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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
342,737 | When creating links for an an html based email, how critical is it to use absolute links? Also, What are the benefits in using relative links in general? | 2008/12/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/342737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/39781/"
] | Relative links allow you use less code to traverse your structure, and they allow you to move domains without having to do any extra work. You simply copy your directory structure to the new domain, and it works.
As a lesser consideration, Absolute links don't make you worry about the position of your document relative to other documents -- which while not 'hard' to overcome, it adds an extra layer of thought that you have to be cognizant of.
Luckily the [Holy War](http://www.search-this.com/2008/01/16/2-minute-seo-tip-absolute-vs-relative-links/) isn't as big as other [programming holy wars](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Programmer+Holy+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=).
For Email, your only real choice are absolute links. | I think when you're sending html based mail, you should always use absolute links, remember that the mail is going to be read in the email client program of the users, and the relative links will be useless unless you specify a [BASE](http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_base.asp) tag. |
342,737 | When creating links for an an html based email, how critical is it to use absolute links? Also, What are the benefits in using relative links in general? | 2008/12/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/342737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/39781/"
] | Relative links allow you use less code to traverse your structure, and they allow you to move domains without having to do any extra work. You simply copy your directory structure to the new domain, and it works.
As a lesser consideration, Absolute links don't make you worry about the position of your document relative to other documents -- which while not 'hard' to overcome, it adds an extra layer of thought that you have to be cognizant of.
Luckily the [Holy War](http://www.search-this.com/2008/01/16/2-minute-seo-tip-absolute-vs-relative-links/) isn't as big as other [programming holy wars](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Programmer+Holy+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=).
For Email, your only real choice are absolute links. | Email? I don't think there's an option other than absolute links. This will guarantee you that no matter who and how will read your email, your links will point to the place you need. |
342,737 | When creating links for an an html based email, how critical is it to use absolute links? Also, What are the benefits in using relative links in general? | 2008/12/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/342737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/39781/"
] | For an html based email, absolute links are deal breaker critical, because they don't have the context of a web site to make relative links work. There are some mechanisms for setting the BASE of a document, but try feeding that to lotus notes...
Personally, on web sites, I try to use at least root absolute links /foo/yada.htm most of the time, because they are easier to test, and I never use parent path links unless putting something on a CD, like to have them turned off on the web server for security reasons.
I work mainly with CMS/data driven sites, so don't have the pain of doing it by hand. | I like to use a constant for my top level domain, and then add on other parts to the link. This is just in case I change my top most domain name, but would like to keep the content/link intact.
For example:
COMPLETE\_SITE\_NAME = "<http://www.mysite.com/>";
link = COMPLETE\_SITE\_NAME . "pagetoContent.html";
Slightly slower, but a little bit more flexible. |
342,737 | When creating links for an an html based email, how critical is it to use absolute links? Also, What are the benefits in using relative links in general? | 2008/12/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/342737",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/39781/"
] | Relative links allow you use less code to traverse your structure, and they allow you to move domains without having to do any extra work. You simply copy your directory structure to the new domain, and it works.
As a lesser consideration, Absolute links don't make you worry about the position of your document relative to other documents -- which while not 'hard' to overcome, it adds an extra layer of thought that you have to be cognizant of.
Luckily the [Holy War](http://www.search-this.com/2008/01/16/2-minute-seo-tip-absolute-vs-relative-links/) isn't as big as other [programming holy wars](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Programmer+Holy+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=).
For Email, your only real choice are absolute links. | I like to use a constant for my top level domain, and then add on other parts to the link. This is just in case I change my top most domain name, but would like to keep the content/link intact.
For example:
COMPLETE\_SITE\_NAME = "<http://www.mysite.com/>";
link = COMPLETE\_SITE\_NAME . "pagetoContent.html";
Slightly slower, but a little bit more flexible. |
67,697 | One of my SSL certificates (simple domain verification only) is about to expire on windows 2003 IIS 7.0 server.
I got better offer from another vendor, and the guys who originally issued my certificate do not want to negotiate lower prices.
Anyway - going trough the certificate wizard in IIS, I have the option to "renew" or to "uninstall" and then install a new certificate.
So - can I use the "renew" option to create a certificate request and pass this to the new vendor, or I need to start with "new" request? Will it matter for the new vendor, that the previous certificate was issued by another signer?
The problem is, that I do not want to stop the server (the secured part at least) because of removing the old certificate and creating new CSR, and wait for the new certificate to install.
Or, is there an option to prepare a new CSR without removing the old certificate? | 2009/09/22 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/67697",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/1324/"
] | You only need to create a temporary website with IIS 6.0. IIS 7.0 allows you to create multiple pending requests at a time.
IIS 7.0 actually has a bug that causes the renew function to generate a CSR with a very large key (much larger than you want). Because of this, it is recommended that you create a new pending request instead of selecting the renew option. Once installed you simply switch the SSL binding on the website and you won't have any downtime. This also allows you to generate a new key every time you renew which increases security.
The certificate provider (CA) doesn't care whether you use the new option or the renew option and you could use either option whether you are staying with the same CA or ordering from a new one. | OK, to partially answer my own question - the part of creating/using a new certificate without removing the existing one (i.e. without stopping the server), I found a good description [on Comodo website](https://support.comodo.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=456) - basically I need to create a "temporary" website on the server, and use it to create a new CSR, send it for signing, and receive and import the certificate.
Then on my main (real) site I need to replace the current certificate, and then delete the temp one. |
221,458 | When I am trying to open password-protected ppt with libre office 3.5 in Ubuntu 12.04,it gives me a message says "Read-Error. loading of password-encrypted microsoft powerpoint is not supported."So is there any solution to this? | 2012/11/24 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/221458",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/101437/"
] | Open it with powerpoint and save it without password encryption... | The ppt you are trying to open in Libre is password protected in MS office. Libre Office cannot open such password protected files. So, for this, Install **Wine Windows Program Loader** software from Ubuntu software center and then open yout .ppt with it. |
37,617,964 | i need to add a jar file to a Liberty application in Bluemix. The WEB-INF folder is missing. How can i do that ? Thank you. | 2016/06/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37617964",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6317299/"
] | The WEB-INF folder shouldn't be missing, it should include at least your web.xml configuration file and your lib directory, where the liberty runtime is expecting to find the libraries you want to upload along with your application | Your java web application must have a WEB-INF directory.
See <http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/bnadx.html>
If you can't find it in your project, you can double click in your liberty in the bluemix console and inspect the liberty instance files, like this
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A9Q87.png)
WEB-INF should be at
app->wlp->usr->servers->defaultServer->apps->myapp.war->WEB-INF->libs |
15,279 | Every of 5 previous brews (lager, pilsner, pale ale, IPA) have had a somewhat bitter and malty aftertaste to them. It's not too off-putting (except the lager) but is clearly there, yet not present on your tongue until swallowed (mostly aftertaste). *What would cause a beer to have this quality*?
5G brews. All liquid malt extracts. Different hop variations. VERY clean during brewing. Water is grocery store spring+distilled. Sugar/powdered(?) for carbonation before bottling. Dark bottles in closet 70-78d. Most have been nicely carbonated, slightly under ABV. Most the time a US-05 yeast is used. The temperature of fermentation have been slightly higher in the 70-78d range. Have done both 1 and 2nd fermentation rounds. Most fermentation times are 2-4 weeks plus 10-14 days in bottles. Nothing out of the ordinary for small-time brewers. | 2015/05/06 | [
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/15279",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com",
"https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | The "malty" taste can come from burning the sugars in the beer. When you slowly pour in the LME, vigorously stir the boil to avoid pooling on the bottom of the kettle. | what kind of hops and how much? You may need to increase the IBUs.
Also, what is the extract made from? Check to make sure it is a 2-Row and not something with more malt backbone (i.e. Pilsner)
You also may want to find a higher attenuation yeast strain. |
84,859 | well its always preferred that buffers should be as large as possible in networking.
but can having a very large buffer or a long buffer be a disadvantage? | 2009/11/15 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/84859",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/-1/"
] | I actually seem to have answered my own question. The dumb switch passes VLAN traffic without stripping the tag. This allows the "smart" APs plugged into the switch to operate correctly, and prevent any crossover between the physical interface and restricted VLANs on the public SSIDs.
I apologize for the lack of information in the first post - it was done on a whim as a study break late at night.
Thanks for the responses! | Without a VLAN capable (managed) switch, you aren't going to be able to achieve your goal. You need to be able build a VLAN between your Internet pipe and your WLAN. To do this, you are going to have to have a firewall with VLANing capability
-or- another physical port on the firewall and assign the VLAN to the switch port the firewall is plugged into...
As far as whether your "dumb" switch will respect the VLAN tagging, it won't. The most it can do is not remove the tagging. Can you give us the exact model of it so we can look it up for you?
Even if it does not remove the tagging, it's not going to actually VLAN the traffic for you...
PS. If you register on Serverfault with the same ID you used on SO, it should let you edit your posts. Right now, you are showing up as UnKnown. |
124,242 | What does this mean:
>
> Any future UK visa applications you make will be considered on their individual merits.
>
>
> | 2018/10/18 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/124242",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/85652/"
] | It means that if you make another application, that application will be given its own assessment to decide if it will be granted. Just because a previous application failed it doesn't mean the new one will fail.
HOWEVER...
Your previous applications are going to be part of assessing the new one. If your new application contains information that contradicts a previous one, or if you made false statements on a previous one, or the changes in circumstance are implausible, then that will have an effect on the new assessment. They can use information you provided in a previous application in making the new assessment.
Also assessments are fairly standardized. So if you make an application that fails, and then submit a virtually identical application in which your circumstances are the same, it is very likely that one will fail too. | ‘Merit’ means ‘worth’ - that is, each application is assessed based on what is stated in and provided with that application. |
20,077 | Ion thrusters require a lot of energy because of their high exhaust velocities. But why can't they just pump a mixture of hydrogen and xenon into the chamber, mix it with oxygen and burn it? Doesn't this ionize the gas and also provide enough thermal heat to push the plasma through the grids?
Maybe not hydrogen and oxygen, but some other exothermic reaction. Not to completely avoid electricity input but reduce it. Maybe reducing the size of the solar panels. I am talking about deep space missions.
This would also be much more efficient than energy production through turbines, wouldn't it?
Is there any drawback of using exothermic reactions? | 2017/02/08 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/20077",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/18356/"
] | Ion engines need the ions to stay ionized
-----------------------------------------
To be usefully efficient, an ion engine needs to ionize a substantial fraction of the propellant, and keep it ionized until it passes through most of the positive electrostatic potential gradient to whatever potential the local free space is assigned. I won't say "ground" here, but the assignment of zero is arbitrary.
It's the electrostatic acceleration of the ions that is the "push" of the engine.
That means the plasma needs to be low enough pressure so that the ions and electrons don't recombine too much. In some designs using electron cyclotron resonance, the vacuum must be so low that the electrons can accelerate to high energy before a useful, ionizing collision. That low pressure is way too low to allow a sustained chemical reaction.
Stuff doesn't burn in a near-vacuum
-----------------------------------
An ion engine's biggest job is to keep generating high energy electrons to continue to ionize the neutral gas constantly introduced into the chamber. There are then so few collisions that the reaction of one oxygen/hydrogen atom pair wouldn't trigger any nearby atoms to undergo a similar reaction. It wouldn't be self-sustaining, and in fact almost all the hydrogen and oxygen would pass out of the engine unreacted.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/C8TFY.jpg)
**above:** from this YouTube Video [Introduction to Ion Thrusters](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grU8g9jnS4w). Right-click and open in a new view for full size readability and detail. Image is placed here to avoid link rot if the YouTube video is ever moved or deleted.
---
Here is a link to the actual video: | The ion thruster should be as simple as possible and it should use the propellant mass effectively. Why use three gases if using xenon only works? The propellant mass should be accelerated totally, not only the xenon part. If you use the full heat of a reaction of hydrogen with oxygen, the combustion chamber must be cooled to prevent melting. An ion thruster is used for long missions due to the low thrust, but liquid hydrogen and oxygen can't be stored that long. High pressure tanks for gaseous hydrogen and oxygen are heavy. Xenon is a very heavy gas, a tank for the same mass of gas could be much smaller and lighter for xenon than for hydrogen or oxygen. The amount of electrical energy used for the heating and ionization of xenon is much smaller than that used for the acceleration of xenon. You don't need additional consumables to heat the xenon, just a part of the solar panels is enough.
Chemical energy could only deliver about 2 % of the energy that an electric accelerated ion gets. |
19,159 | In Sword Art Online, why did Akihiko Kayaba make the game so as to make death permanent? Don't get me wrong, I know that in episode 1 he claims that he would like to "control this world's fate". However, in episode 17, when he says that he "wanted to make a world free of laws and restrictions", then why make it so that people must die in real life as well? Wouldn't that make a real death contrary to his goals? And if he "forgot" somewhere in the middle of the game (as he claims in episode 14), what is the point in continuing further? Has he no regard for human life? | 2015/02/06 | [
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/19159",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com",
"https://anime.stackexchange.com/users/11581/"
] | Okay, this question raises way to many personal opinions and speculations. It's never explained why perma-death was enabled in Sword Art Online. We'll also never find out since Kayaba Akihiko died.
First, I'd like to note that the perma-death was neither a law nor restriction, it was a rule, and thus Kayaba Akihiko did not go against any rules he set for SAO. Obviously, a game will have rules, so you'll have things like: death, no flying, max health, etc. What Kayaba Akihiko was referring to was a world without the laws and restrictions placed by the society in real life. That's my speculation, but that's all it could truly point to. Naturally, there are no laws or restrictions regarding death in SAO or IRL, but rather it's a fundamental rule.
From [Kayaba Akihito](http://swordartonline.wikia.com/wiki/Kayaba_Akihiko)'s entry on Sword Art Online Wikia:
>
> Kayaba Akihiko had little to no empathy, with no regard for human life
> (including his own)
>
>
> Akihiko seemed to be very sincere and thoughtful, as shown when he told Kirito of his dream about creating a floating castle as the basis for creating Sword Art Online.
>
>
> In spite of this, Akihiko had a level of honor and fairness. [...]
>
>
>
If you look at those three lines, we can also take something else from this. At the end of Sword Art Online Asuna dies, right? Wrong. Kayaba Akihiko made the promise to Kirito to prevent Asuna from committing suicide before the match was over (episode 13). He made this promise because he is both sincere and fair. Therefore, while Asuna did indeed die in the game, she didn't die in real life because of the promise Kayaba Akihiko made with Kirito. This is also why, as promised at the beginning of the series, all 6147 players were returned to the real world after Kirito completed SAO. Quoted from the anime: (Kayaba Akihiko) "Moments ago, all 6147 remaining players were successfully logged out."
Getting back to the point, everything Kayaba Akihiko did was not contrary to the goals he set and had in mind through out Sword Art Online. Everything fell into place and he didn't violate any of his rules. He fulfilled his dream and simply brought others into it, the idea was that Kayaba Akihiko wanted to replace the real world with virtual reality for himself. This is shown in the anime episode 14 at 18:41, when Kayaba Akihiko said, "I wanted to leave the Earth behind and go to that castle. For a long, long time that was my only desire." Naturally, since he made the game available to everyone, the rules he believed in and set for himself would have to be followed everyone else as well. | As Kayaba says (I doesn't remember when), "There's no difference between IRL and SAO." If you die, it happens on both ends. I think it was to induce psychological effect.
In Volume 1 - Chapter 24 of the light novel, during the scene where Kirito and Kayaba had a talk before they returned to reality:
>
> “…What about those who died? Both of us are already dead, yet we continue to exist here. Doesn’t that mean you can return the other four thousand dead to the original world as well?”
>
>
>
> Kayaba’s expression didn’t change. He closed the window, put his hands into his pockets, and then said:
>
>
>
> “Life can’t be recovered so easily. Their consciousness will never return. The dead will disappear — this fact remains true in every world. I created this place only because I wanted to talk with you two — one last time.”
>
>
>
The difference is "a world free of laws and restrictions". You can change or remove some restrictions. For example, in real life, you cannot fight continuously for 20 hours, nor can you jump more than 20 meters. You can change some laws or some restrictions, but there are some basic things that you cannot change. Or, at least, you need some time to gradually get used to it.
Another example are Asuna's words. She told Kirito about male and female genitals. They weren't present in early version, but because of psychological effect, they were added in later version during Beta testing phase, but without any hair (because lack of effect, I think).
You can read this in Volume 1 - Chapter 16.5 (this special is in the web version only):
>
> There is a somewhat interesting story concerning all of this (I apologize for digressing, but)... When SAO was under development, the Argas company had an internal closed alpha test phase during which time they reasoned that since players would have no use for genitals, it would not be necessary to objectify it.
>
>
>
> However, in reality they found that most of the male testers would experience a certain amount of severe anxiety. Even so, while there was no problem when playing for several hours. When they conducted consecutive tests over a 48 hour period, they found that most of the male testers who attended this trial period were unable to stand not having their genitals and gave up. So it was from the Beta testing phase that the genital parts were implemented out of a sense of necessity. It seems that this was also part of the reason why SAO players were not allowed to change their characters' genders.
