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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | There really aren't any advantages of doing daily (or any other periodic) builds as long as you have enough resources to do ***the same*** builds for every commit.
The periodic builds are just a compromise if you don't have enough such resources: you give up the ability to immediately identify a faulty commit as, if such build fails after picking up multiple new commits since the previous successful build, you need to perform additional work to exactly identify the faulty one(s) and fix the problem(s). And that may not always be simple, there is room for all kinds of *potential* complications, for example:
* multiple faulty changesets picked up simultaneously in the new build, making identification more difficult
* clean backout/revert of a faulty changeset may not be possible due to subsequent changesets committed on top of the faulty one, the fix doesn't backtrack to a known good repository state but moves it to a new state which may or may not be good, requiring one or more additional builds for confirmation
* even clean backout of a faulty changeset may not lead to a good build due to subsequent changesets depending on the backed-out one or being also faulty
Personally I favour CI systems doing pre-commit/gating verifications: they can be a lot more cost effective, especially in large scale projects, prevent faulty changesets from even reaching the repository than to detect and fix them after they already impacted the entire team working on the project.
Depending on the orchestration algorithm used, such systems can guarantee 100% prevention of breakages/regressions even *without* having enough resources for doing a build for each and every candidate changeset. |
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. | There really aren't any advantages of doing daily (or any other periodic) builds as long as you have enough resources to do ***the same*** builds for every commit.
The periodic builds are just a compromise if you don't have enough such resources: you give up the ability to immediately identify a faulty commit as, if such build fails after picking up multiple new commits since the previous successful build, you need to perform additional work to exactly identify the faulty one(s) and fix the problem(s). And that may not always be simple, there is room for all kinds of *potential* complications, for example:
* multiple faulty changesets picked up simultaneously in the new build, making identification more difficult
* clean backout/revert of a faulty changeset may not be possible due to subsequent changesets committed on top of the faulty one, the fix doesn't backtrack to a known good repository state but moves it to a new state which may or may not be good, requiring one or more additional builds for confirmation
* even clean backout of a faulty changeset may not lead to a good build due to subsequent changesets depending on the backed-out one or being also faulty
Personally I favour CI systems doing pre-commit/gating verifications: they can be a lot more cost effective, especially in large scale projects, prevent faulty changesets from even reaching the repository than to detect and fix them after they already impacted the entire team working on the project.
Depending on the orchestration algorithm used, such systems can guarantee 100% prevention of breakages/regressions even *without* having enough resources for doing a build for each and every candidate changeset. |
43,983 | I'm looking for initiatives pursuing mobile offline trip planning using a combination of public transit data and walking-routes. Thus far, without much success.
[Osmand](http://code.google.com/p/osmand/), seems to be closest, but the part for offline tripplanning isn't completely funded yet. I may contribute, but haven't got a clue about its viability.
I'm looking for any projects pursuing this, or papers (comfortable with reading the academic math-stuff) outlining this. Also roadblocks preventing this (or rather: making quick implementation unlikely), etc. welcome of course.
I'm 'only' looking to do offline trip planning within one city at a time, which obviously brings down complexity lot.
P.S: adapted question from question posted on opentripplanner-forum:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/opentripplanner-users/m6PGVRBA0eU> | 2012/12/14 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/43983",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/13160/"
] | [BRouter](http://brouter.de/brouter/) offers many possibilities. It is an [Android application](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=btools.routingapp&hl=en_GB "BRouter on Google Play"), usable in the OSMand, LocusMap and OruxMaps as well, as the 3rd party offline routing service.
* It offers multiple [built-in](http://brouter.de/brouter/profiles2/ "BRouter builtin profiles") and [custom profiles](https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles/wiki "Wiki for some of BRouter custom profiles"), that are highly sophisticated.
* Current new car profiles are based on kinematic models.
* Hiking profiles consider hiking routes and even SAC alpine route rating. | What about [rrrr](https://github.com/bliksemlabs/rrrr) and [brouter](http://brouter.de/brouter/) (Mainly for bike routing. But supports car and walking. Maybe usefull as an idea for data format). [Web interface](http://brouter.de/brouter-web/) to brouter. Brouter is slower because it is possible to use different profiles for routing on the fly without precalculations. (race bike, moped, doesn't like sidewalks, loves steep hills etc)
I think Rrrr currently support only Public transport.
[About Rrrr](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/opentripplanner-dev/Rrrr/opentripplanner-dev/KsZGE7B-CVQ/KFZ7eZpzOR0J)
I think Rrrr can be used as an OTP sever because API is the same, but it is possible for it to run on a mobile phone. Whole public transport data for Netherlands is 20 MB.
There are some people bridging Rrrrr and OTP. [See post](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/opentripplanner-dev/Rrrr/opentripplanner-dev/Wp8tJ5QeJR8/UB8kIIZENNkJ)
So maybe use Rrrr for public transport part and brouter or for other parts. Or maybe just brouter data format which is also quite compact. |
153,222 | How would aquatic aliens create technology? ( Think late 90's style, and by that, I mean: Phones, metallurgy, electricity, public transportation (think trains), books (and ink that would not just dissolve in water), oven and stoves, (maybe even a tv like thing?), even the building themselves). Suppose that they have no access to land whats so ever, and that the water that they live in is not really water, but a liquid that can with no problem at all, have sufficient amount of oxygen to sustain hot-blooded mammalian creatures through reasonable sized gills, and the planet is mainly made of shallow (around under 150 meters deep) oceans, and very little of it is a desert. | 2019/08/18 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/153222",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/67283/"
] | Your aquatic species could develop any level of technology we Telurians (People of Earth) have developed using the same processes we've developed but they might have different motivations.
How they interact with their world will determine the form of their technologies. Do they have two arms or twenty? Do they have fingers or suckers?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0BjcL.png)
Assuming they have a way to manipulate the things in their undersea world, they have to have culture, which gives rise to language, which gives rise to what we consider thought. Thought gives rise to questions, which engender answers and disagreements. All this, obviously, leads to war.
War means better weapons and defenses than the other clams or guys. This means they learn how to construct defensible enclosures out of seaweed, hermit crabs and coral reefs. Which means they figured out how to make tools out of things that can cut seaweed, hermit crabs and so on.
Once they've learned to fight and survive and have time to start questioning why coral is like coral, they can begin to explore the concepts we know as chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Once intelligence and sapient creatures start on that path, there is no turning back since more and more of the world starts making sense, at least until some nabob invents economics and messes everything up for a while. But, that is a different discussion.
Once minds start trying to figure out the world around them using science, they then can figure out to make things they need or want to make their lives longer, safer, healthier, etc. Given their world, they may find ways to create biological solutions were we Telurians depend on physics-based solutions. But, once they have a need, they can find a solution whether how to make electricity or how to melt and purify silicon.
The long and the short of it, pretty soon you have Facebook and StackExchange and sneakers.
Albeit, it's very different from what we would know since they have a very different world than we do, and have different motivations as a result of their environment. | Biology first
-------------
Human technology began with fire. Once we learned to make fire, we learned how to melt and shape metal. Chemistry, too, stems mainly from fire; heating and burning things to figure out what they were made of.
An aquatic species is going to have a hard time going this route, but they have an advantage that land-dwellers lack - the richness of undersea life. Aquatic organisms are far less restricted morphologically than terrestrial ones, and many of them have exotic chemistry and hard shells, both of which could prove potentially useful to a budding sapient species.
Instead of forging metal weapons, an aquatic species may *grow* them by domesticating creatures like snails and clams, and breeding them to produce shells in the shapes that are needed, ranging from sharp speartips and knives to shovels, bowls, and armor.
There is a species of sea snail that actually incorporates iron into its shell (it lives near deep-sea vents and eats iron sulfide, chemically separating the iron and using it for protection). If a similar species could be domesticated and bred, this could produce more advanced tools.
As the species grows more advanced, it could begin exploring the various different poisons and other chemicals produced by species in its environment, and by studying how they interact it could develop theories of chemistry without the use of fire.
This could lead to a more advanced understanding of physics and ultimately produce technology not unlike our own, although it is likely that they would be far more inclined to use biotech rather than metallurgy, since they'd be building off of thousands of years of experience working with living things. |
5,961,394 | Can we create windows service from Java? I want some (possibly non-Java) application to run as a service and I want to configure that from within my Java program.
Also: can we pass parameters to services? Also, please help me with deleting any existing service and restarting it on crash.
this question is not same as running java program from service its the other way round i want to create service using a java program, **on server side** | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/5961394",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/519755/"
] | You need to install your software, right? Then [advancedInstaller](http://www.advancedinstaller.com) does this. | got an idea to export a registry from some already exiting hand made registry and launch it on client machine... can be given a thought :) |
148,069 | In the Harry Potter universe, if you're dating a Muggle, how long do you have to wait before the Ministry of Magic will let you disclose you're a witch or wizard without consequence?
Follow up, related questions
1. Would they have to get their memory wiped if you broke up? How would that work if there were kids involved?
2. Do the kids have to keep magic a secret from the oblivious parent or are they just sworn to secrecy?
...It's hard to believe that no Muggle has ever tried to gain custody by telling the court his ex-wife is a witch. | 2016/12/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/148069",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/75768/"
] | There is no evidence that the Ministry in the UK interferes in personal relationships to this extreme, as partially evidenced by Newt Scamander's attitude to the tensions in the USA.
Relatives of both Lupin and McGonagall form relationships with Muggles, as featured on Pottermore [here](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin) and [here](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall), with no mention of official permission. It seems that the Ministry trusts its people to come clean to those they consider trustworthy - not a random neighbour of course, but those that one is willing to marry.
However, if a Muggle was to stand in court and start exclaiming, "She's a witch!" I think we can rest assured of one of two things:
The wizarding community will rely on Muggles to condemn the spouse as a lunatic.
The Ministry will send its best Obliviators to any Muggle who is beginning to be convinced. | I think it's up to the witch or wizard, but probably only after you're married. For instance, I remember someone having had a father leave the mother after finding out that they're a witch.
But, since we don't have any examples that we see (AFAIK), we don't know for sure.
Also, don't forget that like the Dursleys know about magic, and they hadn't had any magical people in the family until Harry was plopped in.
The closest example is probably the parents of a Muggle-born: They find out either on their own or when the letter comes, presumably.
TL;DR:
We don't know
============= |
148,069 | In the Harry Potter universe, if you're dating a Muggle, how long do you have to wait before the Ministry of Magic will let you disclose you're a witch or wizard without consequence?
Follow up, related questions
1. Would they have to get their memory wiped if you broke up? How would that work if there were kids involved?
2. Do the kids have to keep magic a secret from the oblivious parent or are they just sworn to secrecy?
...It's hard to believe that no Muggle has ever tried to gain custody by telling the court his ex-wife is a witch. | 2016/12/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/148069",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/75768/"
] | It’s unclear - but they *might* have to wait until intending to marry.
======================================================================
We see a few Muggle-wizard couples in the books, like Seamus’s parents. We know in their case, he was only informed about magic after they were married.
>
> “I’m half and half,’ said Seamus. ‘Me dad’s a Muggle. Mam didn’t tell him she was a witch ’til after they were married. Bit of a nasty shock for him.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 7 (The Sorting Hat)*
>
>
>
The majority of the information about when the Muggle is actually told their partner is a wizard comes from the Pottermore writings by J.K. Rowling. It doesn’t seem like wizards are *obligated* to tell the Muggle they’re in a relationship with about their magic, even upon marriage. Minerva McGonagall’s mother didn’t tell her husband either right before or after they were married - she only told him later, after Minerva was already born and showed signs of being a witch as well.
>
> Now estranged from her family, Isobel could not bring herself to mar the bliss of the honeymoon by telling her smitten new husband that she had graduated top of her class in Charms at Hogwarts, nor that she had been Captain of the school Quidditch team.
> *[- Professor McGonagall (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall)*
>
>
>
From the information we do have, it seems possible that the Ministry may require marriage to be at least proposed for it to be legal to tell a Muggle partner about magic. This isn’t confirmed in any way, though - there are fairly few cases of marriages between wizards and Muggles where we know when the wizard tells the Muggle about magic. However, there’s no mentioned case where a wizard reveals the wizarding world to a Muggle they’re dating but not intending to marry. Seamus’s mother told his father after they were married. In the writing on Pottermore about them, Petunia told Vernon about her witch sister after they were married, Isobel told Robert McGonagall after marriage, and Lyall Lupin seems to have told Hope Howell when he proposed.
>
> The young couple fell in love, and not even Lyall’s shamefaced admission, some months later, that Hope had never really been in danger, dented her enthusiasm for him. To Lyall’s delight, Hope accepted his proposal of marriage and threw herself enthusiastically into preparations for the wedding, complete with a Boggart-topped cake.
> *[- Remus Lupin (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin)*
>
>
>
If this *is* indeed the rule, it’s a logical one - otherwise a wizard who dates a lot could end up notifying most of a village of magic. In addition, it ensures the relationship is somewhat serious before the wizard reveals the existence of the magical world.
### Apparently, wizards *cannot* tell if they intend on rejecting the marriage proposal.
According to the Pottermore writing on her, Minerva McGonagall had fallen in love with a Muggle, who proposed marriage to her, and although she had accepted at first, she realized she didn’t want a life like her mother’s and decided to refuse instead.
>
> Early next morning, Minerva slipped from her parents’ house and went to tell Dougal that she had changed her mind, and could not marry him. Mindful of the fact that if she broke the International Statute of Secrecy she would lose the job at the Ministry for which she was giving him up, she could give him no good reason for her change of heart. She left him devastated, and set out for London three days later.
> *[- Professor McGonagall (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall)*
>
>
>
She knew breaking the Statute of Secrecy would cost her the job at the Ministry, which is why she didn’t tell him why she was ending the relationship - meaning that in that situation, telling *would* break the Statute.
The Muggles don’t *seem* to get Obliviated if the relationship ends.
====================================================================
The case of Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle implies that a Muggle who was in a relationship with a wizard wouldn’t get their memory wiped. Tom Riddle spoke of being hoodwinked after he’d left Merope, implying he, at least, had not been entirely Obliviated to forget their entire relationship.
>
> “You see, within a few months of their runaway marriage, Tom Riddle reappeared at the manor house in Little Hangleton without his wife. The rumour flew around the neighbourhood that he was talking of being “hoodwinked” and “taken in”. What he meant, I am sure, is that he had been under an enchantment that had now lifted, though I daresay he did not dare use those precise words for fear of being thought insane.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 10 (The House of Gaunt)*
>
>
>
It seems like his memory was intact, if he could have known he was under an enchantment. In addition, he seems like a prime example of someone who’d be considered for Obliviating - he was tricked into a relationship with a witch, and would have likely been upset with the situation.
Wizards born to a Muggle don’t have to keep it from their parent.
=================================================================
Seamus Finnegan has a witch mother and Muggle father, who does know of magic. The Ministry wouldn’t require Seamus to have to hide anything from his Muggle parent. Even wizards with two Muggle parents are allowed to tell their parents about magic - they’re informed in person by someone from Hogwarts.
>
> “And will it really come by owl?’ Lily whispered.
>
>
> ‘Normally,’ said Snape. ‘But you’re Muggle-born, so someone from the school will have to come and explain to your parents.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33 (The Prince’s Tale)*
>
>
>
Therefore, there would be no problem with one Muggle parent knowing. It’s possible that the spouse of the Muggle parent might still be attempting to keep magic secret from their Muggle spouse and not want their child to mention it, but the Ministry has no such requirement.
A Muggle who tries to reveal their ex as a wizard will be ridiculed.
====================================================================
As for if a Muggle who ends a relationship with a wizard on poor terms would try to use it against their spouse, probably not - it’ll just make *them* look crazy.
>
> Professor Mordicus Egg, author of The Philosophy of the Mundane: Why the Muggles Prefer Not to Know, points out that Muggles in love generally do not betray their husbands or wives, and Muggles who fall out of love are jeered at by their own community when they assert that their estranged partner is a witch or wizard.
> *[- Pure-Blood (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/pure-blood)*
>
>
>
So, it’s very unlikely that a Muggle would try to tell a court that their former partner is a wizard, and if someone *did* they’d get written off as a lunatic. | I think it's up to the witch or wizard, but probably only after you're married. For instance, I remember someone having had a father leave the mother after finding out that they're a witch.
But, since we don't have any examples that we see (AFAIK), we don't know for sure.
Also, don't forget that like the Dursleys know about magic, and they hadn't had any magical people in the family until Harry was plopped in.
The closest example is probably the parents of a Muggle-born: They find out either on their own or when the letter comes, presumably.
TL;DR:
We don't know
============= |
148,069 | In the Harry Potter universe, if you're dating a Muggle, how long do you have to wait before the Ministry of Magic will let you disclose you're a witch or wizard without consequence?
Follow up, related questions
1. Would they have to get their memory wiped if you broke up? How would that work if there were kids involved?
2. Do the kids have to keep magic a secret from the oblivious parent or are they just sworn to secrecy?
...It's hard to believe that no Muggle has ever tried to gain custody by telling the court his ex-wife is a witch. | 2016/12/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/148069",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/75768/"
] | It’s unclear - but they *might* have to wait until intending to marry.
======================================================================
We see a few Muggle-wizard couples in the books, like Seamus’s parents. We know in their case, he was only informed about magic after they were married.
>
> “I’m half and half,’ said Seamus. ‘Me dad’s a Muggle. Mam didn’t tell him she was a witch ’til after they were married. Bit of a nasty shock for him.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 7 (The Sorting Hat)*
>
>
>
The majority of the information about when the Muggle is actually told their partner is a wizard comes from the Pottermore writings by J.K. Rowling. It doesn’t seem like wizards are *obligated* to tell the Muggle they’re in a relationship with about their magic, even upon marriage. Minerva McGonagall’s mother didn’t tell her husband either right before or after they were married - she only told him later, after Minerva was already born and showed signs of being a witch as well.
>
> Now estranged from her family, Isobel could not bring herself to mar the bliss of the honeymoon by telling her smitten new husband that she had graduated top of her class in Charms at Hogwarts, nor that she had been Captain of the school Quidditch team.
> *[- Professor McGonagall (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall)*
>
>
>
From the information we do have, it seems possible that the Ministry may require marriage to be at least proposed for it to be legal to tell a Muggle partner about magic. This isn’t confirmed in any way, though - there are fairly few cases of marriages between wizards and Muggles where we know when the wizard tells the Muggle about magic. However, there’s no mentioned case where a wizard reveals the wizarding world to a Muggle they’re dating but not intending to marry. Seamus’s mother told his father after they were married. In the writing on Pottermore about them, Petunia told Vernon about her witch sister after they were married, Isobel told Robert McGonagall after marriage, and Lyall Lupin seems to have told Hope Howell when he proposed.
>
> The young couple fell in love, and not even Lyall’s shamefaced admission, some months later, that Hope had never really been in danger, dented her enthusiasm for him. To Lyall’s delight, Hope accepted his proposal of marriage and threw herself enthusiastically into preparations for the wedding, complete with a Boggart-topped cake.
> *[- Remus Lupin (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin)*
>
>
>
If this *is* indeed the rule, it’s a logical one - otherwise a wizard who dates a lot could end up notifying most of a village of magic. In addition, it ensures the relationship is somewhat serious before the wizard reveals the existence of the magical world.
### Apparently, wizards *cannot* tell if they intend on rejecting the marriage proposal.
According to the Pottermore writing on her, Minerva McGonagall had fallen in love with a Muggle, who proposed marriage to her, and although she had accepted at first, she realized she didn’t want a life like her mother’s and decided to refuse instead.
>
> Early next morning, Minerva slipped from her parents’ house and went to tell Dougal that she had changed her mind, and could not marry him. Mindful of the fact that if she broke the International Statute of Secrecy she would lose the job at the Ministry for which she was giving him up, she could give him no good reason for her change of heart. She left him devastated, and set out for London three days later.
