of ill will about them. Good characters may seem to glow and set people at ease. Lawful characters may resonate with people as trustworthy but a bit boring, while Chaotic ones excite people but don't exactly inspire confidence.
If they like this approach, start giving some mechanical modifiers. Bonuses to interactions, for example. If that goes well, grant an appropriate boon from a deity (their own or one whose alignment matches what the PC is moving to). A healing from the goddess of healing, perhaps, or a warning from the trickster god about a trap the PCs may run into. Let them know it's a deity intervening. Do it more and more as they come deeper into an alignment. Then...
...
... take it away when their alignment shifts. Leave a dead zone before another deity tries to curry their favour. That makes alignment something more than flavour text, but more than just a number and a bonus or penalty. |
53,418 | We have a group of three characters: The lawful good paladin (acolyte), the lawful good fighter (soldier) and the chaotic good druid (criminal). All try to help NPCs in need, won't fight between themselves, but of course have different alignments and personalities. The druid is greedy, but otherwise a good guy. This brought up the question for our group whether greed can be considered a contradiction to having a chaotic good alignment? I understand it as "acting upon what is good, but having your own understanding of 'good'". But I am not sure if the PC being is played 'wrong'.
**How do you determine if a given action is in line with a PC's alignment? And should the GM intervene if a PC is played differently that his/her alignment indicates?**
Example: There is a Chaotic Good druid with a criminal background. The druid attacked caravans who destroyed his homeland, which he was protecting as his druidic duty, to make way for faster trade routes. Thus he made a name of himself and soon had quite a pile of goods in his territory. The thieves guild caught wind of that and made a deal with him to smuggle wares through his territory as long as they won't hurt the wildlife. So far, seems like a reasonable match between criminal and CG.
Upon opening a chest in a dungeon the druid found a magic chainmail and a bag filled with 420gp. As he was the only one next to the chest, he turned around and told his two comrades there were 360gp in the chest, keeping an extra 60gp to himself without them knowing. Later after finishing a task for the mayor the druid and the paladin persuaded him to give them 550 instead of 500gp, while the fighter was drunk outside. The druid told the paladin to keep his share of those 10% extra, as a gift for always being successful on those charismatic tasks. This was done to check out the personality of the paladin. He accepted without a second of doubt and didn't even contradict when the druid told him not to tell the fighter anything about the extra.
I am now confused about whether this is just unlawful or also not good, and if so what should I as DM do about it? | 2014/12/21 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53418",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/18335/"
] | Stealing (from the general public or from other PCs) isn't necessarily evil (if what and how much you steal does no harm, it's no worse than neutral on the good vs. evil spectrum), but it's certainly chaotic (putting your own needs or desires ahead of those of the group you've chosen to join). One can be genuinely evil and still lawful (a dedicated assistant to a genocidal dictator, like Himmler), one can be decidedly good and still chaotic (Robin Hood is a borderline example; Johnny Appleseed is probably a better one).
These actions could indicate a shift of the druid from chaotic good toward chaotic neutral, but I'd be more concerned about the (lawful good) paladin just going along with the actions -- that would seem like a shift toward both chaos and good vs. evil neutrality on his part (regardless of his state relative to vows he hasn't taken yet). | As many of the other answers pointed out there is no mechanical requirements to how you roleplay your alignment in 5E D&D. Previous editions included things like massive experience loss and other potential punishments as disincentives for alignment changes.
**Stealing isn't really greed**
Is the character pushing for missions/goals to make money? Is the character bargaining to get the better end of the deal? That's roleplaying greed.
If not, then it's not really about roleplaying as much as it is about the player selectively pushing the character to steal resources for game reasons. I've seen players do this out of some sense of fear, or lack of control (in how the game goes), or as some kind of competition against the other players.
In most cases where I have encountered this kind of behavior, that's what's going on. The easy solution is this: "Hey, you're doing this thing in play. Is this fun? Hey, other players, is this also fun for you? Does this fit with what we want to do?"
**No, really let's play a game about moral quandries!**
Now, if you want to really explore moral quandries about alignment, then everyone playing has to understand this is a key part of play and as a GM, you're going to be putting people into positions to test how they feel about their alignment stances.
>
> "Hey Paladin, this kid is dying of a sickness that this medicine can
> cure, but they won't sell it to you, will you steal it?"
>
>
> "Hey Druid, that necklace you stole turned out to be that woman's last keepsake of
> her dead mother. Are you gonna give it back?"
>
>
>
This can be a ton of fun, but D&D is not a game system particularly well set up for this and few players are able to deal with the mental shift from standard D&D expectations when you start throwing these problems their way. |
181,137 | Request: The question must assumed to be hypothetical and answers be limited to technical only. (no ethics and other things)
I am in an organization (school) that has very strict network policies. We can access internet only through a squid proxy. Stackoverflow is banned and I want to access it somehow.
Now I own a machine in some cloud connected directly to internet backbone. I have root access to this machine. Needless to say it's outside my organization's network. This machine is accessible through HTTP from my organization network.
Now tell me is there anything that I can install on the cloud machine so that I can surf whatever I want from organization's network?
I think this reduces to asking : Basically the way we have SSH tunneling is HTTP tunneling possible ? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/181137",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/53506/"
] | Do you know for a fact that the proxy server is in fact Squid? The nature of the proxy server changes the approach.
School law can get quite complicated (and IANAL), but the bottom line is that the school district is responsible for making a best effort to appropriately filter content (which is the reverse of standard college policy). That means that the school needs some way of constantly updating which sites are accessible (unless of course they just throw their hands up and institute a very strict whitelist policy, which they might have done if they are just using Squid). In many organizations, a dedicated proxy device is used that subscribes to a service which constantly updates web site categorization. These services have gotten very good over the years at detecting and preventing the standard sorts of ways around your institutional proxy (such as setting your own proxy server up outside the network and using that to view Stack Overflow, which is essentially Bruno's answer).
It is possible to use VNC over an HTTP proxy, which might accomplish what you want (remote into your outside machine and then run a web browser inside it). I have also seen some people have success with SSH tunneling through HTTP proxies (Craig notes that it shouldn't work, and maybe it doesn't with Squid, but I have seen it done with other proxy devices although I've never tried it myself). Again, unless they really are using a fairly static Squid configuration, don't be surprised if the admins catch on fairly quickly as to what you are up to.
Since I am, in fact, employed to prevent precisely the kind of thing you are describing, I should note that violating your institution's Acceptable Use Policy will get you into a lot of hot water. Yes, you said to ignore the ethics but this post is appearing under my name and will be eminently Googleable. :)
That said, even when I was a student and not an employee, I found that some problems are best solved organizationally. There is a procedure somewhere for unblocking websites, and there are people authorized to submit to that procedure (i.e. teachers, professors, etc.). If you can make the case to them that some sites should be unblocked, then they can make the case to the IT Department. Provided that no one has previously offended the BOFH, you should be able to get access to the site. After all, it is quite well known and dedicated to intelligently solving technical issues rather than trading ways of attacking your network. | Do you need a website on that server? If not, why not run sshd on port 80 and then use an SSH tunnel? If that's not possible, [this](http://sites.google.com/site/luizluca/port-forward-over-http) may be of interest but I've not tried it. |
181,137 | Request: The question must assumed to be hypothetical and answers be limited to technical only. (no ethics and other things)
I am in an organization (school) that has very strict network policies. We can access internet only through a squid proxy. Stackoverflow is banned and I want to access it somehow.
Now I own a machine in some cloud connected directly to internet backbone. I have root access to this machine. Needless to say it's outside my organization's network. This machine is accessible through HTTP from my organization network.
Now tell me is there anything that I can install on the cloud machine so that I can surf whatever I want from organization's network?
I think this reduces to asking : Basically the way we have SSH tunneling is HTTP tunneling possible ? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/181137",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/53506/"
] | Do you know for a fact that the proxy server is in fact Squid? The nature of the proxy server changes the approach.
School law can get quite complicated (and IANAL), but the bottom line is that the school district is responsible for making a best effort to appropriately filter content (which is the reverse of standard college policy). That means that the school needs some way of constantly updating which sites are accessible (unless of course they just throw their hands up and institute a very strict whitelist policy, which they might have done if they are just using Squid). In many organizations, a dedicated proxy device is used that subscribes to a service which constantly updates web site categorization. These services have gotten very good over the years at detecting and preventing the standard sorts of ways around your institutional proxy (such as setting your own proxy server up outside the network and using that to view Stack Overflow, which is essentially Bruno's answer).
It is possible to use VNC over an HTTP proxy, which might accomplish what you want (remote into your outside machine and then run a web browser inside it). I have also seen some people have success with SSH tunneling through HTTP proxies (Craig notes that it shouldn't work, and maybe it doesn't with Squid, but I have seen it done with other proxy devices although I've never tried it myself). Again, unless they really are using a fairly static Squid configuration, don't be surprised if the admins catch on fairly quickly as to what you are up to.
Since I am, in fact, employed to prevent precisely the kind of thing you are describing, I should note that violating your institution's Acceptable Use Policy will get you into a lot of hot water. Yes, you said to ignore the ethics but this post is appearing under my name and will be eminently Googleable. :)
That said, even when I was a student and not an employee, I found that some problems are best solved organizationally. There is a procedure somewhere for unblocking websites, and there are people authorized to submit to that procedure (i.e. teachers, professors, etc.). If you can make the case to them that some sites should be unblocked, then they can make the case to the IT Department. Provided that no one has previously offended the BOFH, you should be able to get access to the site. After all, it is quite well known and dedicated to intelligently solving technical issues rather than trading ways of attacking your network. | If your box is running something like Apache Httpd, you could probably configure a path on your box to relay the requests to the server of your choice using `mod_proxy` and its reverse proxy functions. |
145,583 | I'm wondering how much Covid-19 affected scientific productivity, if it affected productivity negatively at all (c.f. Newton actually did a lot of his most important work while the University of Cambridge was closed due to plague).
I'm using the rate at which papers are published on arXiv as a proxy for "scientific productivity", fully aware that it is not a perfect proxy and probably lags actual productivity by quite a bit. If country-specific statistics are available, e.g. "The number of publications by authors from Italy changed by \_\_% on 9 March 2020, the date the lockdown started", that's even better. | 2020/03/19 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145583",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834/"
] | ArXiv posts its monthly submission statistics [here](https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions). It's noisy data even in the absence of viruses, so I can't tell if there's an effect yet or not. Then again, I'm no statistician. Extrapolating the March data as of today (March 19th), it's at least set to be larger than the February number of submissions, as is typical for March submissions.
However, even if the number of monthly arXiv submissions is to be considered a good proxy, it will likely lag by more time than we have seen so far. Yes, closures, adapting to online classes, and changed schedules will delay new experiments and other activities. However, finishing writing up manuscripts already in the pipeline, or analyzing already collected data are still productive tasks that will lead to new submissions for quite a while. Not to mention people such as myself, who can continue our theoretical/numerical work from home. | I think your assumption that scientific productivity can be measured by arXiv uploads is flawed. Surely it can measure that the usual workflow has been changed - but especially for short periods of time, productivity cannot be measured by number of papers.
Taking myself as an example. I am using my time at home to do research tasks I have put off for too long. Cleaning up a large code base. Revisiting some old results. These are not tasks that results directly in arXiv uploads, but tasks which are needed in the long run. What I hear from my colleagues, is that they are doing similar things - if not completely worn down by teaching and supervising remotely, of course. |
145,583 | I'm wondering how much Covid-19 affected scientific productivity, if it affected productivity negatively at all (c.f. Newton actually did a lot of his most important work while the University of Cambridge was closed due to plague).
I'm using the rate at which papers are published on arXiv as a proxy for "scientific productivity", fully aware that it is not a perfect proxy and probably lags actual productivity by quite a bit. If country-specific statistics are available, e.g. "The number of publications by authors from Italy changed by \_\_% on 9 March 2020, the date the lockdown started", that's even better. | 2020/03/19 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145583",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834/"
] | I think it will be interesting to study this 5 years from now, but right now is way too soon. At least in math, people don’t post papers at a steady, constant rate. I personally post around 3 papers per year, and most of those represent work that is at least a year old (often much longer than that) by the time I get around to writing it up. Given what I’ve got partially written right now, I suspect that I will post about the same number (or even a little more) this year, bit that’s just part of the ebb and flow of research. What is harder to predict is the effect of all this chaos on the production of new math, which won’t be visible for several years. | I think your assumption that scientific productivity can be measured by arXiv uploads is flawed. Surely it can measure that the usual workflow has been changed - but especially for short periods of time, productivity cannot be measured by number of papers.
Taking myself as an example. I am using my time at home to do research tasks I have put off for too long. Cleaning up a large code base. Revisiting some old results. These are not tasks that results directly in arXiv uploads, but tasks which are needed in the long run. What I hear from my colleagues, is that they are doing similar things - if not completely worn down by teaching and supervising remotely, of course. |
145,583 | I'm wondering how much Covid-19 affected scientific productivity, if it affected productivity negatively at all (c.f. Newton actually did a lot of his most important work while the University of Cambridge was closed due to plague).
I'm using the rate at which papers are published on arXiv as a proxy for "scientific productivity", fully aware that it is not a perfect proxy and probably lags actual productivity by quite a bit. If country-specific statistics are available, e.g. "The number of publications by authors from Italy changed by \_\_% on 9 March 2020, the date the lockdown started", that's even better. | 2020/03/19 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145583",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834/"
] | ArXiv posts its monthly submission statistics [here](https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions). It's noisy data even in the absence of viruses, so I can't tell if there's an effect yet or not. Then again, I'm no statistician. Extrapolating the March data as of today (March 19th), it's at least set to be larger than the February number of submissions, as is typical for March submissions.
However, even if the number of monthly arXiv submissions is to be considered a good proxy, it will likely lag by more time than we have seen so far. Yes, closures, adapting to online classes, and changed schedules will delay new experiments and other activities. However, finishing writing up manuscripts already in the pipeline, or analyzing already collected data are still productive tasks that will lead to new submissions for quite a while. Not to mention people such as myself, who can continue our theoretical/numerical work from home. | I think it will be interesting to study this 5 years from now, but right now is way too soon. At least in math, people don’t post papers at a steady, constant rate. I personally post around 3 papers per year, and most of those represent work that is at least a year old (often much longer than that) by the time I get around to writing it up. Given what I’ve got partially written right now, I suspect that I will post about the same number (or even a little more) this year, bit that’s just part of the ebb and flow of research. What is harder to predict is the effect of all this chaos on the production of new math, which won’t be visible for several years. |
239,271 | I had a driver completely fail on me so I have to restore my computer from a system image backup. I used an installation DVD to run the Re-Image utility on there, but after 8 hours of "preparing the image" to be restored, it began restoring to my hard drive. After 12 hours there, it was 5-8% complete.
I figured I must have done something wrong or it started doing something wrong. So I installed a fresh copy of Win-7 and ran the utility from there. It's going at the same snail's pace.
I still think I must be doing something incorrectly - I don't see how it could possibly take so long, I could probably manually flip the on my hard drive and be done before that utility.
Am I doing this correctly or is there something else I should be doing?
Edit:
In case my hardware is relevant:
* Win 7 64 bit
* Core i7
* 8 GB Ram
* 640GB Internal
* 1TB External connected via eSATA
* I had approximately 400GB of data on my computer before it crashed. | 2011/01/29 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/239271",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/61214/"
] | It sounds like you are trying to do it correctly, all I can think of is if the image is on the Esata drive, try connecting via USB.
It is possible that Windows PE (The recovery environment) doesn't have a good driver for the external drive and the I/O speed is low, but the fact it was working and not coming up with an error makes me think you are doing the right thing.
Alternatively, if this or similar happens in the future, try asking here for help first! I would advise going in to safe mode and removing the driver fully.
You may be able to do the previous step if it hasn't actually written or started to write the image yet - but I can't really say for sure.
The only other method I can think of is to use your Windows 7 disk without the recovery image and do a reinstallation - It is possible to mount the backup images and just extract the data you need to keep at a later date.... of course, you will however need to reinstall all programs and redo any changes you made. | I would test your hard drive and memory.
Make a memtest disk and boot from it to test your memory
<http://www.memtest.org/>
Some OEM PCs have a built in hardware tester, you can use that for the hard drive, or determine the manufacturer of the hard drive then use one of their utilities to test it.
Hitachi
<http://www.hitachigst.com/support/downloads/>
Seagate <http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=SeaTools&vgnextoid=720bd20cacdec010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD>
Toshiba/Fujitsu <http://sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=ServicesSupport/FujitsuDrivesUSandCanada/SoftwareUtilities>
Western Digital <http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=702&sid=30&lang=en>
. |
83,011 | I was rewatching DS9 recently and I realized that, in light of Bashir's genetically modified status.
For example, his statement
>
> [Doctors] seemed to know everything. It was as if they held the power of
> life and death in their hands. I used to think that if I didn't
> behave, they'd make sure I got sick. Then as I got older, I decided
> that I wanted to know what they knew, be as smart as they were [DS9 : Equilibrium](http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/450.htm)
>
>
>
seems to be foreshadowing the fact that he was heavily treated by the doctors who genetically modified him early in life.
Another problem was the way everyone seemed to treat Bashir with annoyance, which seems fairly similar to the way other genetically modified people behave in *Star Trek*.
I have two questions
1. Is this foreshadowing (out of universe) of Bashir's status?
2. If so, are there other instances? | 2015/03/03 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/83011",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/36887/"
] | No.
---
---
As stated on the Memory-Alpha page for Bashir in the [Background Information](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir#Background_information):
>
> **Making Bashir genetically engineered in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" was a last-minute decision.** As Ira Steven Behr explains, "at the time we were working on "In Purgatory's Shadow" and "By Inferno's Light", we had no idea that Bashir would turn out to be genetically engineered... even though it was the very next episode..."
>
>
> Alexander Siddig was not happy about this sudden development in his character: **"I didn't know about it on Tuesday, and on Thursday the script arrived – we started shooting on Friday. I was so shocked. You know you get the impression that maybe the producers sit down and talk about strategies and character arcs with actors but this thing came out of the blue and pissed me off so royally."** Siddig interpreted the change as an attempt to turn his character into Data, a tendency which he fought against by deliberately playing any "Data-esque" lines badly. [ref](http://trekmovie.com/2010/05/06/alexander-siddig-reveals-anger-over-changes-to-bashir-character-on-ds9/)
>
>
>
That last bit is interesting. Because I always thought when Bashir was acting the genetically modified doctor, his lines were delivered flat and unconvincing. | No.
---
---
According to an interview with DS9 writer [Jimmy Diggs](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Jimmy_Diggs) in the [Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_Companion), the concept of Julian Bashir being a genetically modified human was something that was invented in Season 5, specifically for the episode [Dr. Bashir, I presume](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Doctor_Bashir,_I_Presume_%28episode%29).
**Since the episode you're referring to happened in season 4, we can safely say that the answer to your question (was there foreshadowing prior to this) is a definite no.** That also goes for the way in which Bashir was treated by the other crewmen he encounters.
>
> *"Up to this point in the show [Dr. Bashir, I presume],
> Bashir's background was a big question mark," says [Jimmy] Diggs...*
> *"Bashir's background was layered in a fog, which made him incredibly intriguing. So here we had a chance to delve into that background.
> There was a feeling that he was a very private individual, which meant
> that it would be interesting to put him into an embarrassing
> situation."*
>
>
> *"I kept saying, 'What's the secret of Bashir's past? What's the thing that this guy, Zimmerman, is going to find that's so interesting?'"*
> *says [Ron] Moore. "I remember that Rene and I started talking about
> genetics, and Rene pointed out that genetic engineering is one of the
> things that is oddly missing in the Star Trek universe... in Star Trek
> it's virtually never discussed, aside from the fact that there was
> this thing called the Eugenics Wars at some point, and Khan came out
> of it."*
>
>
> ***"And then Ron just had this bolt of inspiration," says Echevarria.
> "What if Bashir had been genetically engineered?"***
>
>
> |
76,719 | I have finished my BSc and I am considering applying for a Msc. I have no idea about the etiquite of applying for grad school. Do I apply using the online form or should one send an email to the proffesors and doctors?
If they are important, what does one say!?
Thanks, and any advice you have is welcome! | 2016/09/12 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/76719",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61719/"
] | Although referring the concerned institution guidelines for application should be self-sufficient, it wouldn't be wrong to ask a professor of the related department for any clarifications. But just make sure you go refer the guidelines first before you send a request-for-clarifications email. | If you have a genuine question that is not answered by any of the course literature or website then by all means contact the course in question.
If there is a generic email address or online form for questions then use that, it will most likely be answered by a member of support staff who will hopefully be able to help you.
In my experience (UK, master's courses), contacting academic staff is discouraged simply because there isn't really anything that an academic would tell you that an member of support staff could not - and if there is, then they would forward it on form you (thus keep busy academic inboxes clear!).
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean you would be penalized (unless it explicitly says not to on the website etc.) for searching out the course director's email address and contacting them directly. But be prepared for a longer wait on your reply and the possibility of an answer from someone else.
On the topic of whether personal contact with an academic would increase your chances I have this to say: an enquiry email for unlikely be of much help in enhancing your application, being a former student, friend, associate etc. could possibly help your application (rightly or wrongly) and would give you more reason to email them directly. Unless you are acquainted, emailing a course director is unlikely to enhance your application (assuming that all the lovely things you want to say about yourself aren't in the app already!).
