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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | Newton has only one form of time, Absolute Time, but with three atributes: absolute, true (whatever that means) and mathematical. He then identifies it with idealized form of subjective "duration" as well. The particle does not move "of its own volition" though, Absolute Time drags it along in synchrony with everything else. And synchronous motion of multiple disjoint particles is exactly the mathematical picture of ideal fluid flow. So Absolute Time flows, it is just a uniformized, depersonalized, mechanized, really really boring kind of flow.
But it is a flow, Newton specifically rejects relativity of motion, so contra Galileo uniform motion is not the same to him as rest, perception alone is not enough. The lake standing still with frozen present, past and future is metaphysically different. In [Newton: A Very Short Introduction Iliffe writes:](https://books.google.com/books/about/Newton.html?id=BfaAds6XKosC)
>
> "*Newton remarked that ‘ordinary people who fail to abstract thought from sensible appearances always speak of relative quantities so much so that it would be absurd for wise men or even Prophets to speak to them otherwise’. Without the reference to theology, this significant view made its way into the Principia, where the vulgar were said to consider quantities only as they related to ‘perceptible objects’. However, Newton went on, ‘in philosophical discussions, we ought to step back from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only perceptible measures of them’*". See
>
>
> | I think this has more to do with the idea of *fluxion* and the cohesiveness that surface tension gives to fluids, not of relative motion.
To think of the thing that allows for motion as moving seems like a logical trap that can only lead to paradoxes.
We segment the metaphor of fluidity into at least three aspects. Time 'flows' in that it maintains continuity (as in the way hair or robes flow, even if they don't move) not in that it arrives at a given rate (the way bullets might flow out of a machine gun) or that gets from one place to another (the way traffic flows). |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | Newton has only one form of time, Absolute Time, but with three atributes: absolute, true (whatever that means) and mathematical. He then identifies it with idealized form of subjective "duration" as well. The particle does not move "of its own volition" though, Absolute Time drags it along in synchrony with everything else. And synchronous motion of multiple disjoint particles is exactly the mathematical picture of ideal fluid flow. So Absolute Time flows, it is just a uniformized, depersonalized, mechanized, really really boring kind of flow.
But it is a flow, Newton specifically rejects relativity of motion, so contra Galileo uniform motion is not the same to him as rest, perception alone is not enough. The lake standing still with frozen present, past and future is metaphysically different. In [Newton: A Very Short Introduction Iliffe writes:](https://books.google.com/books/about/Newton.html?id=BfaAds6XKosC)
>
> "*Newton remarked that ‘ordinary people who fail to abstract thought from sensible appearances always speak of relative quantities so much so that it would be absurd for wise men or even Prophets to speak to them otherwise’. Without the reference to theology, this significant view made its way into the Principia, where the vulgar were said to consider quantities only as they related to ‘perceptible objects’. However, Newton went on, ‘in philosophical discussions, we ought to step back from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only perceptible measures of them’*". See
>
>
> | I will answer from our understanding of time as modeled by the **theory of relativity**. In that context the "flow of time" is nothing else than a consequence that every normal material observer moves forward in time (this is a consequence of the conservation of energy, since our mass is positive the *tangent vector to our trajectory in space-time* gives a forward component). In fact, antiparticles can be considered as particles moving backward in time for the same reason.
Therefore, that time does not flow for a material entity would be equivalent to the *tangent vector to its [trajectory in space-time (worldline)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line)* having timelike component equal to zero. The point is that different physical observers would differ on how to describe the object. For one observer it could be that this body does not extend in time and occupies for an instant several positions in space, but for another observer in relative motion with respect to the first one, the same object would be perceived differently, namely, as a [tachyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon).
The summary is that although theoretically we could find bodies that do not move in time (and for which time does not flow), this condition would depend on the observer and would not be an intrinsic property of the "tachyonic object". Moreover, there are many doubts as to whether we could ever interact with such a tachyonic object, and it is doubtful that in nature there are physical processes that lead to such situations. |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | Newton has only one form of time, Absolute Time, but with three atributes: absolute, true (whatever that means) and mathematical. He then identifies it with idealized form of subjective "duration" as well. The particle does not move "of its own volition" though, Absolute Time drags it along in synchrony with everything else. And synchronous motion of multiple disjoint particles is exactly the mathematical picture of ideal fluid flow. So Absolute Time flows, it is just a uniformized, depersonalized, mechanized, really really boring kind of flow.
But it is a flow, Newton specifically rejects relativity of motion, so contra Galileo uniform motion is not the same to him as rest, perception alone is not enough. The lake standing still with frozen present, past and future is metaphysically different. In [Newton: A Very Short Introduction Iliffe writes:](https://books.google.com/books/about/Newton.html?id=BfaAds6XKosC)
>
> "*Newton remarked that ‘ordinary people who fail to abstract thought from sensible appearances always speak of relative quantities so much so that it would be absurd for wise men or even Prophets to speak to them otherwise’. Without the reference to theology, this significant view made its way into the Principia, where the vulgar were said to consider quantities only as they related to ‘perceptible objects’. However, Newton went on, ‘in philosophical discussions, we ought to step back from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only perceptible measures of them’*". See
>
>
> | My tuppenceworth: A second is defined according to the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz), so scientific time is Aristotelian, based on motion. However, in a higher gravity region a second may pass, say, 5 times slower. A traveller to that region will return younger than his stay-at-home twin. Both twins age, but while time advances generally, it does so at different local rates.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k2427.png)
The OP states: "*Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate.*"
The question for Newtonian time is whether *absolute* time—if it exists—is advancing uniformly, even though the local rates of Aristotelian time differ. Newtonian time would amount to advancing moments of universal simultaneity, which is a [disputed issue](https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/) since the existence of a common moment across space is, or would be, [unobservable](https://www.nature.com/articles/140963b0).
Of Aristotelian time the OP writes:
>
> one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river,
> stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts
> a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
>
>
>
In the absence of particles (or flux motion) there would be no Aristotelian time. |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | Newton has only one form of time, Absolute Time, but with three atributes: absolute, true (whatever that means) and mathematical. He then identifies it with idealized form of subjective "duration" as well. The particle does not move "of its own volition" though, Absolute Time drags it along in synchrony with everything else. And synchronous motion of multiple disjoint particles is exactly the mathematical picture of ideal fluid flow. So Absolute Time flows, it is just a uniformized, depersonalized, mechanized, really really boring kind of flow.
But it is a flow, Newton specifically rejects relativity of motion, so contra Galileo uniform motion is not the same to him as rest, perception alone is not enough. The lake standing still with frozen present, past and future is metaphysically different. In [Newton: A Very Short Introduction Iliffe writes:](https://books.google.com/books/about/Newton.html?id=BfaAds6XKosC)
>
> "*Newton remarked that ‘ordinary people who fail to abstract thought from sensible appearances always speak of relative quantities so much so that it would be absurd for wise men or even Prophets to speak to them otherwise’. Without the reference to theology, this significant view made its way into the Principia, where the vulgar were said to consider quantities only as they related to ‘perceptible objects’. However, Newton went on, ‘in philosophical discussions, we ought to step back from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only perceptible measures of them’*". See
>
>
> | Talk of time flowing is perhaps strange. It is not that parts of timelines themselves are moving along the lines; it is objects within them. But if time otherwise has no intrinsic "content," what is it that we call "time" that is "flowing"?
To avoid the picture of parts of time *moving*, or at least postpone this mystery, let's focus on, "Time flows," as metaphorically (if nothing more) predicating an *action* or *event* of time. (By "action" I do not mean a deed, but a positive determination *from* time, not something that "passively happens" to time.) Actually, I'd be hard put to explain a temporal event with no content: I would look for a change, but then I'd have to confront the idea of time changing, or of being different (even for some "static" 4-dimensionalist kind of reason) at different subtimes.
So as far as temporal action goes, I'd say that, "Time flows," means more that **time, of itself, moves the objects in it, forward down time's lines.** *We* flow through time, and not only on account of specific physical dynamics that we experience and engage with, but due to the whole ambient "purpose" of time overall.
This picture of time is, I hope, arbitrarily consistent with any well-evidenced scientific theory of empirical events. In an inherently dynamical universe, for instance, space too, and then rather the spacetime manifold as a more integrated system of functions, comes equipped with a force of action on its contents. On the other hand, that spacetime acts on its contents might seem less likely on a relational (Leibnizian) model, for such a model has spacetime "only" as relations between other objects and events. However, this relation-type itself could be construed as "acting on" its *relata*, perhaps. (Quick attempt: assume with Frege that concepts are Concepts, that existence is second-order predication (predication on other predication), so that the Concept of time can cause itself to be instantiated as much as it is instantiated by its physical *relata*; maybe then we have room to speak of time acting on its *relata* instead of just passively relating them.)
At any rate, if spatiotemporal relations are *sui generis* conceptually, we seem to have a sort of quasi-substantivalism on offer: at least in the mind of God, the irreducible relation-types of spacetime are compressed into mental objects, alongside all other monadic or polyadic structures of the relevant form.
**Addendum.** Kant seems to have had a humdrum thought (not necessarily false, though) about "time flowing":
>
> Space and time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments), consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space, therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time. Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to indicate by the expression *flowing*.
>
>
>
He also said:
>
> For change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just as coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing that in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were to attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate another time, in which this succession would be possible.
>
>
> |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | I will answer from our understanding of time as modeled by the **theory of relativity**. In that context the "flow of time" is nothing else than a consequence that every normal material observer moves forward in time (this is a consequence of the conservation of energy, since our mass is positive the *tangent vector to our trajectory in space-time* gives a forward component). In fact, antiparticles can be considered as particles moving backward in time for the same reason.
Therefore, that time does not flow for a material entity would be equivalent to the *tangent vector to its [trajectory in space-time (worldline)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line)* having timelike component equal to zero. The point is that different physical observers would differ on how to describe the object. For one observer it could be that this body does not extend in time and occupies for an instant several positions in space, but for another observer in relative motion with respect to the first one, the same object would be perceived differently, namely, as a [tachyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon).
The summary is that although theoretically we could find bodies that do not move in time (and for which time does not flow), this condition would depend on the observer and would not be an intrinsic property of the "tachyonic object". Moreover, there are many doubts as to whether we could ever interact with such a tachyonic object, and it is doubtful that in nature there are physical processes that lead to such situations. | I think this has more to do with the idea of *fluxion* and the cohesiveness that surface tension gives to fluids, not of relative motion.
To think of the thing that allows for motion as moving seems like a logical trap that can only lead to paradoxes.
We segment the metaphor of fluidity into at least three aspects. Time 'flows' in that it maintains continuity (as in the way hair or robes flow, even if they don't move) not in that it arrives at a given rate (the way bullets might flow out of a machine gun) or that gets from one place to another (the way traffic flows). |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | My tuppenceworth: A second is defined according to the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz), so scientific time is Aristotelian, based on motion. However, in a higher gravity region a second may pass, say, 5 times slower. A traveller to that region will return younger than his stay-at-home twin. Both twins age, but while time advances generally, it does so at different local rates.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k2427.png)
The OP states: "*Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate.*"
The question for Newtonian time is whether *absolute* time—if it exists—is advancing uniformly, even though the local rates of Aristotelian time differ. Newtonian time would amount to advancing moments of universal simultaneity, which is a [disputed issue](https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/) since the existence of a common moment across space is, or would be, [unobservable](https://www.nature.com/articles/140963b0).
Of Aristotelian time the OP writes:
>
> one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river,
> stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts
> a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
>
>
>
In the absence of particles (or flux motion) there would be no Aristotelian time. | I think this has more to do with the idea of *fluxion* and the cohesiveness that surface tension gives to fluids, not of relative motion.
To think of the thing that allows for motion as moving seems like a logical trap that can only lead to paradoxes.
We segment the metaphor of fluidity into at least three aspects. Time 'flows' in that it maintains continuity (as in the way hair or robes flow, even if they don't move) not in that it arrives at a given rate (the way bullets might flow out of a machine gun) or that gets from one place to another (the way traffic flows). |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | Talk of time flowing is perhaps strange. It is not that parts of timelines themselves are moving along the lines; it is objects within them. But if time otherwise has no intrinsic "content," what is it that we call "time" that is "flowing"?
To avoid the picture of parts of time *moving*, or at least postpone this mystery, let's focus on, "Time flows," as metaphorically (if nothing more) predicating an *action* or *event* of time. (By "action" I do not mean a deed, but a positive determination *from* time, not something that "passively happens" to time.) Actually, I'd be hard put to explain a temporal event with no content: I would look for a change, but then I'd have to confront the idea of time changing, or of being different (even for some "static" 4-dimensionalist kind of reason) at different subtimes.
So as far as temporal action goes, I'd say that, "Time flows," means more that **time, of itself, moves the objects in it, forward down time's lines.** *We* flow through time, and not only on account of specific physical dynamics that we experience and engage with, but due to the whole ambient "purpose" of time overall.
This picture of time is, I hope, arbitrarily consistent with any well-evidenced scientific theory of empirical events. In an inherently dynamical universe, for instance, space too, and then rather the spacetime manifold as a more integrated system of functions, comes equipped with a force of action on its contents. On the other hand, that spacetime acts on its contents might seem less likely on a relational (Leibnizian) model, for such a model has spacetime "only" as relations between other objects and events. However, this relation-type itself could be construed as "acting on" its *relata*, perhaps. (Quick attempt: assume with Frege that concepts are Concepts, that existence is second-order predication (predication on other predication), so that the Concept of time can cause itself to be instantiated as much as it is instantiated by its physical *relata*; maybe then we have room to speak of time acting on its *relata* instead of just passively relating them.)
At any rate, if spatiotemporal relations are *sui generis* conceptually, we seem to have a sort of quasi-substantivalism on offer: at least in the mind of God, the irreducible relation-types of spacetime are compressed into mental objects, alongside all other monadic or polyadic structures of the relevant form.
**Addendum.** Kant seems to have had a humdrum thought (not necessarily false, though) about "time flowing":
>
> Space and time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments), consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space, therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time. Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to indicate by the expression *flowing*.
>
>
>
He also said:
>
> For change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just as coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing that in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were to attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate another time, in which this succession would be possible.
>
>
> | I think this has more to do with the idea of *fluxion* and the cohesiveness that surface tension gives to fluids, not of relative motion.
To think of the thing that allows for motion as moving seems like a logical trap that can only lead to paradoxes.
We segment the metaphor of fluidity into at least three aspects. Time 'flows' in that it maintains continuity (as in the way hair or robes flow, even if they don't move) not in that it arrives at a given rate (the way bullets might flow out of a machine gun) or that gets from one place to another (the way traffic flows). |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | I will answer from our understanding of time as modeled by the **theory of relativity**. In that context the "flow of time" is nothing else than a consequence that every normal material observer moves forward in time (this is a consequence of the conservation of energy, since our mass is positive the *tangent vector to our trajectory in space-time* gives a forward component). In fact, antiparticles can be considered as particles moving backward in time for the same reason.
Therefore, that time does not flow for a material entity would be equivalent to the *tangent vector to its [trajectory in space-time (worldline)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line)* having timelike component equal to zero. The point is that different physical observers would differ on how to describe the object. For one observer it could be that this body does not extend in time and occupies for an instant several positions in space, but for another observer in relative motion with respect to the first one, the same object would be perceived differently, namely, as a [tachyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon).
The summary is that although theoretically we could find bodies that do not move in time (and for which time does not flow), this condition would depend on the observer and would not be an intrinsic property of the "tachyonic object". Moreover, there are many doubts as to whether we could ever interact with such a tachyonic object, and it is doubtful that in nature there are physical processes that lead to such situations. | Talk of time flowing is perhaps strange. It is not that parts of timelines themselves are moving along the lines; it is objects within them. But if time otherwise has no intrinsic "content," what is it that we call "time" that is "flowing"?
To avoid the picture of parts of time *moving*, or at least postpone this mystery, let's focus on, "Time flows," as metaphorically (if nothing more) predicating an *action* or *event* of time. (By "action" I do not mean a deed, but a positive determination *from* time, not something that "passively happens" to time.) Actually, I'd be hard put to explain a temporal event with no content: I would look for a change, but then I'd have to confront the idea of time changing, or of being different (even for some "static" 4-dimensionalist kind of reason) at different subtimes.
So as far as temporal action goes, I'd say that, "Time flows," means more that **time, of itself, moves the objects in it, forward down time's lines.** *We* flow through time, and not only on account of specific physical dynamics that we experience and engage with, but due to the whole ambient "purpose" of time overall.
This picture of time is, I hope, arbitrarily consistent with any well-evidenced scientific theory of empirical events. In an inherently dynamical universe, for instance, space too, and then rather the spacetime manifold as a more integrated system of functions, comes equipped with a force of action on its contents. On the other hand, that spacetime acts on its contents might seem less likely on a relational (Leibnizian) model, for such a model has spacetime "only" as relations between other objects and events. However, this relation-type itself could be construed as "acting on" its *relata*, perhaps. (Quick attempt: assume with Frege that concepts are Concepts, that existence is second-order predication (predication on other predication), so that the Concept of time can cause itself to be instantiated as much as it is instantiated by its physical *relata*; maybe then we have room to speak of time acting on its *relata* instead of just passively relating them.)
At any rate, if spatiotemporal relations are *sui generis* conceptually, we seem to have a sort of quasi-substantivalism on offer: at least in the mind of God, the irreducible relation-types of spacetime are compressed into mental objects, alongside all other monadic or polyadic structures of the relevant form.
**Addendum.** Kant seems to have had a humdrum thought (not necessarily false, though) about "time flowing":
>
> Space and time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments), consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space, therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time. Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to indicate by the expression *flowing*.
>
>
>
He also said:
>
> For change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just as coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing that in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were to attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate another time, in which this succession would be possible.
>
>
> |
24,963 | In Newtons *Principia* he wrote:
>
> Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
>
>
>
Hence, Newton distinguishes *three* forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not *flow*; the cannon-ball *moves* in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result? | 2015/07/13 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24963",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/"
] | My tuppenceworth: A second is defined according to the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz), so scientific time is Aristotelian, based on motion. However, in a higher gravity region a second may pass, say, 5 times slower. A traveller to that region will return younger than his stay-at-home twin. Both twins age, but while time advances generally, it does so at different local rates.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k2427.png)
The OP states: "*Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate.*"
The question for Newtonian time is whether *absolute* time—if it exists—is advancing uniformly, even though the local rates of Aristotelian time differ. Newtonian time would amount to advancing moments of universal simultaneity, which is a [disputed issue](https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/) since the existence of a common moment across space is, or would be, [unobservable](https://www.nature.com/articles/140963b0).
Of Aristotelian time the OP writes:
>
> one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river,
> stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts
> a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
>
>
>
In the absence of particles (or flux motion) there would be no Aristotelian time. | Talk of time flowing is perhaps strange. It is not that parts of timelines themselves are moving along the lines; it is objects within them. But if time otherwise has no intrinsic "content," what is it that we call "time" that is "flowing"?
To avoid the picture of parts of time *moving*, or at least postpone this mystery, let's focus on, "Time flows," as metaphorically (if nothing more) predicating an *action* or *event* of time. (By "action" I do not mean a deed, but a positive determination *from* time, not something that "passively happens" to time.) Actually, I'd be hard put to explain a temporal event with no content: I would look for a change, but then I'd have to confront the idea of time changing, or of being different (even for some "static" 4-dimensionalist kind of reason) at different subtimes.
So as far as temporal action goes, I'd say that, "Time flows," means more that **time, of itself, moves the objects in it, forward down time's lines.** *We* flow through time, and not only on account of specific physical dynamics that we experience and engage with, but due to the whole ambient "purpose" of time overall.
This picture of time is, I hope, arbitrarily consistent with any well-evidenced scientific theory of empirical events. In an inherently dynamical universe, for instance, space too, and then rather the spacetime manifold as a more integrated system of functions, comes equipped with a force of action on its contents. On the other hand, that spacetime acts on its contents might seem less likely on a relational (Leibnizian) model, for such a model has spacetime "only" as relations between other objects and events. However, this relation-type itself could be construed as "acting on" its *relata*, perhaps. (Quick attempt: assume with Frege that concepts are Concepts, that existence is second-order predication (predication on other predication), so that the Concept of time can cause itself to be instantiated as much as it is instantiated by its physical *relata*; maybe then we have room to speak of time acting on its *relata* instead of just passively relating them.)