> *[- Professor McGonagall (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall)*
>
>
>
She knew breaking the Statute of Secrecy would cost her the job at the Ministry, which is why she didn’t tell him why she was ending the relationship - meaning that in that situation, telling *would* break the Statute.
The Muggles don’t *seem* to get Obliviated if the relationship ends.
====================================================================
The case of Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle implies that a Muggle who was in a relationship with a wizard wouldn’t get their memory wiped. Tom Riddle spoke of being hoodwinked after he’d left Merope, implying he, at least, had not been entirely Obliviated to forget their entire relationship.
>
> “You see, within a few months of their runaway marriage, Tom Riddle reappeared at the manor house in Little Hangleton without his wife. The rumour flew around the neighbourhood that he was talking of being “hoodwinked” and “taken in”. What he meant, I am sure, is that he had been under an enchantment that had now lifted, though I daresay he did not dare use those precise words for fear of being thought insane.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 10 (The House of Gaunt)*
>
>
>
It seems like his memory was intact, if he could have known he was under an enchantment. In addition, he seems like a prime example of someone who’d be considered for Obliviating - he was tricked into a relationship with a witch, and would have likely been upset with the situation.
Wizards born to a Muggle don’t have to keep it from their parent.
=================================================================
Seamus Finnegan has a witch mother and Muggle father, who does know of magic. The Ministry wouldn’t require Seamus to have to hide anything from his Muggle parent. Even wizards with two Muggle parents are allowed to tell their parents about magic - they’re informed in person by someone from Hogwarts.
>
> “And will it really come by owl?’ Lily whispered.
>
>
> ‘Normally,’ said Snape. ‘But you’re Muggle-born, so someone from the school will have to come and explain to your parents.”
> *- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33 (The Prince’s Tale)*
>
>
>
Therefore, there would be no problem with one Muggle parent knowing. It’s possible that the spouse of the Muggle parent might still be attempting to keep magic secret from their Muggle spouse and not want their child to mention it, but the Ministry has no such requirement.
A Muggle who tries to reveal their ex as a wizard will be ridiculed.
====================================================================
As for if a Muggle who ends a relationship with a wizard on poor terms would try to use it against their spouse, probably not - it’ll just make *them* look crazy.
>
> Professor Mordicus Egg, author of The Philosophy of the Mundane: Why the Muggles Prefer Not to Know, points out that Muggles in love generally do not betray their husbands or wives, and Muggles who fall out of love are jeered at by their own community when they assert that their estranged partner is a witch or wizard.
> *[- Pure-Blood (Pottermore)](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/pure-blood)*
>
>
>
So, it’s very unlikely that a Muggle would try to tell a court that their former partner is a wizard, and if someone *did* they’d get written off as a lunatic. | There is no evidence that the Ministry in the UK interferes in personal relationships to this extreme, as partially evidenced by Newt Scamander's attitude to the tensions in the USA.
Relatives of both Lupin and McGonagall form relationships with Muggles, as featured on Pottermore [here](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin) and [here](https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/professor-mcgonagall), with no mention of official permission. It seems that the Ministry trusts its people to come clean to those they consider trustworthy - not a random neighbour of course, but those that one is willing to marry.
However, if a Muggle was to stand in court and start exclaiming, "She's a witch!" I think we can rest assured of one of two things:
The wizarding community will rely on Muggles to condemn the spouse as a lunatic.
The Ministry will send its best Obliviators to any Muggle who is beginning to be convinced. |
116,645 | Last night I was watching the following videos <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJRGA5uAk> and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDrvQiNV5M&t>
I am considering the bet on gold with respect to his logic. This logic goes simplified as follows (at least as far as I understand, please correct me if I am wrong).
US government has debt (to creditors in terms of bonds and its people in terms of different obligations). To meet these obligations they'll print dollars which in turn will devalue the dollar.
Question!
Is he saying that the dollar might lose confidence and value and that this in turn might lead investors and other governments to gold as the reserve currency status takes a hit due to the printing? If this is the case what is the dynamic/logic that leads from this to gold?
I am not asking if this will happen just if this is his logic. | 2019/11/08 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/116645",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/78533/"
] | The problem with this is that gold doesn't actually DO anything, it just sits there. In fact, holding it will most likely impose costs for security, even if it's only the cost of buying a safe to hold your collection of gold coins. So any change in the value of gold is related more to speculation than anything. If you look at the price in dollars over say the last 100 years, you'll see that it swings wildly: <https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart>
Stocks, OTOH, represent ownership of companies that actually produce products. If the value of the dollar (or other currency) changes due to the government printing more money, the companies just raise their prices accordingly. So although individual companies may decrease in value, or even fail outright, overall (and in the long term) the stock market grows faster than inflation: <https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart> | I was going to make this a comment, but it actually may help provide one possible answer to your question.
The main thing is this - the government can't just "print dollars". Instead, it has to issue marketable (debt) securities, that is, do something like create treasury bills, notes, bonds, etc. and sell them to willing buyers. If the government sells too much debt relative to what buyers are willing to purchase, interest rates will rise. Furthermore, it can't just do this whatever it likes, instead legislation must be passed authorizing the spending, and as seen by the periodic "debt ceiling theater" it has a limit on how much debt it can actually have without passing more legislation just to raise its own credit limit. These "limits" may seem largely symbolic or accounting "tricks", but they do serve as a check on the process.
Debt is not the main way the government gets money, of course. Debt covers deficits in spending, but the majority of the funds the government spends are from taxes. As the U.S. has been running a deficit for a number of years, the current way the government is paying back the money is actually similar to refinancing - taking on new debt to retire the old. People have been prophesying the "end" for at least 20-30 years now, and maybe someday they will be right, but this does not make for a good investment strategy.
Also, another thing to consider is that the U.S. is not the only country with debt. Relative to GDP, the U.S. is around 35th in the world, measuring either by total national debt or external debt, well below other countries such as the U.K. or Japan. As such, it is still possible for the value of the dollar and the economy as a whole to hold up better than expected, simply because it's the best option around compared to the alternatives. |
116,645 | Last night I was watching the following videos <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJRGA5uAk> and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDrvQiNV5M&t>
I am considering the bet on gold with respect to his logic. This logic goes simplified as follows (at least as far as I understand, please correct me if I am wrong).
US government has debt (to creditors in terms of bonds and its people in terms of different obligations). To meet these obligations they'll print dollars which in turn will devalue the dollar.
Question!
Is he saying that the dollar might lose confidence and value and that this in turn might lead investors and other governments to gold as the reserve currency status takes a hit due to the printing? If this is the case what is the dynamic/logic that leads from this to gold?
I am not asking if this will happen just if this is his logic. | 2019/11/08 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/116645",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/78533/"
] | The problem with this is that gold doesn't actually DO anything, it just sits there. In fact, holding it will most likely impose costs for security, even if it's only the cost of buying a safe to hold your collection of gold coins. So any change in the value of gold is related more to speculation than anything. If you look at the price in dollars over say the last 100 years, you'll see that it swings wildly: <https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart>
Stocks, OTOH, represent ownership of companies that actually produce products. If the value of the dollar (or other currency) changes due to the government printing more money, the companies just raise their prices accordingly. So although individual companies may decrease in value, or even fail outright, overall (and in the long term) the stock market grows faster than inflation: <https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart> | “I am considering the bet on gold with respect to his logic.”
Don’t forget gold is just a small part of his entire portfolio. Maybe 5% across gold and probably gold stocks.
Don’t forget that his timeframe is 10 years or more. He is prepared to lose for 5 years on gold, then let it recover and boom for 5 years. In the end he will annualize 8-14% on his bet after 10 years.
If you are prepared for a long trade then go for it if that’s what you want. Just want to let you know what you’re signing up for. |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | They are called the Past Participle.
They can either be formed by adding the suffix *ed*
or be an irregular such as: *eat*-> *eaten* -> *fight* -> *fought* (not to be confused with The Past Simple which is simply the verb of past simple tenses clauses.
They can be many things in English.
just to name a few:
* an adjective
* the perfect module verbs
* passive voice | I don't think the tense of the verb is the point of your question. I suppose a simple answer is they are "**actions**" as verbs, but thank you for the additional input in the comments. More specifically, they are "***objective actions***", or you might possibly consider "***operative actions***" as well (*because they are exerting force or influence on something*).
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective>
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/operative> |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | They are called the Past Participle.
They can either be formed by adding the suffix *ed*
or be an irregular such as: *eat*-> *eaten* -> *fight* -> *fought* (not to be confused with The Past Simple which is simply the verb of past simple tenses clauses.
They can be many things in English.
just to name a few:
* an adjective
* the perfect module verbs
* passive voice | In English, a verb that is used as an adjective to describe a noun is called a [participle](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/participles). See UhtredRagnarsson's answer.
>
> A participle is a word formed from a verb, usually by adding -d, -ed, or -ing.
>
>
> There are two kinds of participle in English, as follows:
>
>
> The present participle
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> The past participle
>
>
> Participles are used [...] as adjectives.
>
>
>
[see article for other uses]
There is, however, a different term used to describe verbs when the action of the verb is performed on/to/at/etc. something. That term is [*transitive verb*](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs).
>
> transitive verb is one that is used with an object: a noun, phrase, or pronoun that refers to the person or thing that is affected by the action of the verb. In the following sentences, admire, maintain, face, and love are transitive verbs:
>
>
> I admire your courage.
>
>
> We need to maintain product quality.
>
>
> I couldn’t face him today.
>
>
> She loves animals.
>
>
> |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | They are called the Past Participle.
They can either be formed by adding the suffix *ed*
or be an irregular such as: *eat*-> *eaten* -> *fight* -> *fought* (not to be confused with The Past Simple which is simply the verb of past simple tenses clauses.
They can be many things in English.
just to name a few:
* an adjective
* the perfect module verbs
* passive voice | The *-ed* in all of your examples is a past-participle suffix. A past participle is not a **derived** form: rather, it is an **inflected** form of a verb (assuming you accept the distinction between derivation and inflection as grammatical processes in English). Most past participles end in *-ed,* but some end in *-(e)n* instead (like *beaten*) and some don't end in either *-ed* or *-(e)n* (like *stood* or *hurt*). The past participle can have a passive meaning, so it can also be called a "passive participle". In the context of English, "past participle" and "passive participle" refer to the same verb form.
But not all words ending in *-ed* are verb forms. Words belonging to other parts of speech can be derived from past participles. I think the most common type of derivation is past participle → adjective. Since verbs and adjectives are distinct parts of speech, it's best not to refer to such adjectives as "participles": instead, they can be called *departicipial adjectives* (a synonymous term is "participial adjectives"), which lets us reserve the term *participle* for the inflected form of the verb. That said, it's not always possible to figure out whether a word is a participle or a departicipial adjective.
Here are some common texts for finding out whether a word is an adjective or a verb:
* Can it be preceded by *very*? If so, it's an adjective. This test doesn't give positive results for me for any of your phrases. (But note that this test only works one way: it can't tell you that a word *isn't* an adjective. There are some adjectives that can't be preceded by *very*.)
* Can it be preceded by *carefully*? If so, it's a verb. For me, this test indicates that the *-ed* words in all of your examples could be verbs.
* Can you add the prefix *un-* (with the sense of "not", not with a sense of reversal)? If so, it's probably an adjective. For me, this test indicates that *calibrated* at least can be an adjective (since we certainly can say "an uncalibrated device"). The situation is less clear for *distributed, destroyed* and *founded.* There are dictionary entries for *[undistributed](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undistributed)* and *[undestroyed](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/undestroyed)*, but "an undistributed product" and "an undestroyed house" both sound a bit weird to me. *Unfounded* clearly exists as the negation of a different sense of the word *founded,* but \*"an unfounded company" doesn't seem acceptable to me.
There are other possible tests, but I can't describe all of them. Some sources suggest that word order might be relevant, but I believe this is a mistaken view, so I haven't included this as a test.
I think I've made it clear from what I've said above that there are many words ending in *-ed* that are not past participles/passive participles. (Most obviously, many past-tense verb forms end in *-ed,* but they are definitely not participles.) |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | They are called the Past Participle.
They can either be formed by adding the suffix *ed*
or be an irregular such as: *eat*-> *eaten* -> *fight* -> *fought* (not to be confused with The Past Simple which is simply the verb of past simple tenses clauses.
They can be many things in English.
just to name a few:
* an adjective
* the perfect module verbs
* passive voice | This is really simple. It does not need a whole note for explanation.
The *"ed"* is grammatically referred as **the past tense marker** ...... *the past participle*
However, don't be confused when the *past tense marker* is added to a *verb* to perform the function of an Adjective.
For instance,
1. A **distributed** products
2. A **designed** artifact
3. The **faded** car |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | In English, a verb that is used as an adjective to describe a noun is called a [participle](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/participles). See UhtredRagnarsson's answer.
>
> A participle is a word formed from a verb, usually by adding -d, -ed, or -ing.
>
>
> There are two kinds of participle in English, as follows:
>
>
> The present participle
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> The past participle
>
>
> Participles are used [...] as adjectives.
>
>
>
[see article for other uses]
There is, however, a different term used to describe verbs when the action of the verb is performed on/to/at/etc. something. That term is [*transitive verb*](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs).
>
> transitive verb is one that is used with an object: a noun, phrase, or pronoun that refers to the person or thing that is affected by the action of the verb. In the following sentences, admire, maintain, face, and love are transitive verbs:
>
>
> I admire your courage.
>
>
> We need to maintain product quality.
>
>
> I couldn’t face him today.
>
>
> She loves animals.
>
>
> | I don't think the tense of the verb is the point of your question. I suppose a simple answer is they are "**actions**" as verbs, but thank you for the additional input in the comments. More specifically, they are "***objective actions***", or you might possibly consider "***operative actions***" as well (*because they are exerting force or influence on something*).
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective>
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/operative> |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | The *-ed* in all of your examples is a past-participle suffix. A past participle is not a **derived** form: rather, it is an **inflected** form of a verb (assuming you accept the distinction between derivation and inflection as grammatical processes in English). Most past participles end in *-ed,* but some end in *-(e)n* instead (like *beaten*) and some don't end in either *-ed* or *-(e)n* (like *stood* or *hurt*). The past participle can have a passive meaning, so it can also be called a "passive participle". In the context of English, "past participle" and "passive participle" refer to the same verb form.
But not all words ending in *-ed* are verb forms. Words belonging to other parts of speech can be derived from past participles. I think the most common type of derivation is past participle → adjective. Since verbs and adjectives are distinct parts of speech, it's best not to refer to such adjectives as "participles": instead, they can be called *departicipial adjectives* (a synonymous term is "participial adjectives"), which lets us reserve the term *participle* for the inflected form of the verb. That said, it's not always possible to figure out whether a word is a participle or a departicipial adjective.
Here are some common texts for finding out whether a word is an adjective or a verb:
* Can it be preceded by *very*? If so, it's an adjective. This test doesn't give positive results for me for any of your phrases. (But note that this test only works one way: it can't tell you that a word *isn't* an adjective. There are some adjectives that can't be preceded by *very*.)
* Can it be preceded by *carefully*? If so, it's a verb. For me, this test indicates that the *-ed* words in all of your examples could be verbs.
* Can you add the prefix *un-* (with the sense of "not", not with a sense of reversal)? If so, it's probably an adjective. For me, this test indicates that *calibrated* at least can be an adjective (since we certainly can say "an uncalibrated device"). The situation is less clear for *distributed, destroyed* and *founded.* There are dictionary entries for *[undistributed](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undistributed)* and *[undestroyed](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/undestroyed)*, but "an undistributed product" and "an undestroyed house" both sound a bit weird to me. *Unfounded* clearly exists as the negation of a different sense of the word *founded,* but \*"an unfounded company" doesn't seem acceptable to me.
There are other possible tests, but I can't describe all of them. Some sources suggest that word order might be relevant, but I believe this is a mistaken view, so I haven't included this as a test.
I think I've made it clear from what I've said above that there are many words ending in *-ed* that are not past participles/passive participles. (Most obviously, many past-tense verb forms end in *-ed,* but they are definitely not participles.) | I don't think the tense of the verb is the point of your question. I suppose a simple answer is they are "**actions**" as verbs, but thank you for the additional input in the comments. More specifically, they are "***objective actions***", or you might possibly consider "***operative actions***" as well (*because they are exerting force or influence on something*).
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective>
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/operative> |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | I don't think the tense of the verb is the point of your question. I suppose a simple answer is they are "**actions**" as verbs, but thank you for the additional input in the comments. More specifically, they are "***objective actions***", or you might possibly consider "***operative actions***" as well (*because they are exerting force or influence on something*).
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective>
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/operative> | This is really simple. It does not need a whole note for explanation.
The *"ed"* is grammatically referred as **the past tense marker** ...... *the past participle*
However, don't be confused when the *past tense marker* is added to a *verb* to perform the function of an Adjective.
For instance,
1. A **distributed** products
2. A **designed** artifact
3. The **faded** car |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | In English, a verb that is used as an adjective to describe a noun is called a [participle](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/participles). See UhtredRagnarsson's answer.
>
> A participle is a word formed from a verb, usually by adding -d, -ed, or -ing.
>
>
> There are two kinds of participle in English, as follows:
>
>
> The present participle
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> The past participle
>
>
> Participles are used [...] as adjectives.
>
>
>
[see article for other uses]
There is, however, a different term used to describe verbs when the action of the verb is performed on/to/at/etc. something. That term is [*transitive verb*](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs).
>
> transitive verb is one that is used with an object: a noun, phrase, or pronoun that refers to the person or thing that is affected by the action of the verb. In the following sentences, admire, maintain, face, and love are transitive verbs:
>
>
> I admire your courage.
>
>
> We need to maintain product quality.
>
>
> I couldn’t face him today.
>
>
> She loves animals.
>
>
> | This is really simple. It does not need a whole note for explanation.
The *"ed"* is grammatically referred as **the past tense marker** ...... *the past participle*
However, don't be confused when the *past tense marker* is added to a *verb* to perform the function of an Adjective.
For instance,
1. A **distributed** products
2. A **designed** artifact
3. The **faded** car |
491,077 | In English we say things like:
* a *calibrat**ed*** device
* a *distribut**ed*** product
* a *found**ed*** company
* a *destroy**ed*** house
Those *‑ed* words there all signify that some verb (here respectively *calibrate, distribute, found,* or *destroy*) has been “done onto”
the noun that follows it. What is the term for this grammatical device? Or, what is a single term for something **having *been done* unto *X*** as a
characteristic of that *X*?
Assuming that we’re talking only about words that derive from verbs and used with nouns
here like my examples all do, can that grammatical term you’ve chosen
**also** be applied to any sorts of words that **do not** end in *‑ed*,
and are there any sorts of words that **do** end in *‑ed* which this
grammatical term would **not** apply equally to? | 2019/03/24 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491077",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/236412/"
] | The *-ed* in all of your examples is a past-participle suffix. A past participle is not a **derived** form: rather, it is an **inflected** form of a verb (assuming you accept the distinction between derivation and inflection as grammatical processes in English). Most past participles end in *-ed,* but some end in *-(e)n* instead (like *beaten*) and some don't end in either *-ed* or *-(e)n* (like *stood* or *hurt*). The past participle can have a passive meaning, so it can also be called a "passive participle". In the context of English, "past participle" and "passive participle" refer to the same verb form.
But not all words ending in *-ed* are verb forms. Words belonging to other parts of speech can be derived from past participles. I think the most common type of derivation is past participle → adjective. Since verbs and adjectives are distinct parts of speech, it's best not to refer to such adjectives as "participles": instead, they can be called *departicipial adjectives* (a synonymous term is "participial adjectives"), which lets us reserve the term *participle* for the inflected form of the verb. That said, it's not always possible to figure out whether a word is a participle or a departicipial adjective.