>
>
>
> However, even if you had your genital parts, the question that I had prior to the official start of the game (meaning, before the incident) was whether or not there would be anxiety over the lack of proper function. I myself had agonized repeatedly on multiple occasions over the inability to release my pent up energy, but now I saw that if the ethics code or whatever was disabled, then functionality, probably even ejaculation was possible.
>
>
> |
27,179 | Is it because it is a non-approved app on iPhone 4 and why? If so, is it only installable if it is a jailbroken iPhone 4? | 2011/10/10 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/27179",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/2334/"
] | The Siri app was withdrawn from sale to new people, but if you purchased it you can download it still from your history. It won't work without servers running, but you can still "get the app" from the store.
The app does nothing but check to see if the Siri servers are running. Since they are no longer operational - even people who have the app can launch it to see this announcement.
 | The previous free Siri app for iOS was removed from the App store sometime around Oct 4. (A developer can remove an app of theirs from sale at any time, and Apple purchased the developer of this app.) This app (for people who downloaded it before its removal from the App store) itself announces that it will stop working on Oct 15, most likely because the old servers for its messy protocol will be taken down. So the old Siri app will most likely stop working even if someone is able to install it. |
27,179 | Is it because it is a non-approved app on iPhone 4 and why? If so, is it only installable if it is a jailbroken iPhone 4? | 2011/10/10 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/27179",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/2334/"
] | The previous free Siri app for iOS was removed from the App store sometime around Oct 4. (A developer can remove an app of theirs from sale at any time, and Apple purchased the developer of this app.) This app (for people who downloaded it before its removal from the App store) itself announces that it will stop working on Oct 15, most likely because the old servers for its messy protocol will be taken down. So the old Siri app will most likely stop working even if someone is able to install it. | There are stories in the blogosphere that hackers have migrated Siri from the 4s OS code onto an iPhone 4. There was a video demonstrating it.
It's not for the masses. In fact, it had some substantial problems.
There was a story a day or two ago that Apple is working on releasing Siri for older phones (the story said iPhone 4 and maybe 3Gs). Then a story yesterday said that's not the case.
If you're Apple and you've just released a phone that is all new on the inside but looks the same on the outside, and has this one killer feature that revolutionizes everything... would you be in a hurry to put that feature on older phones? I wouldn't. You'd gut sales of your new device. You *might* bring that feature to older devices in maybe six months or something, but you'd for sure let it be a unique draw to your new device for a good while. |
27,179 | Is it because it is a non-approved app on iPhone 4 and why? If so, is it only installable if it is a jailbroken iPhone 4? | 2011/10/10 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/27179",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/2334/"
] | The Siri app was withdrawn from sale to new people, but if you purchased it you can download it still from your history. It won't work without servers running, but you can still "get the app" from the store.
The app does nothing but check to see if the Siri servers are running. Since they are no longer operational - even people who have the app can launch it to see this announcement.
 | There are stories in the blogosphere that hackers have migrated Siri from the 4s OS code onto an iPhone 4. There was a video demonstrating it.
It's not for the masses. In fact, it had some substantial problems.
There was a story a day or two ago that Apple is working on releasing Siri for older phones (the story said iPhone 4 and maybe 3Gs). Then a story yesterday said that's not the case.
If you're Apple and you've just released a phone that is all new on the inside but looks the same on the outside, and has this one killer feature that revolutionizes everything... would you be in a hurry to put that feature on older phones? I wouldn't. You'd gut sales of your new device. You *might* bring that feature to older devices in maybe six months or something, but you'd for sure let it be a unique draw to your new device for a good while. |
90,200 | I have a sign up form where the email address needs to be displayed, but cannot be edited (it is pre-determined, like an invite). Is it sufficient to grey the populated email field out to signify that it can't be changed?
An argument against this would be to remove the users email from the form altogether and have it sit above the form.
The reason for wanting it within a form field however, is to cement the fact that this is the email attached to the account and to keep it as close to the create password field as possible (create password & confirm password are the only other fields). | 2016/02/11 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/90200",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/77894/"
] | *There are other ways to make elements appear as part of a group.*
If you place the email address in a label above the form, but make the space between the email address and the first text box the same size as the space between the 1st and 2nd text boxes, then people will automatically see them as a group (gestalt principles). The space between this form and the other elements on the screen should then be much bigger.
Something roughly like this:
[download bmml source](/plugins/mockups/download?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fVrkOP.png) – Wireframes created with [Balsamiq Mockups](http://www.balsamiq.com/products/mockups) | If you allow the user to the change email address, you may also do this on this format.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KWiar.png)
If the user is not allowed to change email, Franchesca's answer above is a good approach.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ke7TV.png) |
107,340 | The book is fairly new, at most 4 years and it's the start of a series.
I know vampires were involved and that the bookstore was open at night but
that's about it. | 2015/11/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/107340",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/55573/"
] | *[Night Owls](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18281997-night-owls)* by Lauren M. Roy
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5S6B.jpg)
>
> *Night Owls **book store** is the one spot on campus **open late** enough to help out even the most practiced slacker. The employees’ penchant for fighting the evil creatures of the night is just a perk…*
>
>
> Valerie McTeague’s business model is simple: provide the students of Edgewood College with a late-night study haven and stay as far away from the underworld conflicts of her vampire brethren as possible. She’s lived that life, and the price she paid was far too high to ever want to return.
>
>
> Elly Garrett hasn’t known any life except that of fighting the supernatural werewolf-like beings known as Creeps or Jackals. But she always had her mentor and foster father by her side—until he gave his life protecting a book that the Creeps desperately want to get their hands on.
>
>
> When the book gets stashed at Night Owls for safe keeping, those Val holds nearest and dearest are put in mortal peril. Now Val and Elly will have to team up, along with a mismatched crew of humans, **vampires**, and lesbian succubi, to stop the Jackals from getting their claws on the book and unleashing unnamed horrors…
>
>
>
It was released in 2014 and has been stated to be part of a series with *[Grave Matters](http://Grave%20Matters)* released in 2015. | The *[Jane Jameson](https://www.goodreads.com/series/46406-jane-jameson)* series, starting with #2, *[Nice Girls Don't Date Dead Men](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5999242-nice-girls-don-t-date-dead-men)*, has the vampire protagonist working at a bookstore.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ke96Y.jpg)
>
> Following Nice Girls Don’t Have Fangs, the second in a hilarious, smart, sexy romantic series about an out-of-work librarian who is turned into a vampire.
>
>
> With her best friend Zeb’s Titanic-themed wedding looming ahead, new vampire Jane Jameson struggles to develop her budding relationship with her enigmatic sire, Gabriel. It seems unfair that she’s expected to master undead dating while dealing with a groom heading for a nuptial nervous breakdown, his hostile werewolf in-laws, and the ugliest bridesmaid dress in the history of marriage.
>
>
> |
107,340 | The book is fairly new, at most 4 years and it's the start of a series.
I know vampires were involved and that the bookstore was open at night but
that's about it. | 2015/11/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/107340",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/55573/"
] | *[Night Owls](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18281997-night-owls)* by Lauren M. Roy
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5S6B.jpg)
>
> *Night Owls **book store** is the one spot on campus **open late** enough to help out even the most practiced slacker. The employees’ penchant for fighting the evil creatures of the night is just a perk…*
>
>
> Valerie McTeague’s business model is simple: provide the students of Edgewood College with a late-night study haven and stay as far away from the underworld conflicts of her vampire brethren as possible. She’s lived that life, and the price she paid was far too high to ever want to return.
>
>
> Elly Garrett hasn’t known any life except that of fighting the supernatural werewolf-like beings known as Creeps or Jackals. But she always had her mentor and foster father by her side—until he gave his life protecting a book that the Creeps desperately want to get their hands on.
>
>
> When the book gets stashed at Night Owls for safe keeping, those Val holds nearest and dearest are put in mortal peril. Now Val and Elly will have to team up, along with a mismatched crew of humans, **vampires**, and lesbian succubi, to stop the Jackals from getting their claws on the book and unleashing unnamed horrors…
>
>
>
It was released in 2014 and has been stated to be part of a series with *[Grave Matters](http://Grave%20Matters)* released in 2015. | *[Night's Master](http://members.authorsguild.net/amandaashley/night_s_master___br__book_3_67932.htm)* is the 3rd book in Amanda Ashley's *Children of the Night* series.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wfvrT.jpg)
>
> Kathy McKenna was sure that the little Midwestern town of Oak Hollow would be isolated enough for safety, but the moment the black-clad stranger walked into **her bookstore**, she knew she was wrong. Raphael Cordova exudes smoldering power, and his sensual touch draws Kathy into a world of limitless pleasure and unimaginable dangers.
>
>
> Oak Hollow was supposed to be neutral territory for Supernatural beings. Instead it has become home to an evil force determined to destroy them—and kill any mortal who gets in the way. As **leader of the North American vampires**, Raphael has always put duty first, but then, no woman ever enthralled him the way Kathy does. And as the enemy’s terrifying plan is revealed, Raphael’s desire could be a fatal distraction for all his kind, and for the woman he has sworn to love forever…
>
>
>
This one is probably the least likely, as it looks like the vampires are the focus of the series with the bookstore owner only showing up in this 2008 entry. |
107,340 | The book is fairly new, at most 4 years and it's the start of a series.
I know vampires were involved and that the bookstore was open at night but
that's about it. | 2015/11/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/107340",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/55573/"
] | *[Night Owls](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18281997-night-owls)* by Lauren M. Roy
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5S6B.jpg)
>
> *Night Owls **book store** is the one spot on campus **open late** enough to help out even the most practiced slacker. The employees’ penchant for fighting the evil creatures of the night is just a perk…*
>
>
> Valerie McTeague’s business model is simple: provide the students of Edgewood College with a late-night study haven and stay as far away from the underworld conflicts of her vampire brethren as possible. She’s lived that life, and the price she paid was far too high to ever want to return.
>
>
> Elly Garrett hasn’t known any life except that of fighting the supernatural werewolf-like beings known as Creeps or Jackals. But she always had her mentor and foster father by her side—until he gave his life protecting a book that the Creeps desperately want to get their hands on.
>
>
> When the book gets stashed at Night Owls for safe keeping, those Val holds nearest and dearest are put in mortal peril. Now Val and Elly will have to team up, along with a mismatched crew of humans, **vampires**, and lesbian succubi, to stop the Jackals from getting their claws on the book and unleashing unnamed horrors…
>
>
>
It was released in 2014 and has been stated to be part of a series with *[Grave Matters](http://Grave%20Matters)* released in 2015. | Could it be [Mr Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13538873-mr-penumbra-s-24-hour-bookstore), by Robin Sloan? I don't recall vampires, but there is a secret society and a mystery. It was published in 2012. |
107,340 | The book is fairly new, at most 4 years and it's the start of a series.
I know vampires were involved and that the bookstore was open at night but
that's about it. | 2015/11/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/107340",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/55573/"
] | *[Night Owls](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18281997-night-owls)* by Lauren M. Roy
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5S6B.jpg)
>
> *Night Owls **book store** is the one spot on campus **open late** enough to help out even the most practiced slacker. The employees’ penchant for fighting the evil creatures of the night is just a perk…*
>
>
> Valerie McTeague’s business model is simple: provide the students of Edgewood College with a late-night study haven and stay as far away from the underworld conflicts of her vampire brethren as possible. She’s lived that life, and the price she paid was far too high to ever want to return.
>
>
> Elly Garrett hasn’t known any life except that of fighting the supernatural werewolf-like beings known as Creeps or Jackals. But she always had her mentor and foster father by her side—until he gave his life protecting a book that the Creeps desperately want to get their hands on.
>
>
> When the book gets stashed at Night Owls for safe keeping, those Val holds nearest and dearest are put in mortal peril. Now Val and Elly will have to team up, along with a mismatched crew of humans, **vampires**, and lesbian succubi, to stop the Jackals from getting their claws on the book and unleashing unnamed horrors…
>
>
>
It was released in 2014 and has been stated to be part of a series with *[Grave Matters](http://Grave%20Matters)* released in 2015. | *[Hounded](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9533378-hounded?from_search=true&search_version=service)* the first book in the *Iron Druid Chronicles* by Kevin Hearne
[](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9533378-hounded?from_search=true&search_version=service)
>
> Atticus O’Sullivan, last of the Druids, lives peacefully in Arizona,
> running an **occult bookshop** and shape-shifting in his spare time to
> hunt with his Irish wolfhound. His neighbors and customers think that
> this handsome, tattooed Irish dude is about twenty-one years old—when
> in actuality, he’s twenty-one centuries old. Not to mention: He draws
> his power from the earth, possesses a sharp wit, and wields an even
> sharper magical sword known as Fragarach, the Answerer.
>
>
> Unfortunately, a very angry Celtic god wants that sword, and he’s
> hounded Atticus for centuries. Now the determined deity has tracked
> him down, and Atticus will need all his power—plus the help of a
> seductive goddess of death, **his vampire and werewolf team of
> attorneys**, a bartender possessed by a Hindu witch, and some good
> old-fashioned luck of the Irish—to kick some Celtic arse and deliver
> himself from evil.
>
>
>
Points where this matches the description:
* Occult bookstore in which he has a collection of rare magical books
* Main character is owner of said bookstore
* One of his attorneys is a vampire, "friend" and sparring partner
* First book in the series
* Published during the mentioned four year time frame (2011)
What may not fit:
* Open at night - I don't specifically remember the bookstore open at night, but several of the key scenes do occur at night.
Only one point that doesn't quite match, but seems to match on all other details. |
107,340 | The book is fairly new, at most 4 years and it's the start of a series.
I know vampires were involved and that the bookstore was open at night but
that's about it. | 2015/11/09 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/107340",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/55573/"
] | *[Night Owls](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18281997-night-owls)* by Lauren M. Roy
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/H5S6B.jpg)
>
> *Night Owls **book store** is the one spot on campus **open late** enough to help out even the most practiced slacker. The employees’ penchant for fighting the evil creatures of the night is just a perk…*
>
>
> Valerie McTeague’s business model is simple: provide the students of Edgewood College with a late-night study haven and stay as far away from the underworld conflicts of her vampire brethren as possible. She’s lived that life, and the price she paid was far too high to ever want to return.
>
>
> Elly Garrett hasn’t known any life except that of fighting the supernatural werewolf-like beings known as Creeps or Jackals. But she always had her mentor and foster father by her side—until he gave his life protecting a book that the Creeps desperately want to get their hands on.
>
>
> When the book gets stashed at Night Owls for safe keeping, those Val holds nearest and dearest are put in mortal peril. Now Val and Elly will have to team up, along with a mismatched crew of humans, **vampires**, and lesbian succubi, to stop the Jackals from getting their claws on the book and unleashing unnamed horrors…
>
>
>
It was released in 2014 and has been stated to be part of a series with *[Grave Matters](http://Grave%20Matters)* released in 2015. | This *could* be the [Alex Verus](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0068PHXVA?keywords=alex%20verus&qid=1447144238&ref_=sr_1_2&s=digital-text&sr=1-2) series
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rUeuU.jpg)
Alex is a clairvoyant, who can see the future. He also runs a Magic store. It's not actually a bookstore *per se*, but a general magic store. If I recall correctly, the store was generally open at odd hours.
The first book in the series (Fated) was published in 2012.
I can't quite recall the status of vampires in the series though. So it may be a miss on that part. |
169,405 | I have a scheduled task on a Windows Server 2000 box which is scheduled to run daily. On Monday, the task ran perfectly in that the thing it fires off (a console application) completed, but the scheduled task itself is still marked as "Running" on the Scheduled Tasks window. So both yesterday and today the job did not fire.
The underlying process isn't present, the same console application is run by numerous other scheduled tasks with different arguments at other times and they've completed tidily.
Unfortunately the scheduled tasks log (Scheduled Tasks > Advanced > View Log) doesn't show enough history to show when this job ran.
When I right click on the task and select End Task it has no effect (the option to Run is disabled).
I'd like to be able to re-use this scheduled task, but more than that I want to understand what might have caused this issue so as to try to ensure that it doesn't happen again. | 2010/08/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/169405",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/124/"
] | When the job terminates, it attempts to update itself indicating (a) the date last run and (b) reset the job status to *blank*. To do this, it must have full control of the job file. If another process attempts to access the job file (most likely culprit being the antivirus software), the job file will be *busy* and will not be updated.
The best thing to do is to disable the antivirus scanning of c:\windows\tasks.
Hope this is some help. | You could try restarting the windows task scheduler service, but sometimes rebooting a Windows box will solve all your problems ;-) |
23,280,430 | i want to use Qt with Visual Studio 2010 and 2012 parallel. For Visual Studio 2010, i've already installed it and it's running. How do i install it for Visual Studio 2012? In what do i change the environmental variables?
Windows 8.1 64bit | 2014/04/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/23280430",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3420519/"
] | You can install into another path, if you need to you can also compile yourself there, it is not that hard. Then in your respective Solution files change the path of the Qt libraries accordingly.