At any rate, if spatiotemporal relations are *sui generis* conceptually, we seem to have a sort of quasi-substantivalism on offer: at least in the mind of God, the irreducible relation-types of spacetime are compressed into mental objects, alongside all other monadic or polyadic structures of the relevant form.
**Addendum.** Kant seems to have had a humdrum thought (not necessarily false, though) about "time flowing":
>
> Space and time are quanta continua, because no part of them can be given, without enclosing it within boundaries (points and moments), consequently, this given part is itself a space or a time. Space, therefore, consists only of spaces, and time of times. Points and moments are only boundaries, that is, the mere places or positions of their limitation. But places always presuppose intuitions which are to limit or determine them; and we cannot conceive either space or time composed of constituent parts which are given before space or time. Such quantities may also be called flowing, because synthesis (of the productive imagination) in the production of these quantities is a progression in time, the continuity of which we are accustomed to indicate by the expression *flowing*.
>
>
>
He also said:
>
> For change does not affect time itself, but only the phenomena in time (just as coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself, seeing that in time no parts are coexistent, but all successive). If we were to attribute succession to time itself, we should be obliged to cogitate another time, in which this succession would be possible.
>
>
> |
111,886 | I know there are a lot of similar topics, but I couldn't find the exact answer for my question.
I need to describe a situation in which one event preceded the other and I couldn’t do it with simple past and past perfect tenses.
E.g. “I have received my order, unfortunately one of the items is damaged. **I don't know whether it was damaged during the transportation or had been defective from the beginning**.”
I know that the second event is preceding the first; therefore I should use past perfect tense, but I can’t understand how to implement it in abovementioned sentence. Instead I used “was” because the action is over, and past perfect progressive tense (“had been”) because even thou the action is over it is still have a result as the damaged item.
So is it a correct sentence, or should I rewrite it? And is it possible to use with simple past and past perfect tenses in it? If not, how to show the sequence of events? | 2016/12/07 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/111886",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/45989/"
] | Some examples:
* "He was happy, but had been sad not long before due to the death of his puppy."
* "She was in line for the concert by 5pm and had been standing in the cold for hours."
* "The clerk was waiting for the customer who had been indecisive to make up his mind."
* "John was going to go out with friends but he had been feeling lousy that day so he decided to stay home."
I find that "had been" refers to the action (or state of being) that starts the earliest, while "was" refers to the action (or state of being) that starts later. | I, too, would use "was": *I don't know whether it was damaged during the transportation or **was** defective from the beginning*.
A slightly different phrasing would be my choice, but I wouldn't change the "was": *I don't know whether it was damaged in shipping or was damaged before it left the shop/warehouse/factory and nobody noticed*
As far as "sequence of events" goes, that's covered by world-knowledge: people reading understand immediately that shipping happens *after* leaving the point of origin, so you need not reflect that sequence grammatically. |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I've also implemented production performance monitoring systems to help identify performance problems; the key, of course, is making sure your performance monitoring doesn't hinder performance itself!
But really, a simple performance monitor that (in a web application example) just logs how long it takes to complete a request and how long it takes to render a page is enough to focus your efforts on the requests or request types that are the slowest, or present the greatest load (avg. execution time \* execution count), and therefor are good targets for optimization.. Then, using a test platform and the basic steps you outlined in your question, you can narrow down the cause of the performance problems and begin your optimizations.
Depending on your situation, it's also good to monitor any dependent processes individually: profile database performance, disk performance, and so on, to make sure that all of the moving parts of the whole system are working as smoothly as possible. A perfectly optimized application can be slowed to a crawl by a poor-performing database. | For a web application, timing individual requests is a good start. [Firebug](http://getfirebug.com/) works well for that. If you combine that with Ironcode's suggestion to rely on unit tests, then you should be able to locate most of the bottlenecks.
Beyond that... it depends on your app. There are various tools that you could use for profiling various aspects of the code. For example, if you're using Hibernate, it lets you collect statistics on how long all the database queries take to complete. |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I've also implemented production performance monitoring systems to help identify performance problems; the key, of course, is making sure your performance monitoring doesn't hinder performance itself!
But really, a simple performance monitor that (in a web application example) just logs how long it takes to complete a request and how long it takes to render a page is enough to focus your efforts on the requests or request types that are the slowest, or present the greatest load (avg. execution time \* execution count), and therefor are good targets for optimization.. Then, using a test platform and the basic steps you outlined in your question, you can narrow down the cause of the performance problems and begin your optimizations.
Depending on your situation, it's also good to monitor any dependent processes individually: profile database performance, disk performance, and so on, to make sure that all of the moving parts of the whole system are working as smoothly as possible. A perfectly optimized application can be slowed to a crawl by a poor-performing database. | **Well, usually it is the users who complain the app is slow (-:**
All humor aside, here are some things I've found to be helpful based on how the app will be used, by whom, and when:
* Identify what parts of the app are slow (existing app) or cannot be slow (new app). This can either come from users, your experience or performance requirements. Also identify what use cases are slow, which can help narrow the scope. E.g., if use cases that have no DB interaction are slow, you can rule out DB issues.
* Identify what times the app is slow. "Always slow" is different from "Slow on Mondays between 9am and 10am." Maybe there is a backup of the DB that runs at that time. Maybe there are 10x more users on the system at that time.
* Have your DBA run stats and reports for the times your app is slow.
* Have your sys admin run stats on the file system for Disk I/O, CPU, RAM, and other such resource consumption.
* Have your network admin run stats for network traffic between the various servers.
* Analyze logs. This can vary from enabling %T in Apache log format to setting log format to "DEBUG" (Note: Logging in Production environments is usually set to "ERROR", so best to do this in a lower environment like Test).
* If you are running a Java based application, take thread and heap dumps. Analyze them for locks or memory leaks. Memory Analysis Tool is a useful tool for heap dump analysis, and I believe it can be used as a plugin with Eclipse. Enable garbage collection logs, and analyze them too.
* If your organization can afford COTS profiling tools like OPNet's Panorama and ACE, or NewRelic's tools try them as well.
Sounds like you are aware of some of these concepts. I am submitting my answer for general audience who may or may not be familiar with these ideas.
Either way, HTH,
KM |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I've also implemented production performance monitoring systems to help identify performance problems; the key, of course, is making sure your performance monitoring doesn't hinder performance itself!
But really, a simple performance monitor that (in a web application example) just logs how long it takes to complete a request and how long it takes to render a page is enough to focus your efforts on the requests or request types that are the slowest, or present the greatest load (avg. execution time \* execution count), and therefor are good targets for optimization.. Then, using a test platform and the basic steps you outlined in your question, you can narrow down the cause of the performance problems and begin your optimizations.
Depending on your situation, it's also good to monitor any dependent processes individually: profile database performance, disk performance, and so on, to make sure that all of the moving parts of the whole system are working as smoothly as possible. A perfectly optimized application can be slowed to a crawl by a poor-performing database. | As far as I know, in enterprise applications, there usualy are NFRs present stating the general effectiveness of system under test. By my project, it works like this:
-the customer specifies what he understands as "effective", "responsive", etc.
-we prepare example testdata (not "let's hope for the best" dataset, but "let's ride this app like there's no tommorrow" dataset), and we prepare usage scenarios to be run.
-then, we let it run and burn some CPU cycles, for like 48/72 hours, and gather general system statistics (that way we don't have to place specific and unrealistic monitoring code in the app).
-in the end it is possible to say whetever there is a specific problem (eg. the system should do 10k transactions per hour, but does only 2k - that's performance bottleneck somewhere), and we should be able to tell which usage scenario/data combination caused unwanted behavior. From now on, it is possible to mimic specific examples in specific benchmarks, and work on the solution.
If you need to test specifically a webapp (eg. interface responsiveness under stress), you may consider using distributed selenium (I believe, there are some companies offering such services, using their own datacenters) |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I prefer not to have performance monitoring in my production code. I try to have pretty good unit test coverage (every significant method has at least one unit test). Visual Studio automatically times how long it takes to perform each unit test. For a general overview, I just run all tests to get a general idea of where bottlenecks might be. | For a web application, timing individual requests is a good start. [Firebug](http://getfirebug.com/) works well for that. If you combine that with Ironcode's suggestion to rely on unit tests, then you should be able to locate most of the bottlenecks.
Beyond that... it depends on your app. There are various tools that you could use for profiling various aspects of the code. For example, if you're using Hibernate, it lets you collect statistics on how long all the database queries take to complete. |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I prefer not to have performance monitoring in my production code. I try to have pretty good unit test coverage (every significant method has at least one unit test). Visual Studio automatically times how long it takes to perform each unit test. For a general overview, I just run all tests to get a general idea of where bottlenecks might be. | **Well, usually it is the users who complain the app is slow (-:**
All humor aside, here are some things I've found to be helpful based on how the app will be used, by whom, and when:
* Identify what parts of the app are slow (existing app) or cannot be slow (new app). This can either come from users, your experience or performance requirements. Also identify what use cases are slow, which can help narrow the scope. E.g., if use cases that have no DB interaction are slow, you can rule out DB issues.
* Identify what times the app is slow. "Always slow" is different from "Slow on Mondays between 9am and 10am." Maybe there is a backup of the DB that runs at that time. Maybe there are 10x more users on the system at that time.
* Have your DBA run stats and reports for the times your app is slow.
* Have your sys admin run stats on the file system for Disk I/O, CPU, RAM, and other such resource consumption.
* Have your network admin run stats for network traffic between the various servers.
* Analyze logs. This can vary from enabling %T in Apache log format to setting log format to "DEBUG" (Note: Logging in Production environments is usually set to "ERROR", so best to do this in a lower environment like Test).
* If you are running a Java based application, take thread and heap dumps. Analyze them for locks or memory leaks. Memory Analysis Tool is a useful tool for heap dump analysis, and I believe it can be used as a plugin with Eclipse. Enable garbage collection logs, and analyze them too.
* If your organization can afford COTS profiling tools like OPNet's Panorama and ACE, or NewRelic's tools try them as well.
Sounds like you are aware of some of these concepts. I am submitting my answer for general audience who may or may not be familiar with these ideas.
Either way, HTH,
KM |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | I prefer not to have performance monitoring in my production code. I try to have pretty good unit test coverage (every significant method has at least one unit test). Visual Studio automatically times how long it takes to perform each unit test. For a general overview, I just run all tests to get a general idea of where bottlenecks might be. | As far as I know, in enterprise applications, there usualy are NFRs present stating the general effectiveness of system under test. By my project, it works like this:
-the customer specifies what he understands as "effective", "responsive", etc.
-we prepare example testdata (not "let's hope for the best" dataset, but "let's ride this app like there's no tommorrow" dataset), and we prepare usage scenarios to be run.
-then, we let it run and burn some CPU cycles, for like 48/72 hours, and gather general system statistics (that way we don't have to place specific and unrealistic monitoring code in the app).
-in the end it is possible to say whetever there is a specific problem (eg. the system should do 10k transactions per hour, but does only 2k - that's performance bottleneck somewhere), and we should be able to tell which usage scenario/data combination caused unwanted behavior. From now on, it is possible to mimic specific examples in specific benchmarks, and work on the solution.
If you need to test specifically a webapp (eg. interface responsiveness under stress), you may consider using distributed selenium (I believe, there are some companies offering such services, using their own datacenters) |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | The key to tracking down performance problems is:
1. Know when they exist.
2. Have sufficient context to figure out what was going wrong when they were slow.
The key for both of those is logging. The ideal is to have logging with optional logging levels that will spew out more detail which can be selectively turned on.
For a very good example of what works, take a look at Oracle. At all times, as part of the basic functionality of the system, it keeps track of what queries were run, and how long they took. DBAs can go and look at the situation to figure out where performance is going. (Don't just look at slow things, in a system under load a very common fast query can be a bigger problem than an occasional slow one.) Furthermore you have the ability to take a query, run it, and have Oracle dump out a detailed trace of exactly what happened, and where time went. Based on those dumps it is possible for an experienced DBA to figure out exactly what happened and where the bottleneck is.
Yes, there is a constant overhead from having this monitoring present. They try to minimize it, but it is still there. However the first time that it helps you locate a performance bottleneck that you hadn't realized was there, it pays for itself in spades. Without monitoring you're praying that you don't make any silly performance problems. Prayer is simply not a reliable way to get to scalability.
If you have a complex system with lots of RPCs, life gets more complicated. The unfortunate reality is that tracking down a seemingly random slow front end request to an RPC several layers deep that may or may not fire can turn into a nightmare. The solution, which practically nobody does, is to have your RPC mechanism have the ability to label a small fraction of requests as "tracer bullets". Those requests, and all RPCs recursively through your system, will get logged in detail, and those logs collected together to give an accurate picture of those requests. Sure, there is overhead to doing so. Which is why something like 0.1% of requests are logged in that detail. But when the system has trouble, you can now go in and look for a slow traced request, open it up, and immediately see where the performance problem is.
Yes, this is a lot of work. Yes, it is invasive. But I cannot stress enough how important this is to have in a large complex system. As the old saying goes, failure to plan is planning to fail. If you don't have a plan to figure out performance problems, when they happen you won't have a way to figure them out. | For a web application, timing individual requests is a good start. [Firebug](http://getfirebug.com/) works well for that. If you combine that with Ironcode's suggestion to rely on unit tests, then you should be able to locate most of the bottlenecks.
Beyond that... it depends on your app. There are various tools that you could use for profiling various aspects of the code. For example, if you're using Hibernate, it lets you collect statistics on how long all the database queries take to complete. |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | The key to tracking down performance problems is:
1. Know when they exist.
2. Have sufficient context to figure out what was going wrong when they were slow.
The key for both of those is logging. The ideal is to have logging with optional logging levels that will spew out more detail which can be selectively turned on.
For a very good example of what works, take a look at Oracle. At all times, as part of the basic functionality of the system, it keeps track of what queries were run, and how long they took. DBAs can go and look at the situation to figure out where performance is going. (Don't just look at slow things, in a system under load a very common fast query can be a bigger problem than an occasional slow one.) Furthermore you have the ability to take a query, run it, and have Oracle dump out a detailed trace of exactly what happened, and where time went. Based on those dumps it is possible for an experienced DBA to figure out exactly what happened and where the bottleneck is.
Yes, there is a constant overhead from having this monitoring present. They try to minimize it, but it is still there. However the first time that it helps you locate a performance bottleneck that you hadn't realized was there, it pays for itself in spades. Without monitoring you're praying that you don't make any silly performance problems. Prayer is simply not a reliable way to get to scalability.
If you have a complex system with lots of RPCs, life gets more complicated. The unfortunate reality is that tracking down a seemingly random slow front end request to an RPC several layers deep that may or may not fire can turn into a nightmare. The solution, which practically nobody does, is to have your RPC mechanism have the ability to label a small fraction of requests as "tracer bullets". Those requests, and all RPCs recursively through your system, will get logged in detail, and those logs collected together to give an accurate picture of those requests. Sure, there is overhead to doing so. Which is why something like 0.1% of requests are logged in that detail. But when the system has trouble, you can now go in and look for a slow traced request, open it up, and immediately see where the performance problem is.
Yes, this is a lot of work. Yes, it is invasive. But I cannot stress enough how important this is to have in a large complex system. As the old saying goes, failure to plan is planning to fail. If you don't have a plan to figure out performance problems, when they happen you won't have a way to figure them out. | **Well, usually it is the users who complain the app is slow (-:**
All humor aside, here are some things I've found to be helpful based on how the app will be used, by whom, and when:
* Identify what parts of the app are slow (existing app) or cannot be slow (new app). This can either come from users, your experience or performance requirements. Also identify what use cases are slow, which can help narrow the scope. E.g., if use cases that have no DB interaction are slow, you can rule out DB issues.
* Identify what times the app is slow. "Always slow" is different from "Slow on Mondays between 9am and 10am." Maybe there is a backup of the DB that runs at that time. Maybe there are 10x more users on the system at that time.
* Have your DBA run stats and reports for the times your app is slow.
* Have your sys admin run stats on the file system for Disk I/O, CPU, RAM, and other such resource consumption.
* Have your network admin run stats for network traffic between the various servers.
* Analyze logs. This can vary from enabling %T in Apache log format to setting log format to "DEBUG" (Note: Logging in Production environments is usually set to "ERROR", so best to do this in a lower environment like Test).
* If you are running a Java based application, take thread and heap dumps. Analyze them for locks or memory leaks. Memory Analysis Tool is a useful tool for heap dump analysis, and I believe it can be used as a plugin with Eclipse. Enable garbage collection logs, and analyze them too.
* If your organization can afford COTS profiling tools like OPNet's Panorama and ACE, or NewRelic's tools try them as well.
Sounds like you are aware of some of these concepts. I am submitting my answer for general audience who may or may not be familiar with these ideas.
Either way, HTH,
KM |
75,489 | What makes the web application perform and scale better is always a big topic. And finding the performance problems and tuning them is another...
Here is some my thoughts of how to "finding" performance problems:
For a "new" api/application or other
* Analzying the detail api and then preparing the Jmeter/Grinder testing scripts for it.
* Using different load to identify the threshold for the api
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
For a "old" api/application or other
* Analyzing the user pattern from the access detail log
* Simulate the real user load to find the slowness
* Adding profiling codes find the slownes
* Restart from point one again..
So,how can you identify the performance problems? | 2011/05/11 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75489",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/12110/"
] | The key to tracking down performance problems is:
1. Know when they exist.
2. Have sufficient context to figure out what was going wrong when they were slow.
The key for both of those is logging. The ideal is to have logging with optional logging levels that will spew out more detail which can be selectively turned on.
For a very good example of what works, take a look at Oracle. At all times, as part of the basic functionality of the system, it keeps track of what queries were run, and how long they took. DBAs can go and look at the situation to figure out where performance is going. (Don't just look at slow things, in a system under load a very common fast query can be a bigger problem than an occasional slow one.) Furthermore you have the ability to take a query, run it, and have Oracle dump out a detailed trace of exactly what happened, and where time went. Based on those dumps it is possible for an experienced DBA to figure out exactly what happened and where the bottleneck is.
Yes, there is a constant overhead from having this monitoring present. They try to minimize it, but it is still there. However the first time that it helps you locate a performance bottleneck that you hadn't realized was there, it pays for itself in spades. Without monitoring you're praying that you don't make any silly performance problems. Prayer is simply not a reliable way to get to scalability.
If you have a complex system with lots of RPCs, life gets more complicated. The unfortunate reality is that tracking down a seemingly random slow front end request to an RPC several layers deep that may or may not fire can turn into a nightmare. The solution, which practically nobody does, is to have your RPC mechanism have the ability to label a small fraction of requests as "tracer bullets". Those requests, and all RPCs recursively through your system, will get logged in detail, and those logs collected together to give an accurate picture of those requests. Sure, there is overhead to doing so. Which is why something like 0.1% of requests are logged in that detail. But when the system has trouble, you can now go in and look for a slow traced request, open it up, and immediately see where the performance problem is.
Yes, this is a lot of work. Yes, it is invasive. But I cannot stress enough how important this is to have in a large complex system. As the old saying goes, failure to plan is planning to fail. If you don't have a plan to figure out performance problems, when they happen you won't have a way to figure them out. | As far as I know, in enterprise applications, there usualy are NFRs present stating the general effectiveness of system under test. By my project, it works like this:
-the customer specifies what he understands as "effective", "responsive", etc.
-we prepare example testdata (not "let's hope for the best" dataset, but "let's ride this app like there's no tommorrow" dataset), and we prepare usage scenarios to be run.
-then, we let it run and burn some CPU cycles, for like 48/72 hours, and gather general system statistics (that way we don't have to place specific and unrealistic monitoring code in the app).