Here are some common texts for finding out whether a word is an adjective or a verb:
* Can it be preceded by *very*? If so, it's an adjective. This test doesn't give positive results for me for any of your phrases. (But note that this test only works one way: it can't tell you that a word *isn't* an adjective. There are some adjectives that can't be preceded by *very*.)
* Can it be preceded by *carefully*? If so, it's a verb. For me, this test indicates that the *-ed* words in all of your examples could be verbs.
* Can you add the prefix *un-* (with the sense of "not", not with a sense of reversal)? If so, it's probably an adjective. For me, this test indicates that *calibrated* at least can be an adjective (since we certainly can say "an uncalibrated device"). The situation is less clear for *distributed, destroyed* and *founded.* There are dictionary entries for *[undistributed](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undistributed)* and *[undestroyed](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/undestroyed)*, but "an undistributed product" and "an undestroyed house" both sound a bit weird to me. *Unfounded* clearly exists as the negation of a different sense of the word *founded,* but \*"an unfounded company" doesn't seem acceptable to me.
There are other possible tests, but I can't describe all of them. Some sources suggest that word order might be relevant, but I believe this is a mistaken view, so I haven't included this as a test.
I think I've made it clear from what I've said above that there are many words ending in *-ed* that are not past participles/passive participles. (Most obviously, many past-tense verb forms end in *-ed,* but they are definitely not participles.) | This is really simple. It does not need a whole note for explanation.
The *"ed"* is grammatically referred as **the past tense marker** ...... *the past participle*
However, don't be confused when the *past tense marker* is added to a *verb* to perform the function of an Adjective.
For instance,
1. A **distributed** products
2. A **designed** artifact
3. The **faded** car |
588 | Per [FAR 91.307](http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/23e90761e5001c628625754500734f2a!OpenDocument):
>
> Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
> parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other
> than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that
> exceeds...
>
>
>
So if I'm flying aerobatics solo, I'm not required to have a parachute. But if I have a passenger, both are required to have one.
What is the rationale for that?
I suppose that in something like a Super Decathlon, where the pilot must exit the plane before the passenger, it would be senseless to have one for the passenger but not the pilot. But is there anything more to this? | 2014/01/04 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/588",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/26/"
] | Well, as with many issues involving the FAA, the "why" is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps they thought that the pilot can "lead by example" if a bail-out is needed. I'd imagine that a lot of passengers would be a little reluctant to jump out of an airplane, but once they see the pilot go I can see them becoming highly motivated!
As far as not needing the parachute if only crew members are on board, the FAA has long held the view that they aren't protecting pilots from doing stupid things to themselves since they are knowledgeable and informed, but their regulations are to protect the "general public", or the passengers in this case, who don't know any better. | The rules come from a basis at the FAA that a serious accident is one with multiple fatalities, not just one.
From AC-1309:
Catastrophic: Failure conditions that are expected to result in multiple fatalities of the occupants...
Aircraft that have only one seat do not need to be designed / certified as stringently as aircraft with 2+ seats. Along with that, if only one person is in the plane, you can't have multiple fatalities, so there's no such thing as a catastrophic risk. |
74,183 | I've read that the tailplane produces negative lift, so does that mean it would function like an inverted wing (has negative camber)? The image below is the best illustration I could come up with.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YKR5F.png)
Also, is negative lift and tail down force the same thing? | 2020/02/06 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74183",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/25154/"
] | The tailplane should produce *less* lift than the main wing, for pitch stability. That is to say, its lift is negative *relative to the wing lift.* Its lift need not be wholly negative (pointing down), although it usually is during takeoff and landing.
But yes, as a first approximation, the direction of camber matches the direction of lift.
Also yes, negative lift (at the tail or anywhere else) can be called downforce (at the tail or anywhere else).
Here is [Peter's explanation](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/47461/31425). | A few constructions, such as the Zenith CH 701 STOL, have horizontal stabs with non-symmetric, inverted airfoils:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4NtU.png) |
74,183 | I've read that the tailplane produces negative lift, so does that mean it would function like an inverted wing (has negative camber)? The image below is the best illustration I could come up with.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YKR5F.png)
Also, is negative lift and tail down force the same thing? | 2020/02/06 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74183",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/25154/"
] | Most tailplanes (except for specialist applications, like endurance designs in model airplanes) have a symmetrical airfoil, whether thickened or effectively a flat plate. Camber of any sort is unusual in tailplanes for full size aircraft -- except as it might be incidentally produced by elevator trim, and in that case, it might be either upward or downward, depending on the trim requirement at any given speed and CG location. | A few constructions, such as the Zenith CH 701 STOL, have horizontal stabs with non-symmetric, inverted airfoils:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4NtU.png) |
74,183 | I've read that the tailplane produces negative lift, so does that mean it would function like an inverted wing (has negative camber)? The image below is the best illustration I could come up with.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YKR5F.png)
Also, is negative lift and tail down force the same thing? | 2020/02/06 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74183",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/25154/"
] | Indeed, the airfoils on many horizontal tail surfaces do have negative camber. This is mostly in combination with powerful flaps on the wing so the tailplane will continue to work with flaps extended, when it needs to develop a relatively high downforce (which is indeed the same as negative lift). The extended wing flaps result in higher wing downwash so the tail "sees" a more negative angle of attack. By cambering the tail airfoil, it will tolerate more negative angles of attack and its minimum lift coefficient is lower than that of a symmetrical airfoil.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a4gyS.jpg)
I know it is hard to see, but this [Do-228](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_228) tailplane really does have negative camber (picture [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do228NG_-_RIAT_2012_(18649688613).jpg)).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FxGK5.jpg)
The [PZL Wilga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL-104_Wilga) has a symmetrical tail airfoil but uses an inverted, fixed slat at the leading edge of its elevator (picture [source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilga_D-ELVS.jpg)).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Mwqj.jpg)
The A380 uses negative camber at the root of the tail, too, like most airliners (picture [source](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1392/1485224407_69a3df7be7.jpg)). To keep isobars aligned with chord lines in a swept wing is also a reason for negative camber at the root. | A few constructions, such as the Zenith CH 701 STOL, have horizontal stabs with non-symmetric, inverted airfoils:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v4NtU.png) |
94,019 | I am scheduled to work fewer hours next week due to the office being closed on holiday for the 4th of July. I would like to email my boss to ask I can work a few extra hours each day to make up for the lost time.
I don't know whether or not this would count as 'overtime', since I'm the one asking my manager if I can work the extra hours.
**How should I ask my boss if I can work extra hours to make up for a work holiday?** | 2017/06/30 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/94019",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/68427/"
] | >
> How should I ask my boss if I can work extra hours to make up for a
> work holiday?
>
>
>
Assuming you do not get paid for the holiday ( which you very well may ), you could ask this way: *I would prefer to not lose any money over the holiday, could I work 2 extra hours a day over the other 4 days this week to make up for it*?
( thus keeping you at 40 hours ) | I was an intern at one time that had this same problem. Since our work weeks were from Sunday to Saturday my boss had no problem letting us work extra to make up for the holidays that happened during the week. If your work weeks end half way through the week (rarely happens) then it could be an issue of the overtime for one week but not the other. Figure out what your paid weeks are (usually on pay stubs) and go from there.
The way that I normally phrase it to my boss is:
>
> "Can I make up some hours for the (Holiday here, eg: 4th of July) on
> other days that I work by either coming in early or staying later?"
>
>
> |
94,019 | I am scheduled to work fewer hours next week due to the office being closed on holiday for the 4th of July. I would like to email my boss to ask I can work a few extra hours each day to make up for the lost time.
I don't know whether or not this would count as 'overtime', since I'm the one asking my manager if I can work the extra hours.
**How should I ask my boss if I can work extra hours to make up for a work holiday?** | 2017/06/30 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/94019",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/68427/"
] | >
> How should I ask my boss if I can work extra hours to make up for a
> work holiday?
>
>
>
Assuming you do not get paid for the holiday ( which you very well may ), you could ask this way: *I would prefer to not lose any money over the holiday, could I work 2 extra hours a day over the other 4 days this week to make up for it*?
( thus keeping you at 40 hours ) | National holidays in the US are not guaranteed to be paid. If you are a W2 FTE (full-time employee on your company's payroll), then consult your employee handbook which should outline your vacation & holiday plan for the company.
If you are a 1099 contractor or working through a third party (staffing/recruiting firm), then first consult the person responsible for your payroll to understand how holidays work. Then bring your problem with a solution to your manager.
An example might be: "In order to avoid working less hours and therefore being paid less for the week of 7/3/2017, I'm planning to work four 10-hour days Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Please confirm this is approved."
Make sure to get the approval in writing. |
94,019 | I am scheduled to work fewer hours next week due to the office being closed on holiday for the 4th of July. I would like to email my boss to ask I can work a few extra hours each day to make up for the lost time.
I don't know whether or not this would count as 'overtime', since I'm the one asking my manager if I can work the extra hours.
**How should I ask my boss if I can work extra hours to make up for a work holiday?** | 2017/06/30 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/94019",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/68427/"
] | I was an intern at one time that had this same problem. Since our work weeks were from Sunday to Saturday my boss had no problem letting us work extra to make up for the holidays that happened during the week. If your work weeks end half way through the week (rarely happens) then it could be an issue of the overtime for one week but not the other. Figure out what your paid weeks are (usually on pay stubs) and go from there.
The way that I normally phrase it to my boss is:
>
> "Can I make up some hours for the (Holiday here, eg: 4th of July) on
> other days that I work by either coming in early or staying later?"
>
>
> | National holidays in the US are not guaranteed to be paid. If you are a W2 FTE (full-time employee on your company's payroll), then consult your employee handbook which should outline your vacation & holiday plan for the company.
If you are a 1099 contractor or working through a third party (staffing/recruiting firm), then first consult the person responsible for your payroll to understand how holidays work. Then bring your problem with a solution to your manager.
An example might be: "In order to avoid working less hours and therefore being paid less for the week of 7/3/2017, I'm planning to work four 10-hour days Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Please confirm this is approved."
Make sure to get the approval in writing. |
4,335,667 | I have an implementation of a bi-directional message channel which, to reduce overhead, I implemented as a couple of circular buffers of messages. To write from one end to the other you add the pointer to the message to one circular buffer and tweak the read and write indices for it. To write in the other direction you do the same for the other buffer and so on. The code is small and simple and it avoids the overheads of using a pipe or fifo, although possibly that might have been a better solution in some ways.
I implemented a poll on this by simply checking if there was a message waiting to be read, and if not doing a timed wait on a condition variable that gets signalled when a message is added to the relevant array.
Now I have an application that needs to wait on a socket (more or less) and on the message channel at the same time. I now wish I had used a fifo or pipe, but due to overhead in getting the code changed (long story), it's not really feasible to rewrite it to use a fifo or pipe.
Is there any way to get a file descriptor associated with a conditional variable? If so it is easier to implement a poll on two file descriptors at once, one for the conditional variable and one for the socket.
Out of curiosity, and making this question more useful to others with a similar problem, is it possible to get a file descriptor associated with a semaphore so you could poll on the semaphore and a regular file descriptor at the same time? | 2010/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4335667",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/526477/"
] | Generally, no. But different OSes offer different solutions for the problem you have.
Windows
-------
You can associate an event with a socket with [WSAEventSelect](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms741576(v=VS.85).aspx) and wait with [WaitForMultipleObjectsEx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms687028(VS.85).aspx) for the data on the socket or mutex or semaphore event etc.
Linux
-----
You can use the [futex](http://linux.die.net/man/2/futex) syscall with FUTEX\_FD argument (however this has been removed from the kernel), or use [eventfd](http://linux.die.net/man/2/eventfd) to implement the condition variable.
And you can spawn a second thread that would be waiting on the condition variable, and signal the one waiting in select(). Or ask for signals when input is received on the socket, etc. See [this related question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/916546/waiting-on-multiple-events-c). | A file descriptor is an index into a kernel-managed array of open files and similar objects (pipes, FIFOs, sockets), so it's not possible to associate a file descriptor with anything not managed by the kernel.
If your message channels and semaphores are entirely in user space (implemented in your own application with recourse to system calls), then you can't get a file descriptor for it. Sorry. |
4,335,667 | I have an implementation of a bi-directional message channel which, to reduce overhead, I implemented as a couple of circular buffers of messages. To write from one end to the other you add the pointer to the message to one circular buffer and tweak the read and write indices for it. To write in the other direction you do the same for the other buffer and so on. The code is small and simple and it avoids the overheads of using a pipe or fifo, although possibly that might have been a better solution in some ways.
I implemented a poll on this by simply checking if there was a message waiting to be read, and if not doing a timed wait on a condition variable that gets signalled when a message is added to the relevant array.
Now I have an application that needs to wait on a socket (more or less) and on the message channel at the same time. I now wish I had used a fifo or pipe, but due to overhead in getting the code changed (long story), it's not really feasible to rewrite it to use a fifo or pipe.
Is there any way to get a file descriptor associated with a conditional variable? If so it is easier to implement a poll on two file descriptors at once, one for the conditional variable and one for the socket.
Out of curiosity, and making this question more useful to others with a similar problem, is it possible to get a file descriptor associated with a semaphore so you could poll on the semaphore and a regular file descriptor at the same time? | 2010/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4335667",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/526477/"
] | Generally, no. But different OSes offer different solutions for the problem you have.
Windows
-------
You can associate an event with a socket with [WSAEventSelect](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms741576(v=VS.85).aspx) and wait with [WaitForMultipleObjectsEx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms687028(VS.85).aspx) for the data on the socket or mutex or semaphore event etc.
Linux
-----
You can use the [futex](http://linux.die.net/man/2/futex) syscall with FUTEX\_FD argument (however this has been removed from the kernel), or use [eventfd](http://linux.die.net/man/2/eventfd) to implement the condition variable.
And you can spawn a second thread that would be waiting on the condition variable, and signal the one waiting in select(). Or ask for signals when input is received on the socket, etc. See [this related question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/916546/waiting-on-multiple-events-c). | It's a bit of a hack, but you could replace your condition variable with a pipe. The read thread would poll/select on the read side and the socket. The thread that writes to your buffer also writes a byte to the pipe to signal there is stuff in the buffer. |
850,970 | Is it a replacement for if, then blocks? I have seen a lot of code where they are used like that. | 2009/05/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/850970",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/105108/"
] | The purpose of try catch blocks to allow you to *try* to perform and action and then if an exception occurs, *catch* the exception and deal with it gracefully rather than crashing. | A try block is the block of code in which exceptions occur.
A catch block catches and handles try block exceptions. |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | **Jesus said "stop clinging to me". Why?**
Before his meeting with Mary , in Matthew 28:9 (below) we read that other women touched him and "took hold of his feet" and Jesus did not object to it, so there is no reason for Jesus to object now to Mary touching him. He objected because she was clinging to him, holding fast onto him,not let him go, because she feared that he was about to ascent and perhaps had a strong desire to be with him. Jesus reassured her by telling her : "**Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."John 20:17** (NRSV)
Matthew 28:5-9 (NRSV)
>
> " But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you
> are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has
> been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then
> go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the
> dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
> will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb
> quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9
> Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him,
> **took hold of his feet**, and worshiped him."
>
>
> | Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven and performed his duty as a High Priest... He had not yet went into the holy of holies in heaven, the pattern of which the earthly tabernacle is made from... Once Jesus had gone into the holy of holies, the next time he appeared, he asked Thomas to touch him and do not be unbelieving... A priest in the old testament wasn't to be touched, for he was to remain holy until he performed his duty... This is why he asked Martha to touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to your God and my God... On his return to those praying in the upper room, where Jesus said they were to meet him, he ascended to them as a vapor through the walls, yet he had a body... A body with nail prints in his hands and side... The same body that hung on the cross... |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | **Jesus said "stop clinging to me". Why?**
Before his meeting with Mary , in Matthew 28:9 (below) we read that other women touched him and "took hold of his feet" and Jesus did not object to it, so there is no reason for Jesus to object now to Mary touching him. He objected because she was clinging to him, holding fast onto him,not let him go, because she feared that he was about to ascent and perhaps had a strong desire to be with him. Jesus reassured her by telling her : "**Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."John 20:17** (NRSV)
Matthew 28:5-9 (NRSV)
>
> " But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you
> are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has
> been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then
> go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the
> dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
> will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb
> quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9
> Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him,
> **took hold of his feet**, and worshiped him."
>
>
> | Adding what wasn't in the answers, there is a grammatical issue in the meaning. Much depends on how you translate the present middle imperative verb ἅπτου. Robertson's interpretation is "stop clinging" because "don't touch" would be aorist middle imperative.
>
> Touch me not (μη μου ἁπτου [mē mou haptou]). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” -- Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (John 20:17). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.
>
>
> |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | Both translations are actually correct yet the first one is easily misunderstood. The Greek term for "touch" is "ἅπτομαι". It covers a variety of meanings but all of them include a "touching with the intention of holding/keeping something/somebody" (see *Strong's Definitions* word 680 on [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g680) or [Bible Hub](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)). *Thayer's Greek Lexicon* entry on "ἅπτω" (also cited in previous links) even explicitly mentions the term "ἅπτω/ἅπτομαι γυναικός" as an expression for sexual intercourse. Therefore we are talking of a very strong way of touching.
"Touching" is not just a quick stroke or poking with the fingers. "Touching" means to touch with the intention of keeping/clinging to him. Therefore you can say that the second translation is better paraphrased.
"Touch me not" is therefore better paraphrased as "Don't cling to me" (don't keep me back). | Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven and performed his duty as a High Priest... He had not yet went into the holy of holies in heaven, the pattern of which the earthly tabernacle is made from... Once Jesus had gone into the holy of holies, the next time he appeared, he asked Thomas to touch him and do not be unbelieving... A priest in the old testament wasn't to be touched, for he was to remain holy until he performed his duty... This is why he asked Martha to touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to your God and my God... On his return to those praying in the upper room, where Jesus said they were to meet him, he ascended to them as a vapor through the walls, yet he had a body... A body with nail prints in his hands and side... The same body that hung on the cross... |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | It may be much more simple than many try to make of this.
Touch - Strong's Greek 680 "haptomai" can mean cling to, or handle. Many of the translations render it "Do not cling to me..." Young's renders it as "Be not touching me..."
Thayer's Lexicon 2.a. includes
>
> " In John 20:17, μή μου ἅπτου is to be explained thus: **Do not handle me to see whether I am still clothed with a body; there is no need of such an examination,** for not yet etc.;" Source: [here](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)
>
>
>
We need to put ourselves in Mary's place for a moment. She was weeping, in great sorrow for the death of Yeshua, and is asking all whom she sees where they have taken Him. Feel her surprise and elation at discovering Him standing before her. Wouldn't she run to Him, and begin to feel His arms, His hands to see if it is really Him? Wouldn't she hug Him in joy and wonder?
Paraphrasing - Christ's response was in effect ... I'm still here, Mary; I've not yet ascended. You can let go.
The verse does not imply anything mystical about not touching His body. He offered his hands and injured side to Thomas not many hours later (John 20:24-28). | **Jesus said "stop clinging to me". Why?**
Before his meeting with Mary , in Matthew 28:9 (below) we read that other women touched him and "took hold of his feet" and Jesus did not object to it, so there is no reason for Jesus to object now to Mary touching him. He objected because she was clinging to him, holding fast onto him,not let him go, because she feared that he was about to ascent and perhaps had a strong desire to be with him. Jesus reassured her by telling her : "**Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."John 20:17** (NRSV)
Matthew 28:5-9 (NRSV)
>
> " But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you
> are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has
> been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then
> go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the
> dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
> will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb
> quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9
> Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him,
> **took hold of his feet**, and worshiped him."
>
>
> |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | **Jesus said "stop clinging to me". Why?**
Before his meeting with Mary , in Matthew 28:9 (below) we read that other women touched him and "took hold of his feet" and Jesus did not object to it, so there is no reason for Jesus to object now to Mary touching him. He objected because she was clinging to him, holding fast onto him,not let him go, because she feared that he was about to ascent and perhaps had a strong desire to be with him. Jesus reassured her by telling her : "**Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."John 20:17** (NRSV)
Matthew 28:5-9 (NRSV)
>
> " But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you
> are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has
> been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then
> go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the
> dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
> will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb
> quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9
> Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him,
> **took hold of his feet**, and worshiped him."