<http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/windows-building.html> | You could install two different Qt versions onto your PC. You can get the versions from here:
[Download Qt](http://qt-project.org/downloads)
Watch out for VS 2012 in brackets. You will need to put the desired version into the `PATH` with priority. For instance, if you are currently developing with VS 2010, you will need to prefer the VS 2010 installation in your PATH, but if it is 2012, then the VS 2012 Qt version, respectively. |
88,441 | In the absence of sunlight, plants give out the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. So why is it said that plants increase the concentration of atmospheric oxygen? Do they not increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and use the oxygen produced in photosynthesis. | 2019/10/24 | [
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/88441",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/1110/"
] | The tag you used on the question shows you know about photosynthesis, but it seems you don't fully recognize its significance. Yes, plants use oxygen and release CO2 all the time for energy use, but they absorb much more CO2 (and release much more O2) while storing energy during the daytime than that 24-hour energy usage undoes.
While plants release CO2 as well as absorb it, they do much more of the latter. By [one scientific estimate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation#Net_vs_gross_CO2_fixation), of all the the CO2 plants remove for photosynthesis, they release 40% of it back into the atmosphere. But that means that 60% of that CO2 absorption is never released back into the atmosphere by the plants. So, overall, the net change is that plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere (unlike animal metabolism and combustion which only add CO2 and remove none).
All those plant stems, branches, and trunks you can see are built out of CO2 that the plant will never release back into the atmosphere. The only CO2 the plants release is CO2 that they previously absorbed from the atmosphere. | Plants start to grow first, from tiny size (from seed in higher plants), and from there, any size in later stages they achieve to have, they achieve it only by first absorbing all the Carbon they need, from air first.
So huge part of plant's later dried weight is actually made from carbon. And all that carbon was incorporated into it's body through continuous photosynthesis - so it was "sucked" from CO2 in the air around the growing plant.
Importantly:
Unlike us, plant can not normally absorb carbohydrates (sugars, fat etc - we eat them, plants don't) in order to use them for metabolism and respiration (ie breathing). For this they can use only carbohydrates they themselves already created first from CO2, through photosynthesis.
Even when they can not use photosynthesis anymore (because of age or in the dark) - they use for respiration only that carbon which they stored in the body before by catching it from air.
And as long as the plant continues to grow and have access to any light it continues to absorb much more CO2 than it releases through respiration. So in balance it keeps absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen in net balance.
As an mental exercise: It would be different if You would take, let say same house pot plant and place it into a completely dark room for a long time. That plant there is without light, while it already has body which it created previously through photosynthesis, it now can not capture any light and any carbon any more, yet it would still need to be continually breathing. So as this particular plant in the dark, have no source of energy for photosynthesis, and it still is breathing, so in this particular case it would produce CO2.
Practically something resembling such theoretical example happens with significance only, when we store plant body-parts like fruits and vegetables (or potatoes) for a long time. Fruits, vegetables and potatoes (often stored in the dark) breath and not photosynthesize.
The cycles between a day and night are also bringing plants for short time into the dark and as such they have negative balance (net producing CO2) for a short while, but it is insignificant from the whole day perspective (overal they consume much more CO2 than they produce it)
Interestingly, there also exist very rare species of parasitic plants (they are parasites of other plants) which are not having their own photosynthesis - in this case they have no chlorophyll and suck sugars out of other plants - and yes, they only breath and yes, they only produce CO2, so they would be probably the only plants which are net producers of carbon dioxide. |
88,441 | In the absence of sunlight, plants give out the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. So why is it said that plants increase the concentration of atmospheric oxygen? Do they not increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and use the oxygen produced in photosynthesis. | 2019/10/24 | [
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/88441",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/1110/"
] | There are two factors here. First is that you have to look at the plant's net production over time. Say for instance (I'm just making up numbers here) that during the day the plant takes in 88 g of CO2 and uses photosynthesis to convert it to 64 g of O2 that's released into the air, and 24 g of C that is incorporated into the plant. Then during the night it uses 12 g of the stored C for respiration (combining it with 44 g of O2 from the air), leaving a net daily production of 12 g C that goes into plant growth, and 44 g of O2 in the air.
Second problem is perhaps better classed as either linguistic confusion (to be polite) or ignorance. CO2 is not "pollution": it is a normal part - more accurately, a fundamental part - of the carbon cycle <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle> on which almost all life depends. The problem is not plants (or animals) releasing CO2: it's humans digging up lots of fossil carbon and burning it, thus increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations beyond the levels to which the ecosystem has adapted.
Now that you've changed the question, it's even more important to read the basic description of the carbon cycle at the link. (Honestly, wasn't this covered in your high school biology class?) Again, the bottom line is that plants produce a net surplus of O2, which animals consume along with the plants, so that the cycle remains balanced. | Plants start to grow first, from tiny size (from seed in higher plants), and from there, any size in later stages they achieve to have, they achieve it only by first absorbing all the Carbon they need, from air first.
So huge part of plant's later dried weight is actually made from carbon. And all that carbon was incorporated into it's body through continuous photosynthesis - so it was "sucked" from CO2 in the air around the growing plant.
Importantly:
Unlike us, plant can not normally absorb carbohydrates (sugars, fat etc - we eat them, plants don't) in order to use them for metabolism and respiration (ie breathing). For this they can use only carbohydrates they themselves already created first from CO2, through photosynthesis.
Even when they can not use photosynthesis anymore (because of age or in the dark) - they use for respiration only that carbon which they stored in the body before by catching it from air.
And as long as the plant continues to grow and have access to any light it continues to absorb much more CO2 than it releases through respiration. So in balance it keeps absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen in net balance.
As an mental exercise: It would be different if You would take, let say same house pot plant and place it into a completely dark room for a long time. That plant there is without light, while it already has body which it created previously through photosynthesis, it now can not capture any light and any carbon any more, yet it would still need to be continually breathing. So as this particular plant in the dark, have no source of energy for photosynthesis, and it still is breathing, so in this particular case it would produce CO2.
Practically something resembling such theoretical example happens with significance only, when we store plant body-parts like fruits and vegetables (or potatoes) for a long time. Fruits, vegetables and potatoes (often stored in the dark) breath and not photosynthesize.
The cycles between a day and night are also bringing plants for short time into the dark and as such they have negative balance (net producing CO2) for a short while, but it is insignificant from the whole day perspective (overal they consume much more CO2 than they produce it)
Interestingly, there also exist very rare species of parasitic plants (they are parasites of other plants) which are not having their own photosynthesis - in this case they have no chlorophyll and suck sugars out of other plants - and yes, they only breath and yes, they only produce CO2, so they would be probably the only plants which are net producers of carbon dioxide. |
88,441 | In the absence of sunlight, plants give out the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. So why is it said that plants increase the concentration of atmospheric oxygen? Do they not increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and use the oxygen produced in photosynthesis. | 2019/10/24 | [
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/88441",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com",
"https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/1110/"
] | >
> Do they not increase the CO2 proportion?
>
>
>
No, because the CO2 they emit came from the atmosphere to begin with. And the carbon they don't release as CO2 stays as carbon compounds that make up the plant.
The issue with CO2 is not plants taking CO2 from the air and re-releasing it. That doesn't cause a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.
Taking CO2 that has been sequestered in the ground for hundreds of millions of years and adding it all to the atmosphere in a geologic eyeblink of time, that's a problem. | Plants start to grow first, from tiny size (from seed in higher plants), and from there, any size in later stages they achieve to have, they achieve it only by first absorbing all the Carbon they need, from air first.
So huge part of plant's later dried weight is actually made from carbon. And all that carbon was incorporated into it's body through continuous photosynthesis - so it was "sucked" from CO2 in the air around the growing plant.
Importantly:
Unlike us, plant can not normally absorb carbohydrates (sugars, fat etc - we eat them, plants don't) in order to use them for metabolism and respiration (ie breathing). For this they can use only carbohydrates they themselves already created first from CO2, through photosynthesis.
Even when they can not use photosynthesis anymore (because of age or in the dark) - they use for respiration only that carbon which they stored in the body before by catching it from air.
And as long as the plant continues to grow and have access to any light it continues to absorb much more CO2 than it releases through respiration. So in balance it keeps absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen in net balance.
As an mental exercise: It would be different if You would take, let say same house pot plant and place it into a completely dark room for a long time. That plant there is without light, while it already has body which it created previously through photosynthesis, it now can not capture any light and any carbon any more, yet it would still need to be continually breathing. So as this particular plant in the dark, have no source of energy for photosynthesis, and it still is breathing, so in this particular case it would produce CO2.
Practically something resembling such theoretical example happens with significance only, when we store plant body-parts like fruits and vegetables (or potatoes) for a long time. Fruits, vegetables and potatoes (often stored in the dark) breath and not photosynthesize.
The cycles between a day and night are also bringing plants for short time into the dark and as such they have negative balance (net producing CO2) for a short while, but it is insignificant from the whole day perspective (overal they consume much more CO2 than they produce it)
Interestingly, there also exist very rare species of parasitic plants (they are parasites of other plants) which are not having their own photosynthesis - in this case they have no chlorophyll and suck sugars out of other plants - and yes, they only breath and yes, they only produce CO2, so they would be probably the only plants which are net producers of carbon dioxide. |
639,212 | For my diy synth, I have a Meanwell RT-65B PSU that delivers +11.5V, +5V and -12V. The +11.5 should be 12, but the difference is within the tolerance, according to the [datasheet](https://www.meanwell-web.com/content/files/pdfs/productPdfs/MW/Rt-65/RT-65-spec.pdf).
I also have a [CV-12 module from midimuso](https://midimuso.co.uk/index.php/cv-12/) that requires 12V to operate. On that module, a LM317 regulator is used to produce +10.6V, which has to be exact because the module is used for tuning other oscillators. However, the +11.5 V don't seem enough for this, and the regulator won't go beyond +9.9V, making the module out-of-tune.
I'm not an electrical engineer and hardly know which part does what, and I'm curious which options I have left, other than buying a different PSU. Are there any regulators that are more suitable for this purpose? I have looked at the [data sheet for the LM317 regulator](https://docs.rs-online.com/0054/0900766b813862fa.pdf), but I'm not sure which part of it refers to the situation that I am in right now. | 2022/10/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/639212",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/315838/"
] | for someone who's not an electrical engineer, you're pretty good at picking this up!
The measure from the datasheet you're interested in is called *dropout voltage*, i.e. the minimum voltage difference between in- and output.
The LM317, being old enough to be of archaeological interest, has an enormous dropout voltage of up to 2.5V, depending on the input voltage and output current. That's what's biting you here – your input voltage is too close to the desired output voltage for the LM317 to regulate sufficiently well.
Generally, the LM317 is probably not the regulator you'd want in 2022 to regulate an output voltage well, especially for oscillator purposes: It's *precision* is kind of bad, as well as it's stability – it changes with output current, with temperature, to a lesser degree, but still, with input voltage. Any regulator will do that, no real-world system is perfect, but the tolerances (up to multiple percent of relative error under normal conditions!) here are really worse than what you could buy for very little more. (There's more aspects that make the LM317 undesirable here, such as the bad rejection of audio-frequency input and load noise, which can actually become problematic for voltage-controlled oscillators, but I don't have enough insight into the design and application of this circuit to make a quantitative statement here.)
Working with nearly no margin with a regulator that's borderline unsuitable to the task does call into question the design of the circuit you've bought, but I guess this is easy enough to fix that we don't need to worry about the rest for now.
Since you need a *low dropout voltage*, a so-called *Low-dropout regulator*, or LDO in short, will be what you want.
What you need to make sure is that the current it can provide fulfills (or over-fulfills) your circuitry's needs. You should definitely check voltage regulation in the data sheets to be better than the LM317 during the same operation – but I promise you, it's not going to be easy to find a worse regulator. (OK, aside from the LM7805 that is used as voltage regulator for the CV-12 chip itself, but since that IC is a digital one, and probably has an internal voltage regulator anyways, that won't matter much.)
Now, 10.6 V is a voltage too specific to find a fixed-output voltage regulator that outputs exactly that. So, just as the LM317, your LDO will need to be an adjustable model.
As said, you'll be able to supply the necessary current. Now, I don't have the design insight that the original designers have, so I'll have to go by what I can see to find a safe upper bound for the current the whole 10.6 V supply might draw.
From the schematic:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KxAUL.png)
We can see that the only thing driven by the 10.6 V supply are the two level shifters U2 and U3, which are MC14504 according to the schematic, and CD4504 (in a variant made by Texas Instruments) according to the [photograph](https://midimuso.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_20171229_130154.jpg). So, let's look up the [CD4504](https://www.ti.com/product/CD4504B) and see how much current it can draw, at most!
The [datasheet](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd4504b.pdf?ts=1666268944935&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.ti.com%252Fproduct%252FCD4504B) breathes pure unadulterated 1970s, but that's fine with me. The table "Static Electrical Characteristics" tells us the maximum quiescent current (i.e. what it uses without doing anything) it will draw is 5 mA. The maximum output current is 6.8 mA per output. But it can't source that, since these output are connected to 100 kΩ resistors (R3 through R14), so even taking a bit of resonance into account, that's at most 10.6 V / 100 kΩ = 0.106 mA per channel. There's 12 channels, so 1.2 mA, plus two chips' 5 mA quiescent current, making for maybe because we're bad at math and to make things easier, 20 mA of current needed at 10.6 V. (also, we don't know what you will attach to the external 10.6 V pin.)
Armed with that knowledge, we go and find the linear voltage regulators at our electronic distributor of choice – farnell, mouser, rs components, or digikey, and enter the properties we need into the table filter there:
* needs to be available,
* needs to have a positive output voltage,
* needs to be adjustable,
* needs to have a max input voltage higher or equal to 12 V, and
* a min output voltage lower than 10.7 V and
* a max output higher than 10.5 V,
* an output current of at least 20 mA
I prepared such a digikey filter for you [here](https://www.digikey.com/short/rp0f4w22); the first results you find are, to little surprise, regulators from the ubuiquitous xx1117x-ADJ family. (These are very popular, not as old as the LM317 or LM78xx series of devices, and there's a archload of manufacturers that make them.) That would actually work. However, let's look for a regulator with a lower dropout voltage, so that slight supply variations hurt nobody.
That would lead us to the [AP2202K-ADJ](https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/diodes-incorporated/AP2202K-ADJTRG1/4470808).
So. Buy:
1. AP2202K-ADJ (buy two or more. You might lose or break one...)
2. a 1 µF electrolytic capacitor. Rated voltage >= 16V, better 25V. (you could reuse C3)
3. a 2.2 µF or up to 10 µF electrolytic capacitor, rated voltage 12V or higher.
4. [Precision (that is, 0.1% tolerance or better) resistors](https://www.digikey.com/short/npw7qphb); you'll want a 0805 or 1206 package (smaller works as well, but it's harder to solder, mount)
5. 68 kΩ
6. 9.1 kΩ
7. (optional) a ceramic chip capacitor of 100 pF to 1 nF for lower output noise. Make it the same package as the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
So, unsolder IC2, R1 and R2, as well as C3. Solder in a 1 µF electrolytic capacitor between the +12V (of the now unused IC2 contact holes) and GND (you can get that GND contact at the top end of R2, if you look at the board).
This would have been good in the original circuit as well, and the lower the dropout, the more important adding a decoupling capacitor on the input becomes.
Solder in your 2.2 to 10 µF capacitor in place of C3.
Glue (or don't, I'm not your mother; a *small* amount of superglue does the trick, e.g. take it up with the tip of a nail, deposit on board, drop chip on the droplet using tweezers) the AP2202K-ADJ "upside down" next to the old place of IC2, so that you can, with short pieces of wire (e.g. from resistor "leg" snipoffs), connect its Vin to 12 V. The [datasheet](https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/AP2202.pdf) tells you how:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6xJwb.png)
From the output pin Vout to the ADJ pin, we'll connect the 68 kΩ precision resistor, and from ADJ to GND, the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
The ADJ and Vout are the two pins on the side with only two pins of the AP2202K-ADJ. So, same idea, drop a droplet of glue, place 68 kΩ so that it's not too far from ADJ and Vout to these contacts.
Do the same for the 9.1 kΩ resistor, placing one of its contacts right next to the ADJ-adjacent contact of the 68 kΩ resistor. If you've bought the "additional" chip capacitor, solder it atop and in parallel of the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
Now, add all the necessary connection as shown in the datasheet schematic above using short, manageably thin pieces of wire (if you kept the snipoffs from the resistors of the original kits, these work well, but so does "magnet wire"). | You have 3 solid options
1. Follow Marcus Müller recommendation from anouther answer - replace LM317 with proper LDO on CV-12 module
2. Replace Meanwell RT-65B PSU for anouther one which has at least 12,2V on 12V output (why 12,2V you may ask - your particular LM317 chip at your particular load provides 9,9V instead of 10,6V - 0,7V deficit when fed with 11,5V so it needs at least 0,7V higher input for desired output)
3. Add a boost converter beetween Meanwell PSU and CV-12. MT3608 adjustable booster boards are readily avaible and one of those can output 12,5V at 1A when fed with 11,5V (lets give LM317 a 0,3V extra headroom) |
639,212 | For my diy synth, I have a Meanwell RT-65B PSU that delivers +11.5V, +5V and -12V. The +11.5 should be 12, but the difference is within the tolerance, according to the [datasheet](https://www.meanwell-web.com/content/files/pdfs/productPdfs/MW/Rt-65/RT-65-spec.pdf).
I also have a [CV-12 module from midimuso](https://midimuso.co.uk/index.php/cv-12/) that requires 12V to operate. On that module, a LM317 regulator is used to produce +10.6V, which has to be exact because the module is used for tuning other oscillators. However, the +11.5 V don't seem enough for this, and the regulator won't go beyond +9.9V, making the module out-of-tune.