-in the end it is possible to say whetever there is a specific problem (eg. the system should do 10k transactions per hour, but does only 2k - that's performance bottleneck somewhere), and we should be able to tell which usage scenario/data combination caused unwanted behavior. From now on, it is possible to mimic specific examples in specific benchmarks, and work on the solution.
If you need to test specifically a webapp (eg. interface responsiveness under stress), you may consider using distributed selenium (I believe, there are some companies offering such services, using their own datacenters) |
656,122 | I have a collection of servers that will each have their own tasks. web server, billing server, game servers. Each of which will need to either send customer facing email, or simply send it's system mail to a single address so it's easier to manage.
i have a mail server setup to receive all the incoming mail, using postfix, dovecot etc.
I understand that I'll need postfix on each of these servers, but will they all need to have a full setup including dns spf records etc, or should they all use the mail server as a remote smtp server and have all outbound mail from this one box? | 2015/01/03 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/656122",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/214669/"
] | 1. Not sure why you say: "I understand that I'll need postfix on each of these servers". Unless your various applications require it (which would be strange) to send out anything, you could have one server with Postfix and all of your other server just get configured that their SMTP server is your server running Postfix.
2. However, there is one reason why you may want Postfix on every server. That is for failsafe reasons. Say ServerA runs Postfix and ServerB is your web server. ServerB wants to send out an email message and tries to do so via ServerA but ServerA is down. Now what happens? The user gets an error? If you have a local Postfix on each servers, then the mail is accepted and because ServerA is down, it gets deferred and retried.
3. Overall, I would recommend that only one of those server is configured to send emails out so you only have to configure one email server with SPF, email routing, etc. If you implement point #2 above (if you have a good reason to implement it), then your web server, etc, simply need a line in Postfix to make every email simply relay through your 1 Postfix server. If you don't have a Postfix server on each machine, then your web application, etc, get configured with your Postfix server as SMTP.
4. Finally, there is one more point of advice. If you are sending mail for various applications, and if they are very dissimilar, you may want to have each send out emails from its own IP address. That is to prevent one server which may generate a lot of traffic for example, get flagged as spam and now all your emails get flagged as spam. It is good practice for example, to send out bulk email, correspondence email and transactional emails (order confirmation, etc) through different gateway (IP addresses) so as to not twart your chances of reaching the inbox. (Many documents on this at Return Path for example).
So the correct implementation really depends on your exact need, volume, type of application. But this should give good guidelines for people. | I'd recommend configuring all servers as satellite servers which send their mail to the central postfix. This has some advantages:
* Easier to maintain as you only need to configure one mail gateway with SPF, spam prevention, mail routings etc. All other nodes just send their mail to the gateway node.
* Incoming mail only needs to be handled by one server (as far as your satellite nodes don't need to process incoming mail). |
86,352 | I have found many questions about "attribution" of work in SE but not specifically about this issue.
I've found a book published on paper using many images coming from "Wikipedia". At the end of the book a single page contains all the credits for the numerous images used in the book. This page has a "section" titled "Wikipedia" and the list of locations where images from Wikipedia have been used (and only that). No attribution or copyright notice is given beyond the fact that the photos are listed in that section. No reference about any licence is given, neither hyper link, etc.
I was wondering if it was a proper attribution of photographies with Creative Common Licences.
I have checked one of the photos. It was not a public domain photo and has not been modified by the publisher of the book. On the Wikimedia - not "Wikipedia" - page corresponding to that photo, the licence is a "Creative Common Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported". If I understand well, the author should have been credited, unless they explicitly requested the inverse. Meanwhile there is a notion of flexibility in attribution. I refer in particular to the following statement from the licence:
>
> You may satisfy the conditions in (1) and (2) above in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means and context in which the Licensed Material is used.
>
>
>
I understand that printing more pages would make the book more expensive, and putting the attribution for each photo used would add a lot of text to this page. Although I am still wondering. Assuming that the author is not aware of the use of the photograph, is it a legal use of the photos or should the attributions be more precise?
**Update:** Yes some photos are just plain reproductions of the paintings which means they are public domain. Other are not. I have contacted two of the authors so far. The task of identifying them is rather daunting. One of them answered. They told me to contact the publisher myself. I don't think that's my role as I am not the author and this is already taking me a lot of time. I will try to contact other authors. One issue is that messaging on Wikicommons or Wikipedia is not private (unless the user has set an email address to receive messages and only for Wikipedia). I'd rather not give the title or even the ISBN publicly. So trying to contacting the author privately is an issue.
Here is an edited picture of the page:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BarKt.jpg) | 2017/01/17 | [
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/86352",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com",
"https://photo.stackexchange.com/users/60050/"
] | In general, attribution type depends how and where the photos are used.
For printed material, like books: the photographer should receive proper credit for his work: his name and all image titles released under "Creative Common Attribution Share Alike 3.0".
However, it doesn't need to be on the same page. It can be by the end of the book, with the page number specified.
Source:
<http://creativecommons.org.au/learn/fact-sheets/attribution/> | In this particular case the question should be directed to the folks at Wikipedia. Unless you're planning on doing something similar it is really a question for any attorneys for the various parties. It's not really something that a lay person could address.
If you are planning on doing something similar I would suggest that you do not. It cuts too close to infringement to be considered a safe practice. If you ask the folks at Wikipedia for their opinion (which the author of the book you mention may have done) and they say it's okay I would get it in writing and put that in the book as well. |
110,744 | So, in season 5/The Winds of Winter,
>
> Myrcella dies/will likely die.
>
>
>
If not, let's just say for the sake of argument that that's the case.
Now assuming for some reason
that
>
> Tommen and Margaery did not conceive
>
>
>
at a time when
>
> Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella
>
>
>
are dead, who
>
> becomes king/queen
>
>
>
?
Let's not get into speculative stuff like the
>
> kingdoms rebel or secede or someone invades Westeros
>
>
>
Let's assume some ideal situation like the relevant lords believe (at least in practice) that
>
> Tommen, Myrcella and Joffrey are legitimate heirs of Robert Baratheon
>
>
>
and
>
> Daenerys/Aegon/fAegon
>
>
>
doesn't/don't invade anytime soon.
In general, what does the small council/High Septon et al do in situations like these?
What about the wardens or other lords and ladies of Westeros? What might they do? Would this affect them? | 2015/12/16 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/110744",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/44560/"
] | If Tommen and Margaery both die, Stannis is the next in line for the throne (assuming he's also alive). If Stannis is also dead, then the answer depends on which medium you're talking about, (in the books, it's Shireen). Who's in line *after* Shireen is entirely unknown, because we don't know enough about Robert's family, but for practical purposes, it likely wouldn't matter.
Despite the fact that we know his real parents, Tommen is still legally a Baratheon. His position on the throne comes from his father Robert. As far as we can tell, the Seven Kingdoms use a typical male primogeniture system where the line of succession is basically:
* The eldest male child of the monarch;
* The eldest male child of the eldest male child of the monarch;
* The eldest male child of *that* person, etc.
Once you've followed the generations all the way down and run out of eldest male children, succession moves to that persons brothers, and then to that persons sisters. If there are none of those, you back up a generation and repeat the process.
So, Robert had two sons and a daughter. The line of succession was Joffrey, then Tommen, then Myrcella. (If Joffrey had given birth to a son, that boy would have been inserted before Tommen). If all three of those children are dead, you move up a generation, back to Robert, and go to the eldest brother.
This is exactly the reason that Eddard Stark claimed Stannis as the legitimate heir in the first place: if none of Robert's children are true-born, they don't count, and Stannis is next in line. If all of Robert's children are dead, then their legitimacy is irrelevant, and Stannis inherits anyway.
If Stannis is also dead, we repeat that process, starting from him as King; his only child is Shireen, who would become Queen.
>
> Note that she's dead in the show but *probably* going to die in the books.
>
>
>
After that, things get very complicated. We would need to follow the family tree up to Robert's parents, who are obviously dead, and look for any uncles Robert might have had and track *their* children down. As far as I know, Robert's father and grandfather were both only children meaning it's going to take a lot of family-tree searching to find a legitimate heir. But at this point, if the line of succession gets this muddled, for all *practical* purposes it's basically ended.
People who are already close to the throne (particularly Cersei and Margaery's families) would probably begin to press claims for inheritance on their own. *Normally* a woman can't "marry into" the line of succession, Cersei can't be Queen on her own, but her daughter can, but when things get this murky, the rules tend to take a back seat to the people with the biggest armies.
In addition, this is the point where known bastard children would come into play. People like Edric, who is not in line for the throne legally but *is* Robert's child, become a huge political rallying point when the throne becomes heavily contested. They can make the argument that they're *closer* to the throne than anyone actually in the line of succession, and a lot of people would back them up.
So, *if* it happens that Tommen dies without producing an heir, the most likely outcome is various powerful houses (the Lannisters, Tyrells and the Baratheon's sworn houses w/ Edric Storm) going to war, again, until one of them has enough military and political support to simply declare themselves King and everyone will accept it and move on. | Well, the succession would fall to the next Baratheon, which would be Stannis. But since he's already sailed his ship, there would likely be a council called. Since I've not read the books and don't know if this is covered or not I can only speculate that the High Septon and Cersei will likely come to blows over the throne.
As for non-exiled or non-disgraced heirs (legitimate), I would think Daenerys would have claim regardless of the Targaryen line, since she is distant cousin to the King.
The other possibility is the legitimization of one of Robert's bastards, but seems highly unlikely in GoT universe, bastards tend not to turn out so great. |
58,624,566 | How does one "Provider" class access elements in another?
Eg the "ApiController" needs the "userID" and the "sessionToken" from the UserInfo Provider.
The UserInfo provider needs to load these from the Shared preferences, but if these items are not yet inthe SharedPreferences, eg before the user logs in, then it will be null and the UserInfo needs to provide that.
The UserInfo further needs the ApiController to get other information about the user from the Api, eg the Avatar and other properties. | 2019/10/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/58624566",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1810447/"
] | That's my advice on how to handle this particular case:
You can create a Splash View this page will be before the Login and on that page, you need to handle if the data is saved in the SharedPreferences or not. So let's do the following: you need to create a User DAO in this class you will include 3 functions (saveUser(),getUser() and removeUser()), so in the API class when you logged response is success you'll call the saveUser() and save the user data into the SharedPreferences, in the getUser() you check if the values exist in the SharedPreferences and if exist you return the data and if not return a message. Later in the Splash bloc you call the values of getUser() and in the view, you check if the values exist and navigate to the next page or launch an error message, is a lot of code to write but believe me is the best way. I almost forgot to say the removeUser() is for the Logout and the function is very simple just remove the values from the SharedPreferences | That is voluntarily unsupported.
Provider forces uni-directional dataflow for a better code quality.
A potential solution in your situation is to split ApiController in multiple pieces, like UserController et SomethingController. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | As I understand your question, no there is not. A tie is always written out with a curved line connecting two or more notes of the same pitch.
The only thing that I can think of that comes close is a dotted note. However, a dotted note is viewed as one note, not multiple notes tied together. | In guitar music you occasionally find the remark "Let Ring." This means tones are held as long as possible, until that finger is required elsewhere. A somewhat similar effect is produced by holding the sostenuto pedal on a piano.
[Perhaps my terminology implies more expertise than I actually possess. I learned on an antique player-piano with the player mechanism discarded. It had a pedal that moved all the hammers closer to the strings thus curbing the range of accelleration, the 'piano' pedal. And it had a pedal to raise all the dampers so every tone rang until it had diminished below the threshold of perception. It is this pedal that I mean by 'sostenuto'. To use it musically, you have to *clear the memory* while sounding a new chord, so as to have no gap in the sound. There are some fancy "modern" pianos that can sustain only the notes currently being played, allowing staccatto on the other keys. The player-pianos of yore did not have this ability.]
While the staff notation would be no different than *not doing this*, it does seem to require explicit instructions (e.g., "Hold pedal until a chord can hide the pedal change."). Instructing software to do this would be somewhat different than instructing musicians. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | As I understand your question, no there is not. A tie is always written out with a curved line connecting two or more notes of the same pitch.
The only thing that I can think of that comes close is a dotted note. However, a dotted note is viewed as one note, not multiple notes tied together. | It depends on the instrument. The abbreviation "l.v." is used. It stands for "lasciare vibrare" in Italian, or "let vibrate" or as luser droog says, "let ring". It is used for percussion instruments like the tam-tam and timpani, and also for harp and similar instruments.
For piano music Beethoven uses "senza sordini" which means "without dampers", i.e. hold the damper pedal down. See the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata (Sonata number 14).
Your best bet is to just write instructions at the beginning telling the musician what to do. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | As I understand your question, no there is not. A tie is always written out with a curved line connecting two or more notes of the same pitch.
The only thing that I can think of that comes close is a dotted note. However, a dotted note is viewed as one note, not multiple notes tied together. | Now, just a moment... Hymns, Choir, Implicit Ties...
Could you be talking about like Gregorian Chant kind of stuff? AFIK, Gregorian Chant is distinguished in notation by having only four lines, with or without a clef, which may be any letter a-h ("No B♭, that's a Bad B♭!").
Older than that is notation based on 'neumes' which I never really understood. But neume comes from 'pneuma', greek for spirit or breath; so with both of these, the notes comprising one word of the text are to be sung as if tied together.
For software, I'd search for something with a Chant mode, or a plugin or something. This has got to be already-explored territory. 2¢ |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | If you want a long, sustained note, you could notate it in quite a few different ways. Below are some suggestions. Not all will actually save you time, by cutting notation, though! Each of these is only five bars long, so, obviously, you would only get any time benefit from using these techniques with longer notes.
BTW, I haven't used Noteworthy Composer before, so have no idea if they would work with that software. I used Sibelius7 for these, and all played back exactly the same (apart from the second line), i.e. with one sustained note per bar.
1. Standard Notation.
2. Similar notation using ties into rests; even though this doesn't require notes to be written, it would actually take more time to put in as the placement of the ties is fiddly. For instruments where the sound decays (eg. piano, guitar) you would usually use **l.v.** too.
3. Using **repeat-bar** marks can save a lot of time.
4. This notation is effectively the same, and plays back the same, but is less clear; it's not clear whether you attack the second note…
5. And of course, if in doubt, use text to make the intention clear in the score.
With this answer I've tried to show different kinds of notation for sustained notes that would be valid within a score. Not all of them would save time if all you actually want is to hear the music (or to create a MIDI file of it, for instance). If all you want is to create a long held pitch, as quickly and easily as possible, the notation below will create the necessary effect (well, again, it works in Sibelius7, but might not in other software). But it is certainly *not* correct notation!
 | As I understand your question, no there is not. A tie is always written out with a curved line connecting two or more notes of the same pitch.
The only thing that I can think of that comes close is a dotted note. However, a dotted note is viewed as one note, not multiple notes tied together. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | It depends on the instrument. The abbreviation "l.v." is used. It stands for "lasciare vibrare" in Italian, or "let vibrate" or as luser droog says, "let ring". It is used for percussion instruments like the tam-tam and timpani, and also for harp and similar instruments.
For piano music Beethoven uses "senza sordini" which means "without dampers", i.e. hold the damper pedal down. See the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata (Sonata number 14).
Your best bet is to just write instructions at the beginning telling the musician what to do. | In guitar music you occasionally find the remark "Let Ring." This means tones are held as long as possible, until that finger is required elsewhere. A somewhat similar effect is produced by holding the sostenuto pedal on a piano.
[Perhaps my terminology implies more expertise than I actually possess. I learned on an antique player-piano with the player mechanism discarded. It had a pedal that moved all the hammers closer to the strings thus curbing the range of accelleration, the 'piano' pedal. And it had a pedal to raise all the dampers so every tone rang until it had diminished below the threshold of perception. It is this pedal that I mean by 'sostenuto'. To use it musically, you have to *clear the memory* while sounding a new chord, so as to have no gap in the sound. There are some fancy "modern" pianos that can sustain only the notes currently being played, allowing staccatto on the other keys. The player-pianos of yore did not have this ability.]
While the staff notation would be no different than *not doing this*, it does seem to require explicit instructions (e.g., "Hold pedal until a chord can hide the pedal change."). Instructing software to do this would be somewhat different than instructing musicians. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | If you want a long, sustained note, you could notate it in quite a few different ways. Below are some suggestions. Not all will actually save you time, by cutting notation, though! Each of these is only five bars long, so, obviously, you would only get any time benefit from using these techniques with longer notes.
BTW, I haven't used Noteworthy Composer before, so have no idea if they would work with that software. I used Sibelius7 for these, and all played back exactly the same (apart from the second line), i.e. with one sustained note per bar.
1. Standard Notation.
2. Similar notation using ties into rests; even though this doesn't require notes to be written, it would actually take more time to put in as the placement of the ties is fiddly. For instruments where the sound decays (eg. piano, guitar) you would usually use **l.v.** too.
3. Using **repeat-bar** marks can save a lot of time.
4. This notation is effectively the same, and plays back the same, but is less clear; it's not clear whether you attack the second note…
5. And of course, if in doubt, use text to make the intention clear in the score.
With this answer I've tried to show different kinds of notation for sustained notes that would be valid within a score. Not all of them would save time if all you actually want is to hear the music (or to create a MIDI file of it, for instance). If all you want is to create a long held pitch, as quickly and easily as possible, the notation below will create the necessary effect (well, again, it works in Sibelius7, but might not in other software). But it is certainly *not* correct notation!
 | In guitar music you occasionally find the remark "Let Ring." This means tones are held as long as possible, until that finger is required elsewhere. A somewhat similar effect is produced by holding the sostenuto pedal on a piano.
[Perhaps my terminology implies more expertise than I actually possess. I learned on an antique player-piano with the player mechanism discarded. It had a pedal that moved all the hammers closer to the strings thus curbing the range of accelleration, the 'piano' pedal. And it had a pedal to raise all the dampers so every tone rang until it had diminished below the threshold of perception. It is this pedal that I mean by 'sostenuto'. To use it musically, you have to *clear the memory* while sounding a new chord, so as to have no gap in the sound. There are some fancy "modern" pianos that can sustain only the notes currently being played, allowing staccatto on the other keys. The player-pianos of yore did not have this ability.]
While the staff notation would be no different than *not doing this*, it does seem to require explicit instructions (e.g., "Hold pedal until a chord can hide the pedal change."). Instructing software to do this would be somewhat different than instructing musicians. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | It depends on the instrument. The abbreviation "l.v." is used. It stands for "lasciare vibrare" in Italian, or "let vibrate" or as luser droog says, "let ring". It is used for percussion instruments like the tam-tam and timpani, and also for harp and similar instruments.
For piano music Beethoven uses "senza sordini" which means "without dampers", i.e. hold the damper pedal down. See the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata (Sonata number 14).
Your best bet is to just write instructions at the beginning telling the musician what to do. | Now, just a moment... Hymns, Choir, Implicit Ties...
Could you be talking about like Gregorian Chant kind of stuff? AFIK, Gregorian Chant is distinguished in notation by having only four lines, with or without a clef, which may be any letter a-h ("No B♭, that's a Bad B♭!").
Older than that is notation based on 'neumes' which I never really understood. But neume comes from 'pneuma', greek for spirit or breath; so with both of these, the notes comprising one word of the text are to be sung as if tied together.
For software, I'd search for something with a Chant mode, or a plugin or something. This has got to be already-explored territory. 2¢ |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | If you want a long, sustained note, you could notate it in quite a few different ways. Below are some suggestions. Not all will actually save you time, by cutting notation, though! Each of these is only five bars long, so, obviously, you would only get any time benefit from using these techniques with longer notes.
BTW, I haven't used Noteworthy Composer before, so have no idea if they would work with that software. I used Sibelius7 for these, and all played back exactly the same (apart from the second line), i.e. with one sustained note per bar.
1. Standard Notation.
2. Similar notation using ties into rests; even though this doesn't require notes to be written, it would actually take more time to put in as the placement of the ties is fiddly. For instruments where the sound decays (eg. piano, guitar) you would usually use **l.v.** too.