>
>
> | It's a present tense verb - the present tense shows continuous action. Could it be that the translators use "stop clinging to me," to reflect the action of the verb instead of "do not touch me," which is a one time action. |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | Both translations are actually correct yet the first one is easily misunderstood. The Greek term for "touch" is "ἅπτομαι". It covers a variety of meanings but all of them include a "touching with the intention of holding/keeping something/somebody" (see *Strong's Definitions* word 680 on [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g680) or [Bible Hub](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)). *Thayer's Greek Lexicon* entry on "ἅπτω" (also cited in previous links) even explicitly mentions the term "ἅπτω/ἅπτομαι γυναικός" as an expression for sexual intercourse. Therefore we are talking of a very strong way of touching.
"Touching" is not just a quick stroke or poking with the fingers. "Touching" means to touch with the intention of keeping/clinging to him. Therefore you can say that the second translation is better paraphrased.
"Touch me not" is therefore better paraphrased as "Don't cling to me" (don't keep me back). | **Jesus said "stop clinging to me". Why?**
Before his meeting with Mary , in Matthew 28:9 (below) we read that other women touched him and "took hold of his feet" and Jesus did not object to it, so there is no reason for Jesus to object now to Mary touching him. He objected because she was clinging to him, holding fast onto him,not let him go, because she feared that he was about to ascent and perhaps had a strong desire to be with him. Jesus reassured her by telling her : "**Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."John 20:17** (NRSV)
Matthew 28:5-9 (NRSV)
>
> " But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you
> are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has
> been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then
> go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the
> dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
> will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb
> quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9
> Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him,
> **took hold of his feet**, and worshiped him."
>
>
> |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | It may be much more simple than many try to make of this.
Touch - Strong's Greek 680 "haptomai" can mean cling to, or handle. Many of the translations render it "Do not cling to me..." Young's renders it as "Be not touching me..."
Thayer's Lexicon 2.a. includes
>
> " In John 20:17, μή μου ἅπτου is to be explained thus: **Do not handle me to see whether I am still clothed with a body; there is no need of such an examination,** for not yet etc.;" Source: [here](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)
>
>
>
We need to put ourselves in Mary's place for a moment. She was weeping, in great sorrow for the death of Yeshua, and is asking all whom she sees where they have taken Him. Feel her surprise and elation at discovering Him standing before her. Wouldn't she run to Him, and begin to feel His arms, His hands to see if it is really Him? Wouldn't she hug Him in joy and wonder?
Paraphrasing - Christ's response was in effect ... I'm still here, Mary; I've not yet ascended. You can let go.
The verse does not imply anything mystical about not touching His body. He offered his hands and injured side to Thomas not many hours later (John 20:24-28). | Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven and performed his duty as a High Priest... He had not yet went into the holy of holies in heaven, the pattern of which the earthly tabernacle is made from... Once Jesus had gone into the holy of holies, the next time he appeared, he asked Thomas to touch him and do not be unbelieving... A priest in the old testament wasn't to be touched, for he was to remain holy until he performed his duty... This is why he asked Martha to touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to your God and my God... On his return to those praying in the upper room, where Jesus said they were to meet him, he ascended to them as a vapor through the walls, yet he had a body... A body with nail prints in his hands and side... The same body that hung on the cross... |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | Both translations are actually correct yet the first one is easily misunderstood. The Greek term for "touch" is "ἅπτομαι". It covers a variety of meanings but all of them include a "touching with the intention of holding/keeping something/somebody" (see *Strong's Definitions* word 680 on [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g680) or [Bible Hub](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)). *Thayer's Greek Lexicon* entry on "ἅπτω" (also cited in previous links) even explicitly mentions the term "ἅπτω/ἅπτομαι γυναικός" as an expression for sexual intercourse. Therefore we are talking of a very strong way of touching.
"Touching" is not just a quick stroke or poking with the fingers. "Touching" means to touch with the intention of keeping/clinging to him. Therefore you can say that the second translation is better paraphrased.
"Touch me not" is therefore better paraphrased as "Don't cling to me" (don't keep me back). | It's a present tense verb - the present tense shows continuous action. Could it be that the translators use "stop clinging to me," to reflect the action of the verb instead of "do not touch me," which is a one time action. |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | It may be much more simple than many try to make of this.
Touch - Strong's Greek 680 "haptomai" can mean cling to, or handle. Many of the translations render it "Do not cling to me..." Young's renders it as "Be not touching me..."
Thayer's Lexicon 2.a. includes
>
> " In John 20:17, μή μου ἅπτου is to be explained thus: **Do not handle me to see whether I am still clothed with a body; there is no need of such an examination,** for not yet etc.;" Source: [here](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)
>
>
>
We need to put ourselves in Mary's place for a moment. She was weeping, in great sorrow for the death of Yeshua, and is asking all whom she sees where they have taken Him. Feel her surprise and elation at discovering Him standing before her. Wouldn't she run to Him, and begin to feel His arms, His hands to see if it is really Him? Wouldn't she hug Him in joy and wonder?
Paraphrasing - Christ's response was in effect ... I'm still here, Mary; I've not yet ascended. You can let go.
The verse does not imply anything mystical about not touching His body. He offered his hands and injured side to Thomas not many hours later (John 20:24-28). | Both translations are actually correct yet the first one is easily misunderstood. The Greek term for "touch" is "ἅπτομαι". It covers a variety of meanings but all of them include a "touching with the intention of holding/keeping something/somebody" (see *Strong's Definitions* word 680 on [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g680) or [Bible Hub](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)). *Thayer's Greek Lexicon* entry on "ἅπτω" (also cited in previous links) even explicitly mentions the term "ἅπτω/ἅπτομαι γυναικός" as an expression for sexual intercourse. Therefore we are talking of a very strong way of touching.
"Touching" is not just a quick stroke or poking with the fingers. "Touching" means to touch with the intention of keeping/clinging to him. Therefore you can say that the second translation is better paraphrased.
"Touch me not" is therefore better paraphrased as "Don't cling to me" (don't keep me back). |
30,219 | In some translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (KJV)
>
> Jesus saith unto her, **Touch me not**; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
>
>
>
In other translations we find something like:
>
> **John 20:17** (NIV)
>
> Jesus said, “**Do not hold on to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
>
>
>
Which phrasing gives the most accurate meaning of original Greek wording?
Was Jesus telling Mary not to have any physical contact with him or was he telling her to stop clinging to him? | 2017/10/28 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30219",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/11555/"
] | It may be much more simple than many try to make of this.
Touch - Strong's Greek 680 "haptomai" can mean cling to, or handle. Many of the translations render it "Do not cling to me..." Young's renders it as "Be not touching me..."
Thayer's Lexicon 2.a. includes
>
> " In John 20:17, μή μου ἅπτου is to be explained thus: **Do not handle me to see whether I am still clothed with a body; there is no need of such an examination,** for not yet etc.;" Source: [here](http://biblehub.com/greek/680.htm)
>
>
>
We need to put ourselves in Mary's place for a moment. She was weeping, in great sorrow for the death of Yeshua, and is asking all whom she sees where they have taken Him. Feel her surprise and elation at discovering Him standing before her. Wouldn't she run to Him, and begin to feel His arms, His hands to see if it is really Him? Wouldn't she hug Him in joy and wonder?
Paraphrasing - Christ's response was in effect ... I'm still here, Mary; I've not yet ascended. You can let go.
The verse does not imply anything mystical about not touching His body. He offered his hands and injured side to Thomas not many hours later (John 20:24-28). | It's a present tense verb - the present tense shows continuous action. Could it be that the translators use "stop clinging to me," to reflect the action of the verb instead of "do not touch me," which is a one time action. |
111,540 | If
>
> Han Solo
>
>
>
is Kylo Ren's father, then how is
>
> Darth Vader Kylo Ren's grandfather?
>
>
> | 2015/12/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/111540",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/57706/"
] | Because Darth Vader (aka Anakin Skywalker) is Leia's father.
And Kylo Ren
>
> Is also the son of Leia.
>
>
>
It takes two to tango. | Darth Vader is Kylo Ren's *maternal* grandfather.
=================================================
A maternal grandparent is someone who is your mom's parent. Your *paternal* grandparents are your father's parents. Your mom's parents are your *maternal* grandparents.([source](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paternal))
Another way of saying it is "my grandfather on my mother's side" (or maternal grandfather) vs "my grandfather on my father's side" (or paternal grandfather).
You are correct that Vader is *not* Kylo's *paternal* grandfather (as that whould be Han's dad, and Vader is *not* Han's dad), but Vader is still Kylo's *maternal* grandfather (as that would be Leia's dad, and Vader *is* Leia's dad1).
Here's a chart I made to help make it abundantly clear:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/liUK5.jpg)
---
1 We know Vader is Leia's father from *Return of the Jedi*, when Luke learns that Leia is his twin sister.
>
> LUKE: Leia's my sister!
>
>
> KENOBI: Your insight serves you well.
>
>
> |
111,540 | If
>
> Han Solo
>
>
>
is Kylo Ren's father, then how is
>
> Darth Vader Kylo Ren's grandfather?
>
>
> | 2015/12/21 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/111540",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/57706/"
] | Kylo Ren has two parents: Han Solo and Leia Organa.
Leia is the daughter of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, making Kylo Ren the grandson of Anakin/Vader.
Leia refers to their son a number of times in conversation with Han.
>
> He met her eyes steadily. “We’ve lost our son, forever.”
>
>
>
>
> “Always,” she told him. “From the shadows, in the beginning, even before I realized what was happening, he was manipulating everything, pulling our son toward the dark side.
>
>
>
>
> “If you see our son,” Leia whispered, “bring him home.”
>
>
> | Darth Vader is Kylo Ren's *maternal* grandfather.
=================================================
A maternal grandparent is someone who is your mom's parent. Your *paternal* grandparents are your father's parents. Your mom's parents are your *maternal* grandparents.([source](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paternal))
Another way of saying it is "my grandfather on my mother's side" (or maternal grandfather) vs "my grandfather on my father's side" (or paternal grandfather).
You are correct that Vader is *not* Kylo's *paternal* grandfather (as that whould be Han's dad, and Vader is *not* Han's dad), but Vader is still Kylo's *maternal* grandfather (as that would be Leia's dad, and Vader *is* Leia's dad1).
Here's a chart I made to help make it abundantly clear:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/liUK5.jpg)
---
1 We know Vader is Leia's father from *Return of the Jedi*, when Luke learns that Leia is his twin sister.
>
> LUKE: Leia's my sister!
>
>
> KENOBI: Your insight serves you well.
>
>
> |
15,358 | Does the [Retron 3](http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/07/three-in-one-retro-console-uses-original-game-controllers/) work with all of the original system accessories, such as the Menacer or Light Gun? I assume that the 32X and Sega CD are out of the question. | 2011/01/26 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/15358",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/5274/"
] | From the product page for the Retron [here](http://hyperkin.com/index.php/retro-system-retron3.html/), they claim it works with ALL original system controllers, this would include the [Menacer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacer) and the [Nintendo Light Gun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun). Several forum posts on different game sites confirm this. Since they just plug into the standard controller port, they should work well. This system does not have compatibility with the 32x or Sega CD, so you are correct that they will not work.
However, I would caution you that certain restrictions that were present on the original hardware would still be present here. Specifically, the Menacer requires a CRT television, since it uses the scan lines to determine what you are aiming at. Since TV technology has changed considerably since 1992, you either need to drag out that old CRT, or forget about the nostalgia associated with this old school accessory. | The Menacer and the Nintendo Super Scope use the infrared sensor that plugs into the console for calibration so the gun can be used on any tv including HD. |
16,173,593 | I need to refactor a project with two data models into two separate projects.
Both projects use the same Exceptions.
Should I create a 3rd project only for these exceptions? Cloning sounds like a no-go. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16173593",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1410212/"
] | Yes you should create it on a separate project, and use it as a dependency on the others. It is not uncommon to see a project/jar that only has the exceptions used in the modules that you work with. It's a fine way to keep things organized IMHO. | IMHO,as @harsha mentioned in existing comment ,the easiest solution would be to put the shared code into a **library or .jar file** and the .jar file to your project library.
Now you have an valuable api which can be maintained easily for each build with your versions. |
16,173,593 | I need to refactor a project with two data models into two separate projects.
Both projects use the same Exceptions.
Should I create a 3rd project only for these exceptions? Cloning sounds like a no-go. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16173593",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1410212/"
] | Yes you should create it on a separate project, and use it as a dependency on the others. It is not uncommon to see a project/jar that only has the exceptions used in the modules that you work with. It's a fine way to keep things organized IMHO. | A separate project that is a shared dependency of the other two is probably best. Duplicating the objects would make things difficult if the two data models are used together, which you would have to resolve via e.g. different package names, and which would create maintenance headaches. The shared project may be a good repository for future shared code beyond just your exceptions. |
16,173,593 | I need to refactor a project with two data models into two separate projects.
Both projects use the same Exceptions.
Should I create a 3rd project only for these exceptions? Cloning sounds like a no-go. | 2013/04/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/16173593",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1410212/"
] | Yes you should create it on a separate project, and use it as a dependency on the others. It is not uncommon to see a project/jar that only has the exceptions used in the modules that you work with. It's a fine way to keep things organized IMHO. | Are there just exceptions in common? It sounds weird.
Are there any dependency between these projects? Is one is other's client?
I believe there shall be some interfaces in common too, some which declare these exceptions in their methods' signature. Some which are implemented in one of your projects, and get called in other project.
If there are no such thing at all, it seems your common exceptions are just in common by their names! They are not really the same classes, they just have the same name, and because many of the user-defined exceptions are just having constructors which call `super` constructors, they seem to be the same.
If that's your case, I would not bother myself to extract the classes, and I would keep the duplications, because there is nothing gained by the refactoring. |
110,912 | One of my players' characters can use his armor to cast *obscuring mist* in the square where he is.
I'm pretty sure what happens to the enemy that wants to attack him while he stays in the fog, but I'm not sure what happens to him.
He is a rogue that uses a bow to fight: while he is inside his fog, can he target enemies with his bow without any penalties?
What happens if he moves away, and an ally goes inside the fog?
EDIT: Thanks for you answers. I have checked the name and yes is the Mithralmist armor. I don't have the manuals right now, I must investigate more on it and understan if Obscuring Mist is a prerequirements or not
EDIT2: Ok as someone of you says, with the Mithralmist armor the fog doesn't effect the vision of who wear it. So the rogue not only can see without any problem, but have concealment (20% melee, 50% ranged) and can do sneak attack. | 2017/12/01 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/110912",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/32769/"
] | Unless a spell says otherwise, they affect everyone in their area. That includes the rogue as well as any of the rogue’s allies. The *Complete Adventurer* ninja has a variant in an issue of *Dragon* magazine that even boasts as its primary class feature an ability to use *obscuring mist* without affecting the ninja himself. This replaces the ninja’s usual invisibility, to give you an idea of how potent that is. It is definitely not an automatic part of the spell.
As such, *obscuring mist* is generally seen as an emergency escape option, a way to prevent attacks against you and allow you to flee. It can be awkwardly used for surprise melee attacks, but the miss chance is pretty high so that isn’t recommended.
The rogue could also blind-fire his bow through the mist. If he picks the right square, he has a 50% chance of missing outright (before he even gets to compare his attack roll against the target’s AC), but since the target has concealment from him, he cannot use precision damage—like sneak attack—on that target. | I'm actually loosely familiar with the armor you are talking about (if it's homebrew, there is an actual RAW version, just so you know). I don't recall the name off the top of my head (that said, I'll probably find it in the next few days anyway).
Anyhow, to the point of the matter -- if this is the armor I think it is (and I only know one that does this), then RAW I believe it does state he is immune to his own armor's ability.
Allies, however, are not covered in that statement.
Please note that I'll probably be nagged by this question, so this answer will likely be edited once I find the reference.
EDIT: Yep. Found the armor -- it's called Mithralmist Armor. Tenative citation is MIC, but I'll have to dig further to check this. |
110,912 | One of my players' characters can use his armor to cast *obscuring mist* in the square where he is.
I'm pretty sure what happens to the enemy that wants to attack him while he stays in the fog, but I'm not sure what happens to him.
He is a rogue that uses a bow to fight: while he is inside his fog, can he target enemies with his bow without any penalties?
What happens if he moves away, and an ally goes inside the fog?
EDIT: Thanks for you answers. I have checked the name and yes is the Mithralmist armor. I don't have the manuals right now, I must investigate more on it and understan if Obscuring Mist is a prerequirements or not
EDIT2: Ok as someone of you says, with the Mithralmist armor the fog doesn't effect the vision of who wear it. So the rogue not only can see without any problem, but have concealment (20% melee, 50% ranged) and can do sneak attack. | 2017/12/01 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/110912",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/32769/"
] | Unless a spell says otherwise, they affect everyone in their area. That includes the rogue as well as any of the rogue’s allies. The *Complete Adventurer* ninja has a variant in an issue of *Dragon* magazine that even boasts as its primary class feature an ability to use *obscuring mist* without affecting the ninja himself. This replaces the ninja’s usual invisibility, to give you an idea of how potent that is. It is definitely not an automatic part of the spell.
As such, *obscuring mist* is generally seen as an emergency escape option, a way to prevent attacks against you and allow you to flee. It can be awkwardly used for surprise melee attacks, but the miss chance is pretty high so that isn’t recommended.
The rogue could also blind-fire his bow through the mist. If he picks the right square, he has a 50% chance of missing outright (before he even gets to compare his attack roll against the target’s AC), but since the target has concealment from him, he cannot use precision damage—like sneak attack—on that target. | The description of *mithralmist shirt* is somewhat vague. It not necessarily creates a fog similar to that of Obscuring Mist spell (item's prerequisite to be created), but 'billowing silver mist' it creates still lacks some info to be clear enough as a separate standalone effect.
As written it neither doesn't interfere with your attacks when you shoot from the space filled with it, nor doesn't interfere with your attacks when you leave that space. Also, as written, it grants concealment only to you (sireously, that may be the reason why it doesn't interfere with your vision with no caveats). Those assumptions are questionable while possible. In this case your rogue may shoot freely. But what happens to ranged attacks of those entering his bank of mist is mostly left on DM's mercy.
Another way to interpreate given item is to assume it creates a bank of fog similar to that of it's prerequisite spell. That bank just happens to be only as large as your space is and is in that space when you activate *the shirt*. That way whole discriptive text stays largely true, but we know what to do with cases not touched by it.
If we go this way, either rogue or anyone entering the fog may fire their bows with no hindrances. Obscuring Mist confers concealment depending on the distance between1 creatures in squares containing the fog. You may treat that as if armor owner was standing on the border of regular Obscuring Mist's effect. As your rogue (or any creature for that matter) stands right next to the border2 of a clouded area there actually are no squares of fog between her and her target. So her target gains no concealment.
---
1. For a creature to see into a square that creature's line of sight must be traced into that squere. So a target's squere also counts as part of a distance.
2. If your rogue is larger than medium, things may got more complicated. As there will be more than one square to enter, entering creature may position itself in a way it isn't adjacent to the border with respect to it's target. Not to mention, if armor owner himself moves, he may do the same. |
110,912 | One of my players' characters can use his armor to cast *obscuring mist* in the square where he is.
I'm pretty sure what happens to the enemy that wants to attack him while he stays in the fog, but I'm not sure what happens to him.
He is a rogue that uses a bow to fight: while he is inside his fog, can he target enemies with his bow without any penalties?
What happens if he moves away, and an ally goes inside the fog?