Again, this is from a UK, taught postgraduate perspective. Conversely, many research degrees recommend contacting an academic directly first. I am not familiar with etiquette in other countries, but assume it will vary. |
12,229,364 | Can anyone point me to any sort of documentation for how to implement binary on socket.io? Its listed that they have added the support a few months ago, but i cant find any documentation for it. | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12229364",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/997945/"
] | Socket.IO doesn't support binary data as not all transports support this. What you should do instead is taking a look at <http://binaryjs.com/>
If you do not want to such a solution you will have to pack all your binary data in to a string and decode it again on the client side.. But this is basically the same that binaryjs is also doing. It using a customized messagepack (encoder) to send the data see <https://github.com/binaryjs/js-binarypack> | There's one more module which helps greatly for sending binary dta with socket.io
Try deliveryjs
>
> <https://github.com/liamks/Delivery.js>
>
>
>
which provides the means of binary data communication between clients and server via socket.io. (but uses base64 conversion method) |
12,229,364 | Can anyone point me to any sort of documentation for how to implement binary on socket.io? Its listed that they have added the support a few months ago, but i cant find any documentation for it. | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12229364",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/997945/"
] | Socket.IO doesn't support binary data as not all transports support this. What you should do instead is taking a look at <http://binaryjs.com/>
If you do not want to such a solution you will have to pack all your binary data in to a string and decode it again on the client side.. But this is basically the same that binaryjs is also doing. It using a customized messagepack (encoder) to send the data see <https://github.com/binaryjs/js-binarypack> | Updating for people who get here, take a look at [socket.io-stream](https://www.npmjs.org/package/socket.io-stream "socket.io-stream") |
12,229,364 | Can anyone point me to any sort of documentation for how to implement binary on socket.io? Its listed that they have added the support a few months ago, but i cant find any documentation for it. | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12229364",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/997945/"
] | Socket.IO doesn't support binary data as not all transports support this. What you should do instead is taking a look at <http://binaryjs.com/>
If you do not want to such a solution you will have to pack all your binary data in to a string and decode it again on the client side.. But this is basically the same that binaryjs is also doing. It using a customized messagepack (encoder) to send the data see <https://github.com/binaryjs/js-binarypack> | As of now, [since 2014 (v1.0) Socket.IO supports binary files](http://socket.io/blog/introducing-socket-io-1-0/#binary). I also wrote a [blog post](http://blog.castillobg.co/programming/tutorial/golang/2015/11/10/socket-io-file-transfer.html) about how to use it (since I found the docs to be somewhat lacking) |
12,229,364 | Can anyone point me to any sort of documentation for how to implement binary on socket.io? Its listed that they have added the support a few months ago, but i cant find any documentation for it. | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12229364",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/997945/"
] | As of now, [since 2014 (v1.0) Socket.IO supports binary files](http://socket.io/blog/introducing-socket-io-1-0/#binary). I also wrote a [blog post](http://blog.castillobg.co/programming/tutorial/golang/2015/11/10/socket-io-file-transfer.html) about how to use it (since I found the docs to be somewhat lacking) | There's one more module which helps greatly for sending binary dta with socket.io
Try deliveryjs
>
> <https://github.com/liamks/Delivery.js>
>
>
>
which provides the means of binary data communication between clients and server via socket.io. (but uses base64 conversion method) |
12,229,364 | Can anyone point me to any sort of documentation for how to implement binary on socket.io? Its listed that they have added the support a few months ago, but i cant find any documentation for it. | 2012/09/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12229364",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/997945/"
] | As of now, [since 2014 (v1.0) Socket.IO supports binary files](http://socket.io/blog/introducing-socket-io-1-0/#binary). I also wrote a [blog post](http://blog.castillobg.co/programming/tutorial/golang/2015/11/10/socket-io-file-transfer.html) about how to use it (since I found the docs to be somewhat lacking) | Updating for people who get here, take a look at [socket.io-stream](https://www.npmjs.org/package/socket.io-stream "socket.io-stream") |
143,876 | I'm looking for excellent geostatistics courses all over the world, including online courses. In particular, I would like to learn more about the kriging method. Can anyone give me some suggestions? | 2015/04/24 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/143876",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/51026/"
] | Take a look at <http://geostat-course.org/node> - they have lots of courses, great resources.
I would recommend taking a look at a couple of very good books:
* [Elementary Statistics for Geographers, Third Edition](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1572304847)
* [Practical Statistics for Geographers and Earth Scientists](http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470849142.html)
* [An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0195050134) [Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial
Uncertainty](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0470183152)
Esri also has excellent documentation on kriging and geostats, look [here](http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.2/index.html#/Understanding_interpolation_analysis/009z0000006w000000/). | Coursera has a lot of great courses. I know that they had a geostatistics course in the past. Maybe something will appear soon.
<https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=statistics> |
282,759 | Does at the proverbial last minute have a special meaning ?
or the word proverbial is used in its usual meaning?
What is the difference if it has a special meaning between
at the last minute and
at the proverbial last minute ? | 2015/10/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282759",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/144449/"
] | The word [***proverbial***](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proverbial) is defined as:
>
> Well known, especially so as to be ***stereotypical***: ‘the Welsh people,
> whose hospitality is proverbial’
>
>
>
When you look at the following examples, you will notice that the word is placed before a word that is used in a *proverb* (or *an idiom*).
>
> ‘You don't have to be a Democrat, a liberal, or a socialist to
> acknowledge that the ***proverbial wheels*** are falling off the
> juggernaut.’
>
> ‘For those who may have been living under the ***proverbial
> rock***, Andy Warhol is perhaps the most well-known American artist of
> the twentieth century.’
>
> ‘Taken at face value, the question seems
> simple enough but scratch it and the hidden prejudices and stereotypes
> tumble out of the cupboard like the ***proverbial skeletons***.’
>
>
>
[Oxford Online Dictionary]
Using "proverbial" in "at the proverbial last minute", the writer wants to express the last munite is the ***stereotypical*** expression that is commonly used by many people.
If you don't use "proverbial" in the three examples above, some people might think about ***real*** "*wheels/rock/skeletons*" which might be ***misleading*** if they don't know the ***real meaning of the relevant proverbs/idioms***. | The expression [the last minute](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/last--minute) used referring to "*the time just preceding a deadline or when some decisive action must be taken.*" is quite common, and in that respect it is said to be "proverbial".
[Ngram](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=until%20the%20last%20minute&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cuntil%20the%20last%20minute%3B%2Cc0): *until the last minute*
[Proverbial](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proverbial):
>
> * Widely referred to, as if the subject of a proverb; famous.
>
>
>
* Both sentences convey the same meaning, the second one just adds emphasis on the very common usage of the expression.
(dictionary.reference.com) |
282,759 | Does at the proverbial last minute have a special meaning ?
or the word proverbial is used in its usual meaning?
What is the difference if it has a special meaning between
at the last minute and
at the proverbial last minute ? | 2015/10/26 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282759",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/144449/"
] | The word [***proverbial***](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proverbial) is defined as:
>
> Well known, especially so as to be ***stereotypical***: ‘the Welsh people,
> whose hospitality is proverbial’
>
>
>
When you look at the following examples, you will notice that the word is placed before a word that is used in a *proverb* (or *an idiom*).
>
> ‘You don't have to be a Democrat, a liberal, or a socialist to
> acknowledge that the ***proverbial wheels*** are falling off the
> juggernaut.’
>
> ‘For those who may have been living under the ***proverbial
> rock***, Andy Warhol is perhaps the most well-known American artist of
> the twentieth century.’
>
> ‘Taken at face value, the question seems
> simple enough but scratch it and the hidden prejudices and stereotypes
> tumble out of the cupboard like the ***proverbial skeletons***.’
>
>
>
[Oxford Online Dictionary]
Using "proverbial" in "at the proverbial last minute", the writer wants to express the last munite is the ***stereotypical*** expression that is commonly used by many people.
If you don't use "proverbial" in the three examples above, some people might think about ***real*** "*wheels/rock/skeletons*" which might be ***misleading*** if they don't know the ***real meaning of the relevant proverbs/idioms***. | The word proverbial is used in it's normal meaning here:
>
> **proverbial:** that has become a proverb or byword : **commonly spoken of**
>
>
> Example: *the proverbial restlessness of sailors*
>
>
>
(Webster's Unabridged)
>
> **Widely referred to**, as if the subject of a proverb; **famous**.
>
>
>
([American Heritage Dictionary](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=proverbial))
So, "at the proverbial last minute" refers to a common, widely spoken of situation when people put off urgent things till later. For example:
>
> *At the proverbial last minute*, a team member noticed a serious problem with the design.
>
>
>
When you add the word "proverbial", you emphasize that this happens very often to a lot of people, that this is **a common situation** people can relate to.
If you just say "at the last minute", this emphasis is lost. |
209,395 | Is there a word to express the idea of everything one could need? I'm trying to figure out if there is a single word that best communicates this idea. | 2014/11/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/209395",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/98509/"
] | You can consider ***needs.*** It can cover all needs including basic, intermediate and advanced needs.
>
> Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as disfunction or death. Needs can be objective and physical, such as food, or they can be subjective and psychological, such as the need for self-esteem.
>
>
> On a social level, needs are sometimes controversial. Understanding needs and wants is an issue in the fields of politics, social science, and philosophy.
>
>
> To most psychologists, need is a psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a goal, giving purpose and direction to behavior.
>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need>
>
>
>
There is the famous *Maslow's hierarchy of needs* also:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom
Image source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs> | The noun *[necessaries](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necessaries)* (“Necessary or indispensable items” - wiktionary) comes close to answering the question. An example sentence:
>
> Have you got all the necessaries?
>
>
>
As AE suggested in a comment, one might refer to *[bare necessities](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bare+necessities)* (“Just sufficient resources, with nothing to spare” - dictionary.reference.com) or, quite differently, to a *person who has everything*, ie has things that go far beyond basic necessities, and typically include luxury items. The sense of *necessaries* is ambivalent compared to either of those phrases; its interpretation depends on details of cases. For some, *necessaries* might mean food and shelter, while other individuals might add clothing to the list. |
209,395 | Is there a word to express the idea of everything one could need? I'm trying to figure out if there is a single word that best communicates this idea. | 2014/11/20 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/209395",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/98509/"
] | You can consider ***needs.*** It can cover all needs including basic, intermediate and advanced needs.
>
> Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as disfunction or death. Needs can be objective and physical, such as food, or they can be subjective and psychological, such as the need for self-esteem.
>
>
> On a social level, needs are sometimes controversial. Understanding needs and wants is an issue in the fields of politics, social science, and philosophy.
>
>
> To most psychologists, need is a psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a goal, giving purpose and direction to behavior.
>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need>
>
>
>
There is the famous *Maslow's hierarchy of needs* also:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom
Image source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs> | To a person in a so-called "third world country" where the per capita income is perhaps $600 a year, what an average American considers to be a *need* (e.g., a car) looks more like a *greed*! And the same goes for an average American with an average income to whom the luxury sports car belonging to a superstar athlete looks more like *greed* than *need*. And so it goes.
Granted, the superstar athlete might concede that he could just as easily "make do" with a vehicle which gets him from point A to point B, and so his pricey sports car, he'll admit, is a want and not a need.
Similarly, the third-world person I spoke of in the first paragraph might consider one meal a day, a roof over his head, potable water, and clothes on his back all that he needs. Yet, interestingly, some people who exist at that bare subsistence level will still consider tobacco to be a need, when clearly it is not. Strange.
I think the word you might be looking for, which kind of summarizes what a person feels who has all that he needs, is *contentment*. To many people--and not just upwardly mobile people, contentment can be quite elusive, however. In a capitalist system, for example, where people feel that hard work and risk taking should be rewarded with all kinds of perks (read: wants, and lots of them), sometimes even "too much is not enough"!
In conclusion, differentiating between basic necessities and wants (or needs and greeds) is a tricky business, except for a person living in grinding poverty. As someone once said, fasting is a luxury for the rich; for the truly poor it is a daily occurrence, and it's called starving! |
17,989,417 | I am getting this error on the Netbeans IDE with the codes.
Javadocs say that "asynchronous session bean invocation is not allowed in project targeting java ee 6 lite profile"
Javadocs say that "asynchronous session bean invocation is not allowed in project targeting java ee 6 lite profile" | 2013/08/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/17989417",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2637541/"
] | As Java EE 6 comes with different profiles (i.e. Web/Lite profile and Full) not all functionality is supported in the Web/Lite profile. Especially the web profile only supports "EJB Lite" which comes without support for asynchronous EJBs have a look at the following article [which comes with a table describing the features in EJB Lite and 'regular' EJB](http://www.theserverside.com/news/1321142/Part-Three-New-Features-in-EJB-31)
So what you'd have to do is create a project with the full profile in Netbeans. This will give you access to @Asynchonous. | It is solved by using Netbeans 7.2.1 Glassfish 3.1.2.2 bundled version.
Developer should be aware of version of Glassfish such as Web Profile or Full Platform.
If developers are working on EJB they should use Full Platform of Glassfish. |
67,966 | At Matthew 27:29 we see :
"..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns ? | 2019/01/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67966",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/21496/"
] | I actually read an article recently that mentions in passing this concept (that Wisdom is Jesus.)
The article first speaks of the Greek Concept of Logos and mentions,
>
> “Beginning at least as early as the apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 125), Christians, almost without exception, identified Sophia (the Greek equivalent of Heb. ḥoḵmâ) in Proverbs 8 with Jesus Christ.”[17]
>
>
>
...
>
> In these verses the quality of wisdom is personified. As the gender of wisdom [in Hebrew: ח֗כְמַה: ḥoḵmah] is feminine, some claim that the agent I question is a feminine being. However, it should be remembered that there is a difference between sex and gender. This is also the case in other Semitic languages that Hebrew. For instance, the Arabic word for Caliph (خليفة: ḵalīfe) is a word in the feminine gender although it always refers to a male.[16]
>
>
>
<https://antiochene.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/logos-and-memra/>
**Question
According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?**
There are a number of different potential reasons for this:
1) Theological Development. The bible is a work of revelation and theological development. If you look in the Bible certain concepts like God's omnipresence, the afterlife are not understood in ancient times the way we understand them. So I would contend that the same is true in regards to Nicene concepts of the persons of the Trinity etc.
2) The Limited Vocabulary of Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very limited vocabulary. I have to look up some official stats, but I recall that it has only a few thousand words compared to simple European languages that have 10,000 word Lexicons which in turn are only a fraction of the Lexican of modern English. What this means practically speaking is that words are going to have to serve double duty, have multiple meanings and be less definite than a language like Greek. But overall, I really believe the theological development reason is the best explanation.
But I will add a third one from the aforementioned article.
>
> The parallel to logos the Aramaic speaking Jews after the captivity in Babylon used the word memra. This concept was at times personified and used on a sort of representative of God. As we have seen above, “In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra.”[43]
>
>
> Consequently, when John uses the word logos on Jesus, it is either to say that this person, who was active at the creation the world, visible as well as invisible, is the embodiment of earlier prophecies and promises, or, even more likely, that he was called logos because he was the spokesman or representative of God.
>
>
> **It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if second and third century Christians had based their interpretation of John 1:1, not on the connotations of the Word in Greek philosophy, but on those of the Word in Jewish Aramaic tradition.**
>
>
> | *How can Wisdom be Jesus if Wisdom was created?*
**Short Answer:**
***Wisdom was "qanah or birthed or created" by the Holy Spirit***. The Spirit of Created Wisdom was birthed by the Holy Spirit as conceived by the love of the Father and the Begotten Son to the chosen woman destined to become the Theotokos and the Mother of all the living in the order of grace.
The Holy Spirit the Uncreated Immaculate Conception the love of the Father and the Son had "qanah" the Spirit of Wisdom, the Created Immaculate Conception. (St.Maximillian Kolbe's teachings)
So, the birth of Created Wisdom in eternity is a Divine Spirit that reveals Her identity thru the Blessed Virgin Mary as **"I AM the Immaculate Conception."** or the **"Lady Wisdom"** in Proverbs8:22.
But the Spirit of Created Wisdom encompasses all the Divine Plan of God or the Wisdom of God from alpha to omega. So, the chosen woman is not only destined to become the *Theotokos*, She will also be the *"Handmaid of the Lord"* as King David & King Solomon identified themselves as both *"son of thy handmaid"*. Mary will also be the *"Mother of all the elect"*(St.Augustine teaching) in *Ephesians1:3-4,*. Also, She is destined to become the *Mother of all the Redeemed*, the *Mother of the Church* and the *Mother of all the living in the order of grace*. And the pinnacle of Mary's role is the crowning of Her glory as *Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.*
In short, from lowly Handmaid to Sovereign Queen is the *"Anointed Role"* of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it requires that She fully possessed the "Spirit of Wisdom" in Proverbs8:22.
This is better expressed in the pending 5th Dogma;
>
> **"Mary is Co-Redemptrix.Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate."**
>
>
>
**Explanation**
When we talk about who is Wisdom in Provebs8:22-ff, over the 2000 years period this has not been answered clearly because the Apostles called this mystery as "meat" or the "hidden wisdom" and it is very hard to digest. The only way a true seeker can understand this is to possessed "Wisdom" like King Solomon did, if not, we need someone who will teach us the mystery in the form of a "milk" so that our finite understanding can grasp this mystery.
Did God leave us and the Catholic Church in the dark? No, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ until the end of time.(Matthew28:20)
God gradually reveals His Wisdom or His Divine Plan to the Church for the salvation of all mankind. In 1858, God reveals directly His Wisdom but hardly anyone ponder it deeply except for St.Maximillian Kolbe.
When St.Bernadette Soubirous asked the Beautiful Woman, it would have been better if She answered the question *"Who are you?"* with this words;
>
> **"I am "possessed" by the Lady Wisdom in Proverbs8:22",** but the beautiful Woman answered in a strange manner that needs a lot of pondering and merciful graces of God to help us fathom this beautiful mystery of the Lady Wisdom.
>
>
>
Let us be cleared that Wisdom and the Holy Spirit are both Divine but clearly are two different person as King Solomon differentiated them in the Book of Wisdom.
The Wisdom seats at the Throne of God and later this Wisdom seats at the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of the Theotokos, **Mary is the Seat of Wisdom (CCC721)**
>
> ***"For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will delight your soul."***(Proverbs2:10)
>
>
> ***Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars;***(Proverbs9:1)
>
>
>
The Beautiful Woman answered St.Bernadette with this words;
>
> **"I am the Immaculate Conception"**.(This answer reveals that a Divine Person possessed the Blessed Virgin Mary).<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous>
>
>
>
Can this profound revelation, enough to lead us to answer your question why Wisdom is created? YES!
***"The Will of the Father is communicated by the Word of Jesus Christ and understand thru the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit."***(this phrase is my own reflection)
This phrase is related to *Wisdom9:1-4*
>
> *“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have **made all things by your word**,and **by your wisdom have formed humankind** to have dominion over the creatures you have made, and rule the world in holiness and righteousness, and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul, give me the wisdom that sits by your throne,*
>
>
>
Have we seen the difference? The Abba Father the creator had made all things thru His Word/Logos but when He formed man, the Abba Father needed not just the Word/Logos but it needs Wisdom too, why?
The Abba Father needed both the Word & Wisdom when it formed man because the created thing needs to have a Divine Life, Wisdom is the breath of God, and this Spirit of Wisdom "possessed" the Theotokos, so all the "Divine Life or sanctifying graces" pass thru from the Hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary that's why She is called the Mother of all the Redeemed in the order of grace. **(CCC969)**
>
> *"For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;...*(Wisdom7:25)
>
>
>
Let's described the facets of Wisdom in Proverbs8:22;
1. *In eternity the Spirit of Wisdom was qanah or created/birthed .God gave birth to the Wisdom, described as a child beside Him, the object of His delight.*
2. *In Heavenly realm Wisdom is presented to the angels. Lucifer and his fallen angels rejected the Eternal Wisdom on the Incarnated Logos.* (Church Father teachings and Ven.Mary of Agreda revelation.)
3. *In Garden of Eden, Wisdom is the way for Adam & Eve to reach Theosis*.*And satan beguiled Eve to take the short-cut to gain Wisdom.*
4. *In the Old Testmament, Wisdom is prophesied to foreshadow the coming of the Logos and the means to saved Jews*.(Book of Wisdom)
5. *In the New Testament, the Logos became the Wisdom of God and was Incarnated to dwell among us to become the Saviour of mankind.*
6. *In the Kingdom of God, the glorified Incarnated Wisdom mediates to the Father to send the Holy Spirit, but this Holy Spirit that the Father had sent thru Jesus Christ mediation is a subordinate type of Holy Spirit as it cannot testify on Her own and has no authority.*
7. *In the Upper Room the subordinate type of Holy Spirit was sent, who is this subordinate type of Holy Spirit? Is She the Spirit of Created Wisdom that will lead all the Redeemed to salvation?*
>
> 12 *“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 [a]But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.*(John16:12-15)
>
>
>
Did God the Father and the glorified Jesus Christ send the *"Spirit of Created Wisdom"* in the Upper Room or the Infinite Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity?
The word *"I am the Immaculate Conception"* provides the answer.Why? This Marian Apparition in 1858, reveals that Mary was ***"possessed"*** by a Divine Person.
Mary was immaculately conceived a Dogma of the Church. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception> But, Mary was not the "Immaculate Conception", it is a Divine Person that "possessed" Her as St.Maximillian Kolbe ponders this profound mystery.
What is the Final Answer to the question on who is Wisdom? the word "qanah' provides the answer.
>
> *Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.*
>
>
> *Flesh gives birth to flesh*, **but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.**
>
>
>
The Holy Spirit the Uncreated Immaculate Conception ***"qanah"*** the Spirit of Created Wisdom the Created Immaculate Conception. That's why in Proverbs8:22-ff Wisdom is like a child or a daughter it was "birthed" the brings delight to God.The Wisdom is the witness that will testify as the "Spirit of Truth" from eternity to the end.
>
> **\*Bethuel is allegorically explained as Wisdom \*\*"the daughter of God, always a virgin"** (euyU'tTJP ewu [. .. ] aEmapecvo�; Fug. 50; cf. QG 4:97: "Who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things?")\*\*\*
>
>
> In the context of Proverbs 8:22 the verb is more literally translated, not as create, but as begotten or birthed, i.e. **"Yahweh begot/ birthed me as the beginning of his ways."** This can be readily seen from a more literal rendering of Proverbs 8:22-25:
>
>
> *"Yahweh himself begat me as the beginning of his way, the first of his acts of old. From eternity I was appointed, from the start, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been fashioned, before the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains."*
>
>
> The text is obviously speaking figuratively on how Yahweh acquired Wisdom, i.e. **Yahweh got it by begetting or birthing it in order to use it to create everything**. We know that it is figurative since Yahweh doesn't literally give birth in labor pains.
>
>
>
**Referrences:**
1.<https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_wisdom_created.htm>
2.<https://www.academia.edu/5614052/Searching_for_Divine_Wisdom_Proverbs_8_22-31_in_Its_Interpretive_Context>
3. other refrences this answered link; [According to Catholicism, who is the Wisdom being described in Proverbs 8:22–36?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64223/according-to-catholicism-who-is-the-wisdom-being-described-in-proverbs-822-36)
4. Love of Eternal Wisdom <https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/LEW.HTM> |
67,966 | At Matthew 27:29 we see :
"..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns ? | 2019/01/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67966",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/21496/"
] | I actually read an article recently that mentions in passing this concept (that Wisdom is Jesus.)
The article first speaks of the Greek Concept of Logos and mentions,
>
> “Beginning at least as early as the apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 125), Christians, almost without exception, identified Sophia (the Greek equivalent of Heb. ḥoḵmâ) in Proverbs 8 with Jesus Christ.”[17]
>
>
>
...
>
> In these verses the quality of wisdom is personified. As the gender of wisdom [in Hebrew: ח֗כְמַה: ḥoḵmah] is feminine, some claim that the agent I question is a feminine being. However, it should be remembered that there is a difference between sex and gender. This is also the case in other Semitic languages that Hebrew. For instance, the Arabic word for Caliph (خليفة: ḵalīfe) is a word in the feminine gender although it always refers to a male.[16]
>
>
>
<https://antiochene.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/logos-and-memra/>
**Question
According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?**
There are a number of different potential reasons for this:
1) Theological Development. The bible is a work of revelation and theological development. If you look in the Bible certain concepts like God's omnipresence, the afterlife are not understood in ancient times the way we understand them. So I would contend that the same is true in regards to Nicene concepts of the persons of the Trinity etc.