3. Using **repeat-bar** marks can save a lot of time.
4. This notation is effectively the same, and plays back the same, but is less clear; it's not clear whether you attack the second note…
5. And of course, if in doubt, use text to make the intention clear in the score.
With this answer I've tried to show different kinds of notation for sustained notes that would be valid within a score. Not all of them would save time if all you actually want is to hear the music (or to create a MIDI file of it, for instance). If all you want is to create a long held pitch, as quickly and easily as possible, the notation below will create the necessary effect (well, again, it works in Sibelius7, but might not in other software). But it is certainly *not* correct notation!
 | It depends on the instrument. The abbreviation "l.v." is used. It stands for "lasciare vibrare" in Italian, or "let vibrate" or as luser droog says, "let ring". It is used for percussion instruments like the tam-tam and timpani, and also for harp and similar instruments.
For piano music Beethoven uses "senza sordini" which means "without dampers", i.e. hold the damper pedal down. See the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata (Sonata number 14).
Your best bet is to just write instructions at the beginning telling the musician what to do. |
6,559 | Is there such a thing as an implied tie? Like some kind of symbol or notation that would specify to hold a note through the duration of all the notes on a pitch as if they were tied together.
**Edit:** I am asking because I am wondering if there is a way to specify that instruments hold one tone (like a choir that is humming) instead of playing each note separately. The reason I am wondering is because I am using a notation program to write out some music, and then you can listen to it, and I want to hear it like a choir humming. I know about ties, but I just thought I'd check if there is such a thing in music.
**Edit:** By implied, I mean it isn't written in the music. In other words it is specified at the beginning of the part or something like that.
**Edit:** I am using Noteworthy Composer. | 2012/06/20 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/2512/"
] | If you want a long, sustained note, you could notate it in quite a few different ways. Below are some suggestions. Not all will actually save you time, by cutting notation, though! Each of these is only five bars long, so, obviously, you would only get any time benefit from using these techniques with longer notes.
BTW, I haven't used Noteworthy Composer before, so have no idea if they would work with that software. I used Sibelius7 for these, and all played back exactly the same (apart from the second line), i.e. with one sustained note per bar.
1. Standard Notation.
2. Similar notation using ties into rests; even though this doesn't require notes to be written, it would actually take more time to put in as the placement of the ties is fiddly. For instruments where the sound decays (eg. piano, guitar) you would usually use **l.v.** too.
3. Using **repeat-bar** marks can save a lot of time.
4. This notation is effectively the same, and plays back the same, but is less clear; it's not clear whether you attack the second note…
5. And of course, if in doubt, use text to make the intention clear in the score.
With this answer I've tried to show different kinds of notation for sustained notes that would be valid within a score. Not all of them would save time if all you actually want is to hear the music (or to create a MIDI file of it, for instance). If all you want is to create a long held pitch, as quickly and easily as possible, the notation below will create the necessary effect (well, again, it works in Sibelius7, but might not in other software). But it is certainly *not* correct notation!
 | Now, just a moment... Hymns, Choir, Implicit Ties...
Could you be talking about like Gregorian Chant kind of stuff? AFIK, Gregorian Chant is distinguished in notation by having only four lines, with or without a clef, which may be any letter a-h ("No B♭, that's a Bad B♭!").
Older than that is notation based on 'neumes' which I never really understood. But neume comes from 'pneuma', greek for spirit or breath; so with both of these, the notes comprising one word of the text are to be sung as if tied together.
For software, I'd search for something with a Chant mode, or a plugin or something. This has got to be already-explored territory. 2¢ |
2,715 | I was advised by users over on the Law Stack Exchange to ask this here:
I have created a piece of software that converts a proprietary format from the database blob of a large, well known commercial software company into the equivalent open source data type. The large commercial software company states the following on their copyright and trademarks page "This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions." and links to the DMCA.
I was able to create the software because most details of the format were published in a post on their support forums and the rest I reverse-engineered.
I now wish to open-source my software so others can use it. My question has two parts:
1. Can I open-source this at all without getting sued?
2. Can I refer to the trademarked product the file format came from in my software and documentation? (I'm assuming I can't use it in the name of my software)
I'm in the UK. The large software company is in the US.
Edit: The data in the database is user created GIS data, inputted via the commercial program, it's just stored in a way that makes exporting difficult. | 2016/04/04 | [
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2715",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/users/4710/"
] | To be a little more precise on the above response:
Take two different scenarios as follows-
1. A database containing proprietary data which you cannot generate yourself.
2. A database generated from user inputs in your application.
If your database generally speaking conforms to #2 (Accounting software, sales etc.), then in the most general of terms you are likely to be able to do this.
How this will be received is another thing altogether- Many companies will aggressively attempt to shut you down, whether or not you are completely legal.
I also don't know exactly what was posted on their forums, or for that matter what the TOS of the forums was- If the TOS of the forums states that you cannot use data posted here to reverse-engineer etc. then you may have problems.
On the other hand, as the previous answer notes, if the contents of the database are what is proprietary, then you could *potentially* land in trouble.
Again though, this is by no means certain. It very much depends on the terms of the license agreement that you signed when installing the program initially.
This is probably one where you'll need to consult a lawyer, as I suspect there's a good chance that they may take of fence whether or not you are 100% legal, and being able to point them in the direction of a concrete legal opinion is far better than what you're going to get here.
Either way, we need far more details to be of any use to you! | If what is under said restrictions is the database blob, and they can make the case that the conversion "removes a copyright protection measure" (or however the law states it) you can certainly land in very hot water for encouraging or providing tools to do just that. |
2,715 | I was advised by users over on the Law Stack Exchange to ask this here:
I have created a piece of software that converts a proprietary format from the database blob of a large, well known commercial software company into the equivalent open source data type. The large commercial software company states the following on their copyright and trademarks page "This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions." and links to the DMCA.
I was able to create the software because most details of the format were published in a post on their support forums and the rest I reverse-engineered.
I now wish to open-source my software so others can use it. My question has two parts:
1. Can I open-source this at all without getting sued?
2. Can I refer to the trademarked product the file format came from in my software and documentation? (I'm assuming I can't use it in the name of my software)
I'm in the UK. The large software company is in the US.
Edit: The data in the database is user created GIS data, inputted via the commercial program, it's just stored in a way that makes exporting difficult. | 2016/04/04 | [
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2715",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/users/4710/"
] | Based upon your followup, I see no real legal issues other than those mentioned in my first post.
**Please remember that I am not a lawyer, and hold no liability for this**
My reasoning:
1. They are a reference to unique, non-copyrightable place references.
2. They are user generated, not generated by the makers of the software.
3. There are multiple uses for a point on a map, over and above the specific functionality of the software.
4. There are multiple GIS software packages- Providing a converter between them probably comes under interoperability.
If the company decides that they don't like what you are doing, the onus will be on you to prove that what you are doing is legal and above board, not the other way around.
You'll need to think about how you might prove this, and if this looks like getting serious, I'd again urge you to get into touch with a lawyer, as the law is very easy to trip yourself up on.
You especially need to be wary of the differences between American law and British law- Whilst I know some about British law, I know nothing about American law. | If what is under said restrictions is the database blob, and they can make the case that the conversion "removes a copyright protection measure" (or however the law states it) you can certainly land in very hot water for encouraging or providing tools to do just that. |
2,715 | I was advised by users over on the Law Stack Exchange to ask this here:
I have created a piece of software that converts a proprietary format from the database blob of a large, well known commercial software company into the equivalent open source data type. The large commercial software company states the following on their copyright and trademarks page "This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions." and links to the DMCA.
I was able to create the software because most details of the format were published in a post on their support forums and the rest I reverse-engineered.
I now wish to open-source my software so others can use it. My question has two parts:
1. Can I open-source this at all without getting sued?
2. Can I refer to the trademarked product the file format came from in my software and documentation? (I'm assuming I can't use it in the name of my software)
I'm in the UK. The large software company is in the US.
Edit: The data in the database is user created GIS data, inputted via the commercial program, it's just stored in a way that makes exporting difficult. | 2016/04/04 | [
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2715",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com",
"https://opensource.stackexchange.com/users/4710/"
] | Based upon your followup, I see no real legal issues other than those mentioned in my first post.
**Please remember that I am not a lawyer, and hold no liability for this**
My reasoning:
1. They are a reference to unique, non-copyrightable place references.
2. They are user generated, not generated by the makers of the software.
3. There are multiple uses for a point on a map, over and above the specific functionality of the software.
4. There are multiple GIS software packages- Providing a converter between them probably comes under interoperability.
If the company decides that they don't like what you are doing, the onus will be on you to prove that what you are doing is legal and above board, not the other way around.
You'll need to think about how you might prove this, and if this looks like getting serious, I'd again urge you to get into touch with a lawyer, as the law is very easy to trip yourself up on.
You especially need to be wary of the differences between American law and British law- Whilst I know some about British law, I know nothing about American law. | To be a little more precise on the above response:
Take two different scenarios as follows-
1. A database containing proprietary data which you cannot generate yourself.
2. A database generated from user inputs in your application.
If your database generally speaking conforms to #2 (Accounting software, sales etc.), then in the most general of terms you are likely to be able to do this.
How this will be received is another thing altogether- Many companies will aggressively attempt to shut you down, whether or not you are completely legal.
I also don't know exactly what was posted on their forums, or for that matter what the TOS of the forums was- If the TOS of the forums states that you cannot use data posted here to reverse-engineer etc. then you may have problems.
On the other hand, as the previous answer notes, if the contents of the database are what is proprietary, then you could *potentially* land in trouble.
Again though, this is by no means certain. It very much depends on the terms of the license agreement that you signed when installing the program initially.
This is probably one where you'll need to consult a lawyer, as I suspect there's a good chance that they may take of fence whether or not you are 100% legal, and being able to point them in the direction of a concrete legal opinion is far better than what you're going to get here.
Either way, we need far more details to be of any use to you! |
19,112,744 | i have this problem:
I've created a Cms on my server hosted in Aruba (i call this My-server), i need to connect to a remote server (i call this external-server) to update its Database (Mysql) and ftp uploads via php.
I opened ports and connection in the external-server but it seems that Aruba blocks connection to external servers, even if tunnelling by port 80.
When i use my cms from virtual server (APache) on my laptop all works but when i moved to the server i got problems.
Any advice to solve the problem?
I cannot move my cms to external-server for politicy reason. | 2013/10/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/19112744",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2428254/"
] | In your MySQL config add this
skip-external-locking
and in the config also remove this line below as if this is in place then no outsider can login.
bind-address = 127.0.0.1
========================
restart the MYSQL after this. | You can asked Aruba to provide you access to port 80, 3306 etc. Just ask them I think they will remove it through their firewalls or iptables. |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | *[Learning Perl, Fifth Edition](http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596520106/)* and later scover 5.10. Other than that, the resources that other people mentioned, including perldelta, are pretty good. I've written a couple of articles about some of the features for [The Effective Perler](http://www.effectiveperlprogramming.com/category/perl/5-10/).
The best way to get started is to pick an interesting feature and play around with it. That's how the authors of the guides you'll find figured it out. That's how you really should start learning anything is just about any language. | See Ricardo Signes' slides for his excellent "Perl 5.10 For People Who Aren't Totally Insane."
<http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane> |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | The [perldelta](http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl-5.10.0/pod/perl5100delta.pod) manpage has all the nitty-gritty details. There's a brief (but informative) slide presentation, [Perl 5.10 for people who aren't totally insane](http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane/). And a good [PerlMonks discussion](http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=654042) on the issue. | *[Learning Perl, Fifth Edition](http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596520106/)* and later scover 5.10. Other than that, the resources that other people mentioned, including perldelta, are pretty good. I've written a couple of articles about some of the features for [The Effective Perler](http://www.effectiveperlprogramming.com/category/perl/5-10/).
The best way to get started is to pick an interesting feature and play around with it. That's how the authors of the guides you'll find figured it out. That's how you really should start learning anything is just about any language. |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | There's been a string of articles in [Perl Tips](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/) about Perl 5.10:
* [Regular Expressions in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-02-08.html)
* [Perl 5.10: Defined-or and state](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-03.html)
* [Switch (given and when)](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-12.html)
* [Perl 5.10 and Hash::Util::FieldHash](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-25.html)
* [Smart-match in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html)
There are also my *What's new in Perl 5.10* slides on [Perl Training Australia's presentations page](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html), but since they were written before 5.10 was released, some things may have changed slightly. I believe that rjbs' [Perl 5.10 for people who aren't totally insane](http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane/) now covers everything my slides used to.
All the best,
*Paul*
*Mandatory bias disclosure: I wrote almost all of the resources mentioned in this post,* | *[Learning Perl, Fifth Edition](http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596520106/)* and later scover 5.10. Other than that, the resources that other people mentioned, including perldelta, are pretty good. I've written a couple of articles about some of the features for [The Effective Perler](http://www.effectiveperlprogramming.com/category/perl/5-10/).
The best way to get started is to pick an interesting feature and play around with it. That's how the authors of the guides you'll find figured it out. That's how you really should start learning anything is just about any language. |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | The [perldelta](http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl-5.10.0/pod/perl5100delta.pod) manpage has all the nitty-gritty details. There's a brief (but informative) slide presentation, [Perl 5.10 for people who aren't totally insane](http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane/). And a good [PerlMonks discussion](http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=654042) on the issue. | Regex Improvements include named captures: [Look Here](http://www.szabgab.com/blog/2007/12/1198488988.html) |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | There's been a string of articles in [Perl Tips](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/) about Perl 5.10:
* [Regular Expressions in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-02-08.html)
* [Perl 5.10: Defined-or and state](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-03.html)
* [Switch (given and when)](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-12.html)
* [Perl 5.10 and Hash::Util::FieldHash](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-25.html)
* [Smart-match in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html)
There are also my *What's new in Perl 5.10* slides on [Perl Training Australia's presentations page](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html), but since they were written before 5.10 was released, some things may have changed slightly. I believe that rjbs' [Perl 5.10 for people who aren't totally insane](http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane/) now covers everything my slides used to.
All the best,
*Paul*
*Mandatory bias disclosure: I wrote almost all of the resources mentioned in this post,* | See Ricardo Signes' slides for his excellent "Perl 5.10 For People Who Aren't Totally Insane."
<http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane> |
168,530 | I didn't realize until recently that Perl 5.10 had significant new features and I was wondering if anyone could give me some good resources for learning about those. I searched for them on Google and all I found was some slides and a quick overview. Some of the features (to me at least) would be nice if they had more explanation.
Any links would be appreciated.
-fREW | 2008/10/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/168530",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12448/"
] | There's been a string of articles in [Perl Tips](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/) about Perl 5.10:
* [Regular Expressions in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-02-08.html)
* [Perl 5.10: Defined-or and state](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-03.html)
* [Switch (given and when)](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-12.html)
* [Perl 5.10 and Hash::Util::FieldHash](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-03-25.html)
* [Smart-match in Perl 5.10](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html)
There are also my *What's new in Perl 5.10* slides on [Perl Training Australia's presentations page](http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2008-04-18.html), but since they were written before 5.10 was released, some things may have changed slightly. I believe that rjbs' [Perl 5.10 for people who aren't totally insane](http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane/) now covers everything my slides used to.
All the best,
*Paul*
*Mandatory bias disclosure: I wrote almost all of the resources mentioned in this post,* | Regex Improvements include named captures: [Look Here](http://www.szabgab.com/blog/2007/12/1198488988.html) |
60,496 | I have bought a second hand 19 inch frame and I am normally used to a 20.5 inch.
The bike rides OK but I would benefit from raising the handlebars.
I have read about fork steerer tube extenders and adjustable bicycle stems.
I personally think the fork extender would be a better way, are there any advantages or disadvantages to either? | 2019/04/23 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/60496",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/42191/"
] | A stem with a greater angle and rise, potentially coupled with a riser handlebar will be a stronger solution than a steerer extender. If you are doing casual riding on flat ground a steerer extender is probably OK. If you are riding rough terrain and putting a lot of force through the bars an extender may not be able to handle it. | Are you sure you have a threaded steerer? Like this?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1wCRr.png)
If so, then there are a few options:
If you just want a quick bike fit fix and be done with it, then, as you most likely have a quill stem, get one with higher height and/or angle:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EdXXn.png)
But, if you want a long-term thing and 'get with the times', you can fit a quill stem to threadless adapter:
(2nd image is an expander stem version, but it also works the same)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lO4X0.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VVqgb.png)
Though you will also need to buy an actual threadless stem too. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke
We have a world of wonder and excitement right now. Roller coasters, video games, skydiving. There are places to find thrills that we never imagined years ago. E-sports are a thing now. We have a computers that are the best in the world at ancient board games.
Even with all this wonder, we still love soccer and hockey and football. We will always have those: they are a part of our culture, and we're not giving them up. There will be magical sports, but there is another joy in restricting your ability with strict rules for the challenge of it. | Sports demonstrate a certain intangible character that people have. Sure, there's the flash, and the pizaz, but in the end people watch the sports to watch some small intangible trait that they can relate to. As a general rule, if someone doesn't relate to the traits that sport appreciates, they will consider a sport "boring." For example, unless you appreciate the mind game between the bowler and the batsman, the idea of a 5 day long cricket match isn't going to be your cup of tea.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPSgzm.jpg)
Speaking of tea, consider Tea Dueling. It's a "sport" in the steampunk community that requires a steady hand and a proud spirit:
>
> Let's discuss the very steampunk sport of tea dueling. Tea dueling is the art of gracefully dunking a tea biscuit into a "Cup of Brown Joy", soaking it for five seconds, and then lifting it and cleanly "nomming" on it- all without dripping tea, losing biscuit fragments into the tea or on the table, and doing so after your fellow duelist. ([source](http://unlacethevictorians.blogspot.com/2012/04/art-of-tea-dueling.html))
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fWqlg.jpg)
If you ever get a chance to watch a really good Tea Duel, complete with high brow heckling, I highly recommend you take it. Regardless, the point is that these people are *passionate* about Tea Dueling.
The point is, the real aficionados of a sport aren't in it for the massive flashy bits. They're in it for the nuanced bits that make the sport something to come back to. Those little bits will be there with or without magic, so I would expect to see many games that don't permit magic, simply because doing so allows them to emphasize the traits they want associated with their sport. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | E-sports are a field that is currently expanding massively, being almost unheard of only a few years ago, and not even existing not long before that. However, with advances in technology, they are becoming better, and are now a huge deal.
There is, however, a lot of stigma attached to e-sports by people saying they're "not really a sport", which I can imagine would have been a real issue for magical sports events when magic was discovered.
This would have stagnated the development of magic sports initially, and even 1000 years later there may still be some naysayers who don't see it as a pure sport, particularly if they don't have a natural affinity with magic. Or vice versa, with physical sports no longer being seen as proper sports in favor of magical ones.
As well as having purely physical sports and purely magical ones, you would also likely have sports that combine the two, or using magic to enhance the capabilities of physical sports players.
Think about how much technology is used to develop better cars for Formula 1, or how much statistical analysis is used in baseball. American football players watch back replays of their games to see what they did right and wrong in their plays and iron out any weaknesses. It's likely magic could be used to make physical sports better and cause them to evolve, rather than replacing them outright. | The one spell you need cast to keep non-magical sports as a continuing source of pleasure to competitors and entertainment to spectators is a really good magic-suppressant spell over the playing field. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke
We have a world of wonder and excitement right now. Roller coasters, video games, skydiving. There are places to find thrills that we never imagined years ago. E-sports are a thing now. We have a computers that are the best in the world at ancient board games.
Even with all this wonder, we still love soccer and hockey and football. We will always have those: they are a part of our culture, and we're not giving them up. There will be magical sports, but there is another joy in restricting your ability with strict rules for the challenge of it. | I think you can justify both scenarios depending on your philosophy, or the philosophy of your world.
**On one hand**, I do think Olympic Games would eventually die if there were supercharged-on-drugs Olympics next to it. I'll summarize my thought with this: more spectacle means more audience, more audience means more money. Full stop.