EDIT: Thanks for you answers. I have checked the name and yes is the Mithralmist armor. I don't have the manuals right now, I must investigate more on it and understan if Obscuring Mist is a prerequirements or not
EDIT2: Ok as someone of you says, with the Mithralmist armor the fog doesn't effect the vision of who wear it. So the rogue not only can see without any problem, but have concealment (20% melee, 50% ranged) and can do sneak attack. | 2017/12/01 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/110912",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/32769/"
] | The description of *mithralmist shirt* is somewhat vague. It not necessarily creates a fog similar to that of Obscuring Mist spell (item's prerequisite to be created), but 'billowing silver mist' it creates still lacks some info to be clear enough as a separate standalone effect.
As written it neither doesn't interfere with your attacks when you shoot from the space filled with it, nor doesn't interfere with your attacks when you leave that space. Also, as written, it grants concealment only to you (sireously, that may be the reason why it doesn't interfere with your vision with no caveats). Those assumptions are questionable while possible. In this case your rogue may shoot freely. But what happens to ranged attacks of those entering his bank of mist is mostly left on DM's mercy.
Another way to interpreate given item is to assume it creates a bank of fog similar to that of it's prerequisite spell. That bank just happens to be only as large as your space is and is in that space when you activate *the shirt*. That way whole discriptive text stays largely true, but we know what to do with cases not touched by it.
If we go this way, either rogue or anyone entering the fog may fire their bows with no hindrances. Obscuring Mist confers concealment depending on the distance between1 creatures in squares containing the fog. You may treat that as if armor owner was standing on the border of regular Obscuring Mist's effect. As your rogue (or any creature for that matter) stands right next to the border2 of a clouded area there actually are no squares of fog between her and her target. So her target gains no concealment.
---
1. For a creature to see into a square that creature's line of sight must be traced into that squere. So a target's squere also counts as part of a distance.
2. If your rogue is larger than medium, things may got more complicated. As there will be more than one square to enter, entering creature may position itself in a way it isn't adjacent to the border with respect to it's target. Not to mention, if armor owner himself moves, he may do the same. | I'm actually loosely familiar with the armor you are talking about (if it's homebrew, there is an actual RAW version, just so you know). I don't recall the name off the top of my head (that said, I'll probably find it in the next few days anyway).
Anyhow, to the point of the matter -- if this is the armor I think it is (and I only know one that does this), then RAW I believe it does state he is immune to his own armor's ability.
Allies, however, are not covered in that statement.
Please note that I'll probably be nagged by this question, so this answer will likely be edited once I find the reference.
EDIT: Yep. Found the armor -- it's called Mithralmist Armor. Tenative citation is MIC, but I'll have to dig further to check this. |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | If you've got access to vCenter, then you can administer your servers via the vCenter Web Access page. Otherwise, if you have any Windows VMs then you could install the vSphere client in there and remote-desktop into it as a standalone application. | For Mac OS X, no. The only Apple management option is the iPad management app that VMware released a short while ago. |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | For Mac OS X, no. The only Apple management option is the iPad management app that VMware released a short while ago. | vClient Mac APP @ [vclient.top](https://web.archive.org/web/20190905213550/http://vclient.top/) is native mac app to manage esx/vcenter |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | If you've got access to vCenter, then you can administer your servers via the vCenter Web Access page. Otherwise, if you have any Windows VMs then you could install the vSphere client in there and remote-desktop into it as a standalone application. | FYI, if all you need is basic control from OSX, check out Orbit-VM <https://code.google.com/p/orbit-vm/>
>
> It's aim is to provide an open source, cross-platform GUI for managing vSphere 4 servers.
>
>
>
However, I use this to manange my ESXi 5 box and it works great on Mountain Lion! |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | If you've got access to vCenter, then you can administer your servers via the vCenter Web Access page. Otherwise, if you have any Windows VMs then you could install the vSphere client in there and remote-desktop into it as a standalone application. | No need for esx client. Here's the ultra-unix-geek answer: ssh to esx host, run vim-cmd power.on , or any number of actions available for the vim-cmd. ..sometimes they even work! How's that for geeky.
Basically VMware is Windows now. They have the microsoft philosophy of 'dumbing down' everything. They been doing it with vmware for years. It used to be completely manageable by anyone with unix/linux skills. Now its an almost completely dumbed down - windoze-afied linux, with a completely crippled shell.
My advice: switch to KVM (RHEV for ex.), escape vmware vendor lock-in, save up to 40% on expenses, and have a real 'nix OS that you can manage. :) Peace, out. |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | If you've got access to vCenter, then you can administer your servers via the vCenter Web Access page. Otherwise, if you have any Windows VMs then you could install the vSphere client in there and remote-desktop into it as a standalone application. | vClient Mac APP @ [vclient.top](https://web.archive.org/web/20190905213550/http://vclient.top/) is native mac app to manage esx/vcenter |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | FYI, if all you need is basic control from OSX, check out Orbit-VM <https://code.google.com/p/orbit-vm/>
>
> It's aim is to provide an open source, cross-platform GUI for managing vSphere 4 servers.
>
>
>
However, I use this to manange my ESXi 5 box and it works great on Mountain Lion! | vClient Mac APP @ [vclient.top](https://web.archive.org/web/20190905213550/http://vclient.top/) is native mac app to manage esx/vcenter |
12,482 | I'm a VMware guy, running a dozen of ESXi ... and i'm also a mac user and I've had it with launching VMware Fusion to boot my Win7 to work on vSphere client...
Am I missing something? Sys Admins and Solution Architects are using Linux/Mac more and more ... Is there anyway that i can do that without having to rely on rdesktop and other unreliable workarounds? | 2011/04/20 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/12482",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/5713/"
] | No need for esx client. Here's the ultra-unix-geek answer: ssh to esx host, run vim-cmd power.on , or any number of actions available for the vim-cmd. ..sometimes they even work! How's that for geeky.
Basically VMware is Windows now. They have the microsoft philosophy of 'dumbing down' everything. They been doing it with vmware for years. It used to be completely manageable by anyone with unix/linux skills. Now its an almost completely dumbed down - windoze-afied linux, with a completely crippled shell.
My advice: switch to KVM (RHEV for ex.), escape vmware vendor lock-in, save up to 40% on expenses, and have a real 'nix OS that you can manage. :) Peace, out. | vClient Mac APP @ [vclient.top](https://web.archive.org/web/20190905213550/http://vclient.top/) is native mac app to manage esx/vcenter |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **Use the lungs.**
from <http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/5903/SPUMS_V5N3_2.pdf?sequence=1>
>
> The entire chamber was pressurised with air and an anaesthetized dog
> was lowered into a tub of oxygenated saline. The animal was kept cool
> at about 32°C in order to reduce his oxygen requirement. While
> submerged, the dog continued to breathe, and jets of water rising from
> the surface showed clearly that he was pumping the solution in and out
> of his lungs. At the end of the observations, the dog was lifted out
> of the tub and his lungs were drained of water and re-inflated with
> air. One of these dogs was later adopted as a mascot by the crew of
> the Royal Netherlands Navy vessel HMS Cerberus.
>
>
>
This was some cool reading. I knew that animals (and humans) could breathe oxygenated perfluorinated liquids indefinitely. I did not know that before that there was research done with water. Issues with breathing water.
1: If osmotically much different from blood it damages the lung tissues. So these experimental animals (and people!) breathed saline solutions isotonic to blood. OK.
2: It is hard to get enough oxygen into the saline. They had to use high pressure hyperbaric chambers. I read an estimate of 160 atm to get enough O2 into saline to meet O2 requirements for a mammal. That is about 1 mile deep.
3: Surprisingly (to me) it was the gradual build up of carbon dioxide that killed the experimental animals. CO2 is not very soluble in water. We can blow off our CO2 by hyperventilating.
>
> Obviously then if we put all these factors together, we find that in
> order to maintain his arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure within
> tolerable levels - to prevent a sense of suffocation or even loss of
> consciousness - a water- breathing diver would have to move a
> substantially greater volume of water per minute in and out of his
> lungs than the air-breathing diver moves air.
>
>
>
Apparently that does not work underwater. As an animal breathes harder, it reaches the limits of what the pliable airway structures can withstand. They collapse in (sort of like asthmatics have their airways collapse in when they try very hard to inhale - thus the wheezing) and so limit the water that can be moved back and forth.
**The merfolk will breathe like people breathe, moving water in and out of the lung.**
* These merfolk may be confined to depths where pressure is great enough that the dissolved O2 will meet their needs. Sort of like air breathing humans are confined to low altitudes, for the same reason.
* The merfolk have saltier blood - isotonic to the seawater they are in.
+ The merfolks have big respiratory muscles - good for forcefully expanding the chest as well as forcefully contracting it - this latter piece is not especially strong for humans who are much better at inhaling.
+ Merfolk have comparatively rigid bronchi which withstand the higher pressures associated with more rapid inhalation and exhalation of water. | **Gills on the back would be my go to.**
Creating a structure that traverses or even changes the human chest cavity isn't unreasonable. There are currently gaps where muscle and flesh exist between the ribs. To simply say an oxygen exchanging membrane traverses the back ribs isn't to farfetched. Or simply cavities through the back ribs that bring water to the gill/lungs.
The added advantage in simplicity is that because its located closer to the lungs you could reuse a lot of that organs structure. You could even likely keep both breathing methods, there are afterall creatures who can breath both air and water.
As for other traits. just because you add gills does not necessitate the loss of ears and other organelles. Did you know whales still have their hind legs.
As for making this more reasonable. I would increase the space between the ribs on the back (so a larger more pronounced chest) to allow a bigger gill slits. I would grow the lungs to be large and thin lining the back of the internal chest cavity, so you would have more functional respiratory surface area. The shape of the lungs is already conducive having 2 distinct halves with separation in the middle which would be needed to connect the central nervous system to the rest of the organs.
If going with the cavity ribs notion then your only challenge is ensuring water circulation. Fortunately, we already have an organ that solves this called the diaphragm. Just modify the diaphragm to be drainable/floodable so it can operate in chosen environment. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Lots of nice answers here! One problem which was pointed out is that humans, being warm-blooded, require much more oxygen than polikiotherms, because maintaining body temp requires a lot of metabolism, which in turn burns a lot of O2. This results in all kinds of special strategies to get enough "gillage".
So...
Why not make them polikiotherms (cold-blooded, for our purposes), like almost all fish? This reduces a lot of problems. First, less oxygen usage, meaning less extreme solutions for gills. Look at your friendly reef shark:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B48r0.png)
Its gills are pretty reasonable in size.
Second, being cold blooded means you don't need all that insulation. Most marine mammals have extensive blubber deposits to help them keep warm, and this doesn't really fit the mermaid image. Mermaids are expected to have a touch of avoirdupois, but tradition has it more fetchingly distributed and as much ... decorative as utile.
Third, cold-blooded mermaids have less need for food, so they can spend less time foraging, and more time perched on rocks luring sailors to their doom. | Or, you could simply do it like whales, which do breathe air, but have the ability to store vast amounts of oxygen internally, for extended stays under water. I believe the sperm whale has been known to submerge for over an hour, when they go to great depths to search for squid.
A technique used by seals in arctic areas is to breathe out the air on the underside of the icepack in a big bubble, let the water refresh the O2 content, and breathe it back in. Perhaps a merperson could have a skin flap they could exhale and inhale a bubble of air into, for this purpose.
With some air breathing aquatic reptiles, like turtles or alligators, their lower metabolism means they don't need to have as much oxygen on hand. But, that's a radical biological change, whereas adapting the merperson to be able to store far more O2 from air breathing would be a more likely change... as it has already happened when mammals returned to the oceans.
Why would you want the merperson to breathe air instead of gills and water? Air transfers O2 far more efficiently, giving the creature greater strength reserves underwater. The largest non air breathing aquatic creature is the whale shark, at around 40 feet, and it is a very slow moving creature with a somewhat narrow range of habitats. Contrast that with the blue whale, about twice the size, that can move faster and venture into a much wider range of habitats, like the antarctic. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | **I would go with PEM electrolysis**
A gill like structure with the body ability to produce electrical current can be used to derive oxygen directly from the water molecules (H2O -> H + O2). This structure can pump the resulted gas directly in to lungs (even fairly human like lungs) and can be shunted of when outside water and exposed to free oxygen in the air.
This has the benefit of not being dependent on the level of oxygen dissolved in the water and therefor allows survival in oxygen poor water like high depth or contaminates.
This is a relatively energy inefficient process but is conceivable given the complex structures living cells can form even mimicking amphibian skin respiration (absorbing oxygen from the water via the skin).
Also the existence of such organism (humanoid this case) can support symbiotic hydrogen based ecology with a possible micro re-claimers (H+O2 -> H2O) in areas with natural high oxygen content in the water (presumably near the surface). | **Gills on the back would be my go to.**
Creating a structure that traverses or even changes the human chest cavity isn't unreasonable. There are currently gaps where muscle and flesh exist between the ribs. To simply say an oxygen exchanging membrane traverses the back ribs isn't to farfetched. Or simply cavities through the back ribs that bring water to the gill/lungs.
The added advantage in simplicity is that because its located closer to the lungs you could reuse a lot of that organs structure. You could even likely keep both breathing methods, there are afterall creatures who can breath both air and water.
As for other traits. just because you add gills does not necessitate the loss of ears and other organelles. Did you know whales still have their hind legs.
As for making this more reasonable. I would increase the space between the ribs on the back (so a larger more pronounced chest) to allow a bigger gill slits. I would grow the lungs to be large and thin lining the back of the internal chest cavity, so you would have more functional respiratory surface area. The shape of the lungs is already conducive having 2 distinct halves with separation in the middle which would be needed to connect the central nervous system to the rest of the organs.
If going with the cavity ribs notion then your only challenge is ensuring water circulation. Fortunately, we already have an organ that solves this called the diaphragm. Just modify the diaphragm to be drainable/floodable so it can operate in chosen environment. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Lots of nice answers here! One problem which was pointed out is that humans, being warm-blooded, require much more oxygen than polikiotherms, because maintaining body temp requires a lot of metabolism, which in turn burns a lot of O2. This results in all kinds of special strategies to get enough "gillage".
So...
Why not make them polikiotherms (cold-blooded, for our purposes), like almost all fish? This reduces a lot of problems. First, less oxygen usage, meaning less extreme solutions for gills. Look at your friendly reef shark:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B48r0.png)
Its gills are pretty reasonable in size.
Second, being cold blooded means you don't need all that insulation. Most marine mammals have extensive blubber deposits to help them keep warm, and this doesn't really fit the mermaid image. Mermaids are expected to have a touch of avoirdupois, but tradition has it more fetchingly distributed and as much ... decorative as utile.
Third, cold-blooded mermaids have less need for food, so they can spend less time foraging, and more time perched on rocks luring sailors to their doom. | Fish pull water in through their mouths and push it out over their gills in order for the gills to be able extract the oxygen (or something to that effect). This would not work for humans since the amount of water they could pull in would be limited by the size of their mouths and possibly noses.
I think the external gills ideas floated by @WilliamKumler and SomeoneElse37 would be the most practical solution.
While wings would probably be aesthetically pleasing to look at (I do love the image that brings up in my mind), they might be less practical due to a smaller attached area versus their length and width (thinking of fairy/dragonfly wings here. @WilliamKimler, you might be picturing it differently).
Gill tendrils (like those on the gorgeous nudibranchs), gill feathers (as sported on newts and salamanders) would be be the way to go, and considering that your engineered merperson would likely need to be in an area with some amount of water current, the tendrils can passively sway in said current, or even when the merperson is moving, but have limited motion in the event that the merperson is stationary in an area with limited water movement (like a cave, for example).
Along similar lines, you can cover your merperson in fine hairlike tendrils, covering a larger area of their body surface. Or the tendrils can be engineered in some way to be derived from our human hair and can therefore be situated (mostly) on the head and tie in to the existing breathing system in some way.
The limitation of the external gills would be that they would have to be kept wet, or perhaps be retractable in some way. Alternatively they could go to sleep or become inert when the merperson finds them-self on dry land or exude a slime or gel of some sort to protect themselves from drying out completely.
Finally, speaking of noses, ears and other protruding bits and pieces, you would probably want to make those smaller or in some way bring then in closer to the body to improve streamlining. If you don't want to go with a mermaid-like tail, your merperson would need larger, finned hands with longer fingers, and flatter/larger feet. They might also need to be more muscular, as propelling yourself through water is harder to do than propelling yourself through air. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | Or, you could simply do it like whales, which do breathe air, but have the ability to store vast amounts of oxygen internally, for extended stays under water. I believe the sperm whale has been known to submerge for over an hour, when they go to great depths to search for squid.
A technique used by seals in arctic areas is to breathe out the air on the underside of the icepack in a big bubble, let the water refresh the O2 content, and breathe it back in. Perhaps a merperson could have a skin flap they could exhale and inhale a bubble of air into, for this purpose.
With some air breathing aquatic reptiles, like turtles or alligators, their lower metabolism means they don't need to have as much oxygen on hand. But, that's a radical biological change, whereas adapting the merperson to be able to store far more O2 from air breathing would be a more likely change... as it has already happened when mammals returned to the oceans.
Why would you want the merperson to breathe air instead of gills and water? Air transfers O2 far more efficiently, giving the creature greater strength reserves underwater. The largest non air breathing aquatic creature is the whale shark, at around 40 feet, and it is a very slow moving creature with a somewhat narrow range of habitats. Contrast that with the blue whale, about twice the size, that can move faster and venture into a much wider range of habitats, like the antarctic. | **Gills on the back would be my go to.**
Creating a structure that traverses or even changes the human chest cavity isn't unreasonable. There are currently gaps where muscle and flesh exist between the ribs. To simply say an oxygen exchanging membrane traverses the back ribs isn't to farfetched. Or simply cavities through the back ribs that bring water to the gill/lungs.
The added advantage in simplicity is that because its located closer to the lungs you could reuse a lot of that organs structure. You could even likely keep both breathing methods, there are afterall creatures who can breath both air and water.
As for other traits. just because you add gills does not necessitate the loss of ears and other organelles. Did you know whales still have their hind legs.
As for making this more reasonable. I would increase the space between the ribs on the back (so a larger more pronounced chest) to allow a bigger gill slits. I would grow the lungs to be large and thin lining the back of the internal chest cavity, so you would have more functional respiratory surface area. The shape of the lungs is already conducive having 2 distinct halves with separation in the middle which would be needed to connect the central nervous system to the rest of the organs.
If going with the cavity ribs notion then your only challenge is ensuring water circulation. Fortunately, we already have an organ that solves this called the diaphragm. Just modify the diaphragm to be drainable/floodable so it can operate in chosen environment. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The main problem you'll run into is that the human brain takes a *lot* of oxygen to run, and there isn't nearly as much oxygen in water as there is in air. So if these merfolk are to be able to breathe underwater without surfacing, they'll either need much more surface area on their gills than humans have in their lungs, or they'll need to pump a whole lot of water through their gills.
According to the "gillung" answer you linked, freshwater has about 8 cm3/L of dissolved oxygen, while air has 210 cm3/L. That's a factor of 26.25 difference. So if you want merfolk with internal gills replacing their human lungs, they're going to need to pump over 26 times as much water through their lungs as humans pump air. That's going to be all kinds of impractical, even when they're not exercising. Adding slits between the ribs to expel water to keep it flowing one way through the gills will help, but they're still going to need to pump a huge amount of water in order to stay conscious. And pumping water like that will take a lot of energy, increasing demand for oxygen.
Solution: [External gills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_gills), and lots of them. According to that Wikipedia page, external gills on the creatures that have them (salamander, lungfish, and bichir larvae) typically take the form of 3-4 fernlike branching stalks coming out from either side of the creature's body, behind the head. I'm not exactly certain where that would correspond to on a human- maybe on the neck? You could probably get away with putting them on your merfolks' backs just as easily, which has the advantage of being closer to the pulmonary arteries/veins that they'll need to hook into.