2) The Limited Vocabulary of Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very limited vocabulary. I have to look up some official stats, but I recall that it has only a few thousand words compared to simple European languages that have 10,000 word Lexicons which in turn are only a fraction of the Lexican of modern English. What this means practically speaking is that words are going to have to serve double duty, have multiple meanings and be less definite than a language like Greek. But overall, I really believe the theological development reason is the best explanation.
But I will add a third one from the aforementioned article.
>
> The parallel to logos the Aramaic speaking Jews after the captivity in Babylon used the word memra. This concept was at times personified and used on a sort of representative of God. As we have seen above, “In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra.”[43]
>
>
> Consequently, when John uses the word logos on Jesus, it is either to say that this person, who was active at the creation the world, visible as well as invisible, is the embodiment of earlier prophecies and promises, or, even more likely, that he was called logos because he was the spokesman or representative of God.
>
>
> **It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if second and third century Christians had based their interpretation of John 1:1, not on the connotations of the Word in Greek philosophy, but on those of the Word in Jewish Aramaic tradition.**
>
>
> | The answer is in the fact that Proverbs is writing of wisdom using *personification*. It is *only because of this* that it is *applied* to a person, namely the Son of God. The author of Proverbs is using poetic language (after all, "create me" before "[creation]" is a poetic and endearing way of saying God generated or 'begot,' you might say, from all eternity some aspect of Himself—Wisdom/the Son—not that God was eternally without wisdom, and then created it, only to become wise: the absurdity and impossibility of that alone proves that much. He isn't writing directly of Christ, just as Hosea 11:1 wasn't directly speaking of Christ, but "Israel," although without qualification it is taken to refer to Christ *typologically* by Matthew, since it applies to Christ in a prophetic or 'more true' or spiritual way. |
67,966 | At Matthew 27:29 we see :
"..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns ? | 2019/01/06 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67966",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/21496/"
] | The answer is in the fact that Proverbs is writing of wisdom using *personification*. It is *only because of this* that it is *applied* to a person, namely the Son of God. The author of Proverbs is using poetic language (after all, "create me" before "[creation]" is a poetic and endearing way of saying God generated or 'begot,' you might say, from all eternity some aspect of Himself—Wisdom/the Son—not that God was eternally without wisdom, and then created it, only to become wise: the absurdity and impossibility of that alone proves that much. He isn't writing directly of Christ, just as Hosea 11:1 wasn't directly speaking of Christ, but "Israel," although without qualification it is taken to refer to Christ *typologically* by Matthew, since it applies to Christ in a prophetic or 'more true' or spiritual way. | *How can Wisdom be Jesus if Wisdom was created?*
**Short Answer:**
***Wisdom was "qanah or birthed or created" by the Holy Spirit***. The Spirit of Created Wisdom was birthed by the Holy Spirit as conceived by the love of the Father and the Begotten Son to the chosen woman destined to become the Theotokos and the Mother of all the living in the order of grace.
The Holy Spirit the Uncreated Immaculate Conception the love of the Father and the Son had "qanah" the Spirit of Wisdom, the Created Immaculate Conception. (St.Maximillian Kolbe's teachings)
So, the birth of Created Wisdom in eternity is a Divine Spirit that reveals Her identity thru the Blessed Virgin Mary as **"I AM the Immaculate Conception."** or the **"Lady Wisdom"** in Proverbs8:22.
But the Spirit of Created Wisdom encompasses all the Divine Plan of God or the Wisdom of God from alpha to omega. So, the chosen woman is not only destined to become the *Theotokos*, She will also be the *"Handmaid of the Lord"* as King David & King Solomon identified themselves as both *"son of thy handmaid"*. Mary will also be the *"Mother of all the elect"*(St.Augustine teaching) in *Ephesians1:3-4,*. Also, She is destined to become the *Mother of all the Redeemed*, the *Mother of the Church* and the *Mother of all the living in the order of grace*. And the pinnacle of Mary's role is the crowning of Her glory as *Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.*
In short, from lowly Handmaid to Sovereign Queen is the *"Anointed Role"* of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it requires that She fully possessed the "Spirit of Wisdom" in Proverbs8:22.
This is better expressed in the pending 5th Dogma;
>
> **"Mary is Co-Redemptrix.Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate."**
>
>
>
**Explanation**
When we talk about who is Wisdom in Provebs8:22-ff, over the 2000 years period this has not been answered clearly because the Apostles called this mystery as "meat" or the "hidden wisdom" and it is very hard to digest. The only way a true seeker can understand this is to possessed "Wisdom" like King Solomon did, if not, we need someone who will teach us the mystery in the form of a "milk" so that our finite understanding can grasp this mystery.
Did God leave us and the Catholic Church in the dark? No, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ until the end of time.(Matthew28:20)
God gradually reveals His Wisdom or His Divine Plan to the Church for the salvation of all mankind. In 1858, God reveals directly His Wisdom but hardly anyone ponder it deeply except for St.Maximillian Kolbe.
When St.Bernadette Soubirous asked the Beautiful Woman, it would have been better if She answered the question *"Who are you?"* with this words;
>
> **"I am "possessed" by the Lady Wisdom in Proverbs8:22",** but the beautiful Woman answered in a strange manner that needs a lot of pondering and merciful graces of God to help us fathom this beautiful mystery of the Lady Wisdom.
>
>
>
Let us be cleared that Wisdom and the Holy Spirit are both Divine but clearly are two different person as King Solomon differentiated them in the Book of Wisdom.
The Wisdom seats at the Throne of God and later this Wisdom seats at the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of the Theotokos, **Mary is the Seat of Wisdom (CCC721)**
>
> ***"For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will delight your soul."***(Proverbs2:10)
>
>
> ***Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars;***(Proverbs9:1)
>
>
>
The Beautiful Woman answered St.Bernadette with this words;
>
> **"I am the Immaculate Conception"**.(This answer reveals that a Divine Person possessed the Blessed Virgin Mary).<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous>
>
>
>
Can this profound revelation, enough to lead us to answer your question why Wisdom is created? YES!
***"The Will of the Father is communicated by the Word of Jesus Christ and understand thru the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit."***(this phrase is my own reflection)
This phrase is related to *Wisdom9:1-4*
>
> *“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have **made all things by your word**,and **by your wisdom have formed humankind** to have dominion over the creatures you have made, and rule the world in holiness and righteousness, and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul, give me the wisdom that sits by your throne,*
>
>
>
Have we seen the difference? The Abba Father the creator had made all things thru His Word/Logos but when He formed man, the Abba Father needed not just the Word/Logos but it needs Wisdom too, why?
The Abba Father needed both the Word & Wisdom when it formed man because the created thing needs to have a Divine Life, Wisdom is the breath of God, and this Spirit of Wisdom "possessed" the Theotokos, so all the "Divine Life or sanctifying graces" pass thru from the Hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary that's why She is called the Mother of all the Redeemed in the order of grace. **(CCC969)**
>
> *"For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;...*(Wisdom7:25)
>
>
>
Let's described the facets of Wisdom in Proverbs8:22;
1. *In eternity the Spirit of Wisdom was qanah or created/birthed .God gave birth to the Wisdom, described as a child beside Him, the object of His delight.*
2. *In Heavenly realm Wisdom is presented to the angels. Lucifer and his fallen angels rejected the Eternal Wisdom on the Incarnated Logos.* (Church Father teachings and Ven.Mary of Agreda revelation.)
3. *In Garden of Eden, Wisdom is the way for Adam & Eve to reach Theosis*.*And satan beguiled Eve to take the short-cut to gain Wisdom.*
4. *In the Old Testmament, Wisdom is prophesied to foreshadow the coming of the Logos and the means to saved Jews*.(Book of Wisdom)
5. *In the New Testament, the Logos became the Wisdom of God and was Incarnated to dwell among us to become the Saviour of mankind.*
6. *In the Kingdom of God, the glorified Incarnated Wisdom mediates to the Father to send the Holy Spirit, but this Holy Spirit that the Father had sent thru Jesus Christ mediation is a subordinate type of Holy Spirit as it cannot testify on Her own and has no authority.*
7. *In the Upper Room the subordinate type of Holy Spirit was sent, who is this subordinate type of Holy Spirit? Is She the Spirit of Created Wisdom that will lead all the Redeemed to salvation?*
>
> 12 *“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 [a]But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.*(John16:12-15)
>
>
>
Did God the Father and the glorified Jesus Christ send the *"Spirit of Created Wisdom"* in the Upper Room or the Infinite Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity?
The word *"I am the Immaculate Conception"* provides the answer.Why? This Marian Apparition in 1858, reveals that Mary was ***"possessed"*** by a Divine Person.
Mary was immaculately conceived a Dogma of the Church. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception> But, Mary was not the "Immaculate Conception", it is a Divine Person that "possessed" Her as St.Maximillian Kolbe ponders this profound mystery.
What is the Final Answer to the question on who is Wisdom? the word "qanah' provides the answer.
>
> *Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.*
>
>
> *Flesh gives birth to flesh*, **but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.**
>
>
>
The Holy Spirit the Uncreated Immaculate Conception ***"qanah"*** the Spirit of Created Wisdom the Created Immaculate Conception. That's why in Proverbs8:22-ff Wisdom is like a child or a daughter it was "birthed" the brings delight to God.The Wisdom is the witness that will testify as the "Spirit of Truth" from eternity to the end.
>
> **\*Bethuel is allegorically explained as Wisdom \*\*"the daughter of God, always a virgin"** (euyU'tTJP ewu [. .. ] aEmapecvo�; Fug. 50; cf. QG 4:97: "Who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things?")\*\*\*
>
>
> In the context of Proverbs 8:22 the verb is more literally translated, not as create, but as begotten or birthed, i.e. **"Yahweh begot/ birthed me as the beginning of his ways."** This can be readily seen from a more literal rendering of Proverbs 8:22-25:
>
>
> *"Yahweh himself begat me as the beginning of his way, the first of his acts of old. From eternity I was appointed, from the start, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been fashioned, before the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains."*
>
>
> The text is obviously speaking figuratively on how Yahweh acquired Wisdom, i.e. **Yahweh got it by begetting or birthing it in order to use it to create everything**. We know that it is figurative since Yahweh doesn't literally give birth in labor pains.
>
>
>
**Referrences:**
1.<https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_wisdom_created.htm>
2.<https://www.academia.edu/5614052/Searching_for_Divine_Wisdom_Proverbs_8_22-31_in_Its_Interpretive_Context>
3. other refrences this answered link; [According to Catholicism, who is the Wisdom being described in Proverbs 8:22–36?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64223/according-to-catholicism-who-is-the-wisdom-being-described-in-proverbs-822-36)
4. Love of Eternal Wisdom <https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/LEW.HTM> |
23,658 | I am a PhD student in computer science and have submitted a paper to a conference which details my proposed architecture. However in the month or so since this paper has been submitted my architecture has undergone changes (relatively major), how is this normally dealt with?
If the paper is accepted do I present the work as it was at the time of submission or do I openly state that changes have been made and present the updated version of the architecture? | 2014/06/19 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17638/"
] | I believe you should do what is better to the audience.
In some disciplines/communities it is strongly assumed that conference participants read the abstracts/papers before the presentation, and expect the discussion to follow precisely the material that is published. In this case, of course, you could only comment briefly on the recent changes you've made.
In other fields (such as mine), the abstracts are used only as a means to (roughly) describe the topic of the presentation. It is quite normal to extend the actual talk beyond the scope of the abstract, or reduce the role of some pieces of research advertised in the abstract. In this case, I'd advise you to make a talk that is simply interesting for you and the audience. It can probably include both the original design and your contribution to its recent development. Make sure people in the room understand **why** the changes were needed, **how** you have worked them out, and **what** is the benefits of your new architecture. | I agree with @dmitry-savostyanov in that you should do what's best for your audience.
They've come to hear something interesting and if your work changed, then that seems to indicate that information on why and how it changed would be very relevant to their interests.
In CS, conference papers have a different status from conference papers or abstracts in other fields: they're long, they are actually considered publications, they're usually not published before the event, and most people in the audience will not have read them.
So your audience probably won't be surprised to hear something that's not in the paper.
On the other hand, if you really pique their interest, they may read your paper and feel disoriented or disappointed.
I would say report on the best results you have while being clear about what they'll find in the paper. |
23,658 | I am a PhD student in computer science and have submitted a paper to a conference which details my proposed architecture. However in the month or so since this paper has been submitted my architecture has undergone changes (relatively major), how is this normally dealt with?
If the paper is accepted do I present the work as it was at the time of submission or do I openly state that changes have been made and present the updated version of the architecture? | 2014/06/19 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17638/"
] | I believe you should do what is better to the audience.
In some disciplines/communities it is strongly assumed that conference participants read the abstracts/papers before the presentation, and expect the discussion to follow precisely the material that is published. In this case, of course, you could only comment briefly on the recent changes you've made.
In other fields (such as mine), the abstracts are used only as a means to (roughly) describe the topic of the presentation. It is quite normal to extend the actual talk beyond the scope of the abstract, or reduce the role of some pieces of research advertised in the abstract. In this case, I'd advise you to make a talk that is simply interesting for you and the audience. It can probably include both the original design and your contribution to its recent development. Make sure people in the room understand **why** the changes were needed, **how** you have worked them out, and **what** is the benefits of your new architecture. | In computer science, you have 2 options:
* In case your paper is accepted, you can update the paper for the final camera-ready version. If the changes are not too big, this can be a viable possibility and is actually no too uncommon.
* If the changes are too major, you can prepare an extended version of the conference paper for submission to a journal. |
8,076 | I own a small production company and use a lot of hard drives to backup my data. I want to find an affordable solution for file storage.
What is the best way to achieve this? It doesn't need to be attached to a network nor 24/7 running. I imagine this as one huge hard drive where I can dump files from my editing computer.
Could this be a cheap PC with multiple hard drives, or something else?
Easy and hassle free would be great, thanks! | 2017/09/12 | [
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/8076",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/6966/"
] | A Network Attached Storage (NAS) is something you may be interested in. There are several plug and play products available from companies such as Synology, Western Digital, etc. As well, there are a couple options for DIY'ers such as [Freenas](http://www.freenas.org/), Unraid, etc.
I have a Freenas machine that I built running in our home that I am able to access over the network, through any of our devices as well as remotely. As well, I've set up the computers in our home to back up to this NAS often. This is made up of spare computer hardware that I had laying around, that I've been slowly upgrading and replacing. I chose to house it in an Antec P100 case (plenty of hard drive trays, quiet, and plenty of fan / cooler mounting options).
The requirements for a machine to run Freenas is pretty reasonable. Looking at Freenas's website:
>
> * Multicore 64-bit processor (Intel strongly recommended)
> * 8GB Boot Drive (USB Flash Drive suffices)
> * 8GB
> * At least 1 direct attached disk (Hardware RAID **strongly** discouraged)
> * One physical network port
>
>
>
I've ran both Intel and AMD Freenas machines and honestly haven't noticed a difference (I'm sure there is, but as a user, I haven't seen a difference in my tasks). It is encouraged to use hard drives rated for NAS (WD Red, Seagate Ironwolf, etc.) as the manufacture warranty's for such use. I've used spare hard drives that I've had laying around for my personal machines and haven't had issues so far. I am in the process of saving up for WD Red drives to replace my current set of drives.
There may be better options that are out there, but for me and my use-cases, Freenas has been perfect. | Synology has a line of diskstations with every RAID discipline you could ever need. Their site has a customer wizard, just for you:
<https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/nas_selector> |
8,076 | I own a small production company and use a lot of hard drives to backup my data. I want to find an affordable solution for file storage.
What is the best way to achieve this? It doesn't need to be attached to a network nor 24/7 running. I imagine this as one huge hard drive where I can dump files from my editing computer.
Could this be a cheap PC with multiple hard drives, or something else?
Easy and hassle free would be great, thanks! | 2017/09/12 | [
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/8076",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/6966/"
] | As operating a professional data recovery service, I would not a advise using a NAS (see below why).
My golden rule is "KISS" : Keep It Simple, Stupid.
* Use preferably professional-grade hard drives (with 5 years warranty) if you can afford them.
You can buy them second hand if you want to reduce costs, but format them fully and afterwards check the SMART values with a software like HDSentinel or HDTune.
* Don't put all eggs in the same basket.
If something goes wrong with one drive, you can go on working on other projets whilst the data recovery is being done by a data recovery company.
* If you have a tower PC, use one (or more) hot swap bays to make inserting/removing hard drives easy.
For instance: <http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=141>
Huge benefit : you'll have SATA speeds when doing your backups. Much faster than USB 3.
On Windows, the HotSwap! utility will be the perfect companion of the hot swap bay: <http://mt-naka.com/hotswap/index_enu.htm>
* For regular backups, use a file synchronizer, like FreeFileSync for instance, which will make your life easier:
<https://www.freefilesync.org/>.
Preferably don't use such tool on your long term backups to limit the risk of human mistakes.
* Don't forget that drives that are not spinning for a long time can catch some kind of rhumatism (platters oxidation, a.s.o.)
Make multiple copies.
* Preferably use backup hard drives from different brands.
So, if one brand or serie is subjet to a particular failure (eg. firmware bug) you will have more peace in mind that other drives that are not affected by it.
* Store your backups in one or preferably more locations that is away from the your office, in order to limit the risks of loosing all your data (burglary, fire, water damage).
* Store the drives in a cool and dry room and use an air dryer (dessicant) for that room.
* Additionnally, you can use anti-moisture/anti-ESD bags with a small dessicant bag in them (silica gel or equivalent).
Some bags have more foils than others and make a better moisture barrier.
**Why I would not advise a NAS:**
NAS often use RAID systems, and RAID 5 is frequent amongst systems using three drives or more.
When things go wrong, it can be pretty difficult (and long) to recover data from RAID 5.
And I can ensure you that things go sometimes wrong with RAID 5 arrays.
For instance, problems can become visible after more that one drive have failed.
Any serious data recovery company will have identify which drives(s) is/are defficient and this can take time as a full scan of each drive may be necessary in some case.
Most of the time, defective drives will have to be cloned to healthy ones before a data recovery can occurs.
NAS systems are mini-computers, with a tiny operating system. When problems like bad sectors affect the operating system, the OS may fail to start.
Reassemblying stripes from RAID 5 systems is not obvious, as several parameters will have to be "guessed" (width of stripes, order of disks, offset, a.s.o.) with the help of softwares and often using an hexadecimal editor.
All this requires hand and brain work and time. Waiting days or weeks can be painful for any company.
To all these drawbacks, one should mention that to spare on license costs, most NAS use systems based on the Linux kernel and many use the ext3 file system.
The nature of the ext3 file system makes a data recovery more difficult, also in case of accidental file deletion,
especially as one cannot reconstruct the folder tree and have the files keep their name like with NTFS.
If you however want a NAS take it RAID 1 (= full redundancy). | Synology has a line of diskstations with every RAID discipline you could ever need. Their site has a customer wizard, just for you:
<https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/nas_selector> |
8,076 | I own a small production company and use a lot of hard drives to backup my data. I want to find an affordable solution for file storage.
What is the best way to achieve this? It doesn't need to be attached to a network nor 24/7 running. I imagine this as one huge hard drive where I can dump files from my editing computer.
Could this be a cheap PC with multiple hard drives, or something else?
Easy and hassle free would be great, thanks! | 2017/09/12 | [
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/8076",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com",
"https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/6966/"
] | A Network Attached Storage (NAS) is something you may be interested in. There are several plug and play products available from companies such as Synology, Western Digital, etc. As well, there are a couple options for DIY'ers such as [Freenas](http://www.freenas.org/), Unraid, etc.
I have a Freenas machine that I built running in our home that I am able to access over the network, through any of our devices as well as remotely. As well, I've set up the computers in our home to back up to this NAS often. This is made up of spare computer hardware that I had laying around, that I've been slowly upgrading and replacing. I chose to house it in an Antec P100 case (plenty of hard drive trays, quiet, and plenty of fan / cooler mounting options).
The requirements for a machine to run Freenas is pretty reasonable. Looking at Freenas's website:
>
> * Multicore 64-bit processor (Intel strongly recommended)
> * 8GB Boot Drive (USB Flash Drive suffices)
> * 8GB
> * At least 1 direct attached disk (Hardware RAID **strongly** discouraged)
> * One physical network port
>
>
>
I've ran both Intel and AMD Freenas machines and honestly haven't noticed a difference (I'm sure there is, but as a user, I haven't seen a difference in my tasks). It is encouraged to use hard drives rated for NAS (WD Red, Seagate Ironwolf, etc.) as the manufacture warranty's for such use. I've used spare hard drives that I've had laying around for my personal machines and haven't had issues so far. I am in the process of saving up for WD Red drives to replace my current set of drives.
There may be better options that are out there, but for me and my use-cases, Freenas has been perfect. | As operating a professional data recovery service, I would not a advise using a NAS (see below why).
My golden rule is "KISS" : Keep It Simple, Stupid.
* Use preferably professional-grade hard drives (with 5 years warranty) if you can afford them.
You can buy them second hand if you want to reduce costs, but format them fully and afterwards check the SMART values with a software like HDSentinel or HDTune.
* Don't put all eggs in the same basket.
If something goes wrong with one drive, you can go on working on other projets whilst the data recovery is being done by a data recovery company.
* If you have a tower PC, use one (or more) hot swap bays to make inserting/removing hard drives easy.
For instance: <http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=141>
Huge benefit : you'll have SATA speeds when doing your backups. Much faster than USB 3.
On Windows, the HotSwap! utility will be the perfect companion of the hot swap bay: <http://mt-naka.com/hotswap/index_enu.htm>
* For regular backups, use a file synchronizer, like FreeFileSync for instance, which will make your life easier:
<https://www.freefilesync.org/>.
Preferably don't use such tool on your long term backups to limit the risk of human mistakes.
* Don't forget that drives that are not spinning for a long time can catch some kind of rhumatism (platters oxidation, a.s.o.)
Make multiple copies.
* Preferably use backup hard drives from different brands.
So, if one brand or serie is subjet to a particular failure (eg. firmware bug) you will have more peace in mind that other drives that are not affected by it.
* Store your backups in one or preferably more locations that is away from the your office, in order to limit the risks of loosing all your data (burglary, fire, water damage).
* Store the drives in a cool and dry room and use an air dryer (dessicant) for that room.
* Additionnally, you can use anti-moisture/anti-ESD bags with a small dessicant bag in them (silica gel or equivalent).
Some bags have more foils than others and make a better moisture barrier.
**Why I would not advise a NAS:**
NAS often use RAID systems, and RAID 5 is frequent amongst systems using three drives or more.