It wouldn't happen tomorrow, and Olympics may survive as a marginal thing. But it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the less viewership the less coverage, and the less coverage the less viewership. Eventually, TV networks would go where the money is, and the money would go where the TV networks are. Not to mention some people watch the event rather the sports/performance, so the bigger the event the more watchable. You get the idea.
Now about playing, it seems it would still require physical and/or mental performance to be a pro magic-sportsperson, so regular sports would still be around for training or for fitness. If using magic is particularly taxing, it's also probable most people would play the regular kind recreationally. Pro players would still go where the money is, but most people aren't pro players and just look for a fun game to play.
Essentially, they would play it but not watch it. A few people might watch on that one network, and would go to those few events, but the masses would be drawn to the flash of Magic Super Lazer Curling Xtreme.
On a side note, your magic-sports league may or may not be ripe with corruption if money is the deciding factor.
**On the other hand**, Paralympics. They don't have nowhere near the same coverage or viewership as the Olympics, but they are still held right before or after the Olympics. It's all in the spirit of sports, and promoting abilities (rather than disabilities) and stuff.
So if your society was really high on ideals, I can see non-magic events as legitimate, full-fledged events.
You probably still need to enforce a strict anti-magic system. Sufficiently motivated individuals/groups would also most likely find a way around it, as evidenced by real life (see cycling, but to be fair it's one of the few sports with actual anti-doping authorities).
But in this scenario, sports doesn't exist as a spectacle but more as an ideal. People would watch for the physical/mental performance rather than to turn off their brains while they drink beer. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | It is practically guaranteed that you would still have non-magical sports and games.
The fairly simple reason is that with most sports, the rules are set up so it won't be too easy.
When playing darts, the distance to the board is there to make it harder to hit the mark.
In soccer you may not use your hands. In baseball, you cannot use a computer controlled gun turret to shoot the ball, although that would be easier than using a length of wood. In bicycle races, you cannot use motorcycles, although they would be faster.
Of course we also have motorcycle races, so in your world you will also have (enter magic-powered sport of your liking), but it will go alongside non-magical sports, it won't replace them.
Some people will prefer some of the non-magical sports, others will prefer other stuff, and, as a side note, of course they will all point at the others and say "that's not really sports". | Sports demonstrate a certain intangible character that people have. Sure, there's the flash, and the pizaz, but in the end people watch the sports to watch some small intangible trait that they can relate to. As a general rule, if someone doesn't relate to the traits that sport appreciates, they will consider a sport "boring." For example, unless you appreciate the mind game between the bowler and the batsman, the idea of a 5 day long cricket match isn't going to be your cup of tea.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPSgzm.jpg)
Speaking of tea, consider Tea Dueling. It's a "sport" in the steampunk community that requires a steady hand and a proud spirit:
>
> Let's discuss the very steampunk sport of tea dueling. Tea dueling is the art of gracefully dunking a tea biscuit into a "Cup of Brown Joy", soaking it for five seconds, and then lifting it and cleanly "nomming" on it- all without dripping tea, losing biscuit fragments into the tea or on the table, and doing so after your fellow duelist. ([source](http://unlacethevictorians.blogspot.com/2012/04/art-of-tea-dueling.html))
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fWqlg.jpg)
If you ever get a chance to watch a really good Tea Duel, complete with high brow heckling, I highly recommend you take it. Regardless, the point is that these people are *passionate* about Tea Dueling.
The point is, the real aficionados of a sport aren't in it for the massive flashy bits. They're in it for the nuanced bits that make the sport something to come back to. Those little bits will be there with or without magic, so I would expect to see many games that don't permit magic, simply because doing so allows them to emphasize the traits they want associated with their sport. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | Absolutely there would be mundane sports. Think about all the technology about now and still the most popular sports are the ones that don't use much of it, that could have been played 300 years ago. Football (of various kinds), Athletics, Swimming, Baseball/Cricket, Tennis.
And the reason is that they *are* simple. You don't need the technology to play them and they are very easy to pick up. Take soccer for instance, all you need is a bunch of pals (or kids your age knocking around the area), a ball, a flat open space and four jumpers. You don't need to buy expensive equipment, you can play without specialised training, etc. So interest develops at an early age and is very widespread at all levels.
As fun as Quidditch might be to watch, I imagine it would in fact be a niche sport (if it were viewable by the muggle public) more like maybe motorcycle racing simply because young kids could not just pick a broomstick and start playing with each other. | I think you can justify both scenarios depending on your philosophy, or the philosophy of your world.
**On one hand**, I do think Olympic Games would eventually die if there were supercharged-on-drugs Olympics next to it. I'll summarize my thought with this: more spectacle means more audience, more audience means more money. Full stop.
It wouldn't happen tomorrow, and Olympics may survive as a marginal thing. But it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the less viewership the less coverage, and the less coverage the less viewership. Eventually, TV networks would go where the money is, and the money would go where the TV networks are. Not to mention some people watch the event rather the sports/performance, so the bigger the event the more watchable. You get the idea.
Now about playing, it seems it would still require physical and/or mental performance to be a pro magic-sportsperson, so regular sports would still be around for training or for fitness. If using magic is particularly taxing, it's also probable most people would play the regular kind recreationally. Pro players would still go where the money is, but most people aren't pro players and just look for a fun game to play.
Essentially, they would play it but not watch it. A few people might watch on that one network, and would go to those few events, but the masses would be drawn to the flash of Magic Super Lazer Curling Xtreme.
On a side note, your magic-sports league may or may not be ripe with corruption if money is the deciding factor.
**On the other hand**, Paralympics. They don't have nowhere near the same coverage or viewership as the Olympics, but they are still held right before or after the Olympics. It's all in the spirit of sports, and promoting abilities (rather than disabilities) and stuff.
So if your society was really high on ideals, I can see non-magic events as legitimate, full-fledged events.
You probably still need to enforce a strict anti-magic system. Sufficiently motivated individuals/groups would also most likely find a way around it, as evidenced by real life (see cycling, but to be fair it's one of the few sports with actual anti-doping authorities).
But in this scenario, sports doesn't exist as a spectacle but more as an ideal. People would watch for the physical/mental performance rather than to turn off their brains while they drink beer. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke
We have a world of wonder and excitement right now. Roller coasters, video games, skydiving. There are places to find thrills that we never imagined years ago. E-sports are a thing now. We have a computers that are the best in the world at ancient board games.
Even with all this wonder, we still love soccer and hockey and football. We will always have those: they are a part of our culture, and we're not giving them up. There will be magical sports, but there is another joy in restricting your ability with strict rules for the challenge of it. | E-sports are a field that is currently expanding massively, being almost unheard of only a few years ago, and not even existing not long before that. However, with advances in technology, they are becoming better, and are now a huge deal.
There is, however, a lot of stigma attached to e-sports by people saying they're "not really a sport", which I can imagine would have been a real issue for magical sports events when magic was discovered.
This would have stagnated the development of magic sports initially, and even 1000 years later there may still be some naysayers who don't see it as a pure sport, particularly if they don't have a natural affinity with magic. Or vice versa, with physical sports no longer being seen as proper sports in favor of magical ones.
As well as having purely physical sports and purely magical ones, you would also likely have sports that combine the two, or using magic to enhance the capabilities of physical sports players.
Think about how much technology is used to develop better cars for Formula 1, or how much statistical analysis is used in baseball. American football players watch back replays of their games to see what they did right and wrong in their plays and iron out any weaknesses. It's likely magic could be used to make physical sports better and cause them to evolve, rather than replacing them outright. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | Whenever I read question like this, I can't help but to think that OP is too "anthropomorphic". People in your world can and probably would be different to us (unless introduction of magic is very recent) in terms of customs, morals and thinking in general. In this case, you can justify pretty much any difference between our cultures.
In this specific case, you can easily have only non-magical sports and justify it by custom, honor, desire for purity and/or fairness or what have you. Alternatively, you have both types of sports, for reasons stated in other answers | The one spell you need cast to keep non-magical sports as a continuing source of pleasure to competitors and entertainment to spectators is a really good magic-suppressant spell over the playing field. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | It is practically guaranteed that you would still have non-magical sports and games.
The fairly simple reason is that with most sports, the rules are set up so it won't be too easy.
When playing darts, the distance to the board is there to make it harder to hit the mark.
In soccer you may not use your hands. In baseball, you cannot use a computer controlled gun turret to shoot the ball, although that would be easier than using a length of wood. In bicycle races, you cannot use motorcycles, although they would be faster.
Of course we also have motorcycle races, so in your world you will also have (enter magic-powered sport of your liking), but it will go alongside non-magical sports, it won't replace them.
Some people will prefer some of the non-magical sports, others will prefer other stuff, and, as a side note, of course they will all point at the others and say "that's not really sports". | Take a look at our existing sports and games in our world. Soccer. Baseball. (American) Football. Basketball. Poker. Super Mario Bros. They all have one very basic thing in common.
*They all limit the player.*
In soccer, you're not allowed to use your hands (unless you're the goalie). In baseball, you can't grab the guy trying to steal second to slow him down until you get the ball to tag him out. In (American) Football, you can't go outside the boundries of the field. In Basketball, you can't move with the ball unless you're dribbling. In Poker, you can't choose another card if you get a bad hand. In Super Mario Bros, you can't just fly to the end of the level over everything.
There's no physical or logical reason these things can't be done. You could easily just hold the basketball and run down the court with it, or draw another card from the deck, or they could have programmed Mario without any gravity. But the thing is:
*Limiting the player makes the game more fun.*
In a way, limiting the player is what makes the game a game. Hackeysack wouldn't be much of a game if you could just catch the sack, since it takes away the challenge and development of skill (ie, the fun).
So yes, I can definitely see that sports and games would exist that have a "no magic" rule, in a magical world, and some of them might even be the same as ours. But lots of them might not, too. Keeping in mind that this magical element, in your fictional world, isn't something that's *added*, but something that *is,* I could see that "no magic" games could have fewer limits than our games do, and some simple activity that doesn't sound very fun to us could easily become an extremely fun game to someone who has the additional *no magic* limit. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | Absolutely there would be mundane sports. Think about all the technology about now and still the most popular sports are the ones that don't use much of it, that could have been played 300 years ago. Football (of various kinds), Athletics, Swimming, Baseball/Cricket, Tennis.
And the reason is that they *are* simple. You don't need the technology to play them and they are very easy to pick up. Take soccer for instance, all you need is a bunch of pals (or kids your age knocking around the area), a ball, a flat open space and four jumpers. You don't need to buy expensive equipment, you can play without specialised training, etc. So interest develops at an early age and is very widespread at all levels.
As fun as Quidditch might be to watch, I imagine it would in fact be a niche sport (if it were viewable by the muggle public) more like maybe motorcycle racing simply because young kids could not just pick a broomstick and start playing with each other. | E-sports are a field that is currently expanding massively, being almost unheard of only a few years ago, and not even existing not long before that. However, with advances in technology, they are becoming better, and are now a huge deal.
There is, however, a lot of stigma attached to e-sports by people saying they're "not really a sport", which I can imagine would have been a real issue for magical sports events when magic was discovered.
This would have stagnated the development of magic sports initially, and even 1000 years later there may still be some naysayers who don't see it as a pure sport, particularly if they don't have a natural affinity with magic. Or vice versa, with physical sports no longer being seen as proper sports in favor of magical ones.
As well as having purely physical sports and purely magical ones, you would also likely have sports that combine the two, or using magic to enhance the capabilities of physical sports players.
Think about how much technology is used to develop better cars for Formula 1, or how much statistical analysis is used in baseball. American football players watch back replays of their games to see what they did right and wrong in their plays and iron out any weaknesses. It's likely magic could be used to make physical sports better and cause them to evolve, rather than replacing them outright. |
38,121 | In a world of magic/superpowers, would there be any demand for sports or games that didn't use magic? Magic here can be though of as a science and is mostly accessible to people who want to learn, but does have a bit of a steep learning curve at the beginning. It can be self taught if one wishes to put forth the effort and there's no ritual/incantation attached, so things are a bit more streamlined (Though, many will claim that you get better and more potent results with a good ol' fashion chant). In fact, magic here is so researched, it can be measured, enhanced and manipulated to the point where they have it down to a science.
Obviously, with the existence magic comes the potential for all new forms of sports and games. Flashy spectacles of daring and thrilling competition, teams raring to show of their adroit tactics and skills. People hold local tournaments and line the stadiums to see who will come out on top!
...That said, with such high octane thrillrides of magical sports and games, does anyone even care to watch or play the ones that don't involve spells and powers being flung around? Would things like football and baseball even have a chance against the likes of something such as that?
Things that you can assume:
* It is measurable. This includes a person's potential. This way leagues can be created to divide according to aptitude. And it can all be regulated with well defined rules. (Usually people can go up in ability level after lots of practice, usually they don't go down unless they haven't used any magic in forever.)
* Not everyone knows how to use magic. Everyone can learn, but somepeople don't bother, because it doesn't pertain to their daily life and it would be a hassle. (Still most people do take the time, and a lot of times it can be taken in school as an elective)
* Magic has been around for a *very* long time. Thousands of years and is pretty ingrained in society for the most part.
So, do people care about the nonmagical variants of sports and games, or would they have died out when magic began to take over? | 2016/03/15 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38121",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/18534/"
] | It is practically guaranteed that you would still have non-magical sports and games.
The fairly simple reason is that with most sports, the rules are set up so it won't be too easy.
When playing darts, the distance to the board is there to make it harder to hit the mark.
In soccer you may not use your hands. In baseball, you cannot use a computer controlled gun turret to shoot the ball, although that would be easier than using a length of wood. In bicycle races, you cannot use motorcycles, although they would be faster.
Of course we also have motorcycle races, so in your world you will also have (enter magic-powered sport of your liking), but it will go alongside non-magical sports, it won't replace them.
Some people will prefer some of the non-magical sports, others will prefer other stuff, and, as a side note, of course they will all point at the others and say "that's not really sports". | "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke
We have a world of wonder and excitement right now. Roller coasters, video games, skydiving. There are places to find thrills that we never imagined years ago. E-sports are a thing now. We have a computers that are the best in the world at ancient board games.
Even with all this wonder, we still love soccer and hockey and football. We will always have those: they are a part of our culture, and we're not giving them up. There will be magical sports, but there is another joy in restricting your ability with strict rules for the challenge of it. |
35,922 | There is a Jewish source that an hour was split into 1080 parts and there seems to be an explanation for that number that it is the amount of breaths taken in an hour (18 breaths per minute (which is realistic))
Is there any evidence that breath was used as a time measurement, before clocks became popular? | 2017/03/09 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35922",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/13138/"
] | Legalese
========
When a person commits a crime, they become a subject to a judicial prosecution, with a notable exception of executives and other high government officials, who have to be [Impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States) first.
In the unforgettable words of [Benjamin Franklin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
>
> historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination
>
>
>
And **impeachment** (combined with the separation of powers, making Legislature **independent** from the Executive) is the nice alternative.
Think of **impeachment** (by the lower chamber of the Legislature - Representatives) as the analogue of [**indictment**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment), and the **trial** is then conducted by the upper chamber of the Legislature (the Senate), as opposed to a court for common criminals.
History
=======
When it became clear and certain that [Nixon would be impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon), he [resigned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Resignation).
This made impeachment **unnecessary** to prosecute him - an ordinary
prosecutor could open a case and he could be tried in an ordinary court.
However, after Nixon resigned, his successor Ford [pardoned him](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon):
>
> ...granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president...
>
>
>
making it impossible to prosecute Nixon in an ordinary court.
This left a "possibility" for impeaching (in the Chamber of
Representatives) and trying (in the Senate) Nixon the resigned private citizen.
This required overcoming **two** hurdles in **both** chambers:
A Representative voting to impeach / a Senator voting to convict
had to believe **two** things:
1. Nixon was guilty
2. A private citizen is a subject to impeachment
The [Belknap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap) episode
(a Secretary of War resigned and was nevertheless impeached by
Representatives but acquitted by Senate) created a [**precedent** of 8
(**eight**)](http://inside.fdu.edu/fdupress/05112105review.html)
>
> civil officials facing impeachment have resigned from office and avoided a trial
>
>
>
Thus by the time of Watergate it was a well established law that **a
private citizen cannot be impeached**, so it was extraordinary unlikely
that a 2/3 majority of Senate would vote "yes" on the second hurdle above.
"American leaders" have better things to do than entertain impossibilities.
**PS.** The pardon was controversial: while putting an end to a multi-year chain of scandals, it shielded a crook from jail. Nevertheless, it was a legally unimpeachable move, so nothing could have been done about it.
**PPS.** To answer comments: there can be no *"post-resignation impeachment"* - like you cannot kill an already dead person. When Nixon resigned, he became a subject to common prosecution like any other criminal - there was no **need** to impeach him anymore.
However, Ford's pardon removed any possibility to prosecute him - that's the *meaning* of the word [pardon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon). | No
--
The impeachment motion had made it through a House committee, although the actual impeachment had yet to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. The latter process, as well as Nixon's trial (and almost certain removal) in the Senate, was short-circuited by Nixon's resignation.
The purpose of impeachment and trial of an elected official is the removal from office of that official. Once Nixon resigned, the purpose had been accomplished, and there was no need to proceed further in Congress.
Of course, Nixon could have been tried in "judicial" courts until the Ford pardon made that moot. |
35,922 | There is a Jewish source that an hour was split into 1080 parts and there seems to be an explanation for that number that it is the amount of breaths taken in an hour (18 breaths per minute (which is realistic))
Is there any evidence that breath was used as a time measurement, before clocks became popular? | 2017/03/09 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35922",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/13138/"
] | Legalese
========
When a person commits a crime, they become a subject to a judicial prosecution, with a notable exception of executives and other high government officials, who have to be [Impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States) first.
In the unforgettable words of [Benjamin Franklin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
>
> historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination
>
>
>
And **impeachment** (combined with the separation of powers, making Legislature **independent** from the Executive) is the nice alternative.
Think of **impeachment** (by the lower chamber of the Legislature - Representatives) as the analogue of [**indictment**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment), and the **trial** is then conducted by the upper chamber of the Legislature (the Senate), as opposed to a court for common criminals.
History
=======
When it became clear and certain that [Nixon would be impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon), he [resigned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Resignation).
This made impeachment **unnecessary** to prosecute him - an ordinary
prosecutor could open a case and he could be tried in an ordinary court.
However, after Nixon resigned, his successor Ford [pardoned him](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon):
>
> ...granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president...
>
>
>
making it impossible to prosecute Nixon in an ordinary court.
This left a "possibility" for impeaching (in the Chamber of
Representatives) and trying (in the Senate) Nixon the resigned private citizen.
This required overcoming **two** hurdles in **both** chambers:
A Representative voting to impeach / a Senator voting to convict
had to believe **two** things:
1. Nixon was guilty
2. A private citizen is a subject to impeachment
The [Belknap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap) episode
(a Secretary of War resigned and was nevertheless impeached by
Representatives but acquitted by Senate) created a [**precedent** of 8
(**eight**)](http://inside.fdu.edu/fdupress/05112105review.html)
>
> civil officials facing impeachment have resigned from office and avoided a trial
>
>
>
Thus by the time of Watergate it was a well established law that **a
private citizen cannot be impeached**, so it was extraordinary unlikely
that a 2/3 majority of Senate would vote "yes" on the second hurdle above.
"American leaders" have better things to do than entertain impossibilities.
**PS.** The pardon was controversial: while putting an end to a multi-year chain of scandals, it shielded a crook from jail. Nevertheless, it was a legally unimpeachable move, so nothing could have been done about it.
**PPS.** To answer comments: there can be no *"post-resignation impeachment"* - like you cannot kill an already dead person. When Nixon resigned, he became a subject to common prosecution like any other criminal - there was no **need** to impeach him anymore.
However, Ford's pardon removed any possibility to prosecute him - that's the *meaning* of the word [pardon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon). | **Question:**
Did American leaders give any serious consideration to proceeding with Nixon's impeachment and trial after he resigned?