A system of external gills capable of keeping up with a pair of human lungs is going to have to be pretty huge, so these guys aren't going to be hydrodynamic. They'll also need to move around regularly in order to keep from using up all the oxygen in their immediate vicinity, and since they're genetically engineered from humans, may not have the instincts to do that subconsciously. So it might be better to have them live in rivers, so they won't have to worry about it. Alternatively, they could be engineered to be able to smell oxygen with their fluffy tentacle-like gills, which would be pretty cool in its own right. That's up to how far you want to take your genetic handwavery.
Another alternative could be to do away with the forest of external gills and give them either fluid-flexible crablike gillungs or smaller external gills, and make them able to survive on the small amounts of oxygen that their gills would be able to provide. When they're resting or need to dive deep for whatever reason, they could go into a low-power mode, conserving oxygen and relying on their gills; but when they need to hunt, fight, or do math problems, they could surface for a breath of oxygen. | **I would go with PEM electrolysis**
A gill like structure with the body ability to produce electrical current can be used to derive oxygen directly from the water molecules (H2O -> H + O2). This structure can pump the resulted gas directly in to lungs (even fairly human like lungs) and can be shunted of when outside water and exposed to free oxygen in the air.
This has the benefit of not being dependent on the level of oxygen dissolved in the water and therefor allows survival in oxygen poor water like high depth or contaminates.
This is a relatively energy inefficient process but is conceivable given the complex structures living cells can form even mimicking amphibian skin respiration (absorbing oxygen from the water via the skin).
Also the existence of such organism (humanoid this case) can support symbiotic hydrogen based ecology with a possible micro re-claimers (H+O2 -> H2O) in areas with natural high oxygen content in the water (presumably near the surface). |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The main problem you'll run into is that the human brain takes a *lot* of oxygen to run, and there isn't nearly as much oxygen in water as there is in air. So if these merfolk are to be able to breathe underwater without surfacing, they'll either need much more surface area on their gills than humans have in their lungs, or they'll need to pump a whole lot of water through their gills.
According to the "gillung" answer you linked, freshwater has about 8 cm3/L of dissolved oxygen, while air has 210 cm3/L. That's a factor of 26.25 difference. So if you want merfolk with internal gills replacing their human lungs, they're going to need to pump over 26 times as much water through their lungs as humans pump air. That's going to be all kinds of impractical, even when they're not exercising. Adding slits between the ribs to expel water to keep it flowing one way through the gills will help, but they're still going to need to pump a huge amount of water in order to stay conscious. And pumping water like that will take a lot of energy, increasing demand for oxygen.
Solution: [External gills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_gills), and lots of them. According to that Wikipedia page, external gills on the creatures that have them (salamander, lungfish, and bichir larvae) typically take the form of 3-4 fernlike branching stalks coming out from either side of the creature's body, behind the head. I'm not exactly certain where that would correspond to on a human- maybe on the neck? You could probably get away with putting them on your merfolks' backs just as easily, which has the advantage of being closer to the pulmonary arteries/veins that they'll need to hook into.
A system of external gills capable of keeping up with a pair of human lungs is going to have to be pretty huge, so these guys aren't going to be hydrodynamic. They'll also need to move around regularly in order to keep from using up all the oxygen in their immediate vicinity, and since they're genetically engineered from humans, may not have the instincts to do that subconsciously. So it might be better to have them live in rivers, so they won't have to worry about it. Alternatively, they could be engineered to be able to smell oxygen with their fluffy tentacle-like gills, which would be pretty cool in its own right. That's up to how far you want to take your genetic handwavery.
Another alternative could be to do away with the forest of external gills and give them either fluid-flexible crablike gillungs or smaller external gills, and make them able to survive on the small amounts of oxygen that their gills would be able to provide. When they're resting or need to dive deep for whatever reason, they could go into a low-power mode, conserving oxygen and relying on their gills; but when they need to hunt, fight, or do math problems, they could surface for a breath of oxygen. | Fish pull water in through their mouths and push it out over their gills in order for the gills to be able extract the oxygen (or something to that effect). This would not work for humans since the amount of water they could pull in would be limited by the size of their mouths and possibly noses.
I think the external gills ideas floated by @WilliamKumler and SomeoneElse37 would be the most practical solution.
While wings would probably be aesthetically pleasing to look at (I do love the image that brings up in my mind), they might be less practical due to a smaller attached area versus their length and width (thinking of fairy/dragonfly wings here. @WilliamKimler, you might be picturing it differently).
Gill tendrils (like those on the gorgeous nudibranchs), gill feathers (as sported on newts and salamanders) would be be the way to go, and considering that your engineered merperson would likely need to be in an area with some amount of water current, the tendrils can passively sway in said current, or even when the merperson is moving, but have limited motion in the event that the merperson is stationary in an area with limited water movement (like a cave, for example).
Along similar lines, you can cover your merperson in fine hairlike tendrils, covering a larger area of their body surface. Or the tendrils can be engineered in some way to be derived from our human hair and can therefore be situated (mostly) on the head and tie in to the existing breathing system in some way.
The limitation of the external gills would be that they would have to be kept wet, or perhaps be retractable in some way. Alternatively they could go to sleep or become inert when the merperson finds them-self on dry land or exude a slime or gel of some sort to protect themselves from drying out completely.
Finally, speaking of noses, ears and other protruding bits and pieces, you would probably want to make those smaller or in some way bring then in closer to the body to improve streamlining. If you don't want to go with a mermaid-like tail, your merperson would need larger, finned hands with longer fingers, and flatter/larger feet. They might also need to be more muscular, as propelling yourself through water is harder to do than propelling yourself through air. |
96,017 | This question considers the respiratory apparatus of [an aquatic (or amphibious) species descended from engineered humans](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/why-might-it-be-desirable-to-engineer-aquatic-humans).
The history of the species provides a relevant constraint. While the science in the setting is soft and the handwavery of fictional genetic engineering might be called upon to produce nigh arbitrary results, I would much prefer, if possible, to be able to claim “these structures that serve [some function] are actually homologous to [some other structure found in humans]!”, or “similar solutions are found in [some other species].”
Given these conditions, *what would be the reasonable changes to make to humans such that they would be able to breathe underwater?*
---
Relevant information come across during the search for an answer:
I recall seeing objections to the practicality of gills (on the neck/beneath the jawline) citing the square-cube law, even though I am unable to locate the source text. I am also uncertain about the specifics of this claim (might it still be possible for, say, large external gills to provide enough surface area?) — I’d be grateful if anyone could verify this or point me to a source. Another issue with modified humans with authentic gills is that they would likely have to lack ears, tonsils, and the thymus, since those are developed from [the same structure that give rise to the branchial skeleton in fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arch#Structure), and it is unclear what impacts this would have on the rest of their physiology.
Some of the arguments presented above are also applicable to the option of having [both gills and lungs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
Gills placed instead on the torso (to allow space for larger gills) is an often seen variation; and structures such as “gillungs”, as proposed in [this answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/44137/how-to-breathe-both-on-land-and-under-the-sea/44145#44145), seem to be regarded as feasible. However, these appear difficult to justify from a developmental point of view (to have lungs connected to openings on the side of the torso involves a change in topology, and there would likely be complications associated with punching through the chest cavity?)
Finally, please note that this problem is not about how [whale-humans are likely to be more practical than merfolk with gills](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/67076/42460): air-breathing aquatic humans exist separately in the same setting. | 2017/10/25 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/96017",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The main problem you'll run into is that the human brain takes a *lot* of oxygen to run, and there isn't nearly as much oxygen in water as there is in air. So if these merfolk are to be able to breathe underwater without surfacing, they'll either need much more surface area on their gills than humans have in their lungs, or they'll need to pump a whole lot of water through their gills.
According to the "gillung" answer you linked, freshwater has about 8 cm3/L of dissolved oxygen, while air has 210 cm3/L. That's a factor of 26.25 difference. So if you want merfolk with internal gills replacing their human lungs, they're going to need to pump over 26 times as much water through their lungs as humans pump air. That's going to be all kinds of impractical, even when they're not exercising. Adding slits between the ribs to expel water to keep it flowing one way through the gills will help, but they're still going to need to pump a huge amount of water in order to stay conscious. And pumping water like that will take a lot of energy, increasing demand for oxygen.
Solution: [External gills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_gills), and lots of them. According to that Wikipedia page, external gills on the creatures that have them (salamander, lungfish, and bichir larvae) typically take the form of 3-4 fernlike branching stalks coming out from either side of the creature's body, behind the head. I'm not exactly certain where that would correspond to on a human- maybe on the neck? You could probably get away with putting them on your merfolks' backs just as easily, which has the advantage of being closer to the pulmonary arteries/veins that they'll need to hook into.
A system of external gills capable of keeping up with a pair of human lungs is going to have to be pretty huge, so these guys aren't going to be hydrodynamic. They'll also need to move around regularly in order to keep from using up all the oxygen in their immediate vicinity, and since they're genetically engineered from humans, may not have the instincts to do that subconsciously. So it might be better to have them live in rivers, so they won't have to worry about it. Alternatively, they could be engineered to be able to smell oxygen with their fluffy tentacle-like gills, which would be pretty cool in its own right. That's up to how far you want to take your genetic handwavery.
Another alternative could be to do away with the forest of external gills and give them either fluid-flexible crablike gillungs or smaller external gills, and make them able to survive on the small amounts of oxygen that their gills would be able to provide. When they're resting or need to dive deep for whatever reason, they could go into a low-power mode, conserving oxygen and relying on their gills; but when they need to hunt, fight, or do math problems, they could surface for a breath of oxygen. | **Gills on the back would be my go to.**
Creating a structure that traverses or even changes the human chest cavity isn't unreasonable. There are currently gaps where muscle and flesh exist between the ribs. To simply say an oxygen exchanging membrane traverses the back ribs isn't to farfetched. Or simply cavities through the back ribs that bring water to the gill/lungs.
The added advantage in simplicity is that because its located closer to the lungs you could reuse a lot of that organs structure. You could even likely keep both breathing methods, there are afterall creatures who can breath both air and water.
As for other traits. just because you add gills does not necessitate the loss of ears and other organelles. Did you know whales still have their hind legs.
As for making this more reasonable. I would increase the space between the ribs on the back (so a larger more pronounced chest) to allow a bigger gill slits. I would grow the lungs to be large and thin lining the back of the internal chest cavity, so you would have more functional respiratory surface area. The shape of the lungs is already conducive having 2 distinct halves with separation in the middle which would be needed to connect the central nervous system to the rest of the organs.
If going with the cavity ribs notion then your only challenge is ensuring water circulation. Fortunately, we already have an organ that solves this called the diaphragm. Just modify the diaphragm to be drainable/floodable so it can operate in chosen environment. |
43,834 | I just bought Volkswagen polo 2002 diesel with 75 hp 1.4 engine.
The problem is that when i accelerate above 2500 rpm till 3000 rpm, the rpm seems to jump slightly down and then up again, it feels like car has lost power for half of second. Slightly jump also feels on the car so its not problem in pointing.
This is more noticable in third, fourth and fifth gear. | 2017/04/20 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/43834",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/28227/"
] | It sounds as though your clutch plate is worn and likely due for replacement. If so, this problem will become progressively worse with use. | You might also have a sticky turbo actuator. There are several things that could cause this.
If the problem was a slipping clutch, you would notice the slippage more in 5th gear when commanding more torque. |
178,940 | There are mathematical proofs that have that "wow" factor in being elegant, simplifying one's view of mathematics, lifting one's perception into the light of knowledge, etc.
So I'd like to know what mathematical proofs you've come across that you think other mathematicians should know, and why. | 2012/08/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/178940",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/10389/"
] | [Proofs from THE BOOK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_from_THE_BOOK) is a brilliant compilation of such beautiful succinct proofs. | I'm particularly fond of [Ramsey's Theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem). |
178,940 | There are mathematical proofs that have that "wow" factor in being elegant, simplifying one's view of mathematics, lifting one's perception into the light of knowledge, etc.
So I'd like to know what mathematical proofs you've come across that you think other mathematicians should know, and why. | 2012/08/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/178940",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/10389/"
] | I would have to include (at least) one of the proofs available for quadratic reciprocity. My personal preference would be for the proof due to Eisenstein presented in Ireland and Rosen, but there are so many others to choose from.
A second one I would include would be Minkowski's lattice point theorem, as proved in Hasse's "Number Theory". | Perhaps geometric and algebraic proofs of the fundamental theorem of calculus. |
178,940 | There are mathematical proofs that have that "wow" factor in being elegant, simplifying one's view of mathematics, lifting one's perception into the light of knowledge, etc.
So I'd like to know what mathematical proofs you've come across that you think other mathematicians should know, and why. | 2012/08/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/178940",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/10389/"
] | [Proofs from THE BOOK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_from_THE_BOOK) is a brilliant compilation of such beautiful succinct proofs. | When I did my first analysis course I found the proof the Lebesgue differentiation theorem using maximal functions and covering lemma arguments to be very beautiful. |
178,940 | There are mathematical proofs that have that "wow" factor in being elegant, simplifying one's view of mathematics, lifting one's perception into the light of knowledge, etc.
So I'd like to know what mathematical proofs you've come across that you think other mathematicians should know, and why. | 2012/08/05 | [
"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/178940",
"https://math.stackexchange.com",
"https://math.stackexchange.com/users/10389/"
] | [Proofs from THE BOOK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_from_THE_BOOK) is a brilliant compilation of such beautiful succinct proofs. | Perhaps geometric and algebraic proofs of the fundamental theorem of calculus. |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | Some hypothesize that the Earth did have a subsurface ocean during the Cryogenian period, which lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago. The Cryogenian saw the two greatest known ice ages in the Earth's history, the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations. There is some evidence that the Earth was completely covered with ice and snow during those glaciations. (There is also some evidence that it was not.)
Whether even older periods in the Earth's history also succumbed to snowball Earth episodes is even more debatable. The evidence has been wiped out by a billion plus years of tectonic activity. That even older periods of the Earth's history than the Cryogenian did suffer snowball Earth episodes does however make sense.
The Sun is considerably more luminous now than it was shortly after the Earth first formed. Once the Earth cooled from its formation (and that appears to have happened fairly quickly, in a geological sense of "quickly"), that faint young Sun should have resulted in a cool Earth. That the young Earth had periods where it obviously wasn't covered with ice and snow from pole to pole is the faint young Sun paradox. The apparent paradox is almost uniformly explained away via greenhouse gases. But which ones?
That said, once plants started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and once the oxygen stopped combining with iron to form most of the world's iron ore deposits, the greenhouse effect that kept the young Earth from freezing over should have dropped significantly. There are some signs that this happened, some that it didn't. Puzzling out what happened well before the Cambrian has always been problematic because rocks that old are hard to find. | The terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Mercury and Venus are too hot for liquid water to exist at any level, Mars has lost nearly all its water and Earth has a surface ocean, not a subsurface one. The inner planets lost most of their volatiles (including water) as they formed, the water on Earth was provided by later icy asteroid impacts.
So none of the terrestrial planets have a sub-surface ocean. The other planets are gas and ice giants. Uranus and Neptune likely have liquid layers surrounding their cores, composed of water, ammonia and other "ices"
To get a subsurface ocean you need a planet that is beyond the frost line (the distance from the sun at which ice is stable in space) and in our solar system the planets beyond the frost line are either dwarfs or giants.
In a sense, the Earth does have a subsurface ocean, only it isn't a water ocean, it is an ocean of molten iron. The outer core of the Earth is highly fluid; it's no more viscous than water.
Among exoplanets, there are several candidate ice planets. Wikipedia lists OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, OGLE-2013-BLG-0341L b and MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. (The principle way of discovering small planets that orbit far from their host star is by microlensing events, hence many of the candidate planets were found by the Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment, or OGLE) |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | The terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Mercury and Venus are too hot for liquid water to exist at any level, Mars has lost nearly all its water and Earth has a surface ocean, not a subsurface one. The inner planets lost most of their volatiles (including water) as they formed, the water on Earth was provided by later icy asteroid impacts.
So none of the terrestrial planets have a sub-surface ocean. The other planets are gas and ice giants. Uranus and Neptune likely have liquid layers surrounding their cores, composed of water, ammonia and other "ices"
To get a subsurface ocean you need a planet that is beyond the frost line (the distance from the sun at which ice is stable in space) and in our solar system the planets beyond the frost line are either dwarfs or giants.
In a sense, the Earth does have a subsurface ocean, only it isn't a water ocean, it is an ocean of molten iron. The outer core of the Earth is highly fluid; it's no more viscous than water.
Among exoplanets, there are several candidate ice planets. Wikipedia lists OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, OGLE-2013-BLG-0341L b and MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. (The principle way of discovering small planets that orbit far from their host star is by microlensing events, hence many of the candidate planets were found by the Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment, or OGLE) | As far as I know satellite data from Mars observers show significant amounts of ice blow the south pole and pointers to a similar though smaller amount at the northern pole of Mars.
This is not surprising - Mars' plate tectonics stopped approx 1.2 to 1.5 billion years ago after the planets core cooled down enough. Mars' smaller mass and volume didn't provide enough "insulation" to keep the core hot. Thus the magnetic field of Mars pretty much vanished - and was the only protection for the atmosphere against the solar wind.
So Mars' atmosphere is now only as thin as earths atmosphere in 48 km height - and easily allows evaporation of surface water, so the only remaining water is sub surface OR in some shadowed craters |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | The terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Mercury and Venus are too hot for liquid water to exist at any level, Mars has lost nearly all its water and Earth has a surface ocean, not a subsurface one. The inner planets lost most of their volatiles (including water) as they formed, the water on Earth was provided by later icy asteroid impacts.
So none of the terrestrial planets have a sub-surface ocean. The other planets are gas and ice giants. Uranus and Neptune likely have liquid layers surrounding their cores, composed of water, ammonia and other "ices"
To get a subsurface ocean you need a planet that is beyond the frost line (the distance from the sun at which ice is stable in space) and in our solar system the planets beyond the frost line are either dwarfs or giants.
In a sense, the Earth does have a subsurface ocean, only it isn't a water ocean, it is an ocean of molten iron. The outer core of the Earth is highly fluid; it's no more viscous than water.
Among exoplanets, there are several candidate ice planets. Wikipedia lists OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, OGLE-2013-BLG-0341L b and MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. (The principle way of discovering small planets that orbit far from their host star is by microlensing events, hence many of the candidate planets were found by the Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment, or OGLE) | There are no terrestrial planets with subsurface oceans because of differentiation. Denser materials move toward the center of the body. Iron is denser than rock which is denser than water which is denser than ice. The icy surface of these moons and dwarf planets is essentially floating on water which is floating on rock. You can actually see this on Earth. We have a partial subsurface ocean at the poles where water ice floats on top of the ocean. |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | The terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Mercury and Venus are too hot for liquid water to exist at any level, Mars has lost nearly all its water and Earth has a surface ocean, not a subsurface one. The inner planets lost most of their volatiles (including water) as they formed, the water on Earth was provided by later icy asteroid impacts.
So none of the terrestrial planets have a sub-surface ocean. The other planets are gas and ice giants. Uranus and Neptune likely have liquid layers surrounding their cores, composed of water, ammonia and other "ices"
To get a subsurface ocean you need a planet that is beyond the frost line (the distance from the sun at which ice is stable in space) and in our solar system the planets beyond the frost line are either dwarfs or giants.
In a sense, the Earth does have a subsurface ocean, only it isn't a water ocean, it is an ocean of molten iron. The outer core of the Earth is highly fluid; it's no more viscous than water.
Among exoplanets, there are several candidate ice planets. Wikipedia lists OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, OGLE-2013-BLG-0341L b and MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. (The principle way of discovering small planets that orbit far from their host star is by microlensing events, hence many of the candidate planets were found by the Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment, or OGLE) | It depends what you mean by ocean. Earth arguably has a subsurface ocean of liquid iron, usually called the "outer core". |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | Some hypothesize that the Earth did have a subsurface ocean during the Cryogenian period, which lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago. The Cryogenian saw the two greatest known ice ages in the Earth's history, the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations. There is some evidence that the Earth was completely covered with ice and snow during those glaciations. (There is also some evidence that it was not.)