When things go wrong, it can be pretty difficult (and long) to recover data from RAID 5.
And I can ensure you that things go sometimes wrong with RAID 5 arrays.
For instance, problems can become visible after more that one drive have failed.
Any serious data recovery company will have identify which drives(s) is/are defficient and this can take time as a full scan of each drive may be necessary in some case.
Most of the time, defective drives will have to be cloned to healthy ones before a data recovery can occurs.
NAS systems are mini-computers, with a tiny operating system. When problems like bad sectors affect the operating system, the OS may fail to start.
Reassemblying stripes from RAID 5 systems is not obvious, as several parameters will have to be "guessed" (width of stripes, order of disks, offset, a.s.o.) with the help of softwares and often using an hexadecimal editor.
All this requires hand and brain work and time. Waiting days or weeks can be painful for any company.
To all these drawbacks, one should mention that to spare on license costs, most NAS use systems based on the Linux kernel and many use the ext3 file system.
The nature of the ext3 file system makes a data recovery more difficult, also in case of accidental file deletion,
especially as one cannot reconstruct the folder tree and have the files keep their name like with NTFS.
If you however want a NAS take it RAID 1 (= full redundancy). |
23,206,158 | If I have an API of a WebService and i were asked to make a website for this WebService how can I do it using c#(Visual Studio) ?
Open a project like : visual c# -> ASP.NET Web Application? like programming a standard website ? or do I need to open a different type of project or configure other things ?
If any one got a nice tutorial or something similar i appreciate it...a lot!
>
> *A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.*
>
>
> | 2014/04/21 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23206158",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3142959/"
] | Here's a great tutorial that will teach you how to build an MVC website that uses a WebAPI:
<http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/getting-started-with-aspnet-web-api/tutorial-your-first-web-api> | Did you heard about Webmatrix? <http://www.microsoft.com/web/webmatrix/>. Its a great tool to create websites within minutes. And they have also a lot of tutorials for beginners: <http://pluralsight.com/training/courses/tableofcontents?courseName=webmatrix-introduction>. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | The colloquial understanding of music being in a particular major or minor key depends solely on the tonic ("home note") and whether the 3rd scale degree is a major 3rd (for major keys) or a minor 3rd (for minor keys) away. If both the major 3rd and minor 3rd for 3rd scale degrees appear, whether the resulting music is in a major or minor key often depends on genre (e.g. blues would still be in a major key, classical music is labelled with the key, video game boss themes would likely be in a minor key).
By this classification, *modes are also categorized into major or minor keys*. For example, E Phrygian and F Sharp Dorian are both "minor keys" due to their 3rd scale degree being a minor 3rd away from the tonic, while G Flat Lydian and C Mixolydian (and even D Phrygian Dominant despite this being a mode of the G Harmonic Minor scale) are all "major keys" due to their 3rd scale degree being a major 3rd away from the tonic. In practice, quite a lot of today's music flip-flops between modes that share a tonic (e.g. uses both the regular 2nd scale degree and ♭2), so this categorization of modes into keys is more justifiable.
You can even categorize music that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale into a key as long as you know the genre, which note feels like "home" (or at least is used the most often), and which of the 3rd scale degrees a major or minor 3rd away from the tonic is used more often. Note that some music that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale is designed to be atonal and therefore be in no key at all.
In classical and ragtime music, and also in pop, folk, and rock music and EDM to a certain extent, knowing the key of an excerpt strongly corresponds to knowing exactly which notes you will consistently be putting accidentals on for all music in that key. **Your previous intuition that music being "in a key" means that you sharpen/flatten notes according to the key's key signature is correct for the most part.** Major-key music indeed often follows its key signature, while minor-key music notably sharpens its 6th and 7th scale degrees quite often compared to what the key signature indicates. For example, expect to see F♯ and G♯ quite often in music in A minor despite A minor's key signature being blank.
Especially in classical and soundtrack music, **music in a certain key is not always notated with that key's key signature**. Soundtrack music notated with a blank key signature is commonplace. Classical music (e.g. Bach preludes, Mozart sonata 1st movements) often changes keys without changing the key signature. **Trust your ears and the accidentals on the page and in the key signature combined more than the key signature alone when it comes to determining the key of passages of music.**
Determining the key of entire pieces gets significantly more complicated due to pieces often changing keys partway through. Music often - but does not always! - begin and end in the same key. While a rule of thumb is that you're often safe declaring a piece of music to be in its initial key, music like Chopin's Ballade No. 1 in G Minor disobeys that rule of thumb (it notably starts in A flat major). You can trust single-movement music that is labelled with its key to actually be in that key, but you cannot trust the key label of any movement after the first movement. For example, the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C Minor is in A flat major, its 4th movement is in C major, and the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B Minor "Pathetique" is in G major.
In practice, as a performer who does not improvise live, you don't need to care what key the music you're playing is in as long as you get all the notes right. As a composer, you need to care more about what key your piece is in, at the very least because you're probably notating your music and you want your notation to be understandable. If you're improvising a solo live on a given chord progression, you don't need to care about what key the chord progression is in as long as you stick to the notes of each chord **†** - and if you opt for the chord-scale system when you improvise, you still don't need to care about what key you're soloing in. If you're improvising a cadenza live for a concerto, you need to care about which key you're currently playing in because you need to eventually arrive in the movement's home key. If you're improvising ornaments live for Baroque music, you need to care about which key you're currently playing in, if only to know which neighbour tones of notated but ornamented notes to use in your ornaments.
**†** <https://www.berklee.edu/berklee-today/summer-2000/Chord-Tone> calls doing this when soloing the "chord-tone method", a more restrictive rival of the chord-scale system. | Your basic understanding of "in a key" is correct. Read the key signature, follow the accidentals to deviate from the key signature.
I suppose you could think of that as the "performance" understanding where you would play whatever accidentals are in the score, because that is what you are supposed to do.
Now that you are considering composition, the question becomes "why?" and "how?" Why and how are accidentals used in scores and how does it relate to the meaning of "being in a key?"
The convention of music in the major/minor key system is to start and end a piece in the same key while in the course of the music unfolding the key may change several times. The key changes are used for tonal variety and to create forward progress in the music. Returning to the key of the beginning to make the conclusion is a way to regain stability.
Stasis, an unchanging state, is inactive, without movement. So, key changes add an element of change, which is active, which equates to movement, even if that "movement" is sort of a metaphor. The flip side of that is sameness, unchanging, no movement, which is rest, which is stable, which ultimately is stopping.
That dynamic of change/unchanging, and its effect on in stability/stability, is a major factor in musical form. Again, a piece will start and end in the same key to first establish the key and then through its eventual return to effect a conclusion. Formally, structurally that give us a beginning, and end. The key changes that take place between can be associated with various formal/structural points and may have various names. In short works a double bar repeat may mark the rough middle of a work, and that point will coincide with aspects of a key change. In larger works like a sonata or fugue the sections have names like "development", "recapitulation", or "episode."
A well rounded musician should understand both of these aspects, the performance part of how to merely read a score and play the correct sharps/flats/naturals, but they should also understand how those things work with key changes and create the structure of compositions. Obviously, a composer needs to have an especially deep knowledge and sensitivity about these things. Rather than two different understandings of "being in a key", it's more like two levels of understanding, one is the merely the "mechanics" of reading notation, the other is the application of keys to form and composition.
It should be understood that this is just an overview of what's *conventional*, and composers often work *against* those conventions for effect. Historically the 19th century was when composers started to embrace the unconventional. Eventually that lead to Impressionism, atonality, and lots of modern styles, and the sense of key became expanded or simply abandoned. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | Key means center. "This is in C major" means "this is centered on C major". C major is the center.
>
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this
> basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means
> you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless
> marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
The logic is the other way around. BECAUSE it's in A major, i.e. the notes of the song are centered on A major, it makes sense to have F, C and G be sharp by default. That minimizes the number of accidentals that will probably be needed, assuming that the song follows the style and conventions of traditional Western music. That default is written as a key signature of 3 sharps. We can reasonably make this assumption, since talking about keys and key signatures is something you only do in that context really. There are no keys and key signatures in other kinds of musical contexts except traditional Western music.
Key only means the height of a center pitch, and if the "center chord" which explicates the in-center harmony is a major or minor chord. If you play the same piece one half step higher, in Bb major, then the key signature will have two flats, Bb and Eb. In Bb major, the assumed default set of pitches is Bb - C - D - Eb - F - G - A. But in A major they are A - B - C# - D - E - F# - G#.
Develop a sensitivity for center. Where is the central pitch in your mind? What is the central chord? Which chord makes it feel that the harmony is in balance, not leaning in any direction?
You can move the center of balance. Play the chords F - Bb - C7 - F. Now the center of balance is F major. Then play the chords A - D - E7 - A. Now the center of balance is A major.
Play melodies by ear. Accompany the melodies by ear. Listen to a recording and find out by experimentation where the center pitch and center chord are.
The reason why you have this problem is, you have only been taught to read and pronounce written text, not to listen and say anything of your own. You have not been taught to listen and repeat, only to read out loud. In my opinion, that is a big disgrace. | Your basic understanding of "in a key" is correct. Read the key signature, follow the accidentals to deviate from the key signature.
I suppose you could think of that as the "performance" understanding where you would play whatever accidentals are in the score, because that is what you are supposed to do.
Now that you are considering composition, the question becomes "why?" and "how?" Why and how are accidentals used in scores and how does it relate to the meaning of "being in a key?"
The convention of music in the major/minor key system is to start and end a piece in the same key while in the course of the music unfolding the key may change several times. The key changes are used for tonal variety and to create forward progress in the music. Returning to the key of the beginning to make the conclusion is a way to regain stability.
Stasis, an unchanging state, is inactive, without movement. So, key changes add an element of change, which is active, which equates to movement, even if that "movement" is sort of a metaphor. The flip side of that is sameness, unchanging, no movement, which is rest, which is stable, which ultimately is stopping.
That dynamic of change/unchanging, and its effect on in stability/stability, is a major factor in musical form. Again, a piece will start and end in the same key to first establish the key and then through its eventual return to effect a conclusion. Formally, structurally that give us a beginning, and end. The key changes that take place between can be associated with various formal/structural points and may have various names. In short works a double bar repeat may mark the rough middle of a work, and that point will coincide with aspects of a key change. In larger works like a sonata or fugue the sections have names like "development", "recapitulation", or "episode."
A well rounded musician should understand both of these aspects, the performance part of how to merely read a score and play the correct sharps/flats/naturals, but they should also understand how those things work with key changes and create the structure of compositions. Obviously, a composer needs to have an especially deep knowledge and sensitivity about these things. Rather than two different understandings of "being in a key", it's more like two levels of understanding, one is the merely the "mechanics" of reading notation, the other is the application of keys to form and composition.
It should be understood that this is just an overview of what's *conventional*, and composers often work *against* those conventions for effect. Historically the 19th century was when composers started to embrace the unconventional. Eventually that lead to Impressionism, atonality, and lots of modern styles, and the sense of key became expanded or simply abandoned. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | Please don't think differently with your different hats on. The music probably hasn't changed. Key signatures are there to act as a guide, a reminder, as you state.
We regard (as listeners, players and composers) the key of a piece as the place it feels most at home, at rest. It won't always work for all pieces, but the vast majority will have a particular note or chord that feels like the piece could be stopped there and it would be an appropriate end place.
I regard it as real life - we start from the place we call 'home', on the journey, and may visit some or many other places on the way, maybe returning home before getting off again for the next part of the journey. We could go anywhere, stay for a while, or just a fleeting visit somewhere, before moving on. To somewhere else, which may still not be 'home'. But when we arrive at that place we recognise as 'home', we know we're there. That's then the key of the piece, or at least what we decide to call the piece's key.
So, it's a reference point, a datum point, that we as humans tend to need (for many things in life), and that gives us a safe place to regard all others from - just like home should be!
If in a piece you're composing, you find you're needing to sharpen every (or nearly every) F as you go, then probably that sharp sign needs to go in the key signature at the beginning of each line - rather than in front of every F you hear as F♯. For example. That way, you build up the potential key from the evolving key signature. | Your basic understanding of "in a key" is correct. Read the key signature, follow the accidentals to deviate from the key signature.
I suppose you could think of that as the "performance" understanding where you would play whatever accidentals are in the score, because that is what you are supposed to do.
Now that you are considering composition, the question becomes "why?" and "how?" Why and how are accidentals used in scores and how does it relate to the meaning of "being in a key?"
The convention of music in the major/minor key system is to start and end a piece in the same key while in the course of the music unfolding the key may change several times. The key changes are used for tonal variety and to create forward progress in the music. Returning to the key of the beginning to make the conclusion is a way to regain stability.
Stasis, an unchanging state, is inactive, without movement. So, key changes add an element of change, which is active, which equates to movement, even if that "movement" is sort of a metaphor. The flip side of that is sameness, unchanging, no movement, which is rest, which is stable, which ultimately is stopping.
That dynamic of change/unchanging, and its effect on in stability/stability, is a major factor in musical form. Again, a piece will start and end in the same key to first establish the key and then through its eventual return to effect a conclusion. Formally, structurally that give us a beginning, and end. The key changes that take place between can be associated with various formal/structural points and may have various names. In short works a double bar repeat may mark the rough middle of a work, and that point will coincide with aspects of a key change. In larger works like a sonata or fugue the sections have names like "development", "recapitulation", or "episode."
A well rounded musician should understand both of these aspects, the performance part of how to merely read a score and play the correct sharps/flats/naturals, but they should also understand how those things work with key changes and create the structure of compositions. Obviously, a composer needs to have an especially deep knowledge and sensitivity about these things. Rather than two different understandings of "being in a key", it's more like two levels of understanding, one is the merely the "mechanics" of reading notation, the other is the application of keys to form and composition.
It should be understood that this is just an overview of what's *conventional*, and composers often work *against* those conventions for effect. Historically the 19th century was when composers started to embrace the unconventional. Eventually that lead to Impressionism, atonality, and lots of modern styles, and the sense of key became expanded or simply abandoned. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | >
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
That's part of what 'key of Y' means. But not the most important part. THAT is 'Y is the tonic, the home note'.
Other notes will also be used (and they don't have to all be in the 'scale of the key'). The same tonic may last for the whole piece, or different ones may be established in different sections (though we generally return to the original one at the very end).
Key signatures are the least of your worries. Yes, if the key is C major there will be an empty key signature, if it's E major there will be four sharps. Learn to play and write ALL the scales. Dig out a 'cycle of 5ths' diagram if you like, but I'd rather you understood the principle than kept consulting a diagram. There are plenty of Theory #101 textbooks, get one and remind yourself how scales and keys work. | The colloquial understanding of music being in a particular major or minor key depends solely on the tonic ("home note") and whether the 3rd scale degree is a major 3rd (for major keys) or a minor 3rd (for minor keys) away. If both the major 3rd and minor 3rd for 3rd scale degrees appear, whether the resulting music is in a major or minor key often depends on genre (e.g. blues would still be in a major key, classical music is labelled with the key, video game boss themes would likely be in a minor key).
By this classification, *modes are also categorized into major or minor keys*. For example, E Phrygian and F Sharp Dorian are both "minor keys" due to their 3rd scale degree being a minor 3rd away from the tonic, while G Flat Lydian and C Mixolydian (and even D Phrygian Dominant despite this being a mode of the G Harmonic Minor scale) are all "major keys" due to their 3rd scale degree being a major 3rd away from the tonic. In practice, quite a lot of today's music flip-flops between modes that share a tonic (e.g. uses both the regular 2nd scale degree and ♭2), so this categorization of modes into keys is more justifiable.
You can even categorize music that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale into a key as long as you know the genre, which note feels like "home" (or at least is used the most often), and which of the 3rd scale degrees a major or minor 3rd away from the tonic is used more often. Note that some music that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale is designed to be atonal and therefore be in no key at all.
In classical and ragtime music, and also in pop, folk, and rock music and EDM to a certain extent, knowing the key of an excerpt strongly corresponds to knowing exactly which notes you will consistently be putting accidentals on for all music in that key. **Your previous intuition that music being "in a key" means that you sharpen/flatten notes according to the key's key signature is correct for the most part.** Major-key music indeed often follows its key signature, while minor-key music notably sharpens its 6th and 7th scale degrees quite often compared to what the key signature indicates. For example, expect to see F♯ and G♯ quite often in music in A minor despite A minor's key signature being blank.
Especially in classical and soundtrack music, **music in a certain key is not always notated with that key's key signature**. Soundtrack music notated with a blank key signature is commonplace. Classical music (e.g. Bach preludes, Mozart sonata 1st movements) often changes keys without changing the key signature. **Trust your ears and the accidentals on the page and in the key signature combined more than the key signature alone when it comes to determining the key of passages of music.**
Determining the key of entire pieces gets significantly more complicated due to pieces often changing keys partway through. Music often - but does not always! - begin and end in the same key. While a rule of thumb is that you're often safe declaring a piece of music to be in its initial key, music like Chopin's Ballade No. 1 in G Minor disobeys that rule of thumb (it notably starts in A flat major). You can trust single-movement music that is labelled with its key to actually be in that key, but you cannot trust the key label of any movement after the first movement. For example, the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C Minor is in A flat major, its 4th movement is in C major, and the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B Minor "Pathetique" is in G major.
In practice, as a performer who does not improvise live, you don't need to care what key the music you're playing is in as long as you get all the notes right. As a composer, you need to care more about what key your piece is in, at the very least because you're probably notating your music and you want your notation to be understandable. If you're improvising a solo live on a given chord progression, you don't need to care about what key the chord progression is in as long as you stick to the notes of each chord **†** - and if you opt for the chord-scale system when you improvise, you still don't need to care about what key you're soloing in. If you're improvising a cadenza live for a concerto, you need to care about which key you're currently playing in because you need to eventually arrive in the movement's home key. If you're improvising ornaments live for Baroque music, you need to care about which key you're currently playing in, if only to know which neighbour tones of notated but ornamented notes to use in your ornaments.
**†** <https://www.berklee.edu/berklee-today/summer-2000/Chord-Tone> calls doing this when soloing the "chord-tone method", a more restrictive rival of the chord-scale system. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | Key means center. "This is in C major" means "this is centered on C major". C major is the center.
>
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this
> basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means
> you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless
> marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
The logic is the other way around. BECAUSE it's in A major, i.e. the notes of the song are centered on A major, it makes sense to have F, C and G be sharp by default. That minimizes the number of accidentals that will probably be needed, assuming that the song follows the style and conventions of traditional Western music. That default is written as a key signature of 3 sharps. We can reasonably make this assumption, since talking about keys and key signatures is something you only do in that context really. There are no keys and key signatures in other kinds of musical contexts except traditional Western music.
Key only means the height of a center pitch, and if the "center chord" which explicates the in-center harmony is a major or minor chord. If you play the same piece one half step higher, in Bb major, then the key signature will have two flats, Bb and Eb. In Bb major, the assumed default set of pitches is Bb - C - D - Eb - F - G - A. But in A major they are A - B - C# - D - E - F# - G#.
Develop a sensitivity for center. Where is the central pitch in your mind? What is the central chord? Which chord makes it feel that the harmony is in balance, not leaning in any direction?
You can move the center of balance. Play the chords F - Bb - C7 - F. Now the center of balance is F major. Then play the chords A - D - E7 - A. Now the center of balance is A major.
Play melodies by ear. Accompany the melodies by ear. Listen to a recording and find out by experimentation where the center pitch and center chord are.
The reason why you have this problem is, you have only been taught to read and pronounce written text, not to listen and say anything of your own. You have not been taught to listen and repeat, only to read out loud. In my opinion, that is a big disgrace. | My advice is:
* write all your songs in the Key of C
* transpose your songs from C to G and F
* transpose your songs from G to Gb and from F to F# and see what is happening and what is different. Play them in G and Gb, in F and F# on a keyboard.
* transpose your songs from C to D and from D to E.
I think the system of a key will be selfexplaining when playing and transposing a song in F and F#, G and Gb (all notes are sharpened or flattened, the tone material is a halftone up or a semitone down.
Accidentals will be used as alterations leading to the next neigbour tone with a tension up- or downwards.
The best way to develop the keys is to construct the scales in the circle of fifths clockwise up and counterclock-wise down, using the second tetrachord (4 tones of one scale as first tetrachord of the next scale, deriving the new leading tone! (upwards:the 7th (ti) will need a sharp, downwards the new 4th (fa) needs a flat. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | >
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
That's part of what 'key of Y' means. But not the most important part. THAT is 'Y is the tonic, the home note'.
Other notes will also be used (and they don't have to all be in the 'scale of the key'). The same tonic may last for the whole piece, or different ones may be established in different sections (though we generally return to the original one at the very end).
Key signatures are the least of your worries. Yes, if the key is C major there will be an empty key signature, if it's E major there will be four sharps. Learn to play and write ALL the scales. Dig out a 'cycle of 5ths' diagram if you like, but I'd rather you understood the principle than kept consulting a diagram. There are plenty of Theory #101 textbooks, get one and remind yourself how scales and keys work. | My advice is:
* write all your songs in the Key of C
* transpose your songs from C to G and F
* transpose your songs from G to Gb and from F to F# and see what is happening and what is different. Play them in G and Gb, in F and F# on a keyboard.
* transpose your songs from C to D and from D to E.
I think the system of a key will be selfexplaining when playing and transposing a song in F and F#, G and Gb (all notes are sharpened or flattened, the tone material is a halftone up or a semitone down.
Accidentals will be used as alterations leading to the next neigbour tone with a tension up- or downwards.
The best way to develop the keys is to construct the scales in the circle of fifths clockwise up and counterclock-wise down, using the second tetrachord (4 tones of one scale as first tetrachord of the next scale, deriving the new leading tone! (upwards:the 7th (ti) will need a sharp, downwards the new 4th (fa) needs a flat. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | Please don't think differently with your different hats on. The music probably hasn't changed. Key signatures are there to act as a guide, a reminder, as you state.
We regard (as listeners, players and composers) the key of a piece as the place it feels most at home, at rest. It won't always work for all pieces, but the vast majority will have a particular note or chord that feels like the piece could be stopped there and it would be an appropriate end place.
I regard it as real life - we start from the place we call 'home', on the journey, and may visit some or many other places on the way, maybe returning home before getting off again for the next part of the journey. We could go anywhere, stay for a while, or just a fleeting visit somewhere, before moving on. To somewhere else, which may still not be 'home'. But when we arrive at that place we recognise as 'home', we know we're there. That's then the key of the piece, or at least what we decide to call the piece's key.
So, it's a reference point, a datum point, that we as humans tend to need (for many things in life), and that gives us a safe place to regard all others from - just like home should be!