I'm not an electrical engineer and hardly know which part does what, and I'm curious which options I have left, other than buying a different PSU. Are there any regulators that are more suitable for this purpose? I have looked at the [data sheet for the LM317 regulator](https://docs.rs-online.com/0054/0900766b813862fa.pdf), but I'm not sure which part of it refers to the situation that I am in right now. | 2022/10/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/639212",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/315838/"
] | for someone who's not an electrical engineer, you're pretty good at picking this up!
The measure from the datasheet you're interested in is called *dropout voltage*, i.e. the minimum voltage difference between in- and output.
The LM317, being old enough to be of archaeological interest, has an enormous dropout voltage of up to 2.5V, depending on the input voltage and output current. That's what's biting you here – your input voltage is too close to the desired output voltage for the LM317 to regulate sufficiently well.
Generally, the LM317 is probably not the regulator you'd want in 2022 to regulate an output voltage well, especially for oscillator purposes: It's *precision* is kind of bad, as well as it's stability – it changes with output current, with temperature, to a lesser degree, but still, with input voltage. Any regulator will do that, no real-world system is perfect, but the tolerances (up to multiple percent of relative error under normal conditions!) here are really worse than what you could buy for very little more. (There's more aspects that make the LM317 undesirable here, such as the bad rejection of audio-frequency input and load noise, which can actually become problematic for voltage-controlled oscillators, but I don't have enough insight into the design and application of this circuit to make a quantitative statement here.)
Working with nearly no margin with a regulator that's borderline unsuitable to the task does call into question the design of the circuit you've bought, but I guess this is easy enough to fix that we don't need to worry about the rest for now.
Since you need a *low dropout voltage*, a so-called *Low-dropout regulator*, or LDO in short, will be what you want.
What you need to make sure is that the current it can provide fulfills (or over-fulfills) your circuitry's needs. You should definitely check voltage regulation in the data sheets to be better than the LM317 during the same operation – but I promise you, it's not going to be easy to find a worse regulator. (OK, aside from the LM7805 that is used as voltage regulator for the CV-12 chip itself, but since that IC is a digital one, and probably has an internal voltage regulator anyways, that won't matter much.)
Now, 10.6 V is a voltage too specific to find a fixed-output voltage regulator that outputs exactly that. So, just as the LM317, your LDO will need to be an adjustable model.
As said, you'll be able to supply the necessary current. Now, I don't have the design insight that the original designers have, so I'll have to go by what I can see to find a safe upper bound for the current the whole 10.6 V supply might draw.
From the schematic:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KxAUL.png)
We can see that the only thing driven by the 10.6 V supply are the two level shifters U2 and U3, which are MC14504 according to the schematic, and CD4504 (in a variant made by Texas Instruments) according to the [photograph](https://midimuso.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_20171229_130154.jpg). So, let's look up the [CD4504](https://www.ti.com/product/CD4504B) and see how much current it can draw, at most!
The [datasheet](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd4504b.pdf?ts=1666268944935&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.ti.com%252Fproduct%252FCD4504B) breathes pure unadulterated 1970s, but that's fine with me. The table "Static Electrical Characteristics" tells us the maximum quiescent current (i.e. what it uses without doing anything) it will draw is 5 mA. The maximum output current is 6.8 mA per output. But it can't source that, since these output are connected to 100 kΩ resistors (R3 through R14), so even taking a bit of resonance into account, that's at most 10.6 V / 100 kΩ = 0.106 mA per channel. There's 12 channels, so 1.2 mA, plus two chips' 5 mA quiescent current, making for maybe because we're bad at math and to make things easier, 20 mA of current needed at 10.6 V. (also, we don't know what you will attach to the external 10.6 V pin.)
Armed with that knowledge, we go and find the linear voltage regulators at our electronic distributor of choice – farnell, mouser, rs components, or digikey, and enter the properties we need into the table filter there:
* needs to be available,
* needs to have a positive output voltage,
* needs to be adjustable,
* needs to have a max input voltage higher or equal to 12 V, and
* a min output voltage lower than 10.7 V and
* a max output higher than 10.5 V,
* an output current of at least 20 mA
I prepared such a digikey filter for you [here](https://www.digikey.com/short/rp0f4w22); the first results you find are, to little surprise, regulators from the ubuiquitous xx1117x-ADJ family. (These are very popular, not as old as the LM317 or LM78xx series of devices, and there's a archload of manufacturers that make them.) That would actually work. However, let's look for a regulator with a lower dropout voltage, so that slight supply variations hurt nobody.
That would lead us to the [AP2202K-ADJ](https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/diodes-incorporated/AP2202K-ADJTRG1/4470808).
So. Buy:
1. AP2202K-ADJ (buy two or more. You might lose or break one...)
2. a 1 µF electrolytic capacitor. Rated voltage >= 16V, better 25V. (you could reuse C3)
3. a 2.2 µF or up to 10 µF electrolytic capacitor, rated voltage 12V or higher.
4. [Precision (that is, 0.1% tolerance or better) resistors](https://www.digikey.com/short/npw7qphb); you'll want a 0805 or 1206 package (smaller works as well, but it's harder to solder, mount)
5. 68 kΩ
6. 9.1 kΩ
7. (optional) a ceramic chip capacitor of 100 pF to 1 nF for lower output noise. Make it the same package as the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
So, unsolder IC2, R1 and R2, as well as C3. Solder in a 1 µF electrolytic capacitor between the +12V (of the now unused IC2 contact holes) and GND (you can get that GND contact at the top end of R2, if you look at the board).
This would have been good in the original circuit as well, and the lower the dropout, the more important adding a decoupling capacitor on the input becomes.
Solder in your 2.2 to 10 µF capacitor in place of C3.
Glue (or don't, I'm not your mother; a *small* amount of superglue does the trick, e.g. take it up with the tip of a nail, deposit on board, drop chip on the droplet using tweezers) the AP2202K-ADJ "upside down" next to the old place of IC2, so that you can, with short pieces of wire (e.g. from resistor "leg" snipoffs), connect its Vin to 12 V. The [datasheet](https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/AP2202.pdf) tells you how:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6xJwb.png)
From the output pin Vout to the ADJ pin, we'll connect the 68 kΩ precision resistor, and from ADJ to GND, the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
The ADJ and Vout are the two pins on the side with only two pins of the AP2202K-ADJ. So, same idea, drop a droplet of glue, place 68 kΩ so that it's not too far from ADJ and Vout to these contacts.
Do the same for the 9.1 kΩ resistor, placing one of its contacts right next to the ADJ-adjacent contact of the 68 kΩ resistor. If you've bought the "additional" chip capacitor, solder it atop and in parallel of the 9.1 kΩ resistor.
Now, add all the necessary connection as shown in the datasheet schematic above using short, manageably thin pieces of wire (if you kept the snipoffs from the resistors of the original kits, these work well, but so does "magnet wire"). | For completeness' sake, I'll add another important piece of information:
The RT-65B PSU has a trimmer to adjust the +5V output. However, it seems that the other voltages are referenced relative to the +5V rail, so adjusting it also adjusts the other rails. This is not stated on the data sheet, but a [kind Redditor informed me](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskElectronics/comments/y8vtg4/psu_does_not_deliver_enough_voltage_for_a_lm317/it3g9qc/?context=3) that this is the case. This way, I managed to get +12.0V and +5.3V, which makes the board behave as it should.
Nevertheless, this whole endeavor has taught me a lot, and I now understand some flaws in the design of the board. |
639,212 | For my diy synth, I have a Meanwell RT-65B PSU that delivers +11.5V, +5V and -12V. The +11.5 should be 12, but the difference is within the tolerance, according to the [datasheet](https://www.meanwell-web.com/content/files/pdfs/productPdfs/MW/Rt-65/RT-65-spec.pdf).
I also have a [CV-12 module from midimuso](https://midimuso.co.uk/index.php/cv-12/) that requires 12V to operate. On that module, a LM317 regulator is used to produce +10.6V, which has to be exact because the module is used for tuning other oscillators. However, the +11.5 V don't seem enough for this, and the regulator won't go beyond +9.9V, making the module out-of-tune.
I'm not an electrical engineer and hardly know which part does what, and I'm curious which options I have left, other than buying a different PSU. Are there any regulators that are more suitable for this purpose? I have looked at the [data sheet for the LM317 regulator](https://docs.rs-online.com/0054/0900766b813862fa.pdf), but I'm not sure which part of it refers to the situation that I am in right now. | 2022/10/20 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/639212",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/315838/"
] | You have 3 solid options
1. Follow Marcus Müller recommendation from anouther answer - replace LM317 with proper LDO on CV-12 module
2. Replace Meanwell RT-65B PSU for anouther one which has at least 12,2V on 12V output (why 12,2V you may ask - your particular LM317 chip at your particular load provides 9,9V instead of 10,6V - 0,7V deficit when fed with 11,5V so it needs at least 0,7V higher input for desired output)
3. Add a boost converter beetween Meanwell PSU and CV-12. MT3608 adjustable booster boards are readily avaible and one of those can output 12,5V at 1A when fed with 11,5V (lets give LM317 a 0,3V extra headroom) | For completeness' sake, I'll add another important piece of information:
The RT-65B PSU has a trimmer to adjust the +5V output. However, it seems that the other voltages are referenced relative to the +5V rail, so adjusting it also adjusts the other rails. This is not stated on the data sheet, but a [kind Redditor informed me](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskElectronics/comments/y8vtg4/psu_does_not_deliver_enough_voltage_for_a_lm317/it3g9qc/?context=3) that this is the case. This way, I managed to get +12.0V and +5.3V, which makes the board behave as it should.
Nevertheless, this whole endeavor has taught me a lot, and I now understand some flaws in the design of the board. |
73,226,917 | New to bluez & bluetooth. I have a few general questions about the management of data sourced from
a Polar sensor and written to the d-bus.
I'm working on a Jetson Nano that connects to a Polar heart rate sensor using Bluez.
When I worked in Data Warehousing I always pulled data from source systems by collecting data
where the source record's entry time stamp exceeded my last pull date. This prevented duplication
of data and missing new entries.
For this question, I consider the Jetson's d-bus as the source of my data. I pull from there.
Does this same concept I used in DW apply when pulling d-bus data? Is the d-bus data timestamped?
When data is read, is it read destruct, or should I delete it after I read it? Does data expire
and then automatically removed from the d-bus based on a built in timer? Is there a chance I would
miss data? Is there a mechanism (linux, d-bus, Bluez) to manage the life of the data?
Thanks for your assistance. If you can provide a few clues or point me to some documentation it
would be appreciated. | 2022/08/03 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/73226917",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/17640238/"
] | In the compose file, simply refer to bitnami/mariadb:10.6. You don't have to specify docker.io.
Also note that **depends\_on** is ignored and there's no need to specify port 443 as App Service does TLS termination. | i may be wrong but i think it won't work simply because there's a compatibility problem when it come to Docker-compose (preview) port, by that i mean that the only port that will work should either be 80 or 8080.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-service/configure-custom-container?pivots=container-linux#docker-compose-options>
<https://i.stack.imgur.com/1LZBE.png> |
1,021,978 | I want to get access to an windows iot device from internet. I want to connect my device via Ethernet to any network. The networks are connected to the internet. I have no static ip and I don't know anything about the network where my device is connected.
So I thought I can run an application on that device which detects a new Ethernet connection. That application could send me the actual ip address and informations about the network to a specific endpoint. With those informations I thought I could connect myself with the windows iot device?
Is that even possible to get automatically access to a device from "outside" without knowing anything from the network?
**EDIT:**
When I plugin the device to Ethernet and the firewall allows it, I want the device to send specified data to a cloud service like Azure Event Hub. After receiving events and recognition of the new device in the cloud, I also want to send messages to the device. But I don't want to use DNS or VPN and I don't want to use Azure IoT Hub, because I want be able to change the cloud provider. | 2016/01/05 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1021978",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/541079/"
] | In order to connect to a device in an IP network from an outside network (i.e., to cross a router boundary) without having information about the internal network, you need to initiate a connection from your IoT device to a server you have control over in the external network (e.g., Internet). If the internal network firewall allows your device to do that (that is usually allowed), then you need to connect from your computer to the external server and that server should be able to route your communications to your device. This is how TeamViewer works, for instance.
If the internal network firewall disallow your device from connecting to the external server, then you won't be able to do what you want.
If you need to go through a specific gateway to connect to the Internet (e.g., a proxy server) then you will need to have the exact credentials needed for that, otherwise your device will stay confined in the internal network. | You can use various dynamic DNS name server apps to provide a static name so you can connect to a known address. See more in wiki: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_DNS>
This won't help you getting connection to "know nothing" network. That's where UPNP comes in. You can use UPNP to create a specific port mapping automagically to the router so a known port is always routed to your ip device inside the router. More details here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_traversal>
If you combine the two you should
a) Have a fixed address to connect to
b) A fixed port in the address which is routed to your device
Unfortunately the name server update is not instant so if you're relying on e.g. Google name server it will take some time for the new dynamic address to propagate. Some dynamic DNS providers have their own name servers to work around this. You will be naturally exposing all of your network traffic to them that way so checking TOS wrt data mining would be appropriate. |
62,816 | Shimano revoshift is fogged so gear number is not readable. I’ve washed the outside with isopropal to no effect. How to remove lens and or replace it ? | 2019/06/26 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/62816",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44183/"
] | It might be possible to remove, clean and replace the cover. As Carel says, know you can replace the part before disassembly.
The [Dealer's Manual for the REVOSHIFT Shifter](https://si.shimano.com/pdfs/dm/DM-SL0002-03-ENG.pdf) seems to indicate the method for removing the cover.
Page 14 tells how to remove the cover.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HxDfm.jpg)
Page 15 tells how to put it back on).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OgPrF.jpg)
I left step 3 out for brevity. It tells how to remove and replace the cable.
I'd be tempted to leave it alone and shift by feel. | The one time I tried to disassemble a revoshift with the intention of saving, it broke some flimsy plastic flange and wouldn't work again.
So the safest thing is to replace the shifter with a trigger shifter or a pod shifter or even a friction shifter lever.
If you're feeling brave, you'll want to remove any grip from the bars. and pull the gear cable right out. Then undo the little hex bolt holding the whole shifter to the bars - might be a M3 or M4. At this point the grip-shifter should slide completely off the bars.
At this point you're looking all around it to identify the clips that hold the unit together, and they're all variable in location. It should unclip around the axis where the handle bars went through. This is where mine broke.
Once you can get to the back of the clear window, clean it with IPA or meths. Do note that the black coating will come off too, potentially making your viewport window much larger.
Reassembly should be a simple clip-together then reverse the order. Do consider using a new inner cable if you can - they're cheap and the old one may be manky already. |
62,816 | Shimano revoshift is fogged so gear number is not readable. I’ve washed the outside with isopropal to no effect. How to remove lens and or replace it ? | 2019/06/26 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/62816",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44183/"
] | The one time I tried to disassemble a revoshift with the intention of saving, it broke some flimsy plastic flange and wouldn't work again.
So the safest thing is to replace the shifter with a trigger shifter or a pod shifter or even a friction shifter lever.
If you're feeling brave, you'll want to remove any grip from the bars. and pull the gear cable right out. Then undo the little hex bolt holding the whole shifter to the bars - might be a M3 or M4. At this point the grip-shifter should slide completely off the bars.
At this point you're looking all around it to identify the clips that hold the unit together, and they're all variable in location. It should unclip around the axis where the handle bars went through. This is where mine broke.
Once you can get to the back of the clear window, clean it with IPA or meths. Do note that the black coating will come off too, potentially making your viewport window much larger.
Reassembly should be a simple clip-together then reverse the order. Do consider using a new inner cable if you can - they're cheap and the old one may be manky already. | You've not mentioned how long it's been like that. If the moisture appeared after a very wet ride then it might dry out reasonably quickly and not come back until another equally wet ride. Stating the obvious is allowed on stack exchange isn't it? |
62,816 | Shimano revoshift is fogged so gear number is not readable. I’ve washed the outside with isopropal to no effect. How to remove lens and or replace it ? | 2019/06/26 | [
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/62816",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com",
"https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/44183/"
] | It might be possible to remove, clean and replace the cover. As Carel says, know you can replace the part before disassembly.
The [Dealer's Manual for the REVOSHIFT Shifter](https://si.shimano.com/pdfs/dm/DM-SL0002-03-ENG.pdf) seems to indicate the method for removing the cover.
Page 14 tells how to remove the cover.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HxDfm.jpg)
Page 15 tells how to put it back on).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OgPrF.jpg)
I left step 3 out for brevity. It tells how to remove and replace the cable.
I'd be tempted to leave it alone and shift by feel. | You've not mentioned how long it's been like that. If the moisture appeared after a very wet ride then it might dry out reasonably quickly and not come back until another equally wet ride. Stating the obvious is allowed on stack exchange isn't it? |
76,559 | I've been having this doubt for a quite a while and haven't been able to find a satisfying answer. Is the 'E#' note technically an F? If so, why does it not exist on the chromatic scale like other sharps? I mean, what exactly is the E#? Is it a note on its own or is it just another way of saying F?