Whether even older periods in the Earth's history also succumbed to snowball Earth episodes is even more debatable. The evidence has been wiped out by a billion plus years of tectonic activity. That even older periods of the Earth's history than the Cryogenian did suffer snowball Earth episodes does however make sense.
The Sun is considerably more luminous now than it was shortly after the Earth first formed. Once the Earth cooled from its formation (and that appears to have happened fairly quickly, in a geological sense of "quickly"), that faint young Sun should have resulted in a cool Earth. That the young Earth had periods where it obviously wasn't covered with ice and snow from pole to pole is the faint young Sun paradox. The apparent paradox is almost uniformly explained away via greenhouse gases. But which ones?
That said, once plants started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and once the oxygen stopped combining with iron to form most of the world's iron ore deposits, the greenhouse effect that kept the young Earth from freezing over should have dropped significantly. There are some signs that this happened, some that it didn't. Puzzling out what happened well before the Cambrian has always been problematic because rocks that old are hard to find. | As far as I know satellite data from Mars observers show significant amounts of ice blow the south pole and pointers to a similar though smaller amount at the northern pole of Mars.
This is not surprising - Mars' plate tectonics stopped approx 1.2 to 1.5 billion years ago after the planets core cooled down enough. Mars' smaller mass and volume didn't provide enough "insulation" to keep the core hot. Thus the magnetic field of Mars pretty much vanished - and was the only protection for the atmosphere against the solar wind.
So Mars' atmosphere is now only as thin as earths atmosphere in 48 km height - and easily allows evaporation of surface water, so the only remaining water is sub surface OR in some shadowed craters |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | Some hypothesize that the Earth did have a subsurface ocean during the Cryogenian period, which lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago. The Cryogenian saw the two greatest known ice ages in the Earth's history, the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations. There is some evidence that the Earth was completely covered with ice and snow during those glaciations. (There is also some evidence that it was not.)
Whether even older periods in the Earth's history also succumbed to snowball Earth episodes is even more debatable. The evidence has been wiped out by a billion plus years of tectonic activity. That even older periods of the Earth's history than the Cryogenian did suffer snowball Earth episodes does however make sense.
The Sun is considerably more luminous now than it was shortly after the Earth first formed. Once the Earth cooled from its formation (and that appears to have happened fairly quickly, in a geological sense of "quickly"), that faint young Sun should have resulted in a cool Earth. That the young Earth had periods where it obviously wasn't covered with ice and snow from pole to pole is the faint young Sun paradox. The apparent paradox is almost uniformly explained away via greenhouse gases. But which ones?
That said, once plants started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and once the oxygen stopped combining with iron to form most of the world's iron ore deposits, the greenhouse effect that kept the young Earth from freezing over should have dropped significantly. There are some signs that this happened, some that it didn't. Puzzling out what happened well before the Cambrian has always been problematic because rocks that old are hard to find. | There are no terrestrial planets with subsurface oceans because of differentiation. Denser materials move toward the center of the body. Iron is denser than rock which is denser than water which is denser than ice. The icy surface of these moons and dwarf planets is essentially floating on water which is floating on rock. You can actually see this on Earth. We have a partial subsurface ocean at the poles where water ice floats on top of the ocean. |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | Some hypothesize that the Earth did have a subsurface ocean during the Cryogenian period, which lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago. The Cryogenian saw the two greatest known ice ages in the Earth's history, the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations. There is some evidence that the Earth was completely covered with ice and snow during those glaciations. (There is also some evidence that it was not.)
Whether even older periods in the Earth's history also succumbed to snowball Earth episodes is even more debatable. The evidence has been wiped out by a billion plus years of tectonic activity. That even older periods of the Earth's history than the Cryogenian did suffer snowball Earth episodes does however make sense.
The Sun is considerably more luminous now than it was shortly after the Earth first formed. Once the Earth cooled from its formation (and that appears to have happened fairly quickly, in a geological sense of "quickly"), that faint young Sun should have resulted in a cool Earth. That the young Earth had periods where it obviously wasn't covered with ice and snow from pole to pole is the faint young Sun paradox. The apparent paradox is almost uniformly explained away via greenhouse gases. But which ones?
That said, once plants started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and once the oxygen stopped combining with iron to form most of the world's iron ore deposits, the greenhouse effect that kept the young Earth from freezing over should have dropped significantly. There are some signs that this happened, some that it didn't. Puzzling out what happened well before the Cambrian has always been problematic because rocks that old are hard to find. | It depends what you mean by ocean. Earth arguably has a subsurface ocean of liquid iron, usually called the "outer core". |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | There are no terrestrial planets with subsurface oceans because of differentiation. Denser materials move toward the center of the body. Iron is denser than rock which is denser than water which is denser than ice. The icy surface of these moons and dwarf planets is essentially floating on water which is floating on rock. You can actually see this on Earth. We have a partial subsurface ocean at the poles where water ice floats on top of the ocean. | As far as I know satellite data from Mars observers show significant amounts of ice blow the south pole and pointers to a similar though smaller amount at the northern pole of Mars.
This is not surprising - Mars' plate tectonics stopped approx 1.2 to 1.5 billion years ago after the planets core cooled down enough. Mars' smaller mass and volume didn't provide enough "insulation" to keep the core hot. Thus the magnetic field of Mars pretty much vanished - and was the only protection for the atmosphere against the solar wind.
So Mars' atmosphere is now only as thin as earths atmosphere in 48 km height - and easily allows evaporation of surface water, so the only remaining water is sub surface OR in some shadowed craters |
36,660 | Subsurface oceans in satellites are pretty common: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, maybe Pluto... This is due to tidal heating of their host planet, Jupiter and Saturn, which heats up the inner ice of those satellites. However, planets don't exhibit this inner ice layer, so they don't usually have subsurface oceans (except Pluto or Ceres, if you can call them "planets"). Why is that? Only small bodies like satellites present this inner layer of ice? Is there any Earth-type exoplanets that exhibit this inner layer of ice that could potentially melt down to liquid water? And if there is, why some cold planets have inner ice layers and others don't? | 2020/06/23 | [
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36660",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com",
"https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/9949/"
] | There are no terrestrial planets with subsurface oceans because of differentiation. Denser materials move toward the center of the body. Iron is denser than rock which is denser than water which is denser than ice. The icy surface of these moons and dwarf planets is essentially floating on water which is floating on rock. You can actually see this on Earth. We have a partial subsurface ocean at the poles where water ice floats on top of the ocean. | It depends what you mean by ocean. Earth arguably has a subsurface ocean of liquid iron, usually called the "outer core". |
1,813,420 | I'm using Doctrine 1.1.5 and I'd like to know if there is some option for remove table prefix from files and class names when calling *Doctrine::generateModelsFromDb* or *Doctrine::generateModelsFromYaml*.
Edit:
For example I have tables like mo\_article, mo\_language, mo\_article\_text, etc. When Doctrine generates the models (using the functions from above), the class names will be MoArticle, MoLanguage, MoArticleText, ... but I want them to be Article, Language, ArticleText... Is there some option in those functions to avoid adding table prefixes in model class names?
Thank you | 2009/11/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1813420",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The nice thing about REST is that the interfaces are pretty much always the same. You could probably define a SOAP interface that generalizes the CRUD operations of the REST service in a reusable way.
However, I'm not sure why you'd want to encapsulate a REST service in a SOAP layer. The clients of the service would probably find the original REST service just as easy to use as the automatically generated SOAP interface, if not more so. | Check out [Mule](http://www.mulesoft.org) as a way to do this. Mule can act as a proxy and map front-end SOAP requests to any other service request, including REST. |
1,813,420 | I'm using Doctrine 1.1.5 and I'd like to know if there is some option for remove table prefix from files and class names when calling *Doctrine::generateModelsFromDb* or *Doctrine::generateModelsFromYaml*.
Edit:
For example I have tables like mo\_article, mo\_language, mo\_article\_text, etc. When Doctrine generates the models (using the functions from above), the class names will be MoArticle, MoLanguage, MoArticleText, ... but I want them to be Article, Language, ArticleText... Is there some option in those functions to avoid adding table prefixes in model class names?
Thank you | 2009/11/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1813420",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | There's a REST equivalent to WSDL called [WADL](https://wadl.dev.java.net/). You could explore an approach where a REST service provider sends you a description of their API in WADL, you translate the WADL to WSDL, and from the WSDL generate the SOAP APIs your broker offers. Your WADL to WSDL translation simulataneously generates the mapping logic used by your broker to translate each SOAP request to an underlying REST request on the service provider. Offhand I don't know how easy this mapping would be.
However, David Chappell [points out](http://www.davidchappell.com/blog/2009/04/soap-vs-rest-complements-or-competitors.html) that:
>
> Exposing services RESTfully is a better choice in a majority of
> situations, especially over the Internet. SOAP and the WS-\*
> technologies still have some role, however, particularly inside enterprises.
>
>
>
Each service provider makes the engineering decision to support REST, or SOAP, or both. If a service provider determined that REST-only was the appropriate choice for their web service, then why would adding an intermediary that maps it into the less appropriate choice offer any value? Aren't you just adding a layer of complexity and inefficiency? | Check out [Mule](http://www.mulesoft.org) as a way to do this. Mule can act as a proxy and map front-end SOAP requests to any other service request, including REST. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | You might want to take a look at [Apache Hadoop](http://hadoop.apache.org/). Enormous sites like Yahoo and Facebook use Hadoop for a variety of things, one of them being processing multi-TB of text logs.
In the Hadoop documentation there is an example of a distributed Grep that could be scaled to handle any concievable data set size.
There is also a SequenceFileInputFilter.RegexFilter in the Hadoop API if you wanted to roll your own solution. | The `grep` program is highly optimized for regex searching in files, to the point where I would say you could not beat it with any general-purpose regex library. Even that would be impractically slow for searching terabytes, so I think you're out of luck on doing full regex searches.
One option might be to use an indexer as a first-pass to find likely matches, then extract some bytes on either side of each match and run a full regex match on it. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | [PowerGREP](http://www.powergrep.com) can handle any regular expression and has been designed for exactly this purpose. I've found it to be extremely fast searching through large amounts of data, but I haven't tried it on the order of terabytes yet. But since there's a 30 day trial, it's worth a shot, I'd say.
It's especially powerful when it comes to searching specific parts of files. You can section the file according your own criteria, and then apply another search only on those sections. Plus, it has got very good reporting capabilities. | The `grep` program is highly optimized for regex searching in files, to the point where I would say you could not beat it with any general-purpose regex library. Even that would be impractically slow for searching terabytes, so I think you're out of luck on doing full regex searches.
One option might be to use an indexer as a first-pass to find likely matches, then extract some bytes on either side of each match and run a full regex match on it. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | I can only offer a high-level answer. Building on Tim's and shadit's answers, use a two-pass approach implemented as a MapReduce algorithm on EC2 or Azure Compute. In each pass the **Map** could take a chunk of data with an identifier and return to **Reduce** the identifier if a match is found, else a null value. Scale it as wide as you need to shrink the processing time. | The `grep` program is highly optimized for regex searching in files, to the point where I would say you could not beat it with any general-purpose regex library. Even that would be impractically slow for searching terabytes, so I think you're out of luck on doing full regex searches.
One option might be to use an indexer as a first-pass to find likely matches, then extract some bytes on either side of each match and run a full regex match on it. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | [PowerGREP](http://www.powergrep.com) can handle any regular expression and has been designed for exactly this purpose. I've found it to be extremely fast searching through large amounts of data, but I haven't tried it on the order of terabytes yet. But since there's a 30 day trial, it's worth a shot, I'd say.
It's especially powerful when it comes to searching specific parts of files. You can section the file according your own criteria, and then apply another search only on those sections. Plus, it has got very good reporting capabilities. | You might want to take a look at [Apache Hadoop](http://hadoop.apache.org/). Enormous sites like Yahoo and Facebook use Hadoop for a variety of things, one of them being processing multi-TB of text logs.
In the Hadoop documentation there is an example of a distributed Grep that could be scaled to handle any concievable data set size.
There is also a SequenceFileInputFilter.RegexFilter in the Hadoop API if you wanted to roll your own solution. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | You might want to take a look at [Apache Hadoop](http://hadoop.apache.org/). Enormous sites like Yahoo and Facebook use Hadoop for a variety of things, one of them being processing multi-TB of text logs.
In the Hadoop documentation there is an example of a distributed Grep that could be scaled to handle any concievable data set size.
There is also a SequenceFileInputFilter.RegexFilter in the Hadoop API if you wanted to roll your own solution. | disclaimer: i am not a search expert.
if you really need all the generality of regexps then there's going to be nothing better than trawling through all the data (but see comments below on speeding that up).
however, i would guess that is not really the case. so the first thing to do is see if you can use an index to identify possible documents. if, for example, you know that you all your matches will include a word (any word) then you can index the words, use that to find the (hopefully small) set of documents that include that word, and then use grep or equivalent only on those files.
so, for example, maybe you need to find documents that have "FoObAr" at the start of the line. you would start with a caseless index to identify files that have "foobar" anywhere, and then grep (only) those for "^FoObAr".
next, how to grep as quickly as possible. you're likely going to be limited by io speed. so look at using several disks (there may be no need to use raid - you could just have one thread per disk). also, consider compression. you don't need random access to these files, and if they are text (i assume they are if you are grepping them) then they will compress nicely. that will reduce the amount of data you need to read (and store).
finally, note that if your index doesn't work for ALL queries, then it's probably not worth using. you can "grep" for all expressions in a single pass, and the expensive process is reading the data, not the details of the grep, so even if there is "just one" query that cannot be indexed, and you therefore need to scan everything, then building and using an index is probably not a good use of your time. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | [PowerGREP](http://www.powergrep.com) can handle any regular expression and has been designed for exactly this purpose. I've found it to be extremely fast searching through large amounts of data, but I haven't tried it on the order of terabytes yet. But since there's a 30 day trial, it's worth a shot, I'd say.
It's especially powerful when it comes to searching specific parts of files. You can section the file according your own criteria, and then apply another search only on those sections. Plus, it has got very good reporting capabilities. | I can only offer a high-level answer. Building on Tim's and shadit's answers, use a two-pass approach implemented as a MapReduce algorithm on EC2 or Azure Compute. In each pass the **Map** could take a chunk of data with an identifier and return to **Reduce** the identifier if a match is found, else a null value. Scale it as wide as you need to shrink the processing time. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | [PowerGREP](http://www.powergrep.com) can handle any regular expression and has been designed for exactly this purpose. I've found it to be extremely fast searching through large amounts of data, but I haven't tried it on the order of terabytes yet. But since there's a 30 day trial, it's worth a shot, I'd say.
It's especially powerful when it comes to searching specific parts of files. You can section the file according your own criteria, and then apply another search only on those sections. Plus, it has got very good reporting capabilities. | disclaimer: i am not a search expert.
if you really need all the generality of regexps then there's going to be nothing better than trawling through all the data (but see comments below on speeding that up).
however, i would guess that is not really the case. so the first thing to do is see if you can use an index to identify possible documents. if, for example, you know that you all your matches will include a word (any word) then you can index the words, use that to find the (hopefully small) set of documents that include that word, and then use grep or equivalent only on those files.
so, for example, maybe you need to find documents that have "FoObAr" at the start of the line. you would start with a caseless index to identify files that have "foobar" anywhere, and then grep (only) those for "^FoObAr".
next, how to grep as quickly as possible. you're likely going to be limited by io speed. so look at using several disks (there may be no need to use raid - you could just have one thread per disk). also, consider compression. you don't need random access to these files, and if they are text (i assume they are if you are grepping them) then they will compress nicely. that will reduce the amount of data you need to read (and store).
finally, note that if your index doesn't work for ALL queries, then it's probably not worth using. you can "grep" for all expressions in a single pass, and the expensive process is reading the data, not the details of the grep, so even if there is "just one" query that cannot be indexed, and you therefore need to scan everything, then building and using an index is probably not a good use of your time. |
1,798,913 | I'm looking for a way to search through terabytes of data for patterns matching regexes. The implementation does need to support a lot of the finer capabilities of regexes, such as beginning and end of line data, full TR1 support (preferably with POSIX and/or PCRE support), and the like. We're effectively using this application to test policy regarding storage of potentially sensitive information.
I've looked into indexing solutions, but the majority of the commercial suites don't seem to have the finer regex capabilites we'd like (to date, they've all utterly failed at parsing the complex regexes we're using).
This is a complicated problem because of the sheer mass of the amount of data we have, and the amount of system resources we have to dedicate to the task of scanning (not much, its just checks on policy compliance, so there isn't much of a budget there for hardware).
I looked into Lucene but I'm a little hesitant about using index systems that aren't fully capable of dealing with our regex battery, and while searching through the entire dataset would remedy this problem, we'd have to let the servers chug along at performing these actions for a couple weeks at least.
Any suggestions? | 2009/11/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1798913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/196781/"
] | I can only offer a high-level answer. Building on Tim's and shadit's answers, use a two-pass approach implemented as a MapReduce algorithm on EC2 or Azure Compute. In each pass the **Map** could take a chunk of data with an identifier and return to **Reduce** the identifier if a match is found, else a null value. Scale it as wide as you need to shrink the processing time. | disclaimer: i am not a search expert.
if you really need all the generality of regexps then there's going to be nothing better than trawling through all the data (but see comments below on speeding that up).
however, i would guess that is not really the case. so the first thing to do is see if you can use an index to identify possible documents. if, for example, you know that you all your matches will include a word (any word) then you can index the words, use that to find the (hopefully small) set of documents that include that word, and then use grep or equivalent only on those files.
so, for example, maybe you need to find documents that have "FoObAr" at the start of the line. you would start with a caseless index to identify files that have "foobar" anywhere, and then grep (only) those for "^FoObAr".
next, how to grep as quickly as possible. you're likely going to be limited by io speed. so look at using several disks (there may be no need to use raid - you could just have one thread per disk). also, consider compression. you don't need random access to these files, and if they are text (i assume they are if you are grepping them) then they will compress nicely. that will reduce the amount of data you need to read (and store).
finally, note that if your index doesn't work for ALL queries, then it's probably not worth using. you can "grep" for all expressions in a single pass, and the expensive process is reading the data, not the details of the grep, so even if there is "just one" query that cannot be indexed, and you therefore need to scan everything, then building and using an index is probably not a good use of your time. |
20,653,944 | I have an asp.net app which during development was tested through chrome, IE, firefox and safari and looked consistent across all of them.
When I published the project and ran it from IIS all of them looked fine apart from internet explorer. In fact IE looks so far off what it should do that it is completely non functional. The page is all over the place, things are missing and CSS isn't working properly.
I don't know what is causing this and frankly it's a bit disturbing that after testing it could perform so badly when published and it is scaring me a little. | 2013/12/18 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/20653944",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1131985/"
] | Delay: Is the amount of time data(signal) takes to reach the destination. Now a higher delay generally means congestion of some sort of breaking of the communication link.
Jitter: Is the variation of delay time. This happens when a system is not in deterministic state eg. Video Streaming suffers from jitter a lot because the size of data transferred is quite large and hence no way of saying how long it might take to transfer.
If your application is sensitive to jitter it is definitely sensitive to delay. | In Real-time Protocol (RTP, RFC3550), a header contains a timestamp field. The value of it usually comes from a monotonically incremented counter and the frequency of the increment is the clock-rate. This clock-rate must be the same all over the participant wants something with the timestamp field. The counters have different base offsets, because the start time may different or they contains it because of security reason, etc... All in all we say the clocks are not syncronized.
To show it in an example consider if we refer to snd\_timestamp and rcv\_timestamp the most recent packet sender timestamp from the RTP header field and receiver timestamp generated by the receiver using the same clock-rate.