If in a piece you're composing, you find you're needing to sharpen every (or nearly every) F as you go, then probably that sharp sign needs to go in the key signature at the beginning of each line - rather than in front of every F you hear as F♯. For example. That way, you build up the potential key from the evolving key signature. | My advice is:
* write all your songs in the Key of C
* transpose your songs from C to G and F
* transpose your songs from G to Gb and from F to F# and see what is happening and what is different. Play them in G and Gb, in F and F# on a keyboard.
* transpose your songs from C to D and from D to E.
I think the system of a key will be selfexplaining when playing and transposing a song in F and F#, G and Gb (all notes are sharpened or flattened, the tone material is a halftone up or a semitone down.
Accidentals will be used as alterations leading to the next neigbour tone with a tension up- or downwards.
The best way to develop the keys is to construct the scales in the circle of fifths clockwise up and counterclock-wise down, using the second tetrachord (4 tones of one scale as first tetrachord of the next scale, deriving the new leading tone! (upwards:the 7th (ti) will need a sharp, downwards the new 4th (fa) needs a flat. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | It is possible for a musician to develop facility on an instrument, learn how to read music and play scales in different keys of varying numbers of sharps or flats and even play pieces without really having any knowledge of what a key actually is beyond “this key has these sharp notes”, etc.
In order to understand what a key is from the perspective of your question you must go beyond the sharps and flats and learn about tonal harmony. I will not attempt to give you a crash course on tonal harmony but this information is universally available.
In a nutshell, in tonal harmony the scales from keys are used to construct chords, one for every scale tone. In a major key this will give you 7 chords, one built on every scale tone. In a minor key there are more than 7 chords because of the use of more than one scale in minor keys, the harmonic and melodic minor scales. In both major and minor keys these chords have different functions and tend to be used in recurring patterns in many different styles of music. In any major or minor key the home chord is built on the first note of the scale, C for C major, Ebm for Eb minor, etc. The relationships between the chords of any key are the same, the only difference is the central key note and the actual scale notes the key in question uses to build the chords.
Chord progressions tend to move away from and back to the home chord. Once you learn about the different functions of the different chords which are identified by Roman numerals you will identify numerical chord progressions like I-IV-V with chord progressions you know and have heard many times. This progression for example is used in most blues songs, “Twist and Shout” and “La Bamba” just to name a few. Chord progressions have much to do with how we hear and identify keys. Even a melody with no chords will sometimes imply harmony by the notes selected when composing it.
The one thing to be aware of is that tonal harmony is fundamental knowledge. Nowhere is it written that we must use these principles when composing. There are no rules in music for a composer but more often than not tonal harmony principles are at least partially used. Some pieces may use tonal harmony but change from one key to another and back (and many do). Some may use the basic tonal harmony principles but also incorporate notes and chords that are unrelated to the original key. Some songs may be made up of chords that have no tonal relationship to each other, for example a C major and an Eb minor chord, which have no common notes. In cases like these it might be difficult to actually assign a key. One thing you can do is decide which chord sounds more like “home” to decide. | Your basic understanding of "in a key" is correct. Read the key signature, follow the accidentals to deviate from the key signature.
I suppose you could think of that as the "performance" understanding where you would play whatever accidentals are in the score, because that is what you are supposed to do.
Now that you are considering composition, the question becomes "why?" and "how?" Why and how are accidentals used in scores and how does it relate to the meaning of "being in a key?"
The convention of music in the major/minor key system is to start and end a piece in the same key while in the course of the music unfolding the key may change several times. The key changes are used for tonal variety and to create forward progress in the music. Returning to the key of the beginning to make the conclusion is a way to regain stability.
Stasis, an unchanging state, is inactive, without movement. So, key changes add an element of change, which is active, which equates to movement, even if that "movement" is sort of a metaphor. The flip side of that is sameness, unchanging, no movement, which is rest, which is stable, which ultimately is stopping.
That dynamic of change/unchanging, and its effect on in stability/stability, is a major factor in musical form. Again, a piece will start and end in the same key to first establish the key and then through its eventual return to effect a conclusion. Formally, structurally that give us a beginning, and end. The key changes that take place between can be associated with various formal/structural points and may have various names. In short works a double bar repeat may mark the rough middle of a work, and that point will coincide with aspects of a key change. In larger works like a sonata or fugue the sections have names like "development", "recapitulation", or "episode."
A well rounded musician should understand both of these aspects, the performance part of how to merely read a score and play the correct sharps/flats/naturals, but they should also understand how those things work with key changes and create the structure of compositions. Obviously, a composer needs to have an especially deep knowledge and sensitivity about these things. Rather than two different understandings of "being in a key", it's more like two levels of understanding, one is the merely the "mechanics" of reading notation, the other is the application of keys to form and composition.
It should be understood that this is just an overview of what's *conventional*, and composers often work *against* those conventions for effect. Historically the 19th century was when composers started to embrace the unconventional. Eventually that lead to Impressionism, atonality, and lots of modern styles, and the sense of key became expanded or simply abandoned. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | Please don't think differently with your different hats on. The music probably hasn't changed. Key signatures are there to act as a guide, a reminder, as you state.
We regard (as listeners, players and composers) the key of a piece as the place it feels most at home, at rest. It won't always work for all pieces, but the vast majority will have a particular note or chord that feels like the piece could be stopped there and it would be an appropriate end place.
I regard it as real life - we start from the place we call 'home', on the journey, and may visit some or many other places on the way, maybe returning home before getting off again for the next part of the journey. We could go anywhere, stay for a while, or just a fleeting visit somewhere, before moving on. To somewhere else, which may still not be 'home'. But when we arrive at that place we recognise as 'home', we know we're there. That's then the key of the piece, or at least what we decide to call the piece's key.
So, it's a reference point, a datum point, that we as humans tend to need (for many things in life), and that gives us a safe place to regard all others from - just like home should be!
If in a piece you're composing, you find you're needing to sharpen every (or nearly every) F as you go, then probably that sharp sign needs to go in the key signature at the beginning of each line - rather than in front of every F you hear as F♯. For example. That way, you build up the potential key from the evolving key signature. | Key means center. "This is in C major" means "this is centered on C major". C major is the center.
>
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this
> basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means
> you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless
> marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
The logic is the other way around. BECAUSE it's in A major, i.e. the notes of the song are centered on A major, it makes sense to have F, C and G be sharp by default. That minimizes the number of accidentals that will probably be needed, assuming that the song follows the style and conventions of traditional Western music. That default is written as a key signature of 3 sharps. We can reasonably make this assumption, since talking about keys and key signatures is something you only do in that context really. There are no keys and key signatures in other kinds of musical contexts except traditional Western music.
Key only means the height of a center pitch, and if the "center chord" which explicates the in-center harmony is a major or minor chord. If you play the same piece one half step higher, in Bb major, then the key signature will have two flats, Bb and Eb. In Bb major, the assumed default set of pitches is Bb - C - D - Eb - F - G - A. But in A major they are A - B - C# - D - E - F# - G#.
Develop a sensitivity for center. Where is the central pitch in your mind? What is the central chord? Which chord makes it feel that the harmony is in balance, not leaning in any direction?
You can move the center of balance. Play the chords F - Bb - C7 - F. Now the center of balance is F major. Then play the chords A - D - E7 - A. Now the center of balance is A major.
Play melodies by ear. Accompany the melodies by ear. Listen to a recording and find out by experimentation where the center pitch and center chord are.
The reason why you have this problem is, you have only been taught to read and pronounce written text, not to listen and say anything of your own. You have not been taught to listen and repeat, only to read out loud. In my opinion, that is a big disgrace. |
124,629 | When I was younger, for years, I played musical instruments such as the french horn, violin, acoustic ("standing") bass, electric bass, piano, and electric guitar. During these years, I also learned to read sheet music/music notation.
I've taken many years away from reading music notation, however I still remember quite a lot about it. During the last 3 months, I've gotten into music composition using a software tool called Ableton Live. When I was reading music notation as a musician years ago, I distinctly remember there being what's called a **key signature**. The way I understood was quite simple: it tells me what notes I need to play either sharp, flat, or natural throughout the song, with the exception of when specific notes were marked as such using what we called *accidentals.*
As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
However, as a composer, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning behind a song that is "in the key of" some pitch. Moreover, I am struggling to determine the keys of my own compositions. In other words, I have actually written melodies and chords in the software that sound good together to me, but without any particular planned key. So, I end up actually having to struggle a bit to determine the key of my own song, so that I can continue to write other music tracks that go well with it, if that makes sense.
So, my question is, what is a better definition, or understanding of what a key actually is, aside from my earlier understanding of "it's some group of notes throughout this song that we are going to sharp or flat?" As a musician, that makes a lot of sense, but as a composer, it's not super useful. In fact, it can be confusing because as a composer, it seeems that "Key" is more suggestive of some note that we continuously return back to, or "resolve" to, but then I have no idea what that has anything to do with the number of sharps or flats. | 2022/08/27 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/124629",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/88323/"
] | >
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
That's part of what 'key of Y' means. But not the most important part. THAT is 'Y is the tonic, the home note'.
Other notes will also be used (and they don't have to all be in the 'scale of the key'). The same tonic may last for the whole piece, or different ones may be established in different sections (though we generally return to the original one at the very end).
Key signatures are the least of your worries. Yes, if the key is C major there will be an empty key signature, if it's E major there will be four sharps. Learn to play and write ALL the scales. Dig out a 'cycle of 5ths' diagram if you like, but I'd rather you understood the principle than kept consulting a diagram. There are plenty of Theory #101 textbooks, get one and remind yourself how scales and keys work. | Key means center. "This is in C major" means "this is centered on C major". C major is the center.
>
> As a musician, when I heard "X (song) is in the key of Y", this
> basically just resulted in me thinking in my head "okay, this means
> you're going to sharp all Cs, Fs, and As throughout this song unless
> marked otherwise", for example.
>
>
>
The logic is the other way around. BECAUSE it's in A major, i.e. the notes of the song are centered on A major, it makes sense to have F, C and G be sharp by default. That minimizes the number of accidentals that will probably be needed, assuming that the song follows the style and conventions of traditional Western music. That default is written as a key signature of 3 sharps. We can reasonably make this assumption, since talking about keys and key signatures is something you only do in that context really. There are no keys and key signatures in other kinds of musical contexts except traditional Western music.
Key only means the height of a center pitch, and if the "center chord" which explicates the in-center harmony is a major or minor chord. If you play the same piece one half step higher, in Bb major, then the key signature will have two flats, Bb and Eb. In Bb major, the assumed default set of pitches is Bb - C - D - Eb - F - G - A. But in A major they are A - B - C# - D - E - F# - G#.
Develop a sensitivity for center. Where is the central pitch in your mind? What is the central chord? Which chord makes it feel that the harmony is in balance, not leaning in any direction?
You can move the center of balance. Play the chords F - Bb - C7 - F. Now the center of balance is F major. Then play the chords A - D - E7 - A. Now the center of balance is A major.
Play melodies by ear. Accompany the melodies by ear. Listen to a recording and find out by experimentation where the center pitch and center chord are.
The reason why you have this problem is, you have only been taught to read and pronounce written text, not to listen and say anything of your own. You have not been taught to listen and repeat, only to read out loud. In my opinion, that is a big disgrace. |
198,349 | As a plasma-based force field would simply feel really really hot and consuming end up burning anybody who touched it, a cold plasma-based force field would seem to be more in order. For convenience, cold plasma is when "where the temperature of the individual constituents is different from each other. Electrons are at higher temperature (more than 10,000K) and neutral atoms are at room temperature." So ignoring the engineering difficulties and energy requirements, the cold plasma forcefield wors by restraining a large volume of cold plasma, which might under other circumstances be a solid, possibly but not necessarily(it seems like it would be more effective if it was gas as it would contain more repulsive energy) under room temperature, by a higher power magnetic field, eg as much energy/power/electricity as it requires, and so presuming this is the case, ignoring any engineering difficulties **What would it feel like to the touch and how would it behave?** | 2021/03/24 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/198349",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/83401/"
] | **Don't keep your hand in the gas**
I assume that you're citing this: [Summary](https://www.science.lu/fr/my-research-90-seconds/cold-plasma-what-it-and-how-can-it-be-used)
Your "forcefield" consists of a gas cloud, contained in a small area. It's a plasma because you've dissociated one or more electrons from each atom, which are now moving fairly freely.
The plasma itself will feel like a gas cloud like any other, since its atoms are at roughly room temperature. The electrons are at 20000K, and are probably prone to causing chemical reactions. This is indicated in the link, under "sterilisation".
The actual force-field in this scenario seems to be provided by your hypothetical containment unit.
To make this a barrier (as most force-fields are), you will need a pressure difference. This is more a function of your hypothetical containment unit, and is a question of mass-displacement causing a difference in pressure on either side of (say) your hand. So it will feel much like putting your hand on water, with the pressure scaled up appropriately. You will also feel heating from the free electrons transferring energy to your hand.
Under my assumptions about the containment device not affecting the toucher, the question you have asked is "What would pressurised nitrogen feel like to the touch?", plus a certain warmth. | Its ouch time.
* An acid burns by donating ions to its surroundings. These ions will try to share or rip electrons of(f) other materials.
* plasma is a substance so hot the electrons leave the atoms turning them into ions.
* as long as the plasma cannot reabsorb its electrons as it cools down it functions like a battery, storing its electrons until they have a way out.
So here's what will happen to the poor person who sticks his hand into the forcefield containing the plasma:
ions will happily try to bond with your hand like an acid. As you break the containment and complete a cirquit to the earth, all electrons in the plasma will force their way through your body to the ground causing electrical burns and possibly death if enough plasma is present.
If someone discovers your originally hot cold plasma, which is highly conductive, they would likely try to offer you a nobel prize for physics and revolutionize the world of electrics. |
415,040 | I have received a form by email that has to be filled in and either printed or sent back by email. When I type, the characters move everything to the right like when you use the space key. Can't figure out why this is. What do I do to stop everything moving like that whenI type?
By the way, this is a Microsoft Word 97-2003 document | 2012/04/21 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/415040",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/129463/"
] | Press [`Insert`](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert_key) to replace the existing text instead of moving it away.
Otherwise, print the document, fill it out by hand and scan it. | The form was created with tab stops, go to menu bar, format then tabs from the tab pop-up window click clear all |
283,083 | Every so often we encounter a problem where we cannot get an IPSEC VPN tunnel to work. Sometimes we know the local authorities restrict use of IPSEC (e.g. Bangladesh), and have to get some kind of exemption. Other times the ISP changes something and the connection drops (e.g. Haiti).
I assume there are a bunch of things that might prevent IPSEC from working. For example, blocking UDP port 500 would prevent IKE.
Rather than looking for a resolution for a specific problem, can anyone give a list of what different things an ISP might do to block IPSEC traffic, either on purpose or by accident?
The answer to this question will be useful in troubleshooting, but also letting ISPs know what specific things they need to fix when we can't get our VPN up! | 2011/06/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/283083",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/31143/"
] | Drawing on [Chapter 4 of IPsec Virtual Private Network Fundamentals](http://www.networkworld.com/subnets/cisco/1114-ch4-ipsec-vpn.html?page=6) the following architectural issues can disrupt IPsec traffic:
* Firewall not allowing required protocols
+ ISAKMP (Port 500)
+ ESP (IP Protocol 50)
+ AH (IP Protocol 51)
* Firewall (or router) not handling fragmented IPsec packets, such as
+ not replying to ICMP-Unreachable packets - breaking Path MTU Detection
Some of these things could result from an ISP introducing new equipment that by default does one of the above (blocking ICMP-Unreachable seems quite a likely default setting). They may not realise they need to fix such problems in order to support their customers who use IPSEC - and it may not affect all their customers. | There's really not much we can do to answer this "question" -- they can block IKE, they can block L2TP/GRE/other tunneling protocols, they can block any packet that looks like it might be using ESP/AH, etc.
-- The exhaustive list of ways things can break is (usually) infinite: Without details of how your VPNs are set up and a specific breakage to troubleshoot it's nigh impossible to give you much more detail than the above, though I'm sure others can list specific breakages they've encountered and how they were resolved... |
191,770 | I'm just starting to work with KiCAD. One of the [video tutorial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK3rDhJqMu0) shows that 3D view should incorporate components placed on the board:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6wuks.png)
However in my case I can see only the board with pads:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJSnw.png)
Looks like I need to tune up my KiCAD installation (I'm using Windows 7, KiCAD version 4.0.0).
Could anyone give me any advize for that?
**EDIT 1**
As @Robert Stiffler mentioned I verified if the component 3D view is enabled. As I can treat the follwoing screen - everything should be OK. However the option name is differ from suggested ("Show component 3D shape" VS "Show 3D footprints"). So it is possible that I picked the wrong setting.
And the libraries are mostly standard.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TdwQC.png) | 2015/09/23 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/191770",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/35875/"
] | I solved this issue doing this:
* Run Eeschema
* Open CvPcb to associate components and footprints
* Open Preferences -> Configure Paths
* On "KISYS3DMOD" change the path to the correct one. "C:\Program Files\KiCad\share\kicad\modules\packages3d" in my case.
* Restart the program.
* Enjoy! | This problem seems to be resolved for more recent versions of KiCad. I did however run into the same symptoms but different cause with KiCad 5, which I'm posting here for any wanderers who find this thread looking for the solution.
Basically if you have run KiCad 4 on your computer and then installed KiCad 5, the libraries are messed up. [A full solution is discussed here](https://forum.kicad.info/t/i-had-kicad-4-installed-previosly-now-i-updated-to-v5-now-i-have-some-problems-with-the-library-setup/11932). It boils down to going to
KiCad -> Preferences -> Manage Footprint Libraries
Then deleting all of the KiCad default libraries (which should be GitHub for ver 4) and re adding them from ${KISYSMOD} which varies by OS, but for macOS was
/Library/Application Support/kicad/modules/ |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | I would say "trivially, yes".
Yes, because music can be analyzed and is often created in ways that involve numbers and fundamentals of algebra (such as addition and multiplication), and once numbers become involved, and particularly when multiplication (and division) is involved, prime numbers become significant.
Trivially, because *every* branch of human thought that can be analyzed and/or developed using numbers and basic algebra, and particularly multiplication/division, has a meaningful interaction with prime numbers.
That is because the very nature of prime numbers is they create patterns in how numbers in general are multiplied and divided.
Here is a list of only some of the areas of music where prime numbers have important interaction with the concept because of the usefulness of multiplication and/or division of whole numbers:
* frequency ratios and intervals
* time signatures and rhythms
* tuning, intonation, and scales
* resonance, damping, and instrument construction
* acoustics
* etc.
There are overlaps between some of those areas, as many will surely notice.
Specifically regarding Euler's ideas, they don't seem particularly helpful to me, at least from a musical point of view. They might be interesting in their own way, but I think there's a reason that people don't frequently refer to these ideas when talking about music. Also, Euler's mathematical innovations are much more exciting. | YES! And it's a fascinating one.
The primes (>3) only ever occur at 6n+/-1 (next to a number divisible by six). This is because of the interaction between the products of the numbers 2 and 3. If you think of the number line as music in 6/8 time then the primes always occur on the second or last quaver of each bar. Thus 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 etc.
The distribution of primes in entirely determined by the interaction between the 'product-waves' of smaller primes. Each prime produces products at 6n+/-1 according to a rule such that there are two products at this location in every 6p numbers. For instance, the products of 5 occurring at this location do so always at 6np+/-p, thus twice in every 30 (6p) numbers.
This is all to do with interacting frequencies and number theory makes extensive use of Fourier analysis. The trick to the analysis is to recogise that there is no 'music of the primes' but is, rather, a 'music of the products of primes', and this is what determines the distribution of primes.
Anyone with a grasp of acoustics and the mechanics of vibrating strings will easily be able to grasp how the primes work. |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | YES! And it's a fascinating one.
The primes (>3) only ever occur at 6n+/-1 (next to a number divisible by six). This is because of the interaction between the products of the numbers 2 and 3. If you think of the number line as music in 6/8 time then the primes always occur on the second or last quaver of each bar. Thus 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 etc.
The distribution of primes in entirely determined by the interaction between the 'product-waves' of smaller primes. Each prime produces products at 6n+/-1 according to a rule such that there are two products at this location in every 6p numbers. For instance, the products of 5 occurring at this location do so always at 6np+/-p, thus twice in every 30 (6p) numbers.
This is all to do with interacting frequencies and number theory makes extensive use of Fourier analysis. The trick to the analysis is to recogise that there is no 'music of the primes' but is, rather, a 'music of the products of primes', and this is what determines the distribution of primes.
Anyone with a grasp of acoustics and the mechanics of vibrating strings will easily be able to grasp how the primes work. | This is my answer (but it is not just a kind of Q-A (as I really didn't see this relationship before!)
Starting with the smallest primes:
They are **1,2,3,5,7,11** ...
That's what we have learnt in the primary school: **these numbers can only be divided by 1 and by themselves.**
the overtones, (harmonics) and the frequencies: note that I've edited **wavelength** to **length of string**!
in the 1. column of the chart is **Length
of string** in the 2. the **Frequency factor** in the 3. the resulting tone
1 => **1** = e.g. C
1/2 => **2** = c
1/3 => **3** = g
1/4 => 4 = c (8va of c 1/2 x 1/2)
1/5 => **5** = e
1/6 => 6 = g (8va of g *1/2 x 1/3)*
1/7 => **7** = b7
1/8 => 8 c (8va of c *1/2 x 1/4)*
1/9 => 9 d (5th of g *1/3 x 1/3)*
1/10 => 10 e (8va of e *1/2 x 1/5)*
etc.
as we can see the **bold** frequencies are the **new overtones** all others are multiples of *already derived overtones* which *can obviously be divided by an other prime* that has already been derived. This tabula shows that each **new** harmonic tone must obviously be **identical** with the next **prime number** that can't be divided in another number than one or itself. That's why some may say this is trivial but it has not been trivial to me until now! There is not a similarity or correlation between the harmonics and the primes. They are identical.
**Edit:**
With this last sentence I meant to say:
Prime numbers and overtones are one and the same thing - only in different terms and medias, as all not-primes numbers must be octavas or fifths of overtones of those we have already developed:
e.g.
**But I see now what I have missed: the pythagorean comma: 7 octavas are not equal 12 fifths. I had completely forgotten this point!**
Here I have found an aritcle saying the same:
*The harmonic numbers are equivalent to the values of the source harmonics in all previous discussions of harmonic evolution. Since we only studied those up to Quintality, most were prime. But as we can see from the chart, numerically, most source harmonics and harmonic multipliers are non-prime, any of which is a product of primes – its own series of harmonics and multipliers. We will call the first in the series its root harmonic, which is thus distinct from the product itself – the source harmonic. It determines the root spiritual or physical nature of the product’s lineage.*
It says **equivalent** what I think this is better than one and the same.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bao8z.png)
and here's another link that says they primes and harmonics are eyuivalent:
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DBzfb.png)
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx> |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | There is one observation with respect to primes. No prime power (except 0) is a power of any other prime. Thus no number of stacked fifths will be equal to any number of stacked octaves. (Taking a fifth to be a ratio of 3:2). Thus, any useful music over more than a few notes will need tempering.