And what do people mean when they say that the D# Major scale is theoretical major scale and why it does not exist in the circle of fifths diagram?
I came across the last paragraph on a website. | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/54337/"
] | 1. E-sharp is called the enharmonic equivalent of F-natural. The sharp raises the base note one half step. In the same way B-sharp is the enharmonic respelling of C-natural. Furthermore, C-flat is the enharmonic of B-natural, and F-flat enharmonic of E-natural. Notes may also be double-sharped and double-flatted, which raises the base note by two half steps.
2. The key of D-sharp could be considered a theoretical scale because it doesn’t appear on the basic circle of fifths is simply because it is a scale that contains these enharmonics, and traditionally composers write this as E-flat to avoid the enharmonic spelling of the second scale degree, F-natural, which is enharmonic with E-sharp, the second degree of D-sharp major, and no one likes reading parts with double-sharps in the key signature (shudder). The seventh degree of the D-sharp major scale is C-double-sharp. D-sharp major chords definitely exist in music and we play enharmonic spellings all the time. | For starters, there isn't an E# in the D major scale. There's E and there's F#. If you're asking why there may be E# found in a piece that's in D major, that's slightly different.
Sometimes certain notes that are non-diatonic need to be used. That's maybe where E# could come in. Let's say the chord sequence goes from D major into F# minor. There's often the V of the new chord that precedes it. Here, it would be C# or C#7. Now the spelling for that is C# E# and G#. It is **not** spelled C# F and G#.
There are other times and reasons why some notes are written in 'strange' ways, but there are generally good technical reasons for them. And just because these notes happen to be white keys on a piano doesn't mean they can't be called # or b. These being - B#, Cb, E# and Fb. Of course, for beginners, things like E# sound pretty silly, why not F instead? Correctness and technical reasons!
**EDIT** - now the question has been edited, this answers a rather different one! Thanks! I'll leave this up for now, (OP originally asked about E# in a D major key), as it goes a little way. Luckily, I noticed the edit, otherwise I'd look even more stupid than usual. |
76,559 | I've been having this doubt for a quite a while and haven't been able to find a satisfying answer. Is the 'E#' note technically an F? If so, why does it not exist on the chromatic scale like other sharps? I mean, what exactly is the E#? Is it a note on its own or is it just another way of saying F?
And what do people mean when they say that the D# Major scale is theoretical major scale and why it does not exist in the circle of fifths diagram?
I came across the last paragraph on a website. | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/54337/"
] | (In addition to Tim's great answer, I wanted to introduce another important term and a slightly different way of thinking of it.)
Whenever we see a pitch that is raised from its expected form in the diatonic scale, it is often (although not always) understood as a *temporary leading tone*. By "leading tone" we mean it's the seventh scale degree, and since E♯ is the seventh scale degree of an F♯ scale, we say that this E♯ is the temporary leading tone of F♯.
Even though this E♯ is the exact same note as F on a modern equally tempered piano, their spellings tell us how the two pitches function. E♯ is scale-degree 7 of F♯, whereas F is scale-degree 7 of G♭. Even though E♯ and F sound the same—we say that they are \*enharmonic—they have very different functions.
As for D♯ major being a theoretical key, this just means that it has at least one doublesharp or doubleflat in its key signature. D♯ actually has *two* doublesharps—F and C—so it is a theoretical key. (See also [Where do the double accidentals go in "theoretical" key signatures?](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/65936/where-do-the-double-accidentals-go-in-theoretical-key-signatures)) | For starters, there isn't an E# in the D major scale. There's E and there's F#. If you're asking why there may be E# found in a piece that's in D major, that's slightly different.
Sometimes certain notes that are non-diatonic need to be used. That's maybe where E# could come in. Let's say the chord sequence goes from D major into F# minor. There's often the V of the new chord that precedes it. Here, it would be C# or C#7. Now the spelling for that is C# E# and G#. It is **not** spelled C# F and G#.
There are other times and reasons why some notes are written in 'strange' ways, but there are generally good technical reasons for them. And just because these notes happen to be white keys on a piano doesn't mean they can't be called # or b. These being - B#, Cb, E# and Fb. Of course, for beginners, things like E# sound pretty silly, why not F instead? Correctness and technical reasons!
**EDIT** - now the question has been edited, this answers a rather different one! Thanks! I'll leave this up for now, (OP originally asked about E# in a D major key), as it goes a little way. Luckily, I noticed the edit, otherwise I'd look even more stupid than usual. |
76,559 | I've been having this doubt for a quite a while and haven't been able to find a satisfying answer. Is the 'E#' note technically an F? If so, why does it not exist on the chromatic scale like other sharps? I mean, what exactly is the E#? Is it a note on its own or is it just another way of saying F?
And what do people mean when they say that the D# Major scale is theoretical major scale and why it does not exist in the circle of fifths diagram?
I came across the last paragraph on a website. | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/54337/"
] | E# is not technically F, only in equal tempered tuning. That's the first cause of concern.
The degrees of any scale follow a sequence and that sequence is never broken. The note names follow the "musical alphabet" {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} then repeat. Accidentals are needed to preserve the whole step - half step sequence {1, 1, 1/2, 1, 1, 1, 1/2} which is two tetra chords separated by a whole step. The numbered degrees are simply {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}. So for example, in the Key of E the degree letter names are {E, F, G, A, B, C, D} repeat. To preserve the steps we raise or lower notes as needed, for this example we get {E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#}. The second degree of E is always an F of some sort (period). Now in your example the key is D#. The correct way to name notes is to take D and just make everything #, Key of D = {D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#}. The key of D# would be {D#, E#, F##, G#, A#, B#, C##}. If the E# bothers you, why not ask about the futility of F## and C##? Using enharmonicity of the equal tempered tuning one would usually notate this key as Eb, which takes a lot less effort to notate correctly. | For starters, there isn't an E# in the D major scale. There's E and there's F#. If you're asking why there may be E# found in a piece that's in D major, that's slightly different.
Sometimes certain notes that are non-diatonic need to be used. That's maybe where E# could come in. Let's say the chord sequence goes from D major into F# minor. There's often the V of the new chord that precedes it. Here, it would be C# or C#7. Now the spelling for that is C# E# and G#. It is **not** spelled C# F and G#.
There are other times and reasons why some notes are written in 'strange' ways, but there are generally good technical reasons for them. And just because these notes happen to be white keys on a piano doesn't mean they can't be called # or b. These being - B#, Cb, E# and Fb. Of course, for beginners, things like E# sound pretty silly, why not F instead? Correctness and technical reasons!
**EDIT** - now the question has been edited, this answers a rather different one! Thanks! I'll leave this up for now, (OP originally asked about E# in a D major key), as it goes a little way. Luckily, I noticed the edit, otherwise I'd look even more stupid than usual. |
76,559 | I've been having this doubt for a quite a while and haven't been able to find a satisfying answer. Is the 'E#' note technically an F? If so, why does it not exist on the chromatic scale like other sharps? I mean, what exactly is the E#? Is it a note on its own or is it just another way of saying F?
And what do people mean when they say that the D# Major scale is theoretical major scale and why it does not exist in the circle of fifths diagram?
I came across the last paragraph on a website. | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/54337/"
] | 1. E-sharp is called the enharmonic equivalent of F-natural. The sharp raises the base note one half step. In the same way B-sharp is the enharmonic respelling of C-natural. Furthermore, C-flat is the enharmonic of B-natural, and F-flat enharmonic of E-natural. Notes may also be double-sharped and double-flatted, which raises the base note by two half steps.
2. The key of D-sharp could be considered a theoretical scale because it doesn’t appear on the basic circle of fifths is simply because it is a scale that contains these enharmonics, and traditionally composers write this as E-flat to avoid the enharmonic spelling of the second scale degree, F-natural, which is enharmonic with E-sharp, the second degree of D-sharp major, and no one likes reading parts with double-sharps in the key signature (shudder). The seventh degree of the D-sharp major scale is C-double-sharp. D-sharp major chords definitely exist in music and we play enharmonic spellings all the time. | (In addition to Tim's great answer, I wanted to introduce another important term and a slightly different way of thinking of it.)
Whenever we see a pitch that is raised from its expected form in the diatonic scale, it is often (although not always) understood as a *temporary leading tone*. By "leading tone" we mean it's the seventh scale degree, and since E♯ is the seventh scale degree of an F♯ scale, we say that this E♯ is the temporary leading tone of F♯.
Even though this E♯ is the exact same note as F on a modern equally tempered piano, their spellings tell us how the two pitches function. E♯ is scale-degree 7 of F♯, whereas F is scale-degree 7 of G♭. Even though E♯ and F sound the same—we say that they are \*enharmonic—they have very different functions.
As for D♯ major being a theoretical key, this just means that it has at least one doublesharp or doubleflat in its key signature. D♯ actually has *two* doublesharps—F and C—so it is a theoretical key. (See also [Where do the double accidentals go in "theoretical" key signatures?](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/65936/where-do-the-double-accidentals-go-in-theoretical-key-signatures)) |
76,559 | I've been having this doubt for a quite a while and haven't been able to find a satisfying answer. Is the 'E#' note technically an F? If so, why does it not exist on the chromatic scale like other sharps? I mean, what exactly is the E#? Is it a note on its own or is it just another way of saying F?
And what do people mean when they say that the D# Major scale is theoretical major scale and why it does not exist in the circle of fifths diagram?
I came across the last paragraph on a website. | 2018/11/16 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/76559",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/54337/"
] | 1. E-sharp is called the enharmonic equivalent of F-natural. The sharp raises the base note one half step. In the same way B-sharp is the enharmonic respelling of C-natural. Furthermore, C-flat is the enharmonic of B-natural, and F-flat enharmonic of E-natural. Notes may also be double-sharped and double-flatted, which raises the base note by two half steps.
2. The key of D-sharp could be considered a theoretical scale because it doesn’t appear on the basic circle of fifths is simply because it is a scale that contains these enharmonics, and traditionally composers write this as E-flat to avoid the enharmonic spelling of the second scale degree, F-natural, which is enharmonic with E-sharp, the second degree of D-sharp major, and no one likes reading parts with double-sharps in the key signature (shudder). The seventh degree of the D-sharp major scale is C-double-sharp. D-sharp major chords definitely exist in music and we play enharmonic spellings all the time. | E# is not technically F, only in equal tempered tuning. That's the first cause of concern.
The degrees of any scale follow a sequence and that sequence is never broken. The note names follow the "musical alphabet" {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} then repeat. Accidentals are needed to preserve the whole step - half step sequence {1, 1, 1/2, 1, 1, 1, 1/2} which is two tetra chords separated by a whole step. The numbered degrees are simply {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}. So for example, in the Key of E the degree letter names are {E, F, G, A, B, C, D} repeat. To preserve the steps we raise or lower notes as needed, for this example we get {E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#}. The second degree of E is always an F of some sort (period). Now in your example the key is D#. The correct way to name notes is to take D and just make everything #, Key of D = {D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#}. The key of D# would be {D#, E#, F##, G#, A#, B#, C##}. If the E# bothers you, why not ask about the futility of F## and C##? Using enharmonicity of the equal tempered tuning one would usually notate this key as Eb, which takes a lot less effort to notate correctly. |
56,132,231 | So, I created a postgreSQL instance in Google Cloud, and I have a Kubernetes Cluster with containers that I would like to connect to it. I know that the cloud sql proxy sidecar is one method, but the documentation says that I should be able to connect to the private IP as well.
I notice that a VPC peering connection was automatically created for me. It's set for a destination network of 10.108.224.0/24, which is where the instance is, with a "Next hop region" of us-central1, where my K8s cluster is.
And yet when I try the private IP via TCP on port 5432, I time out. I see nothing in the documentation about have to modify firewall rules to make this work, but I tried that anyway, finding the firewall interface in GCP rather clumsy and confusing compared with writing my own rules using iptables, but my attempts failed.
Beyond going to the cloud sql sidecar, does anyone have an idea why this would not work?
Thanks. | 2019/05/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56132231",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1263968/"
] | Does your GKE cluster meet the [environment requirements](https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/private-ip#environment_requirements) for private IP? It needs to be a VPC enabled cluster on the same VPC and region as your Cloud SQL instance. | If your instance of cloud SQL or compute both in the same VPC then only you can create a VPC peering over private IP.
From cloud SQL compute VM you can choose the VPC and subnet and also setup same for the GKE and you can make the connection from pod to cloud sql. |
56,132,231 | So, I created a postgreSQL instance in Google Cloud, and I have a Kubernetes Cluster with containers that I would like to connect to it. I know that the cloud sql proxy sidecar is one method, but the documentation says that I should be able to connect to the private IP as well.
I notice that a VPC peering connection was automatically created for me. It's set for a destination network of 10.108.224.0/24, which is where the instance is, with a "Next hop region" of us-central1, where my K8s cluster is.
And yet when I try the private IP via TCP on port 5432, I time out. I see nothing in the documentation about have to modify firewall rules to make this work, but I tried that anyway, finding the firewall interface in GCP rather clumsy and confusing compared with writing my own rules using iptables, but my attempts failed.
Beyond going to the cloud sql sidecar, does anyone have an idea why this would not work?
Thanks. | 2019/05/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/56132231",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1263968/"
] | In the end, the simplest thing to do was to just use the google cloud sql proxy. As opposed to a sidecar, I have multiple containers needing db access so I put the proxy into my cluster as its own container with a service, and it seems to just work. | If your instance of cloud SQL or compute both in the same VPC then only you can create a VPC peering over private IP.
From cloud SQL compute VM you can choose the VPC and subnet and also setup same for the GKE and you can make the connection from pod to cloud sql. |
348,161 | I would like to buy only 4 capacitors like this:
750pF
1600VDC
500VAC
5% tolerance
I only find it on mouser but MOQ is 2'000; almost same as me !
How I can deal with that? Should I try to find 2 capaciters totalizing 750pF and wire them in parallel ?
Thank you | 2018/01/04 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/348161",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/156271/"
] | Try looking at parts with higher voltage ratings (when filling out the selection form select ranges)
a more durable capacitor should not adversely effect the operation of your circuit.
I found one on mousers site that was available in singles. | >
> Should I try to find 2 capaciters totalizing 750pF and wire them in parallel ?
>
>
>
Depends. I'll go with: no, unless you know what the job of these capacitors is, and what tolerance that allows, and how much voltage might built up if the connection of either of those isn't as good as the other. |
348,161 | I would like to buy only 4 capacitors like this:
750pF
1600VDC
500VAC
5% tolerance
I only find it on mouser but MOQ is 2'000; almost same as me !
How I can deal with that? Should I try to find 2 capaciters totalizing 750pF and wire them in parallel ?
Thank you | 2018/01/04 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/348161",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/156271/"
] | Try looking at parts with higher voltage ratings (when filling out the selection form select ranges)
a more durable capacitor should not adversely effect the operation of your circuit.
I found one on mousers site that was available in singles. | There are many places other than Mouser or DigiKey who sell capacitors. For example, [Tedss.com](https://www.tedss.com/2020085455). Did you try to Google for "Film Capacitors 750pF", or e-Bay? Here is another place for caps like that, [StudioSoundElectronics](http://amprepairparts.com/caps.htm). |
14,920,220 | In MicroSoft Dynamcis AX 2012, I'm very confused about those **Links** and **reference Data Sources** under Form's DataSource node.
What do they do there? How they get there?
 | 2013/02/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/14920220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1989771/"
] | Have a look at what MSDN says about them : <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg845085.aspx>
Basically reference datasources are used when you have a foreign key field in your datasource. Instead of showing the foreign key value of your table on your form, you can use fields from the reference datasource to show you more meaningful fields instead of the surrogate key value.
I use them often to be the better alternative than simple display methods. SQL joins the record and has all of the needed fields available instead of having to execute all of those display methods. | What's also nice about them too is you don't have to add umpteen data sources for reference usage, and not having to worry about accidentally deleting/inserting/updating values in that table (when you forget to change the AllowEdit/AllowDelete/AllowCreate and/or overwrite the write() method) |
22,925,217 | I am working on a game where the user can register, has an inventory and has weapons in that inventory. I want to store this information in my database.
Here is how I have set it up so far:
* My user table contains a UserID column (along with other information).
* My inventory table contains an InventoryID column and a UserID column
(the UserID corresponds to the owner of the inventory)
* My Weapons table contains an InventoryID column which references the
Inventory it belongs to.
Is this the standard way of doing things? Can I change my layout and make it simpler? It just seems a little tedious to work with databases like this.
It would be so much easier if my User table had a reference to an inventory entry and that entry had an array of weapons. I've achieved this by storing references to the ID's of each entry but I can't just create a "User" php class (which has a reference to an Inventory object, which has an array of Weapon objects) by running one query to the database.
Maybe there is a framework to achieve this? | 2014/04/07 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/22925217",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/204459/"
] | What You described is simple one-to-many relationship.
You don't need inventory table.
You need a user table with `userID` as primary key and use it as a foreign key in weapons table.
With help of joins You can use one query to get all records. | Have you considered a NoSQL database? :)
Relational databases often require "join" tables as you describe. You can probably accomplish this without a join table if user to inventory is 1:1 - and 1 weapon can only belong to 1 inventory/user - just have weapons store a user ID. |
6,318,165 | I found the following Chart Control tutorial for Windows Form is very useful.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd456632.aspx>
However, I am not able to find the corresponding tutorial for WPF.