The wrong conclusion is that
delay\_in\_timestamp\_unit = rcv\_timestamp - snd\_timestamp
If the receiver and sender clock-rate has different base offset (and they have), this not gives you the delay, also it doesn't consider the wrap around the 32bit unsigned integer.
But monitoring the time for delivering packets is somehow necessary if we want a proper playout adaption algorithm or if we want to detect and avoid congestions.
Also note that if we have syncronized clocks delay\_in\_timestamp\_unit might be not punctually represent the pure network delay, because of components at the sender or at the receiver side retaining these packets after and/or before the timestamp added and/or exemined. So if you calculate a 2seconds delay between the participant, but you know your network delay is around 100ms, then your packets suffer additional delays at the sender or/and at the receiver side. But that additional delay is somehow (or at least you hope that it is) constant, so the only delay changes in time is - hopefully - the network delay. So you should not say that if packet delay > 500ms then we have a congestion, because you have no idea what is the actual network delay if you use only one packet sender and receiver timestamp information.
But the difference between the delays of two consecutive packets might gives you some information about weather something wrong in the network or not.
diff\_delay = delay\_t0 - delay\_t1
if diff\_delay equals to 0 the delay is the same, if it greater than 0 the newly arrived packets needed more time then the previous one, and if it smaller than 0 it needed less time.
And from that relative information based on two consecutive delays you could say something.
How you determine the difference between two delay if the clocks are not syncronized?
Consider you stored the last timestamps in rcv\_timestamp\_t1 and snd\_timestamp\_t1
diff\_delay = (rcv\_timestamp\_t0 - snd\_timestamp\_t0) - (rcv\_timestamp\_t1 - snd\_timestamp\_t1)
but that would be problem without maintaining the base offsets of the sender and the receiver, so reordering it:
diff\_delay = (rcv\_timestamp\_t0 - rcv\_timestamp\_t1) - (snd\_timestamp\_t0 - snd\_timestamp\_t1)
and here you can subtract rcv timestamps from each other and it eliminates the offset rcv and snd contain, and then you can extract the rcv\_diff from snd\_diff and it gives you the information about the difference of the delays of two consecutive packets in the unit of the clock-rate.
Now, according to RFC3550 jitter is "An estimate of the statistical variance of the RTP data packet interarrival time".
In order to finally get to the point your question is
"What is the difference between the delay and the jitter in the context of real time applications?"
Tiny note, but real-time applications usually refer to systems processing data in a range of nanoseconds, so I think you refer to end-to-end systems.
Also despite of several altered definition of jitter, it all uses the difference of the delays of arrived packets and thus provide you information about the relative changes of the network delay, meanwhile delay itself is an absolute value of the time of delivery. |
177,192 | I am a 5th year Ph.D. student in Computer Science. My advisor thinks that I have made a good progress during my Ph.D. and I should give my Ph.D. synopsis presentation. In the Ph.D. synopsis presentation, the student briefly presents the work to the research committee so that they give approval of writing the doctoral thesis or any final feedback. If done, it means the Ph.D. is almost completed.
However, I think that I have made good progress but not to a level that I expected. I do not have quality publications yet. I have 2 tier B papers, 1 tier A paper, and 2 papers (average ones) currently under submission. How should I communicate to my supervisor that my Ph.D. might not be a good Ph.D.? Also, should I even communicate this issue to him or not? | 2021/10/27 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177192",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/124760/"
] | Yes, have a conversation about it with your advisor and take their advice.
There are a number of good reasons to finish and move on to your next steps. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It is a great thing to finish your doctorate with a bundle of things "yet to be done", "future directions", "work in progress". It gives you things to do as you start those next steps. You also have a lot to talk about in any employment interview.
You may have a mild case of "imposter syndrome", actually - "my work isn't good enough". Well, your advisor, who should know these things and has some experience thinks otherwise.
Once you begin your next steps, nobody (nearly) will judge you on the quality you perceive in your thesis. It is your first major work, but it shouldn't be your best work. Look forward. | I am apparently a somewhat rare breed - I have a habit of skimming through theses of potential collaborators. It is about as much of an impact as you might see on your future evaluation: to most, you would just become a PhD and that is it. Do I even bother looking up publications? No. I look for ambition, certain *poise* with the flow of ideas, the way this person has structured their work.
The work itself will very likely become irrelevant in just a few years. Unless you are a total genius who is incredibly productive their entire lifetime or get lucky to achieve something groundbreaking during PhD\*, it is not *that* special, and people will largely look at *how* you did it, not *what* you did. This applies first and foremost to the thesis committee.
Now, I also can completely relate to being unhappy with the work while pretty much everyone around says I could just defend whatever I did these few years. It is not an insignificant milestone, but pushing back on the notion that it will be something perpetual for generations to come is much needed. Now is a good time to adjust your goalposts. I have struggled for quite a while with publishing "not top-notch" results as well, and the thesis itself is similar. What helped was Hamming's "You and your research" [talk](http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html): spend your energy on something important. When the time comes to showcase some big work you have done, write a book or two! Until then, publish and move on to the next problem.
\*If this was the expected outcome, all we'd be doing was PhDs! |
14,615 | I just modeled a High-rise building of 43 stories with an area of 700 square meter, Using ETABS as a software to model the building I got the Static and Dynamic Base Shear as the image below, my Question is the following:
Is it Reasonable that the dynamic base shear (Specx and Specy) is bigger than the static base shear (Ex and Ey) ? How can i know if this result is logical or not ?
If the result is Correct i don't need to scale the dynamic base shear ?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kw63A.png) | 2017/04/04 | [
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/14615",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://engineering.stackexchange.com/users/10554/"
] | It is desirable but as far as Software concern, It is not possible. Something went to wrong with "Response Spectrum Function Defination" I.e. Define period 0 - 0.036, 0.1 - 0.09, and so on.
Also, check Load type is acceleration type or not.
 | yes it can be greater than the static base shear, and in this case dont scale |
116,909 | The in-universe solution to the [Infinite Sea](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/115565/the-infinite-sea-how-narrow-can-that-be) problem, crossing millions of kilometers of landless ocean, is actually "create a flying island of X acres and take the trip in style" because there is simply that much magic in the setting and it's that easy to do the "flying island" shtick. Also because wizards are the only people in that world with a real curiosity about what is over the horizon, and why would they risk sea sickness.
Given that it's easy to get such a flying island state into the air but impossible to provision it with food and craftsmen etc. using magic I wonder how big X needs to be to create a self-sustaining high medieval city-state that can supply all its own food and fuel, in the form of wood and its products. A limited supply of things like potters clay, building stone for repairs, and metals and/or their ores, can be brought in but for the rest the state is effectively cut off.
Assuming a late medieval agricultural environment, including arable crops, livestock, woodlots and hedgerows, and complete with occasional total crop failures, etc., in a mild, well-watered climate, on fertile soil how much land would an island state need to sustain the full social spectrum of a feudal hierarchy (so a near absolute ruler, a landed gentry, and the merchant/artisan and peasant majority).
Given [this excellent answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/61974/40408) I don't in fact need a land area so much as a population. My understanding is that single [fiefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief) were never self-sufficient for much more than the bare necessities. Although they often supplied the raw materials for some luxuries to their feudal overlords which were processed in specialist workshops like wineries located close to the seat of the local Baron. Even single baronies seem to have needed to trade for many luxuries, some produced good wines, others fine cheeses etc., and they traded for the goods they did not themselves produce. So the question becomes one of how many people it takes to make a self-sufficient kingdom, albeit a small one?
The state will be effectively coastal for the purposes of a fishing fleet but the numbers given in Mołot's answer don't change much if at all because of this so it's still a matter of the population to sustain the crafts and land use diversity to supply the kingdom (wizarddom?) with everything it needs in the form of both the essentials and the luxuries of life.
**Please note specifically that while the island itself is a magical construct the means of supporting the population on it cannot be.**
In case it makes a difference the state will not need a standing army for the trip although the equipment for a militia levying all able-bodied adults will be maintained.
Special thanks to the people who helped me sandbox this, the original didn't really ask the right question. | 2018/07/01 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/116909",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/40408/"
] | The major advantage your "flying island" has it that it can be essentially custom built from the ground up for one purpose - to sustain the population/crew and wizarding rulers/captains on their long journey. It's a command economy, where everything is dictated by the leaders - what and where to farm, how much to produce etc. I think 80-90% percent is a safe percentage for mundane/wizard population ratio. So you'll need 8-10 people for each wizard in order to support them.
Going off some of the threads you provided, I'd suggest somewhere between 100-150 for your flying island. This will be pretty bare bones - most will be occupied with farming, fishing and maintenance. People will do double-duty to fulfil whatever trades as required. As you increase the population, people can start to specialise, with distinct trades and actual merchants, rather than just selling excess produce.
As an example of tiny self-sustaining colony, I'd like to point out [Pitcairn Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands). Founded by the mutineers from the *Bounty*, they've been a tiny colony in the middle of the pacific, ranging in population from ~30 to a peak of 250. | **It is not an island. It is a tree.**
The great tree floats onwards over the sea, its roots skimming the surface. Sometimes it floats high into the sky, much to the chagrin of the fishermen who make their homes among its roots. Sometimes it descends so deep that the trunk leaves a wake behind it. The tree alone knows its reasons.
Among and within the branches live the people. The tree provides wood, fruit and shelter. Chickens and iguanas live among its branches. Other rarely seen creatures forage in the unpopulated expanses of the distant leaves. Expeditions to the crown can retrieve the strange leavings of lightning and fallen stars.
With the flying tree as your basis, your community can be as large or as small as you like. Your story can determine your needs. There can be a man and a woman, living on opposite sides of the tree. There can be a village of hundreds. |
721,078 | If I send an artificial light source’s light through a linear polarizer, and that light reflects off a dielectric surface at a narrow angle, is the polarization angle maintained (in this case its linearity) or is the angle of all the light randomized?
I ask because I am working with cross polarization photography and I am wanting to understand conceptually what I am seeing happen before me.
Under cross polarization lighting emitting from a ring flash mounted around the camera, the object being photographed has *mostly* diffuse reflections which tells me that the linearly polarized light I am shining on it had to have had its polarization angle randomized or changed in *some way* otherwise all light would be filtered out prior to hitting my camera sensor.
Since there are no specular highlights visible, but plenty of diffuse reflections, I am left wondering the relationship of specular reflections and polarization.
Via Wikipedia I understand specular reflections as light reflecting along the same angle to the viewer, giving the appearance of increased intensity, as opposed to scattering randomly. However I also read about brewster’s angle which causes reflected light to be horizontally polarized, which we see as glare. Is the glare *just* a specular reflection and it’s polarization state is irrelevant to our viewing of it sans sunglasses, or is there some inherent relationship between specular reflections and linear polarization?
It’s hard to separate the two concepts while reading existing articles as they’re talking about it from the perspective of filtering linear light, so I appreciate your reading, and my apologies in advance for asking two questions in one.
P.S I read all the similar posts prior to submitting | 2022/08/01 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/721078",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/342212/"
] | You can also think of yield strength as the end of the elastic region. For ceramics this is convenient because they do indeed have an elastic region. Alternatively, instead of saying they have "no" plastic region, say that ceramics have zero plastic region, which fits with the fact that the breaking point is at the point where yield strength is measured.
And remember that, in practice, all materials are... well... real. No real material follows the simple 2-part stress-strain curve. Most follow it pretty darn well, but there's always complications due to the real life nonhomogenaity of materials. So when there's funny corner cases, that's probably okay. The reality of physics will round them out! | In General
==========
There is a big ol' IN GENERAL appended to everything we say about material classes. There will be overlap, exceptions, and special cases. The stuff here is simply in general: you would not be crazy for expecting this kind of performance.
Why Are Ceramics so ... Not Plastic?
====================================
Ceramics generally do not have the ability to transfer dislocations/defects nicely. (Dislocations, for the purposes of this discussion, is an error in the structure, like a missing atom.) Many ceramics are a random jumble of atoms, so moving some atoms here doesn't guarantee they will rebond with atoms over there. There are no hinges or chains to orient, as you would see with polymers. Atoms are simply so well bound and in a non-repeating structure, that moving one bit nessisarily means breaking the bonds. Broken bonds usually means material failure!
On the other hand, metals can happily move any dislocations from one part of the crystal to another. This allows them to be ductile and stretch. The missing atom, or the plane of atoms, can rebond with atoms their new positions. Since you are breaking the bonds of only a few atoms at a time and they can reform in their new position, you get a low energy requirement and thus a lower yield strength.
Polymers, on the anomalous third hand, can be imagined as a net or tangled up headphones. You can stretch these a bit, as the random bits of the polymer chain line up with the force applied. This is relatively easy to do, as no bonds need breaking, so polymers generally have low strengths. (Also, less dense connections between chains makes for a lower ultimate and breaking strength: you have less bonds per volume to break!) |
6,348,772 | folks
I have heard from a coworker that I - as a designer using Microsoft Expression Blend - should avoid using excessive nesting of panel elements, because they are computationally expensive.
For example, I tend to create the mainwindow with header and custom statusbar with grid, and then take the top panel and put a grid inside it, and if I have a message inside a rectangle on the already gridded top panel I create yet another grid, etc.
As a very layout-oriented disigner (who wants to use every screen most efficiently whatever the screen dimensions are) I know this is the best way to do it considering absolute control and flexibility, which prevent the window to resize in "unpredictable" ways ;oP
BUT...
...this friend of mine said that, if you have, say, five grids nested inside one another, if you pass the mouse over them, you generate five mouse events, which is costly.
Also, if you have too many calculations due to the too many containers asking for children sizes before the actual rendering, it can also be costly.
I had some previous experience with PyGtk, and I must say I used A LOT o layout panels for all my scripts, and even the resizing of windows never seemed to me to be specially costly, except when I had some complex canvas drawing needed to be recalculated.
Does anyone have any experience or know anything about it?
Thanks a lot for reading | 2011/06/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6348772",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/401828/"
] | There's no straight-forward answer to this, but obviously the more elements you have participating in layout, the longer [the measure and arrange phases](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms745058.aspx#LayoutSystem_Measure_Arrange) are going to take for the window. Depending on which features of which Panel types you use it could be more or less costly, but for sure the more you use the more overhead there will be during the layout calculations. You can learn more about how the layout system works by [reading that entire MSDN article](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms745058.aspx).
In the end this is something that, unless you've gone crazy, will not often be an issue. To find out if it is causing problems for your app I suggest using [the WPF Performance Suite](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa969767.aspx) to do some performance testing. | Wouldn't worry about it that much, i for one did not have problems with it so far. Apply some common sense, what panels are needed in which case? Do you really need yet another panel to achieve your goal or not?
The MSDN article on this issue might be of interest since it explains a few things which are not straightforward: [Optimizing Performance: Layout and Design](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613542.aspx) |
302,374 | I downloaded OSM data for Amsterdam from the [bbike website](https://download.bbbike.org/osm/). Opening the roads layer in QGIS I get these strange artifacts where road sections cross the whole map in a straight line. What would be the best way to correct/remove them? Has anyone else had this effect with OSM data?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TPnoO.png) | 2018/11/12 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/302374",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/18863/"
] | Same here, it seems to be an internal error in the postprocessing of the OSM data at bbike.
You can take the osm.pbf file from the same website, which works for me, or take the shapefiles from [Geofabrik](http://download.geofabrik.de/europe/netherlands.html) and cut out the area you need. | I would suggest first checking to see if the artifact lines share any common attribute that the others do not. If that is the case then select all features with that attribute and remove them.
Otherwise it seems like the artifact lines are very long so you could try selecting all lines with a length over a certain threshold and see if that snags the artifacts and not the genuine lines?
Also you might need to check if they are just single vertices which are out of place. If so the most accurate solution beyond finding better data would be to try and manually delete the incorrect vertices using the Vertex/Node Tool. |
583,336 | When I try to connect my Samsung Galaxy S1 to a computer running Windows 7, the following incomprehensible messages appear:
>
> Reconnect the device in Samsung Kies (PC Studio) mode.Current connection mode not supported by Kies.
>
> Check the USB settings.
>
> (Settings -> Applications -> Development -> USB debugging(x))
>
>
>
Can you help me? I tried everything. | 2013/04/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/583336",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19548/"
] | In your S1, is USB debugging ON ? ( *Settings->Developer Options->USB debugging* in case of ICS or *Settings->Applications->Development->USB Debugging* incase of earlier versions).
Try switching it off and then connecting the USB cable. | download this usb driver from samsung site,its working
<http://www.samsung.com/ph/support/model/GT-I8262MBAXTC-downloads#> |
583,336 | When I try to connect my Samsung Galaxy S1 to a computer running Windows 7, the following incomprehensible messages appear:
>
> Reconnect the device in Samsung Kies (PC Studio) mode.Current connection mode not supported by Kies.
>
> Check the USB settings.
>
> (Settings -> Applications -> Development -> USB debugging(x))
>
>
>
Can you help me? I tried everything. | 2013/04/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/583336",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19548/"
] | In your S1, is USB debugging ON ? ( *Settings->Developer Options->USB debugging* in case of ICS or *Settings->Applications->Development->USB Debugging* incase of earlier versions).
Try switching it off and then connecting the USB cable. | Your PC needs a driver for Kies to recognize your phone.
Download & install Samsung-Usb-Driver-v1.5.45.0 or newer version.
After installing, open Kies, and your phone should be recognized. |
583,336 | When I try to connect my Samsung Galaxy S1 to a computer running Windows 7, the following incomprehensible messages appear:
>
> Reconnect the device in Samsung Kies (PC Studio) mode.Current connection mode not supported by Kies.
>
> Check the USB settings.
>
> (Settings -> Applications -> Development -> USB debugging(x))
>
>
>
Can you help me? I tried everything. | 2013/04/16 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/583336",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/19548/"
] | download this usb driver from samsung site,its working
<http://www.samsung.com/ph/support/model/GT-I8262MBAXTC-downloads#> | Your PC needs a driver for Kies to recognize your phone.
Download & install Samsung-Usb-Driver-v1.5.45.0 or newer version.
After installing, open Kies, and your phone should be recognized. |
608,018 | Do you know how can I remove this unwanted software? Status line says copyright Acresso Software and or InstallShield. From the folder in ProgramData I understand it is version 11. | 2013/06/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/608018",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/187169/"
] | One simple solution to safely uninstall FlexNet Software Update manager by using this tool:
Download uninstaller from: <http://support.installshield.com/kb/files/Q112918/SoftwareManagerUninstall.exe>
IMPORTANT: Run as admin!
It works clean and perfect: succes! | This isn't crapware.
That piece of software is a feature of [InstallShield](http://www.installshield.com/) - a popular installer system; it has also this kind of updater service that developers may use to deliver updates to their application. Its presence doesn't hurt, but if you really want to uninstall it you'll need to remove the software it came with, look for anything that uses InstallShield to install itself. |
4,637 | I am trying to find the audio book version of the Steve Erikson series. Were these audio books ever created? If they exist, where can I find them?I can't find them at any major online audio book store. | 2011/07/22 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/4637",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/2432/"
] | The [isfdb](https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?20728) page seems to suggest no. I think that's conclusive, but it could be incomplete. | I'd say they're too long to justify the production costs...900-1100 pages per book? A dozen or so books? You'd have to reach full-on mega bestseller status for that to happen. |
4,637 | I am trying to find the audio book version of the Steve Erikson series. Were these audio books ever created? If they exist, where can I find them?I can't find them at any major online audio book store. | 2011/07/22 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/4637",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/2432/"
] | The Gardens of the Moon audiobook was recently released (9/2012). It's available from Amazon and Audible.com (owned by Amazon), though it's not available in all countries (e.g. Australia). | I'd say they're too long to justify the production costs...900-1100 pages per book? A dozen or so books? You'd have to reach full-on mega bestseller status for that to happen. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.