The resignation made the impeachment superfluous. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution an impeachment in the house of representatives results in a trial in the US Senate with the end result to remove a President from office. The Constitution states beyond removing a public official (judge, president etc ) from office, no criminal penalty such as fine or imprisonment can be levied. So once Nixon left office tying up the legislature to formally do what has already been done didn't make any sense.
On the other hand work did continue on the impeachment in the Senate subcommittees. They were taken by the senate to review the rules of impeachment so while Nixon resigned August 8th 1974, the Senate Committee on Rules, continued to work until Sept when they formally delivered their report to the senate on how to modernize the rules last modified in 1868.
>
> \*\*[Senate Impeachment Role](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm) \*\*
>
> During the summer of 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Senate prepared for the possibility of a second presidential impeachment trial, as the House of Representatives moved ever closer to impeaching President Richard Nixon. In July the Senate adopted a resolution directing the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to review the existing impeachment rules and precedents and recommend revisions. The committee, aided by Senate parliamentarian Floyd Riddick , devoted long hours to the Senate’s constitutional role in impeachment proceedings. The committee was meeting on August 8, 1974, when President Nixon announced that he would resign. Despite this unprecedented event, the panel continued with its work under a mandate from the Senate to file a report by September 1. The report contained recommendations that were primarily technical changes in the rules that had been adopted in 1868 for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. With the resignation of President Nixon, no further action was taken.
>
>
> |
35,922 | There is a Jewish source that an hour was split into 1080 parts and there seems to be an explanation for that number that it is the amount of breaths taken in an hour (18 breaths per minute (which is realistic))
Is there any evidence that breath was used as a time measurement, before clocks became popular? | 2017/03/09 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35922",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/13138/"
] | Legalese
========
When a person commits a crime, they become a subject to a judicial prosecution, with a notable exception of executives and other high government officials, who have to be [Impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States) first.
In the unforgettable words of [Benjamin Franklin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
>
> historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination
>
>
>
And **impeachment** (combined with the separation of powers, making Legislature **independent** from the Executive) is the nice alternative.
Think of **impeachment** (by the lower chamber of the Legislature - Representatives) as the analogue of [**indictment**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment), and the **trial** is then conducted by the upper chamber of the Legislature (the Senate), as opposed to a court for common criminals.
History
=======
When it became clear and certain that [Nixon would be impeached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon), he [resigned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Resignation).
This made impeachment **unnecessary** to prosecute him - an ordinary
prosecutor could open a case and he could be tried in an ordinary court.
However, after Nixon resigned, his successor Ford [pardoned him](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon):
>
> ...granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president...
>
>
>
making it impossible to prosecute Nixon in an ordinary court.
This left a "possibility" for impeaching (in the Chamber of
Representatives) and trying (in the Senate) Nixon the resigned private citizen.
This required overcoming **two** hurdles in **both** chambers:
A Representative voting to impeach / a Senator voting to convict
had to believe **two** things:
1. Nixon was guilty
2. A private citizen is a subject to impeachment
The [Belknap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap) episode
(a Secretary of War resigned and was nevertheless impeached by
Representatives but acquitted by Senate) created a [**precedent** of 8
(**eight**)](http://inside.fdu.edu/fdupress/05112105review.html)
>
> civil officials facing impeachment have resigned from office and avoided a trial
>
>
>
Thus by the time of Watergate it was a well established law that **a
private citizen cannot be impeached**, so it was extraordinary unlikely
that a 2/3 majority of Senate would vote "yes" on the second hurdle above.
"American leaders" have better things to do than entertain impossibilities.
**PS.** The pardon was controversial: while putting an end to a multi-year chain of scandals, it shielded a crook from jail. Nevertheless, it was a legally unimpeachable move, so nothing could have been done about it.
**PPS.** To answer comments: there can be no *"post-resignation impeachment"* - like you cannot kill an already dead person. When Nixon resigned, he became a subject to common prosecution like any other criminal - there was no **need** to impeach him anymore.
However, Ford's pardon removed any possibility to prosecute him - that's the *meaning* of the word [pardon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon). | It does not appear there was any recorded appetite for that in the US House. The House Resolution ending the the impeachment committee (and commending it for its work) [passed with only 3 votes against](https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/21/archives/house-formally-concludes-inquiry-into-impeachment-sets-out-evidence.html) it, and all 3 were strong supporters of Nixon who couldn't stomach commending the committee.
There's a good reason for this. There are two concrete ends that can be accomplished by impeachment: Removal from office, and disqualification from ever holding any other high office.
[Article 1, section 3, clause 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Judgment_in_cases_of_impeachment;_Punishment_on_conviction):
>
> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
> removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
> of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States;
>
>
>
Resigning of course makes the first judgement a moot issue, but not the second.
However, in Nixon's case, he was already barred from ever running for President again, by virtue of the [22nd Ammendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxii), since he'd already been elected twice.
>
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than
> twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as
> President, for more than two years of a term to which some other
> person was elected President shall be elected to the office of
> President more than once.
>
>
>
Now its still possible that he could have held some office *other than* POTUS (or VP), but that is not something ex-Presidents have historically done. So effectively, this particular judgement was moot already.
Thus, once he resigned, there was no longer any effective judgement that the US Senate could render against Nixon.
Of course an impeachment against a one-term ex-president would be a very different animal, and would presumably concentrate on getting a judgement preventing the alleged miscreant from holding office again (particularly President). Historically it hasn't ever happened, but our historical sample size here (4) is very small. |
35,922 | There is a Jewish source that an hour was split into 1080 parts and there seems to be an explanation for that number that it is the amount of breaths taken in an hour (18 breaths per minute (which is realistic))
Is there any evidence that breath was used as a time measurement, before clocks became popular? | 2017/03/09 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35922",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/13138/"
] | No
--
The impeachment motion had made it through a House committee, although the actual impeachment had yet to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. The latter process, as well as Nixon's trial (and almost certain removal) in the Senate, was short-circuited by Nixon's resignation.
The purpose of impeachment and trial of an elected official is the removal from office of that official. Once Nixon resigned, the purpose had been accomplished, and there was no need to proceed further in Congress.
Of course, Nixon could have been tried in "judicial" courts until the Ford pardon made that moot. | **Question:**
Did American leaders give any serious consideration to proceeding with Nixon's impeachment and trial after he resigned?
The resignation made the impeachment superfluous. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution an impeachment in the house of representatives results in a trial in the US Senate with the end result to remove a President from office. The Constitution states beyond removing a public official (judge, president etc ) from office, no criminal penalty such as fine or imprisonment can be levied. So once Nixon left office tying up the legislature to formally do what has already been done didn't make any sense.
On the other hand work did continue on the impeachment in the Senate subcommittees. They were taken by the senate to review the rules of impeachment so while Nixon resigned August 8th 1974, the Senate Committee on Rules, continued to work until Sept when they formally delivered their report to the senate on how to modernize the rules last modified in 1868.
>
> \*\*[Senate Impeachment Role](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm) \*\*
>
> During the summer of 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Senate prepared for the possibility of a second presidential impeachment trial, as the House of Representatives moved ever closer to impeaching President Richard Nixon. In July the Senate adopted a resolution directing the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to review the existing impeachment rules and precedents and recommend revisions. The committee, aided by Senate parliamentarian Floyd Riddick , devoted long hours to the Senate’s constitutional role in impeachment proceedings. The committee was meeting on August 8, 1974, when President Nixon announced that he would resign. Despite this unprecedented event, the panel continued with its work under a mandate from the Senate to file a report by September 1. The report contained recommendations that were primarily technical changes in the rules that had been adopted in 1868 for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. With the resignation of President Nixon, no further action was taken.
>
>
> |
35,922 | There is a Jewish source that an hour was split into 1080 parts and there seems to be an explanation for that number that it is the amount of breaths taken in an hour (18 breaths per minute (which is realistic))
Is there any evidence that breath was used as a time measurement, before clocks became popular? | 2017/03/09 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35922",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/13138/"
] | No
--
The impeachment motion had made it through a House committee, although the actual impeachment had yet to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. The latter process, as well as Nixon's trial (and almost certain removal) in the Senate, was short-circuited by Nixon's resignation.
The purpose of impeachment and trial of an elected official is the removal from office of that official. Once Nixon resigned, the purpose had been accomplished, and there was no need to proceed further in Congress.
Of course, Nixon could have been tried in "judicial" courts until the Ford pardon made that moot. | It does not appear there was any recorded appetite for that in the US House. The House Resolution ending the the impeachment committee (and commending it for its work) [passed with only 3 votes against](https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/21/archives/house-formally-concludes-inquiry-into-impeachment-sets-out-evidence.html) it, and all 3 were strong supporters of Nixon who couldn't stomach commending the committee.
There's a good reason for this. There are two concrete ends that can be accomplished by impeachment: Removal from office, and disqualification from ever holding any other high office.
[Article 1, section 3, clause 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Judgment_in_cases_of_impeachment;_Punishment_on_conviction):
>
> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
> removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
> of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States;
>
>
>
Resigning of course makes the first judgement a moot issue, but not the second.
However, in Nixon's case, he was already barred from ever running for President again, by virtue of the [22nd Ammendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxii), since he'd already been elected twice.
>
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than
> twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as
> President, for more than two years of a term to which some other
> person was elected President shall be elected to the office of
> President more than once.
>
>
>
Now its still possible that he could have held some office *other than* POTUS (or VP), but that is not something ex-Presidents have historically done. So effectively, this particular judgement was moot already.
Thus, once he resigned, there was no longer any effective judgement that the US Senate could render against Nixon.
Of course an impeachment against a one-term ex-president would be a very different animal, and would presumably concentrate on getting a judgement preventing the alleged miscreant from holding office again (particularly President). Historically it hasn't ever happened, but our historical sample size here (4) is very small. |
149,207 | I have created a basic page which I only want to be viewable by people who have access to the administration theme.
I have given the page a path of admin/shipping-help but to my surprise the page is visible to anonymous visitors, nor does the page display in the admin theme.
What am I doing wrong? | 2015/02/20 | [
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/questions/149207",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/users/17931/"
] | You can try the [Hide Submit](https://www.drupal.org/project/hide_submit) moddule:
>
> Some users accidentally click the submit button more than once while
> waiting for their post to be saved. In some cases this may result
> duplicate postings or duplicate e-commerce orders.
>
>
> There are few ideas on how to solve duplicate postings but none is
> perfect. One of the solutions is a bit of jQuery to hide or disable
> the submit button after it has been clicked and replace it with an
> informative text such as "Processing..." .
>
>
> This module wraps that jQuery code and provides some options. Of
> course this, too, is not a perfect solution as it requires Javascript
> to be enabled. For browsers with Javascript disabled this module will
> have no effect at all.
>
>
> | Given that you'd like to avoid form submissions with similar data (which really means a combination of fields that are unique), I think the best option would be the [Entity Unique](https://www.drupal.org/project/entity_unique) module. |
185,806 | When i open my SharePoint Designer i get the following error:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wc2f5.gif)
What should i do to resolve it. | 2016/07/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/185806",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | To solve the issue, you can try the steps below and share with us the outcomes:
1. Restart your SharePoint Designer 2013 and re-try to open the site.
2. Clear the SharePoint Designer cache via the steps in the thread:
[How to Clear Your SharePoint Designer 2010/2013 Cache](http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/sagarp/how-to-clear-your-sharepoint-designer-20102013-cache/)
3. Reinstall the application via this location :
[SharePoint Designer 2013](http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35491) | The location where we enter the URL did make a difference for me. Please see image below.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dQ6rN.png) |
185,806 | When i open my SharePoint Designer i get the following error:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wc2f5.gif)
What should i do to resolve it. | 2016/07/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/185806",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | To solve the issue, you can try the steps below and share with us the outcomes:
1. Restart your SharePoint Designer 2013 and re-try to open the site.
2. Clear the SharePoint Designer cache via the steps in the thread:
[How to Clear Your SharePoint Designer 2010/2013 Cache](http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/sagarp/how-to-clear-your-sharepoint-designer-20102013-cache/)
3. Reinstall the application via this location :
[SharePoint Designer 2013](http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35491) | Try using different connection could also solve the issue. I have experienced a similar problem with slow speed connection (a 4G modem), when using a faster connection I could connect it (another 4G network but has good coverage). |
185,806 | When i open my SharePoint Designer i get the following error:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wc2f5.gif)
What should i do to resolve it. | 2016/07/05 | [
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/185806",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com",
"https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The location where we enter the URL did make a difference for me. Please see image below.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dQ6rN.png) | Try using different connection could also solve the issue. I have experienced a similar problem with slow speed connection (a 4G modem), when using a faster connection I could connect it (another 4G network but has good coverage). |
18,958,449 | I am iPhone application developer. How to block incoming and outgoing calls in iPhone using iPhone application, It is need to work when application run background also.
Thanks in advance. | 2013/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/18958449",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2522882/"
] | This cannot be done in iOS as its a technical restriction enforced by Apple. | “Block Caller” is at the bottom of the Contact for each individual.
It can be selected to “block” and “unblock” as desired.
Block voicemail are stored but blocked messages just never go through (from another IPhone it is noticeable, but not from android phones). |
1,886,274 | I have webRole with some data stored in Session. The data is some tens of small variables (strings), and one-two big objects (some megabytes). I need to run this webRole in multiple instances. Since two requests from the single user can go to different instances, Session became useless. So, i am looking for most efficient and simplest method of storing volatile user data for this case. I know that i can store it in cookies at client side, but this will fail for big objects. I also know that i can user data in Azure storage - but this seems to be more complicated than Session. Can anybody suggest both efficient and simple method, like Session state? Or probably some workaround to get Session state working correctly when multiple instances enabled. | 2009/12/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1886274",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/224564/"
] | This may help
<http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsazure/thread/7ddc0ca8-0cc5-4549-b44e-5b8c39570896> | You need to use another session state storage than memory. In Azure you can use Cache, Storage tables or SQL server to share session data between instances. |
10,588,311 | Looking for a good tutorial that can walk me through creating a web service application in Android. I have had difficulty finding something that is beneficial. Most of the web services I have seen are no longer existing.
I am looking for something relatively simple.
I found the solution on this site:
[java.dzone.com/articles/invoke-webservices-android](http://java.dzone.com/articles/invoke-webservices-android)
If you use this :
Add the external jar file for the KSOAP2 Library, Go to order and export tab and check the box next to the jar file. and Finally go to project tab and hit clean. if this doesn't work for you I will try to help walk you through. It worked for me!! | 2012/05/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10588311",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1/"
] | The best web service tutorial I've seen, in terms of explanation and completness is here: <http://www.androidhive.info/2012/01/android-login-and-registration-with-php-mysql-and-sqlite/>
It outlines how to create and use a PHP based web service utilizing JSON as a message format. It includes code from all the layers (Android, PHP, MySQL) | some demo
with sample code
<http://seesharpgears.blogspot.in/2010/10/ksoap-android-web-service-tutorial-with.html>
First things first, so you should now go ahead and download the KSOAP library from Sourceforge Google code:
<http://code.google.com/p/ksoap2-android/downloads/detail?name=ksoap2-android-assembly-2.4-jar-with-dependencies.jar&can=2&q=>
<http://seesharpgears.blogspot.in/2010/11/basic-ksoap-android-tutorial.html> |
291,789 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nAbDY.png)
I just recently updated to 8.8.3 and for some reason, all of my modules now say "No available releases found". Also the one module I had that did report "No available releases found" (Video Embed for google drive), is now saying that that module is up to date. It is like they switched somehow when I updated. I might roll back but the site is currently working just fine. Any ideas? | 2020/03/09 | [
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/questions/291789",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com",
"https://drupal.stackexchange.com/users/98378/"
] | Clicking "Check manually" once on the Available Updates page will resolve this issue.
Please see <https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3120168> for more info. | It seems like the problem fixed itself. I am wondering if a cron job took care of it. I cleared cache and updated the DB, I just never thought to run cron. |
23,394,407 | Spring AOP depends on proxy mechanism - J2SE dynamic proxies or using CGLIB(according to the spring documentation).
Is it possible to use the AOP mechanism defined by Spring without creating/declaring the beans in the spring application context?
If its not possible with Spring - is AspectJ's Load time Weaving(LTW) or Compile Time Weaving (CTW) would help resolve the issue?
Requirement : Trying to implement logging and transaction management for a old project of mine without declaring the POJO's as spring beans. | 2014/04/30 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23394407",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1038489/"
] | No, you have to put them under Spring's control. You can't ask Spring to advise beans that it doesn't know about.
No calls to "new"; have to replace those with application context. | As stated by @duffymo Spring can only operate on beans declared within its context.
AspectJ, both LTW and CTW, can be used to achieve what you want.
Another tools you might consider is [Byteman](https://www.jboss.org/byteman.html), which operate at a lower level but has also a lower overhead if performance is an issue for you. |
183,341 | Does it make sense to compare the sensitivity and specificity of a screening test between two groups? The two groups underwent the same screening test. Does it make any sense to compare the calculated sensitivities and specificities betweeen the two groups statistically? | 2015/11/24 | [
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/183341",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com",
"https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/96126/"
] | It might, but if the data came from a prospective cohort study you would be acting as if the sampling were retrospective, since sensitivity = Prob(past | future) = Prob(test + | final diagnosis +). Also sensitivity and specificity are not constant but vary with subject characteristics. This is delved into in detail in [Chapter 18](http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tmp/bbr.pdf "Chapter 18"). | It definitely makes sense. It might tell you whether there are meaningful differences in the performance test in light of the two group features.
I would also compute positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve of the summary receiver operating curve (SROC).
I have recently conducted a meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, and you can compare the diagnostic performance of this medical test in two groups of patients with different types of features by means, for instance, of meta-regression or statistical interaction.
This can also be explored graphically, e.g. building two superimposed SROCs with the [mada](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mada/vignettes/mada.pdf) R package.
The same can apply to single studies. |
2,526,736 | I don't want to share my PAGE, but I want to share a message with a short URL link to something. | 2010/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2526736",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/179736/"
] | I think you are looking for the Facebook API stream.publish function:
<http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Stream.publish>
or FB.Connect.streamPublish:
<http://developers.facebook.com/docs/?u=facebook.jslib.FB.Connect.streamPublish> | Here's a very easy way to do it: <http://www.facebook.com/facebook-widgets/share.php> |
2,526,736 | I don't want to share my PAGE, but I want to share a message with a short URL link to something. | 2010/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2526736",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/179736/"
] | I guess you're talking about this, right?
>
> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&t=Google>
>
>
>
It will let you share "www.google.com" on Facebook using the title "Google". All encoded, obviously. | Here's a very easy way to do it: <http://www.facebook.com/facebook-widgets/share.php> |
2,526,736 | I don't want to share my PAGE, but I want to share a message with a short URL link to something. | 2010/03/26 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2526736",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/179736/"
] | I guess you're talking about this, right?
>
> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&t=Google>
>
>
>
It will let you share "www.google.com" on Facebook using the title "Google". All encoded, obviously. | I think you are looking for the Facebook API stream.publish function:
<http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Stream.publish>
or FB.Connect.streamPublish:
<http://developers.facebook.com/docs/?u=facebook.jslib.FB.Connect.streamPublish> |
28,904 | I currently have 14/180/65 installed, if I were to install a 15 inch rim with the factory specified tire size for the 15 inch rim would it raise my car height ? I also have 30mm lowering springs installed would it cause problems? | 2016/04/26 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/28904",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/13160/"
] | When you increase the rim size, you get a lower profile tire so that the overall outside diameter doesn't change. At the tire store and some websites this is known as your car's +1 (or +2, +3) tire size.
If you don't change the tire size you'll run into several issues from minor annoyances like the speedometer being wrong to major issues like rubbing (and subsequent blow-outs). | Building off of JPhi's answer, a few tire options.
180/55R15 - same width, 1.7% smaller diameter
180/60R15 - same width, 1.3% larger diameter
185/55R15 - wider, 0.9% smaller diameter
190/55R15 - wider, exact same diameter
<https://tiresize.com/calculator/>
Some of these sizes may be more common than others. All of these sizes exist theoretically, but if it is not a common size, it is unlikely you will be able to find it anywhere, or you will have limited options. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Let's look at your examples one by one:
>
> driving a friend's car
>
>
>
* Your friend's insurance would likely cover you instead of your own
>
> If I was on vacation driving a rental car
>
>
>
Many, but not all, insurance policies cover cars you rent by the insured drive. You can also get insurance for a fee from the rental company. A 3rd option, is that some credit cards provide insurance if you rent a car using their card.