Does it even exist in MSDN? | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6318165",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/391104/"
] | I couldn't find it myself... it seems its Work-In-Progress ([for a long time now](http://wpf.codeplex.com/discussions/58833?ProjectName=wpf)). The only lead I could find on WPF Charts was on [Delay's Blog](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/delay/archive/2009/06/25/wpf-charting-it-s-official-june-2009-release-of-the-wpf-toolkit-is-now-available.aspx). He has a sample application with diff possibilities - however it's not easy to pick up. Also the dll version in the samples is different (has more types/functionality) from what comes with the WPF toolkit download | If you are not looking only for charts .Net framework provide.. take a look at [this](http://www.wpftutorial.net/3rdPartyLibs.html) see the options available under charts.. you can find chart providers and nice tutorials
One very famous option for charting is WPF toolkit. You can download sample code demonstrating all charts from [here](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/delay/archive/2009/06/25/wpf-charting-it-s-official-june-2009-release-of-the-wpf-toolkit-is-now-available.aspx) |
6,318,165 | I found the following Chart Control tutorial for Windows Form is very useful.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd456632.aspx>
However, I am not able to find the corresponding tutorial for WPF.
Does it even exist in MSDN? | 2011/06/11 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6318165",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/391104/"
] | I couldn't find it myself... it seems its Work-In-Progress ([for a long time now](http://wpf.codeplex.com/discussions/58833?ProjectName=wpf)). The only lead I could find on WPF Charts was on [Delay's Blog](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/delay/archive/2009/06/25/wpf-charting-it-s-official-june-2009-release-of-the-wpf-toolkit-is-now-available.aspx). He has a sample application with diff possibilities - however it's not easy to pick up. Also the dll version in the samples is different (has more types/functionality) from what comes with the WPF toolkit download | The best sources of information for charting on WPF are Delay's MSDN blog and the data visualization demos that accompany the charting library releases. Here is the page that describes the charting releases and links to the demos:
* [Two birds, squared! (Silverlight/WPF Data Visualization Development Release 3 and a DataVisualizationDemos update)](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/delay/archive/2009/11/30/two-birds-squared-silverlight-wpf-data-visualization-development-release-3-and-a-datavisualizationdemos-update.aspx)
You can also search the MSDN blogs for charting to find many specific tutorials, mostly by Delay:
* [MSDN Blogs > Search > "charting"](http://blogs.msdn.com/search/searchresults.aspx?q=charting§ions=6092) |
36,653,414 | I am considering implementing a service as a series of REST endpoints on AWS Lambda and possibly AWS API Gateway. The front end would be a JS browser client that calls these endpoints directly, eliminating the need for a middle tier.
In my research, what I can't seem to find is, how do I secure access to the calls to people who are "logged in" so to speak? I see Lambda calls are stateless, so no session data. I don't need session data, other than to know they are authenticated and in same cases authorized to access a particular endpoint. There will be a database (DynamoDB or RDS) so if I need session data I could create it.
Is there a way to do this? I realize I could pass their username and password with each API call, but it seems there must be a better way.
Also, this would probably be implemented in Java. Could I use Spring Security? | 2016/04/15 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36653414",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5091329/"
] | I don't think you want to use Spring Security in a Lambda function. I can't imagine that working very well, and I doubt it would work at all. Even if it could run on Lambda it would definitely add more to your function's cold startup time than you are going to want to deal with.
The recommended way to provide user authentication checking to stateless services is through the use of JWT (JSON Web Tokens). Auth0 provides a good general article about JWT [here](https://auth0.com/learn/json-web-tokens/), as well as a tutorial on using Auth0 with API Gateway and Lambda [here](https://auth0.com/docs/integrations/aws-api-gateway/part-2). Even if you don't use Auth0 I think the second tutorial is useful for understanding how to perform user authentication on API Gateway and Lambda.
You can also use [API Gateway Custom Authorization](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/use-custom-authorizer.html) functions, which allow you to encapsulate all your authentication code in one Lambda function that acts like a "gatekeeper" to your API endpoints. I would recommend using a Custom Authorization Lambda function to validate the JSON web tokens submitted to your API. | To secure your API Gateway endpoints, you can consider signing your request with [AWS Signature V4](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/signature-version-4.html), using Cognito authorization token or Lambda(custom) Authorizer which can be set up relatively easy. There are other options. Check out [AWS document](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/apigateway-control-access-to-api.html).
You can set up either one of these using CloudFormation template or through AWS console. On front-end, you can use AWS Amplify library to sign the requests.
Check out [this article](https://medium.com/@jun711.g/how-to-secure-aws-api-gateway-requests-with-signature-version-4-using-aws-amplify-62d79f92966c) on how to secure the access to your API Gateway. |
7,796 | Say I want to know every game where the main character is a soldier, or every game with random level generation, or every game with orchestral music, etc. Is this an appropriate sort of question for arqade? | 2013/10/17 | [
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7796",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4273/"
] | No, these types of questions are off-topic.
>
> Questions that ask which games or other products meet specific criteria are off topic. We primarily deal with questions about playing games, not about which games to play or historical trivia. We make an exception for identifying games based on an audiovisual artifact from the game in question.
>
>
> | Even if the other two reasons given so far (asking for games that fit certain criteria; asking for an unbounded list) weren't enough reason to close it, those examples are also an absolutely enormous set: each of those could be answered by lists many thousands of items long, that grow every day. Such a question could be closed as "too broad", in addition to the more urgent reasons. |
7,796 | Say I want to know every game where the main character is a soldier, or every game with random level generation, or every game with orchestral music, etc. Is this an appropriate sort of question for arqade? | 2013/10/17 | [
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7796",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4273/"
] | No, it is not.
Arqade is focused on QA, and what you're asking for is an open ended list. In that case, how are users to select "correct" answers? Should each game that meets the criteria be posted as its own answer? How do you know when the list is "complete" and worthy of answer accepting?
Unfortunately, our format does not suit such an open question, and were it to be asked here, would be summarily closed and deleted. | Even if the other two reasons given so far (asking for games that fit certain criteria; asking for an unbounded list) weren't enough reason to close it, those examples are also an absolutely enormous set: each of those could be answered by lists many thousands of items long, that grow every day. Such a question could be closed as "too broad", in addition to the more urgent reasons. |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | I'm not sure whether this was retconned (and how many times...), so I'm going by what was shown on Spidey's first appearance, on Amazing Fantasy #15.
According to that, there were no other radioactive spiders. One single spider was accidentally irradiated, and it has bitten Peter Parker:
Apparently, spiders were insects in 1962
The spider was dying due to the amount of radiation it absorbed, so we can assume its body was disposed (by the janitor?). | **Amazing Spider-Man** (Cinematic Universe)
-------------------------------------------
*When the question indicated spiders (plural), my assumption was the recent Amazing Spider-Man movie which featured dozens of transgenic spiders weaving for Norman Osborn. In most versions of the canon story, there was only one spider, which was irradiated.*
As far as I can tell, the spiders are still at Osborn's laboratory being used for whatever insidious and yet financially profitable scheme they were commissioned for. In this particular instance, I don't believe they were strictly radioactive, let's call them [transgenic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene) spiders.
Their bite, while painful, does not appear to offer superhuman abilities to anyone besides's Peter Parker indicating, perhaps a greater purpose or genetically engineered process being held within or released through the bite of the spider.
Though it was not clearly stated the radioactive spiders would not have had the same effect on anyone else that they had on Peter. It was meant to be revealed during the course of the movie that Parker's powers were not an accident as they appeared but something done intentionally.
To cover the whole conspiracy theory properly, you need to see: [Was the Untold Story Cut from the Amazing Spider-Man?](http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/)
**Amazing Spider-Man** (Marvel Earth-616)
-----------------------------------------
If you are talking about the Marvel Earth-616, there were no known "other spiders" after the first one bit Peter Parker. It died from radiation poisoning soon after spreading its radiation-activated powers to an unwitting recipient. |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | **Amazing Spider-Man** (Cinematic Universe)
-------------------------------------------
*When the question indicated spiders (plural), my assumption was the recent Amazing Spider-Man movie which featured dozens of transgenic spiders weaving for Norman Osborn. In most versions of the canon story, there was only one spider, which was irradiated.*
As far as I can tell, the spiders are still at Osborn's laboratory being used for whatever insidious and yet financially profitable scheme they were commissioned for. In this particular instance, I don't believe they were strictly radioactive, let's call them [transgenic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene) spiders.
Their bite, while painful, does not appear to offer superhuman abilities to anyone besides's Peter Parker indicating, perhaps a greater purpose or genetically engineered process being held within or released through the bite of the spider.
Though it was not clearly stated the radioactive spiders would not have had the same effect on anyone else that they had on Peter. It was meant to be revealed during the course of the movie that Parker's powers were not an accident as they appeared but something done intentionally.
To cover the whole conspiracy theory properly, you need to see: [Was the Untold Story Cut from the Amazing Spider-Man?](http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/)
**Amazing Spider-Man** (Marvel Earth-616)
-----------------------------------------
If you are talking about the Marvel Earth-616, there were no known "other spiders" after the first one bit Peter Parker. It died from radiation poisoning soon after spreading its radiation-activated powers to an unwitting recipient. | **Ultimate Universe (Marvel Earth-1610)**
In this alternate comic universe, the spider was a test subject for an attempt by OzCorp to create a new super soldier serum, and is listed as OZ EXPERIMENT 56, ARACHNID NO. 00. This, and other frames indicate that other animal testing was ongoing and that there was a possibility of other spiders existing.
Source: Ultimate Spider-Man 2000-2009 #1
It is initially unclear as to what happens to the other test animals (if any are even spiders), as Norman Osborn moves onto human testing soon after and the lab is destroyed soon after.
Much later we get a new Spider-Man, Miles Morales, also bitten by a radioactive spider.
It turns out that this spider is number 42 (it has 42 printed on its back, where Parker's has 00), and has been living in the ruins of the lab ever since. Given the numbering, we can presume there are a fair few unaccounted for. Given the enhanced durability that the Oz formula seems to confer, it is quite possible that many survived for quite some time.
Source: Ultimate Comics Spider-Man 2011-2013 #1
>
> Since the second Secret Wars the remaining spiders are probably a moot point since the Ultimate Universe no longer exists.
>
>
> |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | **Amazing Spider-Man** (Cinematic Universe)
-------------------------------------------
*When the question indicated spiders (plural), my assumption was the recent Amazing Spider-Man movie which featured dozens of transgenic spiders weaving for Norman Osborn. In most versions of the canon story, there was only one spider, which was irradiated.*
As far as I can tell, the spiders are still at Osborn's laboratory being used for whatever insidious and yet financially profitable scheme they were commissioned for. In this particular instance, I don't believe they were strictly radioactive, let's call them [transgenic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene) spiders.
Their bite, while painful, does not appear to offer superhuman abilities to anyone besides's Peter Parker indicating, perhaps a greater purpose or genetically engineered process being held within or released through the bite of the spider.
Though it was not clearly stated the radioactive spiders would not have had the same effect on anyone else that they had on Peter. It was meant to be revealed during the course of the movie that Parker's powers were not an accident as they appeared but something done intentionally.
To cover the whole conspiracy theory properly, you need to see: [Was the Untold Story Cut from the Amazing Spider-Man?](http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/)
**Amazing Spider-Man** (Marvel Earth-616)
-----------------------------------------
If you are talking about the Marvel Earth-616, there were no known "other spiders" after the first one bit Peter Parker. It died from radiation poisoning soon after spreading its radiation-activated powers to an unwitting recipient. | If we're speaking about the spiders [plural] from the Sam Raimi trilogy, its somewhat unknown. It *Was* said that traits from various spiders were taken and recombined into "These 15 genetically altered super spiders" to which Mary Jane pointed out "There are only 14; one's missing," [not counting the one that escaped and bit Peter]. But after that school visit, I don't believe any further thought or mention was given to them, even to finding the one that escaped.
To be fair, these weren't "Radioactive" spiders, and the one that bit Pete just wondered off. Thinking about it, this is a *Severe* ball drop on Peter's part; presuming they were all genetically and structurally identical, **any one of those spiders** could then imbue someone *else* with Peter's powers! Not an ideal situation.... |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | I'm not sure whether this was retconned (and how many times...), so I'm going by what was shown on Spidey's first appearance, on Amazing Fantasy #15.
According to that, there were no other radioactive spiders. One single spider was accidentally irradiated, and it has bitten Peter Parker:
Apparently, spiders were insects in 1962
The spider was dying due to the amount of radiation it absorbed, so we can assume its body was disposed (by the janitor?). | **Ultimate Universe (Marvel Earth-1610)**
In this alternate comic universe, the spider was a test subject for an attempt by OzCorp to create a new super soldier serum, and is listed as OZ EXPERIMENT 56, ARACHNID NO. 00. This, and other frames indicate that other animal testing was ongoing and that there was a possibility of other spiders existing.
Source: Ultimate Spider-Man 2000-2009 #1
It is initially unclear as to what happens to the other test animals (if any are even spiders), as Norman Osborn moves onto human testing soon after and the lab is destroyed soon after.
Much later we get a new Spider-Man, Miles Morales, also bitten by a radioactive spider.
It turns out that this spider is number 42 (it has 42 printed on its back, where Parker's has 00), and has been living in the ruins of the lab ever since. Given the numbering, we can presume there are a fair few unaccounted for. Given the enhanced durability that the Oz formula seems to confer, it is quite possible that many survived for quite some time.
Source: Ultimate Comics Spider-Man 2011-2013 #1
>
> Since the second Secret Wars the remaining spiders are probably a moot point since the Ultimate Universe no longer exists.
>
>
> |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | I'm not sure whether this was retconned (and how many times...), so I'm going by what was shown on Spidey's first appearance, on Amazing Fantasy #15.
According to that, there were no other radioactive spiders. One single spider was accidentally irradiated, and it has bitten Peter Parker:
Apparently, spiders were insects in 1962
The spider was dying due to the amount of radiation it absorbed, so we can assume its body was disposed (by the janitor?). | If we're speaking about the spiders [plural] from the Sam Raimi trilogy, its somewhat unknown. It *Was* said that traits from various spiders were taken and recombined into "These 15 genetically altered super spiders" to which Mary Jane pointed out "There are only 14; one's missing," [not counting the one that escaped and bit Peter]. But after that school visit, I don't believe any further thought or mention was given to them, even to finding the one that escaped.
To be fair, these weren't "Radioactive" spiders, and the one that bit Pete just wondered off. Thinking about it, this is a *Severe* ball drop on Peter's part; presuming they were all genetically and structurally identical, **any one of those spiders** could then imbue someone *else* with Peter's powers! Not an ideal situation.... |
25,321 | Did Peter Parker take part in, or have knowledge of what happened to the rest of the radioactive spiders? Were they disposed of or are they are still hanging around in a lab somewhere? | 2012/10/29 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4356/"
] | If we're speaking about the spiders [plural] from the Sam Raimi trilogy, its somewhat unknown. It *Was* said that traits from various spiders were taken and recombined into "These 15 genetically altered super spiders" to which Mary Jane pointed out "There are only 14; one's missing," [not counting the one that escaped and bit Peter]. But after that school visit, I don't believe any further thought or mention was given to them, even to finding the one that escaped.
To be fair, these weren't "Radioactive" spiders, and the one that bit Pete just wondered off. Thinking about it, this is a *Severe* ball drop on Peter's part; presuming they were all genetically and structurally identical, **any one of those spiders** could then imbue someone *else* with Peter's powers! Not an ideal situation.... | **Ultimate Universe (Marvel Earth-1610)**
In this alternate comic universe, the spider was a test subject for an attempt by OzCorp to create a new super soldier serum, and is listed as OZ EXPERIMENT 56, ARACHNID NO. 00. This, and other frames indicate that other animal testing was ongoing and that there was a possibility of other spiders existing.
Source: Ultimate Spider-Man 2000-2009 #1
It is initially unclear as to what happens to the other test animals (if any are even spiders), as Norman Osborn moves onto human testing soon after and the lab is destroyed soon after.
Much later we get a new Spider-Man, Miles Morales, also bitten by a radioactive spider.
It turns out that this spider is number 42 (it has 42 printed on its back, where Parker's has 00), and has been living in the ruins of the lab ever since. Given the numbering, we can presume there are a fair few unaccounted for. Given the enhanced durability that the Oz formula seems to confer, it is quite possible that many survived for quite some time.
Source: Ultimate Comics Spider-Man 2011-2013 #1
>
> Since the second Secret Wars the remaining spiders are probably a moot point since the Ultimate Universe no longer exists.
>
>
> |
825 | The sync that Google offers for Google Contacts <> Mac OS X Address Book is seriously flawed. It doesn't sync automatically, it doesn't sync all contacts, it doesn't sync all fields. See [here](http://www.google.com/support/contactsync/) for a list of warnings and issues.
Is there a better way to sync Google Contacts to Mac Address Book bidirectionally? Preferably free, and preferably without adding extra software.
I have tried to do it through Plaxo (which has an excellent Mac Address Book sync, albeit through an extra software install), but Plaxo doesn't handle Google Sync well (no updates).