"Pythagorean" tuning uses only ratios using 2 or 3. "Just" tuning uses ratios using 2, 3, and 5. The Pythagorean third becomes 81/64 and the Just third is 5/3; these don't match.
Other than this, there isn't much except for figuring out how to temper the difference between (for example) 7 octaves and 12 fifths in a practical manner. | YES! And it's a fascinating one.
The primes (>3) only ever occur at 6n+/-1 (next to a number divisible by six). This is because of the interaction between the products of the numbers 2 and 3. If you think of the number line as music in 6/8 time then the primes always occur on the second or last quaver of each bar. Thus 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 etc.
The distribution of primes in entirely determined by the interaction between the 'product-waves' of smaller primes. Each prime produces products at 6n+/-1 according to a rule such that there are two products at this location in every 6p numbers. For instance, the products of 5 occurring at this location do so always at 6np+/-p, thus twice in every 30 (6p) numbers.
This is all to do with interacting frequencies and number theory makes extensive use of Fourier analysis. The trick to the analysis is to recogise that there is no 'music of the primes' but is, rather, a 'music of the products of primes', and this is what determines the distribution of primes.
Anyone with a grasp of acoustics and the mechanics of vibrating strings will easily be able to grasp how the primes work. |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | I would say "trivially, yes".
Yes, because music can be analyzed and is often created in ways that involve numbers and fundamentals of algebra (such as addition and multiplication), and once numbers become involved, and particularly when multiplication (and division) is involved, prime numbers become significant.
Trivially, because *every* branch of human thought that can be analyzed and/or developed using numbers and basic algebra, and particularly multiplication/division, has a meaningful interaction with prime numbers.
That is because the very nature of prime numbers is they create patterns in how numbers in general are multiplied and divided.
Here is a list of only some of the areas of music where prime numbers have important interaction with the concept because of the usefulness of multiplication and/or division of whole numbers:
* frequency ratios and intervals
* time signatures and rhythms
* tuning, intonation, and scales
* resonance, damping, and instrument construction
* acoustics
* etc.
There are overlaps between some of those areas, as many will surely notice.
Specifically regarding Euler's ideas, they don't seem particularly helpful to me, at least from a musical point of view. They might be interesting in their own way, but I think there's a reason that people don't frequently refer to these ideas when talking about music. Also, Euler's mathematical innovations are much more exciting. | This is my answer (but it is not just a kind of Q-A (as I really didn't see this relationship before!)
Starting with the smallest primes:
They are **1,2,3,5,7,11** ...
That's what we have learnt in the primary school: **these numbers can only be divided by 1 and by themselves.**
the overtones, (harmonics) and the frequencies: note that I've edited **wavelength** to **length of string**!
in the 1. column of the chart is **Length
of string** in the 2. the **Frequency factor** in the 3. the resulting tone
1 => **1** = e.g. C
1/2 => **2** = c
1/3 => **3** = g
1/4 => 4 = c (8va of c 1/2 x 1/2)
1/5 => **5** = e
1/6 => 6 = g (8va of g *1/2 x 1/3)*
1/7 => **7** = b7
1/8 => 8 c (8va of c *1/2 x 1/4)*
1/9 => 9 d (5th of g *1/3 x 1/3)*
1/10 => 10 e (8va of e *1/2 x 1/5)*
etc.
as we can see the **bold** frequencies are the **new overtones** all others are multiples of *already derived overtones* which *can obviously be divided by an other prime* that has already been derived. This tabula shows that each **new** harmonic tone must obviously be **identical** with the next **prime number** that can't be divided in another number than one or itself. That's why some may say this is trivial but it has not been trivial to me until now! There is not a similarity or correlation between the harmonics and the primes. They are identical.
**Edit:**
With this last sentence I meant to say:
Prime numbers and overtones are one and the same thing - only in different terms and medias, as all not-primes numbers must be octavas or fifths of overtones of those we have already developed:
e.g.
**But I see now what I have missed: the pythagorean comma: 7 octavas are not equal 12 fifths. I had completely forgotten this point!**
Here I have found an aritcle saying the same:
*The harmonic numbers are equivalent to the values of the source harmonics in all previous discussions of harmonic evolution. Since we only studied those up to Quintality, most were prime. But as we can see from the chart, numerically, most source harmonics and harmonic multipliers are non-prime, any of which is a product of primes – its own series of harmonics and multipliers. We will call the first in the series its root harmonic, which is thus distinct from the product itself – the source harmonic. It determines the root spiritual or physical nature of the product’s lineage.*
It says **equivalent** what I think this is better than one and the same.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bao8z.png)
and here's another link that says they primes and harmonics are eyuivalent:
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DBzfb.png)
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx> |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | There is one observation with respect to primes. No prime power (except 0) is a power of any other prime. Thus no number of stacked fifths will be equal to any number of stacked octaves. (Taking a fifth to be a ratio of 3:2). Thus, any useful music over more than a few notes will need tempering.
"Pythagorean" tuning uses only ratios using 2 or 3. "Just" tuning uses ratios using 2, 3, and 5. The Pythagorean third becomes 81/64 and the Just third is 5/3; these don't match.
Other than this, there isn't much except for figuring out how to temper the difference between (for example) 7 octaves and 12 fifths in a practical manner. | I would say "trivially, yes".
Yes, because music can be analyzed and is often created in ways that involve numbers and fundamentals of algebra (such as addition and multiplication), and once numbers become involved, and particularly when multiplication (and division) is involved, prime numbers become significant.
Trivially, because *every* branch of human thought that can be analyzed and/or developed using numbers and basic algebra, and particularly multiplication/division, has a meaningful interaction with prime numbers.
That is because the very nature of prime numbers is they create patterns in how numbers in general are multiplied and divided.
Here is a list of only some of the areas of music where prime numbers have important interaction with the concept because of the usefulness of multiplication and/or division of whole numbers:
* frequency ratios and intervals
* time signatures and rhythms
* tuning, intonation, and scales
* resonance, damping, and instrument construction
* acoustics
* etc.
There are overlaps between some of those areas, as many will surely notice.
Specifically regarding Euler's ideas, they don't seem particularly helpful to me, at least from a musical point of view. They might be interesting in their own way, but I think there's a reason that people don't frequently refer to these ideas when talking about music. Also, Euler's mathematical innovations are much more exciting. |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | I would say "trivially, yes".
Yes, because music can be analyzed and is often created in ways that involve numbers and fundamentals of algebra (such as addition and multiplication), and once numbers become involved, and particularly when multiplication (and division) is involved, prime numbers become significant.
Trivially, because *every* branch of human thought that can be analyzed and/or developed using numbers and basic algebra, and particularly multiplication/division, has a meaningful interaction with prime numbers.
That is because the very nature of prime numbers is they create patterns in how numbers in general are multiplied and divided.
Here is a list of only some of the areas of music where prime numbers have important interaction with the concept because of the usefulness of multiplication and/or division of whole numbers:
* frequency ratios and intervals
* time signatures and rhythms
* tuning, intonation, and scales
* resonance, damping, and instrument construction
* acoustics
* etc.
There are overlaps between some of those areas, as many will surely notice.
Specifically regarding Euler's ideas, they don't seem particularly helpful to me, at least from a musical point of view. They might be interesting in their own way, but I think there's a reason that people don't frequently refer to these ideas when talking about music. Also, Euler's mathematical innovations are much more exciting. | The era of equal temperament ushered in by Bach has rendered ratios such as 3:2 obsolete. Music of the past couple centuries that uses a 12-note scale changes the frequency of each ascending note by multiplying the current note's frequency by 2^(1/12) which we call the twelfth root of 2. It makes sense because that is a geometric progression.
It blows the minds of those who think an interval of a major fifth (say C to G) has to be 1.5 times the frequency *exactly*. Mr. Bach changed that to be a compromise value of 2^(7/12) *exactly*. Here's the ratio of the interval of a fifth (C to G for example) in 12 place precision: 1.49830707688:1.
Each half step requires multiplying the frequency by 2^(1/12) or 1.05946309436 which is an irrational number (which means it is not and cannot be the ratio of any two integers.) If you multiply that number by itself 12 times, it means you have moved up the 12 semitones (half-steps) that make up our 12-tone scale, and you get the integer 2. Every octave is the second harmonic, or double the frequency of the starting note. This means that a particular note in any octave will be "in-tune" with that note in any other octave. hence all As are in tune with each other, all D#s are in tune, etc.
That is not true for fifths, which will have a "beat" or wavering sound when played against the root note. This may be the origin of the exaggerated vibrato many singers inflict upon our ears these days.
Sorry if I busted any bubbles, but ever since Bach, instruments which use the 12-tone scale are designed and manufactured to be tuned to, and musicians spend their lives learning to play in, equal-temperament, using the twelfth root of two, which is an irrational number meaning it cannot and does not equate to a ratio of any two integers, prime or not.
Other scales with different numbers of notes may have some intervals that equate to the ratio of two integers and it may even be possible to base the intervals on a ratio of two primes, but such tuning would be almost completely incompatible with the common 12-tone system. (Unless of course your composition was "Sonata for Cat and Lawnmower")
Sorry.
Now, enough math for one day! I'm going to go back to my composing. |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | There is one observation with respect to primes. No prime power (except 0) is a power of any other prime. Thus no number of stacked fifths will be equal to any number of stacked octaves. (Taking a fifth to be a ratio of 3:2). Thus, any useful music over more than a few notes will need tempering.
"Pythagorean" tuning uses only ratios using 2 or 3. "Just" tuning uses ratios using 2, 3, and 5. The Pythagorean third becomes 81/64 and the Just third is 5/3; these don't match.
Other than this, there isn't much except for figuring out how to temper the difference between (for example) 7 octaves and 12 fifths in a practical manner. | This is my answer (but it is not just a kind of Q-A (as I really didn't see this relationship before!)
Starting with the smallest primes:
They are **1,2,3,5,7,11** ...
That's what we have learnt in the primary school: **these numbers can only be divided by 1 and by themselves.**
the overtones, (harmonics) and the frequencies: note that I've edited **wavelength** to **length of string**!
in the 1. column of the chart is **Length
of string** in the 2. the **Frequency factor** in the 3. the resulting tone
1 => **1** = e.g. C
1/2 => **2** = c
1/3 => **3** = g
1/4 => 4 = c (8va of c 1/2 x 1/2)
1/5 => **5** = e
1/6 => 6 = g (8va of g *1/2 x 1/3)*
1/7 => **7** = b7
1/8 => 8 c (8va of c *1/2 x 1/4)*
1/9 => 9 d (5th of g *1/3 x 1/3)*
1/10 => 10 e (8va of e *1/2 x 1/5)*
etc.
as we can see the **bold** frequencies are the **new overtones** all others are multiples of *already derived overtones* which *can obviously be divided by an other prime* that has already been derived. This tabula shows that each **new** harmonic tone must obviously be **identical** with the next **prime number** that can't be divided in another number than one or itself. That's why some may say this is trivial but it has not been trivial to me until now! There is not a similarity or correlation between the harmonics and the primes. They are identical.
**Edit:**
With this last sentence I meant to say:
Prime numbers and overtones are one and the same thing - only in different terms and medias, as all not-primes numbers must be octavas or fifths of overtones of those we have already developed:
e.g.
**But I see now what I have missed: the pythagorean comma: 7 octavas are not equal 12 fifths. I had completely forgotten this point!**
Here I have found an aritcle saying the same:
*The harmonic numbers are equivalent to the values of the source harmonics in all previous discussions of harmonic evolution. Since we only studied those up to Quintality, most were prime. But as we can see from the chart, numerically, most source harmonics and harmonic multipliers are non-prime, any of which is a product of primes – its own series of harmonics and multipliers. We will call the first in the series its root harmonic, which is thus distinct from the product itself – the source harmonic. It determines the root spiritual or physical nature of the product’s lineage.*
It says **equivalent** what I think this is better than one and the same.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bao8z.png)
and here's another link that says they primes and harmonics are eyuivalent:
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DBzfb.png)
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx> |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | The era of equal temperament ushered in by Bach has rendered ratios such as 3:2 obsolete. Music of the past couple centuries that uses a 12-note scale changes the frequency of each ascending note by multiplying the current note's frequency by 2^(1/12) which we call the twelfth root of 2. It makes sense because that is a geometric progression.
It blows the minds of those who think an interval of a major fifth (say C to G) has to be 1.5 times the frequency *exactly*. Mr. Bach changed that to be a compromise value of 2^(7/12) *exactly*. Here's the ratio of the interval of a fifth (C to G for example) in 12 place precision: 1.49830707688:1.
Each half step requires multiplying the frequency by 2^(1/12) or 1.05946309436 which is an irrational number (which means it is not and cannot be the ratio of any two integers.) If you multiply that number by itself 12 times, it means you have moved up the 12 semitones (half-steps) that make up our 12-tone scale, and you get the integer 2. Every octave is the second harmonic, or double the frequency of the starting note. This means that a particular note in any octave will be "in-tune" with that note in any other octave. hence all As are in tune with each other, all D#s are in tune, etc.
That is not true for fifths, which will have a "beat" or wavering sound when played against the root note. This may be the origin of the exaggerated vibrato many singers inflict upon our ears these days.
Sorry if I busted any bubbles, but ever since Bach, instruments which use the 12-tone scale are designed and manufactured to be tuned to, and musicians spend their lives learning to play in, equal-temperament, using the twelfth root of two, which is an irrational number meaning it cannot and does not equate to a ratio of any two integers, prime or not.
Other scales with different numbers of notes may have some intervals that equate to the ratio of two integers and it may even be possible to base the intervals on a ratio of two primes, but such tuning would be almost completely incompatible with the common 12-tone system. (Unless of course your composition was "Sonata for Cat and Lawnmower")
Sorry.
Now, enough math for one day! I'm going to go back to my composing. | This is my answer (but it is not just a kind of Q-A (as I really didn't see this relationship before!)
Starting with the smallest primes:
They are **1,2,3,5,7,11** ...
That's what we have learnt in the primary school: **these numbers can only be divided by 1 and by themselves.**
the overtones, (harmonics) and the frequencies: note that I've edited **wavelength** to **length of string**!
in the 1. column of the chart is **Length
of string** in the 2. the **Frequency factor** in the 3. the resulting tone
1 => **1** = e.g. C
1/2 => **2** = c
1/3 => **3** = g
1/4 => 4 = c (8va of c 1/2 x 1/2)
1/5 => **5** = e
1/6 => 6 = g (8va of g *1/2 x 1/3)*
1/7 => **7** = b7
1/8 => 8 c (8va of c *1/2 x 1/4)*
1/9 => 9 d (5th of g *1/3 x 1/3)*
1/10 => 10 e (8va of e *1/2 x 1/5)*
etc.
as we can see the **bold** frequencies are the **new overtones** all others are multiples of *already derived overtones* which *can obviously be divided by an other prime* that has already been derived. This tabula shows that each **new** harmonic tone must obviously be **identical** with the next **prime number** that can't be divided in another number than one or itself. That's why some may say this is trivial but it has not been trivial to me until now! There is not a similarity or correlation between the harmonics and the primes. They are identical.
**Edit:**
With this last sentence I meant to say:
Prime numbers and overtones are one and the same thing - only in different terms and medias, as all not-primes numbers must be octavas or fifths of overtones of those we have already developed:
e.g.
**But I see now what I have missed: the pythagorean comma: 7 octavas are not equal 12 fifths. I had completely forgotten this point!**
Here I have found an aritcle saying the same:
*The harmonic numbers are equivalent to the values of the source harmonics in all previous discussions of harmonic evolution. Since we only studied those up to Quintality, most were prime. But as we can see from the chart, numerically, most source harmonics and harmonic multipliers are non-prime, any of which is a product of primes – its own series of harmonics and multipliers. We will call the first in the series its root harmonic, which is thus distinct from the product itself – the source harmonic. It determines the root spiritual or physical nature of the product’s lineage.*
It says **equivalent** what I think this is better than one and the same.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bao8z.png)
and here's another link that says they primes and harmonics are eyuivalent:
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DBzfb.png)
<http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime.aspx> |
90,031 | Is there a relationship between prime numbers and the series of overtones and their frequencies?
I've found links to Euler's research about math and about music, and I got goose bumps when I found that here is a whole universe of correlation.
Can someone breakdown this theory for dummies like me?
<http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/euler/euler-en.aspx>
(<http://eulerarchive.maa.org//pages/E033.html>)
**I mean especially the correlation of string-length, overtones, and prime numbers.
After thinking about it and trying to explain it to me, I've found that this is very simple, but I never realized this relationship**. | 2019/09/23 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/90031",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/56219/"
] | There is one observation with respect to primes. No prime power (except 0) is a power of any other prime. Thus no number of stacked fifths will be equal to any number of stacked octaves. (Taking a fifth to be a ratio of 3:2). Thus, any useful music over more than a few notes will need tempering.
"Pythagorean" tuning uses only ratios using 2 or 3. "Just" tuning uses ratios using 2, 3, and 5. The Pythagorean third becomes 81/64 and the Just third is 5/3; these don't match.
Other than this, there isn't much except for figuring out how to temper the difference between (for example) 7 octaves and 12 fifths in a practical manner. | The era of equal temperament ushered in by Bach has rendered ratios such as 3:2 obsolete. Music of the past couple centuries that uses a 12-note scale changes the frequency of each ascending note by multiplying the current note's frequency by 2^(1/12) which we call the twelfth root of 2. It makes sense because that is a geometric progression.
It blows the minds of those who think an interval of a major fifth (say C to G) has to be 1.5 times the frequency *exactly*. Mr. Bach changed that to be a compromise value of 2^(7/12) *exactly*. Here's the ratio of the interval of a fifth (C to G for example) in 12 place precision: 1.49830707688:1.
Each half step requires multiplying the frequency by 2^(1/12) or 1.05946309436 which is an irrational number (which means it is not and cannot be the ratio of any two integers.) If you multiply that number by itself 12 times, it means you have moved up the 12 semitones (half-steps) that make up our 12-tone scale, and you get the integer 2. Every octave is the second harmonic, or double the frequency of the starting note. This means that a particular note in any octave will be "in-tune" with that note in any other octave. hence all As are in tune with each other, all D#s are in tune, etc.
That is not true for fifths, which will have a "beat" or wavering sound when played against the root note. This may be the origin of the exaggerated vibrato many singers inflict upon our ears these days.
Sorry if I busted any bubbles, but ever since Bach, instruments which use the 12-tone scale are designed and manufactured to be tuned to, and musicians spend their lives learning to play in, equal-temperament, using the twelfth root of two, which is an irrational number meaning it cannot and does not equate to a ratio of any two integers, prime or not.
Other scales with different numbers of notes may have some intervals that equate to the ratio of two integers and it may even be possible to base the intervals on a ratio of two primes, but such tuning would be almost completely incompatible with the common 12-tone system. (Unless of course your composition was "Sonata for Cat and Lawnmower")
Sorry.
Now, enough math for one day! I'm going to go back to my composing. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | The way you deal with it depends on the type of meditation. But for beginners, whether you cultivate Samata or Vipassana does not make so much difference in that respect.
It is usually advised to beginners to emphasize the application of alertness. Alertness is like a spy: it is a mind that check where you find yourself, how you are doing, whether you still focus on your object and in what way. The more alert you are, the less inattentive you are. When you are not alert at all, you wander without noticing that you are wandering. In other words, it is advised not to try to hold onto the object very tight, but to often check how you are doing. In the beginning, you will lose your object of concentration a great deal, so you will have to realize that you lost your object as often. This is bound to happen. You can not simply set out to stay with your object without loosing it in the beginning, for that would not be realistic. So, your goal as a beginner ought to be something like "I will notice every time I lost my object", "I will not wander for too long", "I will not be inattentive and dive into objects mindlessly" rather than "I will hold onto my object so tight I will never ever loose it." It is a way of saying that on the outset, the cultivation of alertness is more important that that of mindfulness.
There are exercises you can engage in, that will show you how "funny" your mind is. Hopefully they will help you find a way to cultivate concentration. For instance, sit for half an hour in a meditation posture, and tell yourself "Whatever happens, wherever my mind goes, it's fine by me. I will not interfere, I will not judge, I will not try to change its course. I will simply step back and observe." When you do that, your mind behaves surprisingly well. But as soon as you stop observing it, it goes wild. There is an idiom that goes "When the cat's away, the mice will play".
On the opposite side, you can try to not think of an elephant for a couple of minutes. Set out to purposely not think of an elephant, for two minutes. Try very hard. The more you purposely try not to think of an elephant, the more you think of it. In fact, once, I received this instruction "not to think of pizza for two minutes", and I managed quiet well when, instead of setting out to not think of a pizza, I told myself "It's okay if you do. Just observe your mind." Why? It is because when you do that, you take a step back, you disengage from the external object, you do not dive into it. Whereas when you plan to not think of this or that, you will tend to dive into whatever you are not supposed to think of. It shows you that, if you lost your object of concentration because you were thinking of something else, it will not get better if you are forceful and beat yourself up, and regret loosing your object, etc.
Of course, you mind wanders because it lacks habituation. Actually, it's used to jump from one thing to the next. It's good news: there is nothing that doesn't get easier through training. Another thing is that your mind wanders because you do not see things the way they are. That is why, even if you want to cultivate Samata, it is good to sometimes engage in analytical meditation on death, impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Because this will support your non-attachment, non-anger, etc. Not attached, your mind will wander less. Not angry or frustrated, when you will loose your object, you will not want to be separated from your "failure" so badly that it will hinder your concentration. | DeusIIXII, I believe that as long as your intentions are honorable, based on serious desire and morality, you will be guided from within as to what to do next. There is no rush, you have all eternity to work this out. Time is not measured by revolutions by the earth around the sun, but time is a concept and doesn't really exist. We have all eternity to realize we are more than a human, experiencing this dream-state-reality. Our limited mind cannot grasp that this experience is both a dream and reality. But we can intuit it by using: trust.
Your internal response to the answers posted here, or anywhere are from your own internal guide. You will discriminate and decide, only limited by your sincerity as to what is right and wrong for you at your stage of development. Trust and love your internal guide. It's the only way to "let go" as you are seeking. Concepts and thoughts remain as only finer objects. A brick in your hand or a thought in your mind are of the same substance; both objects. You are much greater than all of this. Just let go into meditation with the trust that this is the true reality. Anything else is an object and has no permanence, or importance, as it will all end in nothingness in the end. You will intuit through your heart the realization of the endurance of your true self. Eventually, you will see this dream-life, that is real, and is only the passing show. Have no fear is so important. Learn the meaning of Dharma. Trust. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | The way you deal with it depends on the type of meditation. But for beginners, whether you cultivate Samata or Vipassana does not make so much difference in that respect.