>
> if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
>
>
>
Same story as if you were driving your friend's car. However, if you LIVE with that family member and aren't listed on their policy it may be an issue depending on how frequently you drive it.
This system makes sense because they price the insurance in terms of how much risk they are accepting. It would be much more expensive for them to pay a claim on a Ferrari than a Chevy Malibu, so they have to price it that way. Assuming you could convince an insurance company to cover ANY car you could possibly drive, they would have to assume the worst and charge you extremely high rates. | Auto liability coverage follows the driver, no matter whose vehicle is being operated, so long as the operator has the owner's permission to use the vehicle.
You will see the opposite stated in many places. But that is an answer to a different question. For example, say you are driving a friend's car and get into an accident. State law may require your friend's policy to cover you. In that case, you have no liability because your friend's insurance covers the accident. So the question of whether or not your liability insurance would have covered you if you did have liability becomes a purely academic one.
If you have liability, you have coverage. Someone else's insurance will cover it in most cases, so you won't have liability anyway. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Let's look at your examples one by one:
>
> driving a friend's car
>
>
>
* Your friend's insurance would likely cover you instead of your own
>
> If I was on vacation driving a rental car
>
>
>
Many, but not all, insurance policies cover cars you rent by the insured drive. You can also get insurance for a fee from the rental company. A 3rd option, is that some credit cards provide insurance if you rent a car using their card.
>
> if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
>
>
>
Same story as if you were driving your friend's car. However, if you LIVE with that family member and aren't listed on their policy it may be an issue depending on how frequently you drive it.
This system makes sense because they price the insurance in terms of how much risk they are accepting. It would be much more expensive for them to pay a claim on a Ferrari than a Chevy Malibu, so they have to price it that way. Assuming you could convince an insurance company to cover ANY car you could possibly drive, they would have to assume the worst and charge you extremely high rates. | Ask insurers directly about "named non-owner" policies. They're uncommon, not all insurers offer them and those that do have to manually underwrite and manually quote the rate. It's not going to show up in any automatic tools. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Let's look at your examples one by one:
>
> driving a friend's car
>
>
>
* Your friend's insurance would likely cover you instead of your own
>
> If I was on vacation driving a rental car
>
>
>
Many, but not all, insurance policies cover cars you rent by the insured drive. You can also get insurance for a fee from the rental company. A 3rd option, is that some credit cards provide insurance if you rent a car using their card.
>
> if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
>
>
>
Same story as if you were driving your friend's car. However, if you LIVE with that family member and aren't listed on their policy it may be an issue depending on how frequently you drive it.
This system makes sense because they price the insurance in terms of how much risk they are accepting. It would be much more expensive for them to pay a claim on a Ferrari than a Chevy Malibu, so they have to price it that way. Assuming you could convince an insurance company to cover ANY car you could possibly drive, they would have to assume the worst and charge you extremely high rates. | Double check with your insurance company's agent but ...
In the case of an accident, the car owner's insurance will pay first. The drivers insurance pays second. Points (a system used by most, if not all, US states to establish who are bad drivers) go to the record of the driver.
I learned this 20 years ago when I was going to loan a car to my English cousin. Interestingly, we presumed that points would not cross the Atlantic.
You might want to discuss with the owner who pays the deductible.
There are also limits on what an insurance policy will pay. Most policies will not pay enough to cover a wrecked Ferrari. So, borrowing a Ferrari is not likely to happen.
Rental car companies charge absurd rates. Figure the administrative costs and they might be renting to drunk drivers. A US company is not likely want to cover a rental in Mexico or Europe, or likely anywhere but the 50 states. However, AAA has reasonable insurance for that.
PS: They want to know your daily driver since that is what counts for other coverages, et cetera. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | There is a kind of insurance like this, for people who don't own a car but nonetheless want to be covered for any car they drive, for example when renting a car or borrowing a friend's car. This kind of insurance goes under a couple of different names. When I first got it over 10 years ago, it was called "no-name insurance". But when I did a web search for that term just now what came up instead was "non-owner car insurance". | Auto liability coverage follows the driver, no matter whose vehicle is being operated, so long as the operator has the owner's permission to use the vehicle.
You will see the opposite stated in many places. But that is an answer to a different question. For example, say you are driving a friend's car and get into an accident. State law may require your friend's policy to cover you. In that case, you have no liability because your friend's insurance covers the accident. So the question of whether or not your liability insurance would have covered you if you did have liability becomes a purely academic one.
If you have liability, you have coverage. Someone else's insurance will cover it in most cases, so you won't have liability anyway. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | There is a kind of insurance like this, for people who don't own a car but nonetheless want to be covered for any car they drive, for example when renting a car or borrowing a friend's car. This kind of insurance goes under a couple of different names. When I first got it over 10 years ago, it was called "no-name insurance". But when I did a web search for that term just now what came up instead was "non-owner car insurance". | Ask insurers directly about "named non-owner" policies. They're uncommon, not all insurers offer them and those that do have to manually underwrite and manually quote the rate. It's not going to show up in any automatic tools. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | There is a kind of insurance like this, for people who don't own a car but nonetheless want to be covered for any car they drive, for example when renting a car or borrowing a friend's car. This kind of insurance goes under a couple of different names. When I first got it over 10 years ago, it was called "no-name insurance". But when I did a web search for that term just now what came up instead was "non-owner car insurance". | Double check with your insurance company's agent but ...
In the case of an accident, the car owner's insurance will pay first. The drivers insurance pays second. Points (a system used by most, if not all, US states to establish who are bad drivers) go to the record of the driver.
I learned this 20 years ago when I was going to loan a car to my English cousin. Interestingly, we presumed that points would not cross the Atlantic.
You might want to discuss with the owner who pays the deductible.
There are also limits on what an insurance policy will pay. Most policies will not pay enough to cover a wrecked Ferrari. So, borrowing a Ferrari is not likely to happen.
Rental car companies charge absurd rates. Figure the administrative costs and they might be renting to drunk drivers. A US company is not likely want to cover a rental in Mexico or Europe, or likely anywhere but the 50 states. However, AAA has reasonable insurance for that.
PS: They want to know your daily driver since that is what counts for other coverages, et cetera. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Ask insurers directly about "named non-owner" policies. They're uncommon, not all insurers offer them and those that do have to manually underwrite and manually quote the rate. It's not going to show up in any automatic tools. | Auto liability coverage follows the driver, no matter whose vehicle is being operated, so long as the operator has the owner's permission to use the vehicle.
You will see the opposite stated in many places. But that is an answer to a different question. For example, say you are driving a friend's car and get into an accident. State law may require your friend's policy to cover you. In that case, you have no liability because your friend's insurance covers the accident. So the question of whether or not your liability insurance would have covered you if you did have liability becomes a purely academic one.
If you have liability, you have coverage. Someone else's insurance will cover it in most cases, so you won't have liability anyway. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Auto liability coverage follows the driver, no matter whose vehicle is being operated, so long as the operator has the owner's permission to use the vehicle.
You will see the opposite stated in many places. But that is an answer to a different question. For example, say you are driving a friend's car and get into an accident. State law may require your friend's policy to cover you. In that case, you have no liability because your friend's insurance covers the accident. So the question of whether or not your liability insurance would have covered you if you did have liability becomes a purely academic one.
If you have liability, you have coverage. Someone else's insurance will cover it in most cases, so you won't have liability anyway. | Double check with your insurance company's agent but ...
In the case of an accident, the car owner's insurance will pay first. The drivers insurance pays second. Points (a system used by most, if not all, US states to establish who are bad drivers) go to the record of the driver.
I learned this 20 years ago when I was going to loan a car to my English cousin. Interestingly, we presumed that points would not cross the Atlantic.
You might want to discuss with the owner who pays the deductible.
There are also limits on what an insurance policy will pay. Most policies will not pay enough to cover a wrecked Ferrari. So, borrowing a Ferrari is not likely to happen.
Rental car companies charge absurd rates. Figure the administrative costs and they might be renting to drunk drivers. A US company is not likely want to cover a rental in Mexico or Europe, or likely anywhere but the 50 states. However, AAA has reasonable insurance for that.
PS: They want to know your daily driver since that is what counts for other coverages, et cetera. |
132,030 | Almost all auto insurers I speak with require that I give them the model and make of the car I will be driving. For example:
* Chevrolet Silverado
* Honda Civic
* Subaru Outback
Consider if I got in a car accident when I was...
* driving a friend's car
* If I was on vacation driving a rental car
* if I was driving family-member's car when an auto accident occurs
Any insurance claim I file would be denied, because I was not driving a vehicle covered by my policy.
How do I get auto liability insurance in the United States to cover ***ANY*** car I am driving? | 2020/10/17 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/132030",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/99820/"
] | Ask insurers directly about "named non-owner" policies. They're uncommon, not all insurers offer them and those that do have to manually underwrite and manually quote the rate. It's not going to show up in any automatic tools. | Double check with your insurance company's agent but ...
In the case of an accident, the car owner's insurance will pay first. The drivers insurance pays second. Points (a system used by most, if not all, US states to establish who are bad drivers) go to the record of the driver.
I learned this 20 years ago when I was going to loan a car to my English cousin. Interestingly, we presumed that points would not cross the Atlantic.
You might want to discuss with the owner who pays the deductible.
There are also limits on what an insurance policy will pay. Most policies will not pay enough to cover a wrecked Ferrari. So, borrowing a Ferrari is not likely to happen.
Rental car companies charge absurd rates. Figure the administrative costs and they might be renting to drunk drivers. A US company is not likely want to cover a rental in Mexico or Europe, or likely anywhere but the 50 states. However, AAA has reasonable insurance for that.
PS: They want to know your daily driver since that is what counts for other coverages, et cetera. |
416,494 | Is there an idiom/phrase for when you tell someone you'll have something done at a given time, but then more complications arise and it extends the time needed? For example, I'm working on a project and everything seems like it's done, and when I test it, something has broken, and now it'll take more time to finish. | 2017/10/31 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/416494",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/39065/"
] | These unforeseen problems are often called **glitches**.
>
> **glitch** : a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should:
>
>
> We'd expected a few glitches, but everything's gone remarkably smoothly.
>
>
> The system has been plagued with glitches ever since its launch.
>
>
>
[Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/glitch)
One can express the possibility of such things arising by saying :
>
> Barring glitches, we'll be done in three days.
>
>
> | In software development this is often called the [80/20 rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle), which is properly stated as:
>
> The first 80% of the functionality takes 20% of the time; the remaining 20% of the functionality takes the remaining 80% of the time.
>
>
>
but is arguably more accurately stated as:
>
> The first 80% of the functionality takes 80% of the time; the remaining 20% of the functionality takes the remaining 80% of the time.
>
>
>
for a total of 160%. |
3,940,783 | We are currently utilising an agile environment in work. One of my tasks involve setting up a release timetable. A part of this is providing a time frame of how long a project would take to go from a development environment, to staging and then live.
I have conflicting thoughts regarding whether such a timetable needs to be done.
For a start, we are quickly moving into a Continuous Integration / Constant Delivery environment where an application is tested amongst all environments when a change is made to the code base. Therefore, there is no time frame, but things should be "just" deployable. (Well, we always need a little bit of contingency as the best laid plans can always go awry)
Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
Regards,
Steve | 2010/10/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3940783",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/305241/"
] | >
> Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
>
>
>
First of all the Scrum Framework guidelines never guides you to not have a Release Plan or Time table ever. What is leading you to have conflicting thoughts? I would like to know the source which is leading you to this conflict.
Best way to create a Release Plan is like this (this may take a week or so depending on the size of your project):
1. Get the Stakeholders in a room and get a EPIC user story written on the board using their guidance. The EPIC user story should include the end product vision. (ignore if already done)
2. List out the type of users.(ignore if already done)
3. Break the Epic user story into smaller and smaller chunks of user stories till they are small enough to be doable in sprints.(ignore if already done)
4. Ask the Product Owner(s) of the Scrum Team(s) to prioritize the stories in the uncommitted backlog list(s) Also do some form of effort estimation fairly quickly and do not waste a lot of time estimating.
5. Get the target end date or Go Live date of the project from Stakeholders.
6. Divide the time frame from now until the end date into Releases. Ask the stakeholders which features need to be delivered by when and include the appropriate user stories in them, and call them Releases. You can also give those Releases themes if needed.
The Release Plan now is conceptualized.
After this draw it on a white board or put it in a visible and transparent location where everyone can see it - add user story cards to the appropriate release.
Now your initial release plan should be ready
Ideas for implementation:
1. Form a Scrum Team specifically for Operations Activities. They could follow Scrum or Kanban would be better.
2. As and when Development teams get "shippable products" put in the shelf, the Operations Kanaban Team can do the deployment and release branching etc tasks as per the Release Plan.
So this way the development Teams don't really focus on the Release plan or work, just the Operations Team does that. The Development Team just focussed on the Sprint Work, it would be the Product Owners headache to make sure the right user stories are in the right Release and in the right order. The direction would be given by the Stakeholders.
To be honest you really don't have to do anything yourself, it's all in the stakeholders and POs hand, I don't know where is is the fuss??
I hope you get the picture. | I usually maintain a release plan for the management that is mainly based on a combination of the estimated & prioritized user stories (I group them to match a main new feature of the product) and velocity.
With a well maintained product backlog it's pretty easy to do your release plan. I usually plan three to four releases a year.
What I like with Scrum is that I can potentially release after each iterations.
If you want to master your release management, you will need more information that few answers of practionners. I highly suggest you [this book](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0321605780). |
3,940,783 | We are currently utilising an agile environment in work. One of my tasks involve setting up a release timetable. A part of this is providing a time frame of how long a project would take to go from a development environment, to staging and then live.
I have conflicting thoughts regarding whether such a timetable needs to be done.
For a start, we are quickly moving into a Continuous Integration / Constant Delivery environment where an application is tested amongst all environments when a change is made to the code base. Therefore, there is no time frame, but things should be "just" deployable. (Well, we always need a little bit of contingency as the best laid plans can always go awry)
Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
Regards,
Steve | 2010/10/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3940783",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/305241/"
] | >
> Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
>
>
>
First of all the Scrum Framework guidelines never guides you to not have a Release Plan or Time table ever. What is leading you to have conflicting thoughts? I would like to know the source which is leading you to this conflict.
Best way to create a Release Plan is like this (this may take a week or so depending on the size of your project):
1. Get the Stakeholders in a room and get a EPIC user story written on the board using their guidance. The EPIC user story should include the end product vision. (ignore if already done)
2. List out the type of users.(ignore if already done)
3. Break the Epic user story into smaller and smaller chunks of user stories till they are small enough to be doable in sprints.(ignore if already done)
4. Ask the Product Owner(s) of the Scrum Team(s) to prioritize the stories in the uncommitted backlog list(s) Also do some form of effort estimation fairly quickly and do not waste a lot of time estimating.
5. Get the target end date or Go Live date of the project from Stakeholders.
6. Divide the time frame from now until the end date into Releases. Ask the stakeholders which features need to be delivered by when and include the appropriate user stories in them, and call them Releases. You can also give those Releases themes if needed.
The Release Plan now is conceptualized.
After this draw it on a white board or put it in a visible and transparent location where everyone can see it - add user story cards to the appropriate release.
Now your initial release plan should be ready
Ideas for implementation:
1. Form a Scrum Team specifically for Operations Activities. They could follow Scrum or Kanban would be better.
2. As and when Development teams get "shippable products" put in the shelf, the Operations Kanaban Team can do the deployment and release branching etc tasks as per the Release Plan.
So this way the development Teams don't really focus on the Release plan or work, just the Operations Team does that. The Development Team just focussed on the Sprint Work, it would be the Product Owners headache to make sure the right user stories are in the right Release and in the right order. The direction would be given by the Stakeholders.
To be honest you really don't have to do anything yourself, it's all in the stakeholders and POs hand, I don't know where is is the fuss??
I hope you get the picture. | If you currently utilising and agile environment you should check [Agile estimating and Planning book](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0131479415) for some suggestions. This book also contains small chapter about Release planning.
Some release planning should be always done. Release is a target wich usually covers 3-12 months of development = set of iterations. It something which describes target criteria for project to success. It is usually described as combination of expected features and some date. Features in this case are usually not directly user stories but epics or whole themes because you don't know all user stories several months ahead. Personally, I think release is something that says when the project based on vision can be delivered. It takes high level expectations and constraints from the vision and converts them to some estimation. You can also divide project to several releases.
But remember that three forces works in agile as well. There is direct relation among Feature set, Release date and Resources (+ sometimes also mentioned fourth force: Quality). Pushing one of these forces always move others. It is usually modelled as equilateral triangle (or square).
There are different approaches to plan a release. One is mentioned in the book. It is based on user stories estimation, iteration length selection and velocity estimation but I'm little bit sceptic to this approach because you don't have simple user stories for whole release and estimating epics and themes is inaccurate. On the other hand high level feature definition is exactly what you need for three forces. If you don't have enough time you will implement only basic features from all themes. If you have more time you will implement more advanced features. This is task for product owner to correctly set business priority when dividing epics and themes into small user stories.
The most important part in agile is that you will know more quite soon. After each iteration you will have better knowledge of your velocity and you will also reestimate some planned user stories. For this reason I think the real estimate (accurate) and realease date should be planned after few iterations. As I was told on one training effort should not be estimated, effort should be measured. If anybody complains about it show him Waterfall and ask him when will he get relatively accurate estimate? Hint: Hardly before end of analysis wich should be say after 30% of the project.
It is also important what type of projects do you want to implement using agile / scrum and how long will project be. Some projects are strictly budget or date driven others can be more feature driven. This can affect your release planning. For short projects you usually have small user stories and you can provide much more accurate estimate at the beginning. |
3,940,783 | We are currently utilising an agile environment in work. One of my tasks involve setting up a release timetable. A part of this is providing a time frame of how long a project would take to go from a development environment, to staging and then live.
I have conflicting thoughts regarding whether such a timetable needs to be done.
For a start, we are quickly moving into a Continuous Integration / Constant Delivery environment where an application is tested amongst all environments when a change is made to the code base. Therefore, there is no time frame, but things should be "just" deployable. (Well, we always need a little bit of contingency as the best laid plans can always go awry)
Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
Regards,
Steve | 2010/10/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3940783",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/305241/"
] | >
> Can anyone steer my in the right direction on what would be the best way to handle such time tables and timeframes if needed in Release Management in an Agile Product Development Environment.
>
>
>
First of all the Scrum Framework guidelines never guides you to not have a Release Plan or Time table ever. What is leading you to have conflicting thoughts? I would like to know the source which is leading you to this conflict.
Best way to create a Release Plan is like this (this may take a week or so depending on the size of your project):
1. Get the Stakeholders in a room and get a EPIC user story written on the board using their guidance. The EPIC user story should include the end product vision. (ignore if already done)
2. List out the type of users.(ignore if already done)
3. Break the Epic user story into smaller and smaller chunks of user stories till they are small enough to be doable in sprints.(ignore if already done)
4. Ask the Product Owner(s) of the Scrum Team(s) to prioritize the stories in the uncommitted backlog list(s) Also do some form of effort estimation fairly quickly and do not waste a lot of time estimating.
5. Get the target end date or Go Live date of the project from Stakeholders.
6. Divide the time frame from now until the end date into Releases. Ask the stakeholders which features need to be delivered by when and include the appropriate user stories in them, and call them Releases. You can also give those Releases themes if needed.
The Release Plan now is conceptualized.
After this draw it on a white board or put it in a visible and transparent location where everyone can see it - add user story cards to the appropriate release.
Now your initial release plan should be ready
Ideas for implementation:
1. Form a Scrum Team specifically for Operations Activities. They could follow Scrum or Kanban would be better.
2. As and when Development teams get "shippable products" put in the shelf, the Operations Kanaban Team can do the deployment and release branching etc tasks as per the Release Plan.