UPDATE: For the new Mac OS X Snow Leopard this shouldn't be an issue. This question is looking for a Leopard answer. | 2009/07/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/825",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/32/"
] | Honestly, just hang in there until Snow Leopard, and its [Exchange support](http://www.apple.com/macosx/exchange.html) for Address Book. Until then, just try to only add information through <http://google.com/contacts>, and perform a manual sync to pull the updates back to address book.
And make sure you regularly backup your address book *and* your google contacts, I've had one or the other blown away before by the sync utility on a rampage. | It's extra software and it isn't free, but [Spanning Sync](http://spanningsync.com/)'s website says that it can sync your Gmail contacts with Address Book (and your Google Calendar with iCal). |
825 | The sync that Google offers for Google Contacts <> Mac OS X Address Book is seriously flawed. It doesn't sync automatically, it doesn't sync all contacts, it doesn't sync all fields. See [here](http://www.google.com/support/contactsync/) for a list of warnings and issues.
Is there a better way to sync Google Contacts to Mac Address Book bidirectionally? Preferably free, and preferably without adding extra software.
I have tried to do it through Plaxo (which has an excellent Mac Address Book sync, albeit through an extra software install), but Plaxo doesn't handle Google Sync well (no updates).
UPDATE: For the new Mac OS X Snow Leopard this shouldn't be an issue. This question is looking for a Leopard answer. | 2009/07/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/825",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/32/"
] | It's extra software and it isn't free, but [Spanning Sync](http://spanningsync.com/)'s website says that it can sync your Gmail contacts with Address Book (and your Google Calendar with iCal). | For those on Snow Leapord
After configuring my address book to sync, it synced eventually, after being turned off for the night and being on the next morning for 3 hours. I know the sync occurred sometime in the morning after turning it on, but don't know when.
I don't have an iPhone and couldn't get iSync to sync my contacts, or get the sync menu button to show up in Address book like it is supposed to.
After syncing, there was no record of the sync in iSync.
After syncing, I created a new contact, and updated notes on one of my contacts. After saving and going into Google Contacts, the changes were not there. I have that machine off right now, but expect those changes will be synced at some point after turning that machine back on. |
825 | The sync that Google offers for Google Contacts <> Mac OS X Address Book is seriously flawed. It doesn't sync automatically, it doesn't sync all contacts, it doesn't sync all fields. See [here](http://www.google.com/support/contactsync/) for a list of warnings and issues.
Is there a better way to sync Google Contacts to Mac Address Book bidirectionally? Preferably free, and preferably without adding extra software.
I have tried to do it through Plaxo (which has an excellent Mac Address Book sync, albeit through an extra software install), but Plaxo doesn't handle Google Sync well (no updates).
UPDATE: For the new Mac OS X Snow Leopard this shouldn't be an issue. This question is looking for a Leopard answer. | 2009/07/15 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/825",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/32/"
] | Honestly, just hang in there until Snow Leopard, and its [Exchange support](http://www.apple.com/macosx/exchange.html) for Address Book. Until then, just try to only add information through <http://google.com/contacts>, and perform a manual sync to pull the updates back to address book.
And make sure you regularly backup your address book *and* your google contacts, I've had one or the other blown away before by the sync utility on a rampage. | For those on Snow Leapord
After configuring my address book to sync, it synced eventually, after being turned off for the night and being on the next morning for 3 hours. I know the sync occurred sometime in the morning after turning it on, but don't know when.
I don't have an iPhone and couldn't get iSync to sync my contacts, or get the sync menu button to show up in Address book like it is supposed to.
After syncing, there was no record of the sync in iSync.
After syncing, I created a new contact, and updated notes on one of my contacts. After saving and going into Google Contacts, the changes were not there. I have that machine off right now, but expect those changes will be synced at some point after turning that machine back on. |
10,494 | I am Having problem to make custom option dependable . I am having two custom option. In First i have 3 radio button and in second i have drop down . What i need to do is that when i select 1 radio button ,i need to display the drop down and for the rest of radio button hide that drop down. And Also one suggestion is required is that is it possible to import the dependable custom option with csv file if i use dependable custom option module(import custom option template using magmi).
Thank you | 2013/11/07 | [
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/questions/10494",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com",
"https://magento.stackexchange.com/users/2711/"
] | This cannot be done out of the box but there are a few extensions that claim to do this:
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/dependent-custom-options.html>
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/dependent-custom-options-configurable.html>
* <http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/dependent-custom-options-gallery.html>
* <http://www.crunchbase.com/product/magento-dependent-custom-product-options>
They are not (all) free, but they are not expensive either. Pick the one that fits your needs (f any), | As Marius told this cannot be done out of the box. I too has recently faced the same type of requirement and i think
* <https://store.webkul.com/Magento-Chained-Custom-Option-Template.html>
this extension fits best to my problem. I hope this will help others who are have the same problem of relating two custom options.
Cheers!!
aton1004 |
145,435 | I repair electric powered steering systems for cars, especially Fiat, Alfa, and Lancya (Delphi manufacturers), and I'm in need of making some tool to test these reparations. I mean just turning it on, for example.
I have researched during some time, and I figured I need CAN bus signals to be simulated as the eps [ECU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_control_unit) is receiving ignition packets from CAN. Here I go...
I need to know what way I could read and send CAN packets from/to the bus. I mean, what tool or anything else. I have been trying with [Arduino Uno](http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardUno) + a [SparkFun CAN BUS Shield](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10039), but I don't get any results. When everything is connected, my serial console isn't sniffing any packets. I have connected all correctly, I think, and tried different bit rates, changed Arduino boards and shield, tried many different examples. I invested lots of hours with no profit... I was using [SEAT Ibiza 2010](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT_Ibiza#Fourth_generation_.28Typ_6J.3B_2008.E2.80.93present.29) for I+D, connected CAN-H *and* CAN-L on the [OBD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) port, in the CAN lines from the radio, etc...
Any idea of what could be wrong is welcome, as is a new method to make my project...
Information:
[Libraries Used](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47864432/canbus/LIBRARYS_USED.rar)
**UPDATE 2 (28/12/2014):**
I used a multimeter because I dont have a oscilloscope. Reading the voltages are always giving me plain 2.5V on CAN-H and CAN-L, I get this readings at Arduino CAN-H CAN-L and in OBD2 Port (Pins 6 and 14)
**UPDATE 3 (29/12/2014):**
I'm planning to switch to some programming language with a CAN interface, any suggestions are welcome, thanks!
**UPDATE 3.1 (30/12/2014):**
Definitely, I'm taking another way to do this, I'm waiting Kvaser and ECOM to reply me in their support emails. That way we may know if their tools fit with my project.
I will keep you updated, thanks for all the help guys! :) | 2014/12/26 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/145435",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/62111/"
] | The Arduino CAN shield is pretty cool if you want to build an embedded computer to play with CAN. However, if I understand correctly, you are building a one-off tool for your personal use (or will merely use an off-the-shelf tool if one exists for the right price). For that reason, I urge you to consider writing PC software rather than embedded software to interface with existing, low-cost CAN hardware interfaces.
Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek used this so called [ECOM tool](http://www.cancapture.com/ecom.html) and wrote software which interfaces with it. The ECOM tool appears to have an API and example driver. Their [car hacking white paper and software](http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/08/car-hacking-content.html) will give a pretty good starting point for interfacing a PC to a car. Softing also makes PC CAN interface hardware, but I am having trouble accessing their website right now, so I won't link it.
There are also several full-fledged, commercial software tools for analyzing and simulating CAN on a PC as well. [Vector's CANoe](http://vector.com/vi_canoe_en.html) is a well known (and expensive) tool for that purpose. | If you're open to buying something off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, Kvaser's Leaf products are pretty easy to use. They let you send pre-recorded sequences of packets and monitor the bus. You can get one with an OBD-2 connector if that's what you need.
Building your own test equipment is fine for a personal project, but if you're making money off of these repairs, it's probably better to start with something you know is reliable. |
145,435 | I repair electric powered steering systems for cars, especially Fiat, Alfa, and Lancya (Delphi manufacturers), and I'm in need of making some tool to test these reparations. I mean just turning it on, for example.
I have researched during some time, and I figured I need CAN bus signals to be simulated as the eps [ECU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_control_unit) is receiving ignition packets from CAN. Here I go...
I need to know what way I could read and send CAN packets from/to the bus. I mean, what tool or anything else. I have been trying with [Arduino Uno](http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardUno) + a [SparkFun CAN BUS Shield](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10039), but I don't get any results. When everything is connected, my serial console isn't sniffing any packets. I have connected all correctly, I think, and tried different bit rates, changed Arduino boards and shield, tried many different examples. I invested lots of hours with no profit... I was using [SEAT Ibiza 2010](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT_Ibiza#Fourth_generation_.28Typ_6J.3B_2008.E2.80.93present.29) for I+D, connected CAN-H *and* CAN-L on the [OBD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) port, in the CAN lines from the radio, etc...
Any idea of what could be wrong is welcome, as is a new method to make my project...
Information:
[Libraries Used](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47864432/canbus/LIBRARYS_USED.rar)
**UPDATE 2 (28/12/2014):**
I used a multimeter because I dont have a oscilloscope. Reading the voltages are always giving me plain 2.5V on CAN-H and CAN-L, I get this readings at Arduino CAN-H CAN-L and in OBD2 Port (Pins 6 and 14)
**UPDATE 3 (29/12/2014):**
I'm planning to switch to some programming language with a CAN interface, any suggestions are welcome, thanks!
**UPDATE 3.1 (30/12/2014):**
Definitely, I'm taking another way to do this, I'm waiting Kvaser and ECOM to reply me in their support emails. That way we may know if their tools fit with my project.
I will keep you updated, thanks for all the help guys! :) | 2014/12/26 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/145435",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/62111/"
] | The Arduino CAN shield is pretty cool if you want to build an embedded computer to play with CAN. However, if I understand correctly, you are building a one-off tool for your personal use (or will merely use an off-the-shelf tool if one exists for the right price). For that reason, I urge you to consider writing PC software rather than embedded software to interface with existing, low-cost CAN hardware interfaces.
Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek used this so called [ECOM tool](http://www.cancapture.com/ecom.html) and wrote software which interfaces with it. The ECOM tool appears to have an API and example driver. Their [car hacking white paper and software](http://blog.ioactive.com/2013/08/car-hacking-content.html) will give a pretty good starting point for interfacing a PC to a car. Softing also makes PC CAN interface hardware, but I am having trouble accessing their website right now, so I won't link it.
There are also several full-fledged, commercial software tools for analyzing and simulating CAN on a PC as well. [Vector's CANoe](http://vector.com/vi_canoe_en.html) is a well known (and expensive) tool for that purpose. | Having managed to eventually get numbers from a CAN bus with an embedded controller, I believe the biggest problem you're experiencing are the vendors' examples not properly initializing the controller's registers for CAN quanta and sample timing.
Curbing the popular CAN shields' efforts is the 16 MHz crystal [SparkFun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SparkFun_Electronics) and Seeeed use. Then the low-speed Arduino isn't well suited for moving serial data. None of the sample code on the Internet works because they are all canned examples for 1 Mbit/s...
Some microcontrollers have CAN controllers built-in (sadly, almost none have transceivers). I used a ChipKIT Max32 and a [MCP2551](http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en010405) IC via breadboard in the circuit below. Additionally, I tapped into the transceivers on the SparkFun and Seeed's CAN shields to get Tx/Rx data. The ChipKIT's Max32 has two CAN controllers and an 80 MHz CPU clock, so it is well suited for CAN experimentation. Using an online calculator, I was able to set up the PIC32's controller on the first try.
I suspended my development on CAN work for other projects, but an affiliate has coaxed an Arduino Uno with CAN shields into reading from a 500 kbit/s bus. I looked at the code he recently shared with me, but I couldn't find how the MCP2515 controller's timing was set or how it differed from the example code.
The next development board I'm trying is Ti's Connected [LaunchPad](http://www.ti.com/ww/en/launchpad/about.html) TM4C123GXL. It has CAN controllers, USB OTG, lots of I/O and is US$13.
 |
145,435 | I repair electric powered steering systems for cars, especially Fiat, Alfa, and Lancya (Delphi manufacturers), and I'm in need of making some tool to test these reparations. I mean just turning it on, for example.
I have researched during some time, and I figured I need CAN bus signals to be simulated as the eps [ECU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_control_unit) is receiving ignition packets from CAN. Here I go...
I need to know what way I could read and send CAN packets from/to the bus. I mean, what tool or anything else. I have been trying with [Arduino Uno](http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardUno) + a [SparkFun CAN BUS Shield](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10039), but I don't get any results. When everything is connected, my serial console isn't sniffing any packets. I have connected all correctly, I think, and tried different bit rates, changed Arduino boards and shield, tried many different examples. I invested lots of hours with no profit... I was using [SEAT Ibiza 2010](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT_Ibiza#Fourth_generation_.28Typ_6J.3B_2008.E2.80.93present.29) for I+D, connected CAN-H *and* CAN-L on the [OBD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) port, in the CAN lines from the radio, etc...
Any idea of what could be wrong is welcome, as is a new method to make my project...
Information:
[Libraries Used](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47864432/canbus/LIBRARYS_USED.rar)
**UPDATE 2 (28/12/2014):**
I used a multimeter because I dont have a oscilloscope. Reading the voltages are always giving me plain 2.5V on CAN-H and CAN-L, I get this readings at Arduino CAN-H CAN-L and in OBD2 Port (Pins 6 and 14)
**UPDATE 3 (29/12/2014):**
I'm planning to switch to some programming language with a CAN interface, any suggestions are welcome, thanks!
**UPDATE 3.1 (30/12/2014):**
Definitely, I'm taking another way to do this, I'm waiting Kvaser and ECOM to reply me in their support emails. That way we may know if their tools fit with my project.
I will keep you updated, thanks for all the help guys! :) | 2014/12/26 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/145435",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/62111/"
] | If you're open to buying something off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, Kvaser's Leaf products are pretty easy to use. They let you send pre-recorded sequences of packets and monitor the bus. You can get one with an OBD-2 connector if that's what you need.
Building your own test equipment is fine for a personal project, but if you're making money off of these repairs, it's probably better to start with something you know is reliable. | Having managed to eventually get numbers from a CAN bus with an embedded controller, I believe the biggest problem you're experiencing are the vendors' examples not properly initializing the controller's registers for CAN quanta and sample timing.
Curbing the popular CAN shields' efforts is the 16 MHz crystal [SparkFun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SparkFun_Electronics) and Seeeed use. Then the low-speed Arduino isn't well suited for moving serial data. None of the sample code on the Internet works because they are all canned examples for 1 Mbit/s...
Some microcontrollers have CAN controllers built-in (sadly, almost none have transceivers). I used a ChipKIT Max32 and a [MCP2551](http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en010405) IC via breadboard in the circuit below. Additionally, I tapped into the transceivers on the SparkFun and Seeed's CAN shields to get Tx/Rx data. The ChipKIT's Max32 has two CAN controllers and an 80 MHz CPU clock, so it is well suited for CAN experimentation. Using an online calculator, I was able to set up the PIC32's controller on the first try.
I suspended my development on CAN work for other projects, but an affiliate has coaxed an Arduino Uno with CAN shields into reading from a 500 kbit/s bus. I looked at the code he recently shared with me, but I couldn't find how the MCP2515 controller's timing was set or how it differed from the example code.
The next development board I'm trying is Ti's Connected [LaunchPad](http://www.ti.com/ww/en/launchpad/about.html) TM4C123GXL. It has CAN controllers, USB OTG, lots of I/O and is US$13.
 |
113,172 | i have create a Custom Post Type calle "Places".
I have created a Custom Field with
Field Type "Multi CheckBox"
Option Title "Type of Pub"
Option values "Sports, Rock, Biker, Beer, Live Band, Restro, Gastro, Irish, Karaoke Bar"
Field Title "Type of Pub"
Field name "typeofpub"
When i Add New Places, Type of Pub with Values with checkbox shows up on edit page.
I selected all the values (Sports, Rock......)
How do i call the metadata to display is custom field on a post. | 2013/09/06 | [
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/113172",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/users/37664/"
] | In such cases, problem is probably with `.htaccess` file. Check if you use Multisite or which type (subdir vs subdomain) | Plugin conflicts cause most of these problems.
If you are able to log into using wp-login.php kindly log inside and check after disabling one by one each plugin and check your site wp-admin in different browser if disabling a particular plugin gives you access to wp-admin then that plugin is the cause of this.
It also happens in plesk cpanel sometimes due to permission problems.
Kindly check if you are able to add more media and or try adding one more plugin. If it gives error while uploading media that cannot add or permission problem then try to change folder permissions to 755 for wp-admin and you should be good. |
113,172 | i have create a Custom Post Type calle "Places".
I have created a Custom Field with
Field Type "Multi CheckBox"
Option Title "Type of Pub"
Option values "Sports, Rock, Biker, Beer, Live Band, Restro, Gastro, Irish, Karaoke Bar"
Field Title "Type of Pub"
Field name "typeofpub"
When i Add New Places, Type of Pub with Values with checkbox shows up on edit page.
I selected all the values (Sports, Rock......)