It is usually advised to beginners to emphasize the application of alertness. Alertness is like a spy: it is a mind that check where you find yourself, how you are doing, whether you still focus on your object and in what way. The more alert you are, the less inattentive you are. When you are not alert at all, you wander without noticing that you are wandering. In other words, it is advised not to try to hold onto the object very tight, but to often check how you are doing. In the beginning, you will lose your object of concentration a great deal, so you will have to realize that you lost your object as often. This is bound to happen. You can not simply set out to stay with your object without loosing it in the beginning, for that would not be realistic. So, your goal as a beginner ought to be something like "I will notice every time I lost my object", "I will not wander for too long", "I will not be inattentive and dive into objects mindlessly" rather than "I will hold onto my object so tight I will never ever loose it." It is a way of saying that on the outset, the cultivation of alertness is more important that that of mindfulness.
There are exercises you can engage in, that will show you how "funny" your mind is. Hopefully they will help you find a way to cultivate concentration. For instance, sit for half an hour in a meditation posture, and tell yourself "Whatever happens, wherever my mind goes, it's fine by me. I will not interfere, I will not judge, I will not try to change its course. I will simply step back and observe." When you do that, your mind behaves surprisingly well. But as soon as you stop observing it, it goes wild. There is an idiom that goes "When the cat's away, the mice will play".
On the opposite side, you can try to not think of an elephant for a couple of minutes. Set out to purposely not think of an elephant, for two minutes. Try very hard. The more you purposely try not to think of an elephant, the more you think of it. In fact, once, I received this instruction "not to think of pizza for two minutes", and I managed quiet well when, instead of setting out to not think of a pizza, I told myself "It's okay if you do. Just observe your mind." Why? It is because when you do that, you take a step back, you disengage from the external object, you do not dive into it. Whereas when you plan to not think of this or that, you will tend to dive into whatever you are not supposed to think of. It shows you that, if you lost your object of concentration because you were thinking of something else, it will not get better if you are forceful and beat yourself up, and regret loosing your object, etc.
Of course, you mind wanders because it lacks habituation. Actually, it's used to jump from one thing to the next. It's good news: there is nothing that doesn't get easier through training. Another thing is that your mind wanders because you do not see things the way they are. That is why, even if you want to cultivate Samata, it is good to sometimes engage in analytical meditation on death, impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Because this will support your non-attachment, non-anger, etc. Not attached, your mind will wander less. Not angry or frustrated, when you will loose your object, you will not want to be separated from your "failure" so badly that it will hinder your concentration. | For a simple answer to your question:
What I do in order to let go of a thought is to recognize it as a thought and then simply think, "Let it go," with all of my conscious effort.
I think this in an actual way, feel it, and then notice whatever my thoughts are going on about fall away as the result.
Then I think something like, "Become one with the breath," or, "Become the breath," with all of my conscious effort.
I am no expert, but this seems to help. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | The way you deal with it depends on the type of meditation. But for beginners, whether you cultivate Samata or Vipassana does not make so much difference in that respect.
It is usually advised to beginners to emphasize the application of alertness. Alertness is like a spy: it is a mind that check where you find yourself, how you are doing, whether you still focus on your object and in what way. The more alert you are, the less inattentive you are. When you are not alert at all, you wander without noticing that you are wandering. In other words, it is advised not to try to hold onto the object very tight, but to often check how you are doing. In the beginning, you will lose your object of concentration a great deal, so you will have to realize that you lost your object as often. This is bound to happen. You can not simply set out to stay with your object without loosing it in the beginning, for that would not be realistic. So, your goal as a beginner ought to be something like "I will notice every time I lost my object", "I will not wander for too long", "I will not be inattentive and dive into objects mindlessly" rather than "I will hold onto my object so tight I will never ever loose it." It is a way of saying that on the outset, the cultivation of alertness is more important that that of mindfulness.
There are exercises you can engage in, that will show you how "funny" your mind is. Hopefully they will help you find a way to cultivate concentration. For instance, sit for half an hour in a meditation posture, and tell yourself "Whatever happens, wherever my mind goes, it's fine by me. I will not interfere, I will not judge, I will not try to change its course. I will simply step back and observe." When you do that, your mind behaves surprisingly well. But as soon as you stop observing it, it goes wild. There is an idiom that goes "When the cat's away, the mice will play".
On the opposite side, you can try to not think of an elephant for a couple of minutes. Set out to purposely not think of an elephant, for two minutes. Try very hard. The more you purposely try not to think of an elephant, the more you think of it. In fact, once, I received this instruction "not to think of pizza for two minutes", and I managed quiet well when, instead of setting out to not think of a pizza, I told myself "It's okay if you do. Just observe your mind." Why? It is because when you do that, you take a step back, you disengage from the external object, you do not dive into it. Whereas when you plan to not think of this or that, you will tend to dive into whatever you are not supposed to think of. It shows you that, if you lost your object of concentration because you were thinking of something else, it will not get better if you are forceful and beat yourself up, and regret loosing your object, etc.
Of course, you mind wanders because it lacks habituation. Actually, it's used to jump from one thing to the next. It's good news: there is nothing that doesn't get easier through training. Another thing is that your mind wanders because you do not see things the way they are. That is why, even if you want to cultivate Samata, it is good to sometimes engage in analytical meditation on death, impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Because this will support your non-attachment, non-anger, etc. Not attached, your mind will wander less. Not angry or frustrated, when you will loose your object, you will not want to be separated from your "failure" so badly that it will hinder your concentration. | The question itself, "how do I let go?" is a sort of koan: if someone could tell you how, it would be a contradiction! The issue is the "I" that must let go, its perspective has to change. It is like me asking, "how can I move *your* arm?"
When you see that the *me* is not yours (or you just forget it) then it happens. Of course then the seeing won't be by you. Soon or late, it will. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | For me, letting go is practised by directly being vigilant of the mind itself (and thus having no intention of observing any other meditation object such as the breath).
The path to letting go is practised by being vigilant of the mind itself to ensure it is not grasping at anything, not desiring anything or not judging anything in terms of 'positive' & 'negative'.
When the mind is well-established in such letting go, stillness & quiet - the breathing by itself may automatically come into that quiet awareness.
If the breathing automatically comes into awareness, the mind should not grasp at the breathing but continue to maintain itself in the state of non-desiring & letting go.
The mind should always keep itself detached towards the continued awareness of breathing.
This is an advanced practise.
Once can start with soft open eyes & be vigilant of the quiet watchful clear mind at the eyes. | DeusIIXII, I believe that as long as your intentions are honorable, based on serious desire and morality, you will be guided from within as to what to do next. There is no rush, you have all eternity to work this out. Time is not measured by revolutions by the earth around the sun, but time is a concept and doesn't really exist. We have all eternity to realize we are more than a human, experiencing this dream-state-reality. Our limited mind cannot grasp that this experience is both a dream and reality. But we can intuit it by using: trust.
Your internal response to the answers posted here, or anywhere are from your own internal guide. You will discriminate and decide, only limited by your sincerity as to what is right and wrong for you at your stage of development. Trust and love your internal guide. It's the only way to "let go" as you are seeking. Concepts and thoughts remain as only finer objects. A brick in your hand or a thought in your mind are of the same substance; both objects. You are much greater than all of this. Just let go into meditation with the trust that this is the true reality. Anything else is an object and has no permanence, or importance, as it will all end in nothingness in the end. You will intuit through your heart the realization of the endurance of your true self. Eventually, you will see this dream-life, that is real, and is only the passing show. Have no fear is so important. Learn the meaning of Dharma. Trust. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | For me, letting go is practised by directly being vigilant of the mind itself (and thus having no intention of observing any other meditation object such as the breath).
The path to letting go is practised by being vigilant of the mind itself to ensure it is not grasping at anything, not desiring anything or not judging anything in terms of 'positive' & 'negative'.
When the mind is well-established in such letting go, stillness & quiet - the breathing by itself may automatically come into that quiet awareness.
If the breathing automatically comes into awareness, the mind should not grasp at the breathing but continue to maintain itself in the state of non-desiring & letting go.
The mind should always keep itself detached towards the continued awareness of breathing.
This is an advanced practise.
Once can start with soft open eyes & be vigilant of the quiet watchful clear mind at the eyes. | For a simple answer to your question:
What I do in order to let go of a thought is to recognize it as a thought and then simply think, "Let it go," with all of my conscious effort.
I think this in an actual way, feel it, and then notice whatever my thoughts are going on about fall away as the result.
Then I think something like, "Become one with the breath," or, "Become the breath," with all of my conscious effort.
I am no expert, but this seems to help. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | For me, letting go is practised by directly being vigilant of the mind itself (and thus having no intention of observing any other meditation object such as the breath).
The path to letting go is practised by being vigilant of the mind itself to ensure it is not grasping at anything, not desiring anything or not judging anything in terms of 'positive' & 'negative'.
When the mind is well-established in such letting go, stillness & quiet - the breathing by itself may automatically come into that quiet awareness.
If the breathing automatically comes into awareness, the mind should not grasp at the breathing but continue to maintain itself in the state of non-desiring & letting go.
The mind should always keep itself detached towards the continued awareness of breathing.
This is an advanced practise.
Once can start with soft open eyes & be vigilant of the quiet watchful clear mind at the eyes. | The question itself, "how do I let go?" is a sort of koan: if someone could tell you how, it would be a contradiction! The issue is the "I" that must let go, its perspective has to change. It is like me asking, "how can I move *your* arm?"
When you see that the *me* is not yours (or you just forget it) then it happens. Of course then the seeing won't be by you. Soon or late, it will. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | DeusIIXII, I believe that as long as your intentions are honorable, based on serious desire and morality, you will be guided from within as to what to do next. There is no rush, you have all eternity to work this out. Time is not measured by revolutions by the earth around the sun, but time is a concept and doesn't really exist. We have all eternity to realize we are more than a human, experiencing this dream-state-reality. Our limited mind cannot grasp that this experience is both a dream and reality. But we can intuit it by using: trust.
Your internal response to the answers posted here, or anywhere are from your own internal guide. You will discriminate and decide, only limited by your sincerity as to what is right and wrong for you at your stage of development. Trust and love your internal guide. It's the only way to "let go" as you are seeking. Concepts and thoughts remain as only finer objects. A brick in your hand or a thought in your mind are of the same substance; both objects. You are much greater than all of this. Just let go into meditation with the trust that this is the true reality. Anything else is an object and has no permanence, or importance, as it will all end in nothingness in the end. You will intuit through your heart the realization of the endurance of your true self. Eventually, you will see this dream-life, that is real, and is only the passing show. Have no fear is so important. Learn the meaning of Dharma. Trust. | The question itself, "how do I let go?" is a sort of koan: if someone could tell you how, it would be a contradiction! The issue is the "I" that must let go, its perspective has to change. It is like me asking, "how can I move *your* arm?"
When you see that the *me* is not yours (or you just forget it) then it happens. Of course then the seeing won't be by you. Soon or late, it will. |
19,422 | During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends. | 2017/02/24 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19422",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/10831/"
] | For a simple answer to your question:
What I do in order to let go of a thought is to recognize it as a thought and then simply think, "Let it go," with all of my conscious effort.
I think this in an actual way, feel it, and then notice whatever my thoughts are going on about fall away as the result.
Then I think something like, "Become one with the breath," or, "Become the breath," with all of my conscious effort.
I am no expert, but this seems to help. | The question itself, "how do I let go?" is a sort of koan: if someone could tell you how, it would be a contradiction! The issue is the "I" that must let go, its perspective has to change. It is like me asking, "how can I move *your* arm?"
When you see that the *me* is not yours (or you just forget it) then it happens. Of course then the seeing won't be by you. Soon or late, it will. |
19,331 | See [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smm6WukI5ck) from 1:10. Bill Clinton says,
>
> "I continue to urge him to refrain from testing and I told them that I
> had done everything I could do to get other world leaders involved and
> both supporting him if he would refrain from testing and encouraging
> Indians not to further aggravate the situation with precipitous
> comments or action in Kashmir or elsewhere."
>
>
>
See [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcu6-EGCtGA) from 0:09. Bill Clinton says,
>
> "First I deplore the decision. By failing to exercise restraint in
> responding to the Indian tests, Pakistan lost a truly priceless
> opportunity to strengthen its own security, to improve its political
> standing in the eyes of the world and although Pakistan was not the
> first to test, two wrongs don't make a right. I have made it clear to
> the leaders of Pakistan that we have no choice but to impose sanctions
> pursuant to the Glenn amendment as is required by law."
>
>
>
**Here, I have two questions,**
1. When India had already detonated those bombs, why and how did he expect that Pakistanis would refrain from testing?
2. What did he mean by "truly priceless opportunity"? What could have been better than detonating a bomb to show India what Pakistan was capable of?
**Now, see [this important video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a4sFY1nlnE).**
First, see how US official is condemning Pakistan's decision which was not visible just two weeks ago when India did the same.
>
> "The United States deplores Pakistan's decision to test the nuclear
> explosive device. This further raises tension in South Asia,
> undermines the global consensus on non-proliferation. We think
> Pakistan's test is a huge mistake, we deplore it's action we think
> it's going to raise tensions in South Asia accelerate an arms race. We
> call on the governments of India to not conduct any further tests to
> stop increasing tensions in the region, to sign the comprehensive test
> ban treaty and to bring stability to a very tense region.
>
>
>
See also what *Joseph Cirincione* had to say.
>
> ... They failed to come down heavy on India, failed to impose sanctions
> together against India. Now they're reaping the consequences, Pakistan
> thinks it can get away with it perhaps withstand sanctions.
>
>
>
This means they implicated India only because Pakistan came into play. Otherwise, India was at large.
And, finally, see [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Wt-EvHVHA&t=32s).
**Here, I have two more questions,**
1. Where was UNSC when India tested first on 18 May 1974 and 11 May 1998?
2. Why did UNSC become concerned after Pakistan's tests on 28 May 1998? (looked like they were hibernating until Pakistan came out with its own tests)
Final and the million dollar question is,
>
> **Doesn't this show the West's inherent bias towards India?**
>
>
>
This question was virtually also asked by Nawaz Sharif in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQcrrVa39QU). | 2017/05/29 | [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19331",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | According to [UN Resolution 1172](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1172) on 6th June 1998, the UNSC condemned both India and Pakistans nuclear tests of 1998.
You are right however that India tested first, when they detonated the [Smiling Buddha/Pokhran-I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha) bomb in May 1974, but you are wrong in your assertion that India was not condemned for it.
The [Nuclear Supplier Group](http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/en/) was set up in reaction to the Pkhran-I tests, as the world simply didn't know how to react. India was the first non UNSC member to develop nuclear weapons, and proved you could do it with peaceful nuclear technology. At that time India was not (and still isn't)a signatory to the [Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons), so most countries didn't have a legal recourse to condemn the tests. Indeed France sent India a congratulatory telegram (but later withdrew it), most countries were quite preoccupied in the existing cold war between the USA and USSR to afford to alienate India a founding member of the [Non-Aligned Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement) e.g. if USA was too harsh to condemn it, they risked a new huge nuclear armed country siding openly with the USSR. Canada however was annoyed that India had violated a [1971 agreement](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UDA9dUryS8EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ISBN%20978-0-520-23210-5&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) between the two countries relating to the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology, and froze nuclear energy assistance to India for two years. Also until the 1998 tests, India maintained a position of [Nuclear Ambiguity](http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/31969/96Dec_Davies.pdf?sequence=1), that is they refused to say whether or not they actually possessed nuclear weapons.
The reason the 1998 tests received more attention and more condemnation was largely because at this point the cold war was long over and the rest of the world could afford to focus on the fight between India and Pakistan, also now you had two nuclear-armed countries that had a [long history of going to war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts). The UNSC was genuinely concerned that they would bear witness to the first armed conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the humanitarian impact of that conflict. Also they had legal recourse since in 1996 nearly every country in the world had signed the [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty), which effectively banned nuclear testing (although we must note both India and Pakistan were not signatories, but were [considered informally bound](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/12/world/india-sets-3-nuclear-blasts-defying-a-worldwide-ban-tests-bring-a-sharp-outcry.html)), thus more people were angry, and the greater outcry at the 1998 tests rather than the 1974 tests. | This is a fundamentally flawed premise.
Bill Clinton, in Germany, on May 13, 1998, ***before*** Pakistan performed their own tests (quoted from Karl Inderfurth's Congressional testimony on May 13, 1998 regarding the India tests) -
>
> I think it is important that I make a comment about the nuclear tests by India. I believe they were unjustifiable. They clearly create a dangerous new instability in the region and, as a result, in accordance with United States law. I have decided to impose economic sanctions against India.
>
>
>
[Congressional Hearings Transcripts from Mount Holyoke College archives](https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/senprol.htm)
So the claim that Clinton was silent in response to India's tests, while chiding Pakistan for their later tests is a simply not true, and therefore can not be taken as evidence of some sort of inherent bias. |
53,333,241 | I am not from a CS / software engineering background but recently I have started begin self studying on Flask web development with Python.
I am currently on the "Database" topic and upon doing further research on this topic on the internet, I have came across a few terminology, which are database, DBMS, database engine and storage engine. Different sources in the Internet seems to be giving a different definitions of the above.
From the internet and Miguel Grinberg's web development book, this are some of the points that I am confused about:
1. In Miguel's Grinberg book, the author seems to be inferring that database engine = DBMS = software applications like MySQL, SQLite, Postgres etc.
Source: Pg 53 of Miguel Grinberg's book under the Database chapter
2. In Wikipedia, database engine (or storage engine, which is stated in Wikipedia) is mentioned to be software application like InnoDB, MyISAM, Aria etc.
Link: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_engine>
3. In Quora, a commenter (Stephen Kinght) was saying that DBMS and database engine is two different entities, whereby database engine is just part of a component in the DBMS which is in charge of managing the database.
Link: <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-database-storage-engines>
So, based on the three points above, the questions that I have in mind are as follow:
1. Is DBMS = database engine / storage engine = software applications like MySQL, SQLite, Postgres etc?
OR
2. Is DBMS != database engine / storage engine? (whereby DBMS = MySQL, SQLite, Postgres and database engine / storage engine = InnoDB, Aria, MyISAM etc respectively?)
I really appreciate if someone could help to clear my doubts on this terminology. I have tried doing research on the Internet and also going through the post in Stack Overflow but I still can't really get the concept right.
Thanks! | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/53333241",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/10661325/"
] | A DBMS must always include a storage engine to play their role. That's modulo the in-memory-only systems that are deliberately designed to lose all data once switched off (and of which it might for that reason be considered questionable to call them 'DBMS' in the first place).
But a DBMS does more for a user than a mere storage engine does. E.g. a DBMS also performs integrity checks on the data presented by the user during database updating.
And DBMS stands for Data Base Management System which clearly indicates that it is a software (/engine) used for the purpose of managing a database (an organized collection of data).
So by conventional wisdom, you'd have DBMS = database engine = IMS / IDMS / DB2 / PostgreSQL / ... and storage engine = storage component used by a DBMS, often proprietary and in fact unnamed but not always, with some of the "named" storage engines MyISAM, InnoDB, Microsoft Jet, BerkeleyDB (???) and possibly others.
Unfortunately a vast majority of database practitioners in the industry are guilty of using these terms interchangeably, sloppily and wrongly, thereby causing/contributing to/perpetuating the very confusion that caused you to ask this question. You've been warned :-) | I would consider DBMS to refer to the software product as a whole - PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2 etc.
These are large, complex products, however. As is usual for complex software they are split into components, each with its own specific function and with well-defined interfaces between them. One component will deal with validating and parsing SQL; one will look after memory; another will handle IO, and so on. This last - the IO one - is often referred to as the storage engine, I guess because it "drives" the data to and from disk. Why it's called an engine rather than a component or sub-system is anyone's guess.
There is no ISO standard for these names. So any vendor, academic or bloggist is free to use, re-use and define the terms as he or she sees fit.
Some DBMS allow for a variety of IO components, each implementing different technologies. MySQL has InnoDB and MyISAM. MongoDB has WiredTiger and MMap. SQL Server has different on-disk formats and behind-the-scenes algorithms if the data is in "normal" tables, in-memory tables, or has a columnstore index. These could be thought of as different storage engines if that is the terms the author choses to use.
Since the basic purpose of a DBMS is to store and retrieve data it is easy to see how the storage part can become synonymous with the product as a whole. From this perspective the other components are seen as ancillary to storage. Perhaps this was true once. In modern systems that support sophisticated authentication, multi-model APIs and memory-only storage I think this would no longer be defensible. |
4,330,927 | When a bundle is updated (say to fix a bug), what happens to other bundles that are currently using the one being updated?
Say that there are two bundles service and dao. Say that classes in service bundle are using classes in dao bundle when I issue command to update dao layer. Will the class in service layer using dao code get an exception?
---
Thanks for your [response](https://stackoverflow.com/a/4335798).
I meant to say updated with the same version.
>
> until a bundle refresh occurs which includes the dependent bundle.
>
>
>
Bundle refresh operation is invoked by the user updating the bundle, right? Say that when user invokes refresh to update dao bundle, a class in bundle service invoked a method on a class in dao layer... what happens in this scenario?
I found this blog post helpful:
<http://solutionsfit.com/blog/2008/08/27/osgi-what-modularity-can-do-for-you-part-1/>
From the post:
>
> If we simply replace the bundle with a bundle that includes the fix, the container will unregister the old bundle and register the new bundle. The proxy can then handle the reference shuffling and resume the service invocation. This interaction will be almost instantaneous. Your customers will be completely oblivious to what has happened and you just saved your company a substantial amount of money (do I hear bonus?).
>
>
>
In this blog post, the call to authorizePayment() was put on hold until the updated bundle is available. What happens if the control is within the authorizePayment() method when bundle refresh happens? | 2010/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4330927",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/528170/"
] | Bundles have 2 kind of dependencies:
* Services, and
* Connections between
class loaders, keyed by the package
names. Those connections are called
wires.
Services are easy to withdraw because that is intrinsic to their design. Wires are harder because they are intricately woven in your objects and those objects are not aware of the dynamics. So when you install a new bundle, the old bundles stay as they are, your objects are not updated and the updated bundle still provides its wires as a zombie.
When you call refreshPackages the framework looks at those dependencies and finds the bundles that refer to those zombies. Every zombie is then stopped. The contract for a bundle is that it should cleanup. We help the bundle by doing a lot of cleanup for you, but some things are very bad, e.g. storing references in statics of other bundles or forgetting to stop threads that were started. Other bundles that depend in other ways on those bundles get notified of the bundle stopping so they can also clean up any references. After the bundles are stopped, the bundles are unresolved and then resolved again against the new bundles.
For real OSGi bundles the cleaning up is natural and not really visible in your code (as it should be). It is well supported by the tools like Declarative services, iPOJO, dependency manager, Spring, Blueprint, etc. The magic is focus on the µservices model and not dong class loading hacks.