So this way the development Teams don't really focus on the Release plan or work, just the Operations Team does that. The Development Team just focussed on the Sprint Work, it would be the Product Owners headache to make sure the right user stories are in the right Release and in the right order. The direction would be given by the Stakeholders.
To be honest you really don't have to do anything yourself, it's all in the stakeholders and POs hand, I don't know where is is the fuss??
I hope you get the picture. | This is a very loaded question, and depends on your company to be sure. I first have to ask, why are you using 3 environments and continuous integration (your reason matters)? Are you performing automated tests at all? How are your code branches setup? Do you release for some functionality, or just routine maintenance fixes?
Answering these will give you an idea of why you need a release, and how you should go about it.
For example, if you only have a staging environment for the purpose of integration and perform automated tests, then can't having a separate code branch in which continuous integration tests run be sufficient?
If staging is to perform some sort of user acceptance, does your company have a dedicated testing team or are they members of the agile teams?
As you correctly stated, if the code is always integrated and tested, then why would you need a timetable and moving from environment to environment unless you were unsure about the actual "done" condition of the features? By that, I mean that it's not that you're unsure that the feature was coded correctly, but are you worried it will introduce other bugs? Will it integrate well with code already in production? Address the concerns at the root of the problem. Don't just do it because you think you're supposed to have X environments or testing should be in another group. Maybe the solutions to those problems may be to adjust the definition of "done" accordingly.
As you can see there are many, many factors that will make your organization unique. There is no one right way to answer this, just tradeoffs that you are willing to accept.
I find that having multiple environments with teams of people working at the various layers tends to be anti-agile and counterproductive. The best bet is to analyze your concerns, and try to find ways to solve them (such as expanding the definition of "done", or breaking up the various organizations and putting them on the teams, eliminating as many environments as possible and simplifying the process, etc). That may not be possible in your organization, so you may have to live with tradeoffs. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | I have deployed multiple applications on CakePHP and it's been a very, very, nice experience. You can't go wrong either way, as both are solid. | To address both of your questions from a CodeIgniter perspective (I don't use Cake):
1) CodeIgniter doesn't keep itself outside the webroot by default, but it can do so with some very simple changes. The first part of [my CI tutorial series](http://www.jimohalloran.com/2007/09/10/building-a-complete-codeigniter-application-part-1/) explains how to do so, along with a walk through of the setup of a new CI instance. Once finished the only part of CI that needs to be in the webroot is a small index.php bootstrap file.
2) I've got an application which I originally developed in CI 1.4.x and I've sucessfully migrated to 1.5.x then 1.6.x. With each new release the CI dev's make available detailed upgrade instructions laying out what needs to be replaced so upgrades are fairly easy.
Jim. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | I have deployed multiple applications on CakePHP and it's been a very, very, nice experience. You can't go wrong either way, as both are solid. | CodeIgniter is very flexible as you would see once you try it. So how your application would be maintainable would fall you your hands.
I have also deployed multiple applications using the same installation. I usually create 2 applications for CMS projects (one for admin, one for the front-end). |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | 1. is a non-issue.
2. CodeIgniter has a sponsor behind it, so it's definately the one to choose for the long term. Also, it's faster. | To address both of your questions from a CodeIgniter perspective (I don't use Cake):
1) CodeIgniter doesn't keep itself outside the webroot by default, but it can do so with some very simple changes. The first part of [my CI tutorial series](http://www.jimohalloran.com/2007/09/10/building-a-complete-codeigniter-application-part-1/) explains how to do so, along with a walk through of the setup of a new CI instance. Once finished the only part of CI that needs to be in the webroot is a small index.php bootstrap file.
2) I've got an application which I originally developed in CI 1.4.x and I've sucessfully migrated to 1.5.x then 1.6.x. With each new release the CI dev's make available detailed upgrade instructions laying out what needs to be replaced so upgrades are fairly easy.
Jim. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | You should **try** both frameworks for a week or so, building something trivial (like a blog or wiki) in both, and see which you prefer using. Whatever makes the most sense *to you* will probably sustain you the longest through upgrades an deprecations.
CakePHP is in a bit of a volatile state right now, still unearthing bugs while pushing to release version 1.2 (which is not backward compatible). I wouldn't suggest building a critical application with it if you need something rock solid *right now*. If you can wait a month or two for things to settle, then it's probably a moot point.
To address your concerns:
1) Cake and CI do it the same way (iirc). They are equally secure, reliable, and hackish on this front.
2) Everything changes. If you need concrete, perpetual assurance of stability and backward compatibility, roll your own framework. There's not that much to it, and you're guaranteed that nothing changes unless you want it to. | 1. is a non-issue.
2. CodeIgniter has a sponsor behind it, so it's definately the one to choose for the long term. Also, it's faster. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | You should **try** both frameworks for a week or so, building something trivial (like a blog or wiki) in both, and see which you prefer using. Whatever makes the most sense *to you* will probably sustain you the longest through upgrades an deprecations.
CakePHP is in a bit of a volatile state right now, still unearthing bugs while pushing to release version 1.2 (which is not backward compatible). I wouldn't suggest building a critical application with it if you need something rock solid *right now*. If you can wait a month or two for things to settle, then it's probably a moot point.
To address your concerns:
1) Cake and CI do it the same way (iirc). They are equally secure, reliable, and hackish on this front.
2) Everything changes. If you need concrete, perpetual assurance of stability and backward compatibility, roll your own framework. There's not that much to it, and you're guaranteed that nothing changes unless you want it to. | CodeIgniter is very flexible as you would see once you try it. So how your application would be maintainable would fall you your hands.
I have also deployed multiple applications using the same installation. I usually create 2 applications for CMS projects (one for admin, one for the front-end). |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | You should **try** both frameworks for a week or so, building something trivial (like a blog or wiki) in both, and see which you prefer using. Whatever makes the most sense *to you* will probably sustain you the longest through upgrades an deprecations.
CakePHP is in a bit of a volatile state right now, still unearthing bugs while pushing to release version 1.2 (which is not backward compatible). I wouldn't suggest building a critical application with it if you need something rock solid *right now*. If you can wait a month or two for things to settle, then it's probably a moot point.
To address your concerns:
1) Cake and CI do it the same way (iirc). They are equally secure, reliable, and hackish on this front.
2) Everything changes. If you need concrete, perpetual assurance of stability and backward compatibility, roll your own framework. There's not that much to it, and you're guaranteed that nothing changes unless you want it to. | I have deployed multiple applications on CakePHP and it's been a very, very, nice experience. You can't go wrong either way, as both are solid. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | You should **try** both frameworks for a week or so, building something trivial (like a blog or wiki) in both, and see which you prefer using. Whatever makes the most sense *to you* will probably sustain you the longest through upgrades an deprecations.
CakePHP is in a bit of a volatile state right now, still unearthing bugs while pushing to release version 1.2 (which is not backward compatible). I wouldn't suggest building a critical application with it if you need something rock solid *right now*. If you can wait a month or two for things to settle, then it's probably a moot point.
To address your concerns:
1) Cake and CI do it the same way (iirc). They are equally secure, reliable, and hackish on this front.
2) Everything changes. If you need concrete, perpetual assurance of stability and backward compatibility, roll your own framework. There's not that much to it, and you're guaranteed that nothing changes unless you want it to. | 1. This is a non issue. The app has a couple of lines which says where the core and your application code lies. You just need to change those lines.
2. You can never anticipate this one.
The state of PHP is a wildcard here. One app (CI) is built to be compatible with PHP4 the other requires PHP5. If you need to deal with the possibilty of a web host only supporting older versions of PHP then you need to go with CO.
Another issue is unit testing. If you require your framework to ship with tests, then CI is not the way to go.
Personally, I feel comfortable with CI because of the corporate backing. The company behind CI is making real profit from their efforts. Though CI is free, their paid product (ExpressionEngine) will eventually live on CI. The same could be said of the Zend Framework and even the birth of Rails (originally built for Basecamp.) |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | 1. is a non-issue.
2. CodeIgniter has a sponsor behind it, so it's definately the one to choose for the long term. Also, it's faster. | A minor correction to an above comment: both are compatible with PHP4, not just CI. Also, I don't think that having a sponsor makes CI and more or less upgradable or maintainable. Money doesn't solve those problems in the least.
I use CakePHP for a variety of applications and I've been happy with it thus far. 1.2 is a huge improvement over 1.1, and while the library source may change from RC3 to Final, I don't think any code you write will become obsolete. My only niggle is that the Manual isn't as comprehensive as it should be (in my opinion), and I end up in the API quite a bit. The trade-off there is that I now understand the code behind the scenes very well. In any case, I highly recommend it.
On the other hand, I've never played around with CI, so I can't recommend CakePHP *over* CI. I would take each for a spin and see which one grabs you. Whichever one you choose, study the hell out of its conventions and capabilities. When I started with Cake, I unwittingly wrote a bunch of code to do something Cake did "automagically" by having me set one variable in the controller. |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | I have deployed multiple applications on CakePHP and it's been a very, very, nice experience. You can't go wrong either way, as both are solid. | 1. This is a non issue. The app has a couple of lines which says where the core and your application code lies. You just need to change those lines.
2. You can never anticipate this one.
The state of PHP is a wildcard here. One app (CI) is built to be compatible with PHP4 the other requires PHP5. If you need to deal with the possibilty of a web host only supporting older versions of PHP then you need to go with CO.
Another issue is unit testing. If you require your framework to ship with tests, then CI is not the way to go.
Personally, I feel comfortable with CI because of the corporate backing. The company behind CI is making real profit from their efforts. Though CI is free, their paid product (ExpressionEngine) will eventually live on CI. The same could be said of the Zend Framework and even the birth of Rails (originally built for Basecamp.) |
255,082 | I am deciding on a framework to try out for PHP. I have narrowed it down to CakePHP and CodeIgniter. I have a couple of questions for any of you who have used or are familiar with both:
1. I like the fact that CakePHP keeps most of the code outside of the webroot by default. Especially since I may end up using a single framework install for multiple apps. I see CodeIgniter will do that too, but you have to configure it and move some stuff around. Is that workaround secure and reliable, or is it an afterthought hack?
2. Which (if not both) is easier to upgrade, and maintain over the long term? As new versions of the framework (and PHP itself) come out. I don't want to find my stuff either breaking, or becoming outdated.
**Edit:**
This is a very old post, but I thought I would update it with what I finally ended up doing, which was to use Kohana. | 2008/10/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/255082",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/27580/"
] | You should **try** both frameworks for a week or so, building something trivial (like a blog or wiki) in both, and see which you prefer using. Whatever makes the most sense *to you* will probably sustain you the longest through upgrades an deprecations.
CakePHP is in a bit of a volatile state right now, still unearthing bugs while pushing to release version 1.2 (which is not backward compatible). I wouldn't suggest building a critical application with it if you need something rock solid *right now*. If you can wait a month or two for things to settle, then it's probably a moot point.
To address your concerns:
1) Cake and CI do it the same way (iirc). They are equally secure, reliable, and hackish on this front.
2) Everything changes. If you need concrete, perpetual assurance of stability and backward compatibility, roll your own framework. There's not that much to it, and you're guaranteed that nothing changes unless you want it to. | A minor correction to an above comment: both are compatible with PHP4, not just CI. Also, I don't think that having a sponsor makes CI and more or less upgradable or maintainable. Money doesn't solve those problems in the least.
I use CakePHP for a variety of applications and I've been happy with it thus far. 1.2 is a huge improvement over 1.1, and while the library source may change from RC3 to Final, I don't think any code you write will become obsolete. My only niggle is that the Manual isn't as comprehensive as it should be (in my opinion), and I end up in the API quite a bit. The trade-off there is that I now understand the code behind the scenes very well. In any case, I highly recommend it.
On the other hand, I've never played around with CI, so I can't recommend CakePHP *over* CI. I would take each for a spin and see which one grabs you. Whichever one you choose, study the hell out of its conventions and capabilities. When I started with Cake, I unwittingly wrote a bunch of code to do something Cake did "automagically" by having me set one variable in the controller. |
171,914 | I'm planning to use a ACS712 current sense IC to sense motor-current in a project:
<http://www.allegromicro.com/~/Media/Files/Datasheets/ACS712-Datasheet.ashx>
The device I'm building uses a relay to control 230V to an electrical motor. I want to be able to deliver 2A to the motor.
I want to sense the current to be able to give a ballpark power value, and also to be able to detect short circuit or open circuit.
I've heard that short-circuiting the 230V mains, even in a residential area, can possibly cause currents up to or above 1000 A. This of course means that a fuse in the building will blow.
However, even at 1000A, it may take some time for the fuse to blow. I'm worried (or convinced) that the ACS712 will be obliterated by a 1000A surge, even faster than the fuse can blow (a couple of milliseconds?).
What could I do to alleviate this? I could put a 10 ohm resistor in series with my motor, but that would still put approximately 20A through the resistor, and I'm worried that the resistor will burn out before a 10A fuse will. Also, the resistor would definitely burn during normal operation.
What would be the right way to solve this? | 2015/05/22 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/171914",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/51680/"
] | The trick with a computer fan is the *frequency of the PWM signal* - it has to be within bounds that the default Arduino PWM frequency is about 1/40th of.
Intel (probably) published [this datasheet](http://www.formfactors.org/developer/specs/4_Wire_PWM_Spec.pdf) on 4-wire fan control. Section 2.1.4 has the main business.
The current draw does *not* come from the PWM pin - the specification says it's 8mA maximum. A good Sanyo Denki 12V computer fan can eat 3 Amps through the 12V line! The Arduino could drive the PWM control by itself (although inverted), but I recommend an NPN BJT transistor or an N-channel MOSFET even for one fan, let alone four. All you need to do is connect the Base/Gate to the Arduino PWM pin (with a resistor, if it's an NPN transistor), Emitter/Source to ground, and Collector/Drain to the PWM wire on the fan.
You will of course need to up the PWM frequency on the Arduino to between 21 and 28kHz, and have a read through the rest of the aforementioned datasheet to find the minimum duty cycle. (Spoiler alert: it's actually specified by each fan's manufacturer, not the datasheet *per se*, but it can easily be determined throug trial and error.)
Suitable drivers are (off the top of my tired head):
BJT Transistors:
- 2N3904 , BC548 , 2N2222;
MOSFETs:
- 2N7000, 2N7002, BSS138, BS170. | You say the PWM pin works with 3 V, so this is probably a logic input. You may have damaged it by applying 12 V. However, as long as it still works, all you need to to (apparently from your description) is to drive the fan PWM pin from a PWM output of your microcontroller. The circuitry inside the fan takes care of the rest. No power switching is needed on your end. |
188,392 | I am a Professor at a college in the US where we wear regalia to the student graduations. I have a PhD, but am about to complete another doctoral degree from a different university, neither of which are where I teach. Do I have to choose one gown to wear to graduation or is there a specific way to represent both degrees? I have yet to find any guidance on this! | 2022/09/03 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188392",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/162310/"
] | As no one who matters will actually know which degrees you hold and what gown goes with which, the choice of gown will be yours! If you own both, choose the one that is the most distinctive, colourful, or photogenic.
That is what your graduands and their families would want for their photographs.
(If you only own one, then the choice has already been made for you.) | Yes, you can wear whichever you choose, but the intercollegate rules laid down in the late 19th century suggested (but did not require) that you should wear the regalia of your most recent terminal degree.
On the other hand, I suppose you should probably wait until you earn your second degree before wearing it as part of your current faculty function. If you choose otherwise, as a degree-in-progess individual, your tassel would be worn on the right since you have not graduated yet.
I imagine you'd want to wear the gown of your degree granting institution at your own commencement as a student, and I'd check with your professors before doing otherwise.
The most important point is that you should not attempt to blend both styles into a uniform resembling a clown costume. For example, if you have earned hoods of two different colors, you should pick one color and its associated regalia and not attempt to include the other.
<http://intercollegiate-registry.org/revised-intercollegiate-code/> |
188,392 | I am a Professor at a college in the US where we wear regalia to the student graduations. I have a PhD, but am about to complete another doctoral degree from a different university, neither of which are where I teach. Do I have to choose one gown to wear to graduation or is there a specific way to represent both degrees? I have yet to find any guidance on this! | 2022/09/03 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188392",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/162310/"
] | As no one who matters will actually know which degrees you hold and what gown goes with which, the choice of gown will be yours! If you own both, choose the one that is the most distinctive, colourful, or photogenic.
That is what your graduands and their families would want for their photographs.
(If you only own one, then the choice has already been made for you.) | @Ragaroni's answer seems good for the US. Here in England-and-Wales, there are no intercollegiate rules and it would be a question for the internal regulations of the university hosting the graduation ceremony. |
188,392 | I am a Professor at a college in the US where we wear regalia to the student graduations. I have a PhD, but am about to complete another doctoral degree from a different university, neither of which are where I teach. Do I have to choose one gown to wear to graduation or is there a specific way to represent both degrees? I have yet to find any guidance on this! | 2022/09/03 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188392",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/162310/"
] | Yes, you can wear whichever you choose, but the intercollegate rules laid down in the late 19th century suggested (but did not require) that you should wear the regalia of your most recent terminal degree.
On the other hand, I suppose you should probably wait until you earn your second degree before wearing it as part of your current faculty function. If you choose otherwise, as a degree-in-progess individual, your tassel would be worn on the right since you have not graduated yet.
I imagine you'd want to wear the gown of your degree granting institution at your own commencement as a student, and I'd check with your professors before doing otherwise.
The most important point is that you should not attempt to blend both styles into a uniform resembling a clown costume. For example, if you have earned hoods of two different colors, you should pick one color and its associated regalia and not attempt to include the other.
<http://intercollegiate-registry.org/revised-intercollegiate-code/> | @Ragaroni's answer seems good for the US. Here in England-and-Wales, there are no intercollegiate rules and it would be a question for the internal regulations of the university hosting the graduation ceremony. |
236,602 | The Cat loves himself and is desperate for a date. In [Justice](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0684160/?ref_=tt_ch) he even says:
>
> What a dilemma. Inside this pod is either death or a date. And
> personally, I'm prepared to take the risk.
>
>
>
However, when Kristine joins the crew in Series 7 he doesn't appear to pay her attention (aside from referring to her as Officer Bud Babe).
Is there a reason he doesn't pursue her as diligently as the possibility of Barbara Bellini? | 2020/09/02 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/236602",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/19592/"
] | The cat seems (initially) to be interested in Kochanski, but evidently loses interest after just a few episodes.
**He's obsessed with her underwear for two episodes.**
>
> **LISTER:** *I'm not here because I'm a sad and lonely person who's entertained by
> women's underwear spin drying.*
>
>
> **CAT:** *My god, a g-string!*
>
>
> **LISTER:** *Where?*
>
>
> **CAT:** *You missed it... I swear! It was black and really, really small.*
>
>
> Red Dwarf: Duct Soup
>
>
>
**He hits on her once, inexpertly.**
>
> **CAT:** *Lateral trimmers not responding! Like wrestling in treacle!*
>
>
> **KOCHANSKI:** *You hear that? Cat says the trimmers are like wrestling in treacle!*
>
>
> **CAT:** *No, I said they were *down*. Then I asked if you like wrestling in -- It can wait..*
>
>
> Red Dwarf: Blue
>
>
> | Cat tries to impress Kochanski a number of times in the episode *Ouroboros*, giving her the pet name "Officer Bud-Babe". In the subsequent episode *Duct Soup* he also shows an interest in her underwear.
Kochanski only appears part-way into Season 7, and during most of season 8 is separated from the men in prison, so opportunities to interact directly with Cat are limited. Cat does join in with ogling her along with other women in the episode *Krytie TV*, but all the interest he shows in her seems to be characteristically shallow, and he does not make any advances on her.
The general joke about Cat's personality is that the person he loves the most is *himself*. His feelings about women are usually shallow and his desires are just an extension of his adoration for himself. In a number of episodes, he gets very excited about the *prospect* of having someone else adore him, but it very rarely comes to anything. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.