Why are we not refreshing automatically? Well, we once did but refreshing is disruptive. In many cases you need to update multiple bundles. Having this disruption after each update would be unnecessary painful. That is, after an install or update you should ALWAYS do a refresh but you can bracket a number of installs/updates. | When a bundle is updated, a new revision (the bits of the bundle) is installed. If another bundle is wired to the prior revision of the updated bundle, that is, another bundle imported some package exported by the prior revision or another bundle required the bundle at the prior revision, then the OSGi framework will retain the prior revision of the updated bundle to service future class load requests from the dependent bundle until a bundle refresh occurs which includes the dependent bundle.
The purpose of this is to minimize or delay perturbing dependent bundles when a dependency is updated. A management agent may want to update several bundles and, at the end, do a bundle refresh to "modernize" the dependencies. Once the bundle refresh is done, there are no wires to the prior revision of the updated bundle and the OSGi framework is now free to discard the prior revision.
So in your example, generally no exception will result. But of course it depends upon what the code in question is actually doing and how their bundle manifests are written. |
4,330,927 | When a bundle is updated (say to fix a bug), what happens to other bundles that are currently using the one being updated?
Say that there are two bundles service and dao. Say that classes in service bundle are using classes in dao bundle when I issue command to update dao layer. Will the class in service layer using dao code get an exception?
---
Thanks for your [response](https://stackoverflow.com/a/4335798).
I meant to say updated with the same version.
>
> until a bundle refresh occurs which includes the dependent bundle.
>
>
>
Bundle refresh operation is invoked by the user updating the bundle, right? Say that when user invokes refresh to update dao bundle, a class in bundle service invoked a method on a class in dao layer... what happens in this scenario?
I found this blog post helpful:
<http://solutionsfit.com/blog/2008/08/27/osgi-what-modularity-can-do-for-you-part-1/>
From the post:
>
> If we simply replace the bundle with a bundle that includes the fix, the container will unregister the old bundle and register the new bundle. The proxy can then handle the reference shuffling and resume the service invocation. This interaction will be almost instantaneous. Your customers will be completely oblivious to what has happened and you just saved your company a substantial amount of money (do I hear bonus?).
>
>
>
In this blog post, the call to authorizePayment() was put on hold until the updated bundle is available. What happens if the control is within the authorizePayment() method when bundle refresh happens? | 2010/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4330927",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/528170/"
] | Bundles have 2 kind of dependencies:
* Services, and
* Connections between
class loaders, keyed by the package
names. Those connections are called
wires.
Services are easy to withdraw because that is intrinsic to their design. Wires are harder because they are intricately woven in your objects and those objects are not aware of the dynamics. So when you install a new bundle, the old bundles stay as they are, your objects are not updated and the updated bundle still provides its wires as a zombie.
When you call refreshPackages the framework looks at those dependencies and finds the bundles that refer to those zombies. Every zombie is then stopped. The contract for a bundle is that it should cleanup. We help the bundle by doing a lot of cleanup for you, but some things are very bad, e.g. storing references in statics of other bundles or forgetting to stop threads that were started. Other bundles that depend in other ways on those bundles get notified of the bundle stopping so they can also clean up any references. After the bundles are stopped, the bundles are unresolved and then resolved again against the new bundles.
For real OSGi bundles the cleaning up is natural and not really visible in your code (as it should be). It is well supported by the tools like Declarative services, iPOJO, dependency manager, Spring, Blueprint, etc. The magic is focus on the µservices model and not dong class loading hacks.
Why are we not refreshing automatically? Well, we once did but refreshing is disruptive. In many cases you need to update multiple bundles. Having this disruption after each update would be unnecessary painful. That is, after an install or update you should ALWAYS do a refresh but you can bracket a number of installs/updates. | When you update a bundle, using the OSGi '***update***' command, it is most likely to have other dependent bundles that are relying on it and already capturing a set of loaded classes from the old version of this bundle. A situation that typically conforms to the problem you described in your question.
In order to avoid possible inconsistency between the different versions of the classes enfolded by this bundle, the OSGi container decides to temporarily hide the new version of the updated bundle's classes from the outside world. You can think of it as kind of keeping the updated classes in isolation from the other bundles -*momentarily*-.
The point here is that the OSGi container can’t just start loading classes from the new version of the target bundle, because the dependent bundles would end up seeing old versions of the classes they already loaded, mixed with new versions of the same classes that were loaded after the update, which would incorporate an inconsistency that would result in an uncontrollable mess. The same goes for the bundle Uninstall, the bundle is removed from the installed list of bundles, but it is not removed from memory. It shall be kept around so that dependent bundles can continue to load classes from it.
So you can think of the 'update' command, as introducing a new version of the same bundle, to be **only** supplied to dependent bundles that are yet to come, -which are not yet there at the time of the update-. While the old version -that existed before the update-, remains *in memory* in order to assure backward compatibility and avoid any possible disruption to existing bundles that have already started to depend on the updated bundle.
*Note, that the old versions are only kept in memory, which means that a restart to the server will result in eradicating all these old versions and bring the latest version to the table. This makes perfect sense, because there will be no need for backward compatibility, simply because all bundles are now starting at the same time..*
What happens next, is that you have to explicitly invoke the '***refresh***' command on specific bundles, -those which are depending on the updated bundle-, or instead you can choose to run the 'refresh' command without specifying a specific bundle, meaning that all bundles will be blindly refreshed. The 'refresh' command forces the rebuilding of the dependency tree of the target bundles, and coerce their class loaders to start loading their required classes from scratch.
**Only then dependent bundles will start to see the changes you have made to the code of the classes living in the bundle that has been updated.**
The rule is that
>
> Existing resolved bundles already importing an older version of a class won’t be automatically rewired to the new bundle unless they’re refreshed.
>
>
> |
384,051 | Should we close open applications before restarting a MacBook Pro with macOS Catalina? Or is it okay to be lazy and restart it without closing them? | 2020/03/10 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/384051",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/365231/"
] | Most applications from Apple, and some others, will save state and restart properly. Some will cause a pop-up saying "Application XYZ has canceled logout; quit and try again." (Not exact words.) Then if you're on "autopilot." you close the lid and when you next open it, it's still there.
To clarify that last confusing statement: Several times, I order "shutdown but re-open apps" and came back later to find it had not shut down because some application had asked me to do something and that canceled shutdown.
LibreOffice will come back up saying documents need to be recovered (and any edits immediately before shutdown will be lost). GraphicConverter 10 comes up OK but sometimes fails to find the images it had open before. You'd have to experiment with others.
I've gotten to the point where I close everything but Finder windows, Safari, and TextEdit before I shut down. | The Resume Feature, as far as I know, should still take into effect if you have the "Reopen Windows When logging back in" option check-marked in the restart window. It's the feature that reopens all windows and apps that you had open in your last session before you logged out and restarted your computer. So, yes it should normally be safe to restart and have all that you had open before restarting, back up and open again as soon as you log back in. |
16,255 | The gravity wave detections (GW150914 and GW151226) have both been ambiguous in their exact position, the LIGO papers ([GW150914](https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20160211b) and [GW151226](http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103)) give no precise information about the location of the origin of the waves.
In the case of GW150914, the approximate location is in the area known as the Magellanic Clouds. In case of GW151226, the parsecs are known, but no precise location. There are two detectors (in Hanford and Livingstone,USA) that made gravitational wave detection possible, does one need a third detector(or more) to pinpoint the position of the origin of these waves?
In other words can triangulation from three detectors pinpoint the location or are there other techniques for pinpointing the origin of gravitational waves? | 2016/06/16 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/16255",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/11102/"
] | ### Short answer
Three detectors would improve the ability to pinpoint the direction of the gravitational waves drastically.
### Long answer
Finding the direction of the source of a gravitational wave, as with most things in science, is harder than it might initially seem. I'd like to point out that the process used in determining direction is not precisely a form of triangulation (even if it had 3+ detectors) because triangulation involves determining precise position from knowing distances to the object from 3 or more locations. That's not really what's happening here.
I'll outline the basics for determining the direction and how that method might be improved with more detectors, but you can also read this [excellent source](http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2016/03/06/direction-ligos-gravitational-waves/).
Time of Arrival
---------------
The main way we can determine direction is time of arrival at the various detectors. The currently active detectors are located some 10 milli-lightseconds apart. That means one of them is going to detect the wave first, then sometime later, the other one detects it. Given that the wave has to be traveling at the speed of light, you can determine the direction it was traveling from such that it traversed the distance between the two detectors in the time difference measured.
But, this presents a problem because this method has degeneracies with only 2 detectors. Really, all you can calculate is the angle of the direction of the wave with respect to the line connecting your two detectors. That only gives you a cone on the sky of where the wave could've come from and you can't pinpoint the azimuthal angle without more information. This concept can be seen in the image below showing the probable direction. You can see they've limited it further, but their shape still takes part of a circle (the projection of that cone on the sky).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5c1tO.jpg)
**What if you added another detector?**
As stated above, you have a degeneracy with only 2 detectors, but adding a third would break that degeneracy. You'd turn your cone into a point and you'd know much more precisely where the source came from. More detectors would allow you to pinpoint that location even more precisely, but only 3 are necessary to remove all degeneracies.
Now, of course I've been describing how it would work "in theory". In practice, observations are usually much more messy. Any measurement comes with error, so even with 3 detectors you're not going to be able to pinpoint the location exactly. You'll more likely be able to pinpoint it to a small patch in the sky. That's where other direction detection techniques can be used to refine that location.
Detector Sensitivity
====================
The way in which the experiment works is that a mass is set up which can length contract under the influence of gravitational waves. This tiny contraction of space-time (and thus the mass) by the passing is measurable with precise lasers and interferometry. However, the lasers can only measure the contraction of the mass in one direction. The degree to which the mass contracts in that direction depends on the direction in which the wave is hitting it. This is an oversimplification, but if the modulation of the wave (that is the direction in which it goes "up" and "down") is aligned perfectly with the direction in which the contractions are being measured, you measure the full effects of the wave. If the wave comes in at some angle to that, you're still measuring the effects, but you'll only be measuring some part of the effect, reduced by the sine of the angle.
This process of wave direction detection requires at least 2 detectors, but more is better for beating down the noise. | Firstly the skymap for the GW150914 event covers some 600 square degrees, of which the Large Magellanic cloud is only a small fraction of that, and furthermore the estimated distance to this merger is around 400Mpc, orders of magnitude larger than the distance to the LMC (~50kpc) [[source]](https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914-FactSheet-BW.pdf). So dont assume this is where it came from because the error boxes are so large we cannot pinpoint it to a single galaxy yet.
In regards to your question, there was a very good illustration at yesterdays press conference that outlined the improved localization that adding a 3rd detector (Virgo) would to triangulating the position of the gravitational wave source. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy of David's presentation from yesterday but this is one of the images he showed, with a comparison of the error boxes if Virgo was operational too (not shown).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMFcK.jpg)
Further to this they also confirmed the plans to add a 4th (KAGRA) and 5th (LIGO India) gravitational wave observatories by 2025, thus further improving the localisation of the sources. Improvements and upgrades of the current detectors is also excpected to improve the localisation slightly too. |
16,255 | The gravity wave detections (GW150914 and GW151226) have both been ambiguous in their exact position, the LIGO papers ([GW150914](https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20160211b) and [GW151226](http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103)) give no precise information about the location of the origin of the waves.
In the case of GW150914, the approximate location is in the area known as the Magellanic Clouds. In case of GW151226, the parsecs are known, but no precise location. There are two detectors (in Hanford and Livingstone,USA) that made gravitational wave detection possible, does one need a third detector(or more) to pinpoint the position of the origin of these waves?
In other words can triangulation from three detectors pinpoint the location or are there other techniques for pinpointing the origin of gravitational waves? | 2016/06/16 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/16255",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/11102/"
] | ### Short answer
Three detectors would improve the ability to pinpoint the direction of the gravitational waves drastically.
### Long answer
Finding the direction of the source of a gravitational wave, as with most things in science, is harder than it might initially seem. I'd like to point out that the process used in determining direction is not precisely a form of triangulation (even if it had 3+ detectors) because triangulation involves determining precise position from knowing distances to the object from 3 or more locations. That's not really what's happening here.
I'll outline the basics for determining the direction and how that method might be improved with more detectors, but you can also read this [excellent source](http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2016/03/06/direction-ligos-gravitational-waves/).
Time of Arrival
---------------
The main way we can determine direction is time of arrival at the various detectors. The currently active detectors are located some 10 milli-lightseconds apart. That means one of them is going to detect the wave first, then sometime later, the other one detects it. Given that the wave has to be traveling at the speed of light, you can determine the direction it was traveling from such that it traversed the distance between the two detectors in the time difference measured.
But, this presents a problem because this method has degeneracies with only 2 detectors. Really, all you can calculate is the angle of the direction of the wave with respect to the line connecting your two detectors. That only gives you a cone on the sky of where the wave could've come from and you can't pinpoint the azimuthal angle without more information. This concept can be seen in the image below showing the probable direction. You can see they've limited it further, but their shape still takes part of a circle (the projection of that cone on the sky).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5c1tO.jpg)
**What if you added another detector?**
As stated above, you have a degeneracy with only 2 detectors, but adding a third would break that degeneracy. You'd turn your cone into a point and you'd know much more precisely where the source came from. More detectors would allow you to pinpoint that location even more precisely, but only 3 are necessary to remove all degeneracies.
Now, of course I've been describing how it would work "in theory". In practice, observations are usually much more messy. Any measurement comes with error, so even with 3 detectors you're not going to be able to pinpoint the location exactly. You'll more likely be able to pinpoint it to a small patch in the sky. That's where other direction detection techniques can be used to refine that location.
Detector Sensitivity
====================
The way in which the experiment works is that a mass is set up which can length contract under the influence of gravitational waves. This tiny contraction of space-time (and thus the mass) by the passing is measurable with precise lasers and interferometry. However, the lasers can only measure the contraction of the mass in one direction. The degree to which the mass contracts in that direction depends on the direction in which the wave is hitting it. This is an oversimplification, but if the modulation of the wave (that is the direction in which it goes "up" and "down") is aligned perfectly with the direction in which the contractions are being measured, you measure the full effects of the wave. If the wave comes in at some angle to that, you're still measuring the effects, but you'll only be measuring some part of the effect, reduced by the sine of the angle.
This process of wave direction detection requires at least 2 detectors, but more is better for beating down the noise. | In order to pinpoint the original position of gravitational waves, you need more than 1 interferometer. These interferometers will detect gravitational waves at different timing. If we know the exact locations of our interferometers and the timming at which they pick up the waves, we can work out the exact location of the source.
I made a short demo video on interferometers and how to pinpoint waves with them. You can check it at here:
<https://youtu.be/4enCrprmLn8>
Have a nice day! |
382,608 | I run two external displays off my macbook pro 16" but when I'm not working, I much prefer disconnecting from them and using my MBP as my sole screen. Constantly disconnecting them from the ports is a pain in the butt (since i have one plugged into each side of the computer) and I fear it will wear on the jacks. I figured turning off the display's power would do the trick...but it does not. The displays go black (obviously) but the macbook still thinks its connected to them and I can still mouse off screen etc. What's the hack here? | 2020/02/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/382608",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/363049/"
] | One option is to use [SwtichResX](http://www.madrau.com/srx_download/download.html)
>
> SwitchResX is the most advanced tool for Apple computers to take
> control of any screen connected to the Mac. No matter whether a
> MacBook Screen, an external monitor, a Retina display, a TV set or a
> beamer: SwitchResX can handle them all – if you want, straight from
> the menubar, a contextual menu or both. It's that easy!
>
>
>
It works as you need. | Yeah, this is annoying. I use my external monitor for meetings, but otherwise prefer just the macbook screen. The mouse goes off the screen, and notifications go to the turned-off monitor.
The best I've come up with is making it easy to unplug the monitor with this outlet switch: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QKPBZX1/](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07QKPBZX1). It works because the outlet is right by my chair.
With this setup (laptop via usb-c to docking station; docking station to monitor via hdmi) I can keep everything connected and just click one switch for monitor on/off. |
382,608 | I run two external displays off my macbook pro 16" but when I'm not working, I much prefer disconnecting from them and using my MBP as my sole screen. Constantly disconnecting them from the ports is a pain in the butt (since i have one plugged into each side of the computer) and I fear it will wear on the jacks. I figured turning off the display's power would do the trick...but it does not. The displays go black (obviously) but the macbook still thinks its connected to them and I can still mouse off screen etc. What's the hack here? | 2020/02/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/382608",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/363049/"
] | One option is to use [SwtichResX](http://www.madrau.com/srx_download/download.html)
>
> SwitchResX is the most advanced tool for Apple computers to take
> control of any screen connected to the Mac. No matter whether a
> MacBook Screen, an external monitor, a Retina display, a TV set or a
> beamer: SwitchResX can handle them all – if you want, straight from
> the menubar, a contextual menu or both. It's that easy!
>
>
>
It works as you need. | With actual fork to Disable Monitor <https://github.com/epalzeolithe/DisableMonitor-3.0> |
68,698 | I've generated some 2nd order SH light-probes from cube-maps in my scene and I was surprised how strong artifacts are around the back of the dominant lights. I switched to a Lambert source plus ambient and got a result just like in the image below. Stupid SH Tricks (<http://www.ppsloan.org/publications/StupidSH36.pdf>) suggests a technique called Han Windowing for reducing the artifacts, which I'm guessing is a convolution filter similar to a Gaussian blur, but I'm unable to tell much from the description or find an example.
I've also read some sources that say Gaussian might be best when using a HDR source.
 | 2014/01/11 | [
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/68698",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com",
"https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/users/40856/"
] | After skimming through a (beautiful) [paper](http://limbicsoft.com/volker/prosem_paper.pdf) I found a small explaination (at page 12) of a convolution in the sh domain.
Hope that helps :) | Hmmm. With regular Fourier transforms, window functions like the [Hanning window](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#Hann_.28Hanning.29_window) are used to isolate a snippet of a signal (such as a 128-sample snippet out of a continuous audio signal for instance). Multiplying the snippet by a window function before taking the Fourier transform can improve the ability to distinguish different frequencies in the resulting spectrum.
However, I can't make sense of how this would apply to spherical harmonics. While they're a spherical analog of Fourier transforms, it doesn't make sense to me to apply a window function, because you're not snipping out a portion of a larger signal; your input is a cubemap that covers the whole sphere of directions.
Also, the article seems to suggest *blurring* the cubemap using a Hanning window function as the blur kernel, before projecting to the SH basis. In the usual use of window functions, you *multiply* the signal by them, rather than blurring (convolving) with them.
However, even if blurring the cubemap is the right thing to do (which it may well be—I just don't understand why), it sounds expensive, especially considering the blur ought to be done in angular space, across the cube edges and corners, and is non-separable. But on a small enough cubemap it could be OK. The open-source [CubeMapGen](http://seblagarde.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/amd-cubemapgen-for-physically-based-rendering/) tool can do this sort of thing—it doesn't have a Hanning window setting, but it has various other blurs you can apply. It's not fast, though. |
371,762 | I have seen this question and do not believe this to be a duplicate [What software models are appropriate for daily builds and continuous integration?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/160277/what-software-models-are-appropriate-for-daily-builds-and-continuous-integration) .
I don't fully understand what advantage automatic daily complete builds may have over building on every commit in practice (continuous integration being the term I believe). I commonly hear companies mention they build on every commit when asked about daily builds.
The 2nd article by Joel below mentions "It’s tempting to do continuous builds, but you probably can’t, because of source control issues which I’ll talk about in a minute. " but it's still not fully clear to me, despite searching.
<https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/>
<https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/01/27/daily-builds-are-your-friend/>
In these 2 articles it is alluded to that a daily build is more practical/advantageous as opposed to continuous integration (which to my understanding would be building on every commit).
However it still isn't clear to me. I currently only thought of 2 specific examples perhaps
1) With many of (git) pushes/merges constantly coming in, with a sufficiently long build time to do a full build.
Joel's description of a complete build is as follows: "Complete – chances are, your code has multiple versions. Multiple language versions, multiple operating systems, or a high-end/low-end version. The daily build needs to build all of them. And it needs to build every file from scratch, not relying on the compiler’s possibly imperfect incremental rebuild capabilities. "
Perhaps you could save resources but just doing 1 full build around the middle of the work day, and settle for running all relevant quicker unit/integration tests on every push.
The constant queue possibly of complete builds non-stop could build a big enough queue defeating the relevancy and purpose of your builds perhaps because they'd always be behind.
This plays into a full build on every push being perhaps the ideal but in practice you won't have hardware capable of dealing with your push thoroughput.
2) it might be more convenient to sweep through daily builds rather than builds by every push (reason 5 in his daily builds are your friend article). | 2018/05/29 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/371762",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/204858/"
] | I work on a very large project with dozens of software engineers, dozens of QA engineers, etc. Our codebase is several million lines of code. We have nightly builds and we have continuous builds. They serve different purposes:
1. Nightly builds are builds from scratch. The build server checks out the code and builds it. This ensures that we can build from scratch and aren't relying on build artifacts from previous builds laying around in the build directory or whatever. We give these builds to QA every morning and they run tests on them.
2. During the day, as we're writing the software, the first commit of the day kicks off a build. After that, commits are queued up, and when the previous build finishes, the next build starts with all commits that happened in between. We actually do 2 continuous builds. A quick, incremental build that only builds things that changed in the new commits, and another full build from scratch. The full builds take ~90 minutes with full unit tests. Incremental builds only take a few minutes to build, and I believe run a smaller set of unit tests for quick turnaround. If a build or tests fail we know it was caused by one of the commits between the previous successful build and the current build. That narrows down which commit caused the problem pretty well. We might have to do a little detective work to figure out which of the 5-8 commits it was, but usually it's pretty obvious since developers aren't usually working in the same areas.
When QA does find a problem with a nightly build, we can go back through the continuous builds we built that day and figure out that the problem was in a particular build. (In other words, we regress the builds to see where it occurred.) We can see which commits were in that build, narrow it down to the exact one if necessary, and either revert the commit or fix the problem. | I used to have a similar view. Now I think that there should be a daily build in addition to per-commit builds.
1. Extra Tasks: you can add extra tasks onto your cron build that you would not want on your per-commit build. For example, your cron build can scan dependencies for upgrades and auto-magically create a pull request regarding them.
2. Sanity: If your cron build fails for some reason (it should not but it could), then it is logical to expect subsequent per-commit builds to fail for the same reason. Rather than pulling your hair out figuring out how your code changes break the build, solve the underlying problem.
3. Status Meetings: If you have status meeting at 10:00, then you should have a cron build at 9:00. It should just succeed, but if for some reason it does not then your status should include fixing the build.
4. Cost: It is probably not needed, but how much does it cost. I think the benefits justify the minimal cost.
Cron builds are a supplement to per-commit builds and should never be considered as a replacement. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.