How do i call the metadata to display is custom field on a post. | 2013/09/06 | [
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/113172",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com",
"https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/users/37664/"
] | In such cases, problem is probably with `.htaccess` file. Check if you use Multisite or which type (subdir vs subdomain) | Changing Wordpress Salts solved this same problem, for me. |
92,355 | Character A (2 HD) has two stirges (1 HD each) attached to him. Character B wants to cast sleep (can affect up to 4 HD), but only on the stirges.
Is it possible to center the spell so only the very edge of the radial area affects the bad guys and not the player? | 2016/12/29 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/92355",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/28926/"
] | Can you target sleep at particular creatures?
=============================================
**No**, [sleep](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sleep) has an area effect and doesn't allow you to choose creatures as targets (you instead choose a point in space). Everyone in the area of effect is potentially affected.
However, the 4 HD limit and its rule that it affects lowest HD creatures first means that sometimes you can cast it on an area that contains both allies and enemies and be fairly sure that it will only affect the enemies. In the case of two stirges attacking a character, two [stirges](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/stirge) have 1 HD each and so will soak up 2 HD of the effect's limit. Therefore if the character they're attacking has 3 HD or more, the stirges will be affected by the spell but the character they're attacking won't be.
In the case you present, where the character being attacked has only 2 HD, they will be affected by the spell and have to make a saving throw to avoid falling asleep, just like the stirges.
Can you place the area of effect of sleep to only affect the stirges?
=====================================================================
**No**, the stirges occupy the same space as the creature they are latched onto. Once a stirge has attached to a creature and started to drain, it's too late to use clever placement to catch only the stirges in the area of effect of sleep (or any other AoE spell). Character B would have had to cast it on an area containing only the stirges before they had latched onto character A.
In *other* situations, sleep can affect only your enemies by clever placement of the centre of its effect, yes, assuming the allies and enemies are not inconveniently placed to make this division impossible. | Not be default. The spell is pretty clear in what it does, and it says
>
> A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell's point of origin are affected first.
>
>
>
So that's all there is to targeting it. If you want to hit certain creatures but not others, you might be able to fiddle with *where* you put the spell due to its limited range, and if character B has more than 4 HD, he can't be hit by sleep so he'll be fine, but otherwise he's going to be potentially affected, just like the Stirges. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | I know the answer for the Second World War. The political parties and organizations were all pro Allies except three notable groups:
[German American Bund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund)
This was a Nazi organization supported by Germans in the USA. It evolved simultaneously with the NSDAP, but never got enough support to have any notable power. When the war broke out, the organization became unfavored in many ways: there was a tax investigation, and later they refused to be drafted so the members got fined for $10000 and 5 years in jail. By the mid-late war the leaders were in jail or had their citizenship revoked, so the whole organization stopped working.
[Silver Legion of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America)
This was a fascist party in USA which ran in the elections of 1936, but never really got more than 10000 members. Right after Pearl Harbor, the local police occupied the HQ of the Silver Legion and the membership of the party left as the war went on.
And one more notable and popular organization is the [America First Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee), which boasted famous aviator Charles Lindbergh as a spokesman. They wouldn't enter into the war on the Axis side, but they strongly argued against entering on any side, even the Allies'. I mention them, because if their points had gotten approval — such as opposing the Lend Lease Agreement, or being neutral — it could have seriously affected the outcome of the Second World War.
**So for the Second World War: there was no doubt that the USA was a pro-Allies power, as these organizations were a small minority when Pearl Harbor occurred, and most of the people supported the Allies' cause.** | No, the side we would take if we were to enter both wars was undisputed. The only problems was the absence of public unity about going to war. This was a primary concern when America entered the war on April 6, 1917. In Washington, unwavering public support was considered to be crucial to the entire wartime effort. That is why on April 13, 1917, President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Walter Lipmann and Bernays were crucial on this front.
accessible article <http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html>. Lipmann's Public Opinion excellent source to see the philosophy behind it. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | No, the side we would take if we were to enter both wars was undisputed. The only problems was the absence of public unity about going to war. This was a primary concern when America entered the war on April 6, 1917. In Washington, unwavering public support was considered to be crucial to the entire wartime effort. That is why on April 13, 1917, President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Walter Lipmann and Bernays were crucial on this front.
accessible article <http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html>. Lipmann's Public Opinion excellent source to see the philosophy behind it. | Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine pretty much dictated that the United States will be fighting alongside the British, who were the other naval superpower, rather than Germany which was a land power.
Japan is an interesting case, while at the start of WWII it demolished the British navy, raw racism precluded any possibility of alliance. Recall Japanese immigrants were subject to all kinds of exclusions in the United States at the time, and the implementation of internment.
In any case, the United States wasn't about to share the Pacific anyway. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | Although I agree broadly with CsBalazs, we should not overlook the fact that there was a rather strong pro-Nazi sentiment among the upper classes, and especially the academic elite, in the US. For example: Martin Sprengling, director of the Oriental Institute in Chicago ; Walter Nitze, head of the Romance faculty in Chicago ; George Kingsley Zipf, teacher of German at Harvard and inventor of “Zipf’s law” ; all of them were self-proclaimed Nazis, but no one ever seems to talk about this. By the way, pro-Nazi thinking was also very widespread among the aristocracy and upper-middle classes in Britain. | **Bottom line up front.**
Yes their was a doubt. Germany had a vocal advocacy in the US as large or larger than did the UK. The UK had historical ties and FDR. Ultimately though neither was enough to move Isolationist America. America did not declare war on Germany or Japan first. They declared war on us and only then did we reciprocate. And some folks in the US are still hot about that even today.. (aka Pat Buchanan ).
**Longer but the same Answer**
The United States had been a strictly isolationist country devoid of all foreign security treaties and neutral in all European wars from 1789 (George Washington's farewell Address) - April 1917 until we committed for the Allies in WWI.
George Washington Farwell Address ( See Foreign Relations & Trade )
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_relations_and_free_trade>
United States non-interventionism, (SEE) No entangling alliances (19th century), and Non-interventionism before entering World War II
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#No_entangling_alliances_.2819th_century.29>
America entered WWI for more pragmatic reasons than the sinking of the Lusitania or Zimmermann Note. Our banking system lead by [JP Morgan](https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/25783813-peter-palms/4550806-role-j-p-morgan-providing-loans-england-france-world-war-souring-loans-became-apparent) was heavily invested in the success of the Allies. US banks funded the Allies war effort. JP Morgan organized a syndicate of about 2200 American banks and floated loans exceeding $500 million to the Allies.
That was big money in 1912. The British sold off their holdings of American securities and by late 1916 were dependent on unsecured loans for further purchases. If the United States had not entered into that war and the Allies had lost our economy would have taken a significant hit.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr>.
The US had pragmatic reasons for involving ourselves in that war. The US was not afraid of Mexico in 1917, we were at war with troops on the ground in Mexico in 1917, we had invaded Mexico in response to Poncho Via's raids. We knew they posed no risk to our security.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition#Aftermath>
========================================================================
As for WWII, there was a strong pro German faction in the United States lead by World Famous Industrialist Henry Ford, Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Kennedy, and American Aviation Hero Charles Lindberg. Consisting of organizations like the American First Committee, The German American Bund, and Friends of New Germany. Nazi Germany's interests were well represented and supported in a fractured pre WWII America. The Latter two, The German American Bund and Friends of New Germany were basically clones of the Germany's Nazi Party operating openly in the United States.
<https://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/fdr_outsmarts_them_all_henry_ford_joseph_kennedy_charles_lindbergh_and_the_american_entrance_into_world_war_ii/>
German American Bund
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund>
Friends of New Germany
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_New_Germany>
Ford being a famous respected industrialist and infamous anti semite, who had long ago captured the worlds imagination. Kennedy being one of the wealthiest and successful men in the United States would latter achieve infamy and political death when he favorable compared the Nazi Party to the American Democratic party (of which he was a leader). Lindberg being perhaps the most famous American ever, and one of the most respected who speeches still can be listened too and found persuasive in why the US should stay out of that war. The pro German, and anti war FDR critics were outspoken and influential. Even stronger though than the pro German faction was the symbiotic Isolationist faction. Not to be confused with pacifism, America's brand of Isolationism as first outlined by Washington in 1789 proposed the US not getting involved in European wars, but did not suggest America should refrain from conducting her own wars to protect her interests. These two beliefs (1)Isolationist from European entanglements, and (2) those who favored Nazi Germany; worked together because for Germany's purposes an truly isolationist United States was sufficient to its needs.
The influential "American First Committee" characterized by anti-semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters. It was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Membership included future US Presidents, future Supreme Court Justices, and other future famous government leaders.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee>
Even though we were a wealthy, and populous country we did not have a military. The United States military on the outset of WWII was about the same size as Belgium's or Portugal's. A historically isolationist country like the US had no need for a significant standing army.
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/>
(\*) The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_ref-Digital_History_41-1>
And Isolationism/Non Interventionism (I don't differentiate) dominated American politics. Perhaps most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and saw Germany as the clear aggressor, But they did not see it as any of America's business. America's brand of Isolationism, did not advantage either the aggressor or victim. We saw ourselves as small fish, easily devoured when the big fish quarreled. Also, Lindberg and Joe Kennedy painted admirable images of Hitler raising the German people out of despair and poverty and making them productive again. America was against the punitive actions taken by the victors of WWI against Germany. Americans believed these actions had impoverish Germany, and Americans had empathy for the German's economic hardships. That Hitler and the Nazi's were changing this unfair impoverishment in Germany was a good thing right! This argument played on US sympathies. Isolationism was well supported by America's political leadership, reflecting the support it had with the population.
Source (<http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp>). See Paragraph 8. Source (<http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html>)
America was by no means a militarily significant power on the level of Britain, France or Germany at the time. Remember, Belgium was overrun by the Germans in an afternoon. The US military which trained with stove pipes and broom sticks instead of mortars and machine guns as late as 1941, were seen as no match for even the weakest of those big three. Perhaps a match for Belgium, by contemporary wisdom.
(\*) "as late as 1941, U.S infantry mortar squads used stove pipes as simulated mortars, Machine-guns were improvised from broom sticks."
<http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/645160.pdf>
Maybe not as well equipped as Belgium's. Isolationists made note that Germany had just defeated the strongest army in the world in France (contemporary wisdom 1938), and had the second strongest Army the UK on the ropes.. what were we going to do; especially all the way over in Europe. In the history of modern day Europe no foreign military had ever staged a successful invasion of the continent, and the US barely had a military!!
This argument given where the US was in 1938 on the outset of WWII, is even today a very logical, historically supported, and thus persuasive argument (give it a listen bellow) even though in hind site it proved to be entirely wrong.
The America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh Speech September 11, 1941 Des Moines
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI>
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just won reelection in 1940, famously stating "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
This statement came due to a political necessity, even FDR a man running for an unprecedented 3rd term as president did not have the political legs to confront directly the non interventionists.
10/40/1940 Campaign Address in Boston Ma.
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887>
Of coarse today we know Roosevelt was already actively involved in impeachable offenses to provide Britain with significant material aid.
Roosevelt was against Germany, and was working behind the scenes to keep the UK in the war, to prepare the US military, to change US public opinion, and to get us into the war as quickly as he could.
Roosevelt made the statement in Boston because he would not have been elected had he not. Roosevelt was a consummate politician who knew the country would not support another foreign war and his hands were tied legally from supporting Britain.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. Britain had little cash. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The US military believed Great Britain would surrender after the surrender of France, and any weapons sent to her would ultimately end up in German hands. On this basis they opposed sending weapons to the UK. President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in any foreign(European) conflict.
(Sept 1940) Just a month before Roosevelt made his famous declaration in Boston to stay out of the war, He had begun transferring significant aid to Britain illegally. Britain could not afford to legally purchase the munitions she required so Roosevelt got creative with non monetary exchanges (base leases in North America). Because these exchanges were non monetary they were in violation of US law. In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to make any payments for supplies. So Roosevelt went even further. On December 17, 1940 Roosevelt proposed lend lease of supplies. Making the analogy if your neighbors house is on fire and he wants to borrow your hose, of coarse you are going to lend him your hose, and after the fire is out, you don't want his money; you want your hose back. Roosevelt ear marked 1 billion dollars in war aid for Great Britain and Russia along lend lease.
Just 4 months before Pearl Harbor Congress believing disarmament to be the surest way to ensure America's neutrality had nearly disbanded the US Military. The measure being defeated in the house by a single vote in August 1941.
Source (<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/opinion/l-the-vote-that-saved-the-army-in-the-days-after-pearl-harbor-028191.html>) See: The Vote(august 1941)That Saved the Army in the Days After Pearl Harbor -
That's the environment the United States and FDR had to deal with, and how strong the Isolationists were.... And of coarse ultimately the United States did not decide to over come it's isolationism tendencies, or even it's pro German tendencies. The United States was attacked, and her sons and daughters were murdered in a surprise attack, infuriating the nation. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the United States.
There was no choice for war made in the United States to enter WWII. The "choice" to enter the war on behalf of the allies was not made in Washington DC. It was made in Tokyo and Berlin. Amazingly Germany had been bending over backwards to not provoke America into the war on Hitlers direction. He was aware of the delicate dance FDR was stepping. After Japan declared war, in arguable the stupidest move of the war. Germany followed suit and likewise declared war on the US in perhaps the second stupidest move.
Dec 7th, 1941 -- Japan declares war on the United States
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire>
December 8, 1941, the United States Congress declared war on Japan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan>
Dec 11, 1941 -- Germany Declares War on the United States
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states>
On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)>
Although Hitler made a few stupid moves during the war, some of which compete on the scale with declaring war on the US while his failure to do so arguable could have kept the US out of the European theatre at least for a while. Hitler's pact with Japan did not require Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor.. Thus Hitler literally forced FDR's hand, to FDR and I imagine Churchill's everlasting gratitude. This solved all of the US political problems and allowed the US to come into the war committed and unified even though just days before the war she was far from that.
Uniting a badly divided America, and ensuring she would be fully committed to the Allies. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | **Bottom line up front.**
Yes their was a doubt. Germany had a vocal advocacy in the US as large or larger than did the UK. The UK had historical ties and FDR. Ultimately though neither was enough to move Isolationist America. America did not declare war on Germany or Japan first. They declared war on us and only then did we reciprocate. And some folks in the US are still hot about that even today.. (aka Pat Buchanan ).
**Longer but the same Answer**
The United States had been a strictly isolationist country devoid of all foreign security treaties and neutral in all European wars from 1789 (George Washington's farewell Address) - April 1917 until we committed for the Allies in WWI.
George Washington Farwell Address ( See Foreign Relations & Trade )
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_relations_and_free_trade>
United States non-interventionism, (SEE) No entangling alliances (19th century), and Non-interventionism before entering World War II
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#No_entangling_alliances_.2819th_century.29>
America entered WWI for more pragmatic reasons than the sinking of the Lusitania or Zimmermann Note. Our banking system lead by [JP Morgan](https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/25783813-peter-palms/4550806-role-j-p-morgan-providing-loans-england-france-world-war-souring-loans-became-apparent) was heavily invested in the success of the Allies. US banks funded the Allies war effort. JP Morgan organized a syndicate of about 2200 American banks and floated loans exceeding $500 million to the Allies.
That was big money in 1912. The British sold off their holdings of American securities and by late 1916 were dependent on unsecured loans for further purchases. If the United States had not entered into that war and the Allies had lost our economy would have taken a significant hit.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr>.
The US had pragmatic reasons for involving ourselves in that war. The US was not afraid of Mexico in 1917, we were at war with troops on the ground in Mexico in 1917, we had invaded Mexico in response to Poncho Via's raids. We knew they posed no risk to our security.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition#Aftermath>
========================================================================
As for WWII, there was a strong pro German faction in the United States lead by World Famous Industrialist Henry Ford, Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Kennedy, and American Aviation Hero Charles Lindberg. Consisting of organizations like the American First Committee, The German American Bund, and Friends of New Germany. Nazi Germany's interests were well represented and supported in a fractured pre WWII America. The Latter two, The German American Bund and Friends of New Germany were basically clones of the Germany's Nazi Party operating openly in the United States.
<https://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/fdr_outsmarts_them_all_henry_ford_joseph_kennedy_charles_lindbergh_and_the_american_entrance_into_world_war_ii/>
German American Bund
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund>
Friends of New Germany
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_New_Germany>
Ford being a famous respected industrialist and infamous anti semite, who had long ago captured the worlds imagination. Kennedy being one of the wealthiest and successful men in the United States would latter achieve infamy and political death when he favorable compared the Nazi Party to the American Democratic party (of which he was a leader). Lindberg being perhaps the most famous American ever, and one of the most respected who speeches still can be listened too and found persuasive in why the US should stay out of that war. The pro German, and anti war FDR critics were outspoken and influential. Even stronger though than the pro German faction was the symbiotic Isolationist faction. Not to be confused with pacifism, America's brand of Isolationism as first outlined by Washington in 1789 proposed the US not getting involved in European wars, but did not suggest America should refrain from conducting her own wars to protect her interests. These two beliefs (1)Isolationist from European entanglements, and (2) those who favored Nazi Germany; worked together because for Germany's purposes an truly isolationist United States was sufficient to its needs.
The influential "American First Committee" characterized by anti-semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters. It was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Membership included future US Presidents, future Supreme Court Justices, and other future famous government leaders.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee>
Even though we were a wealthy, and populous country we did not have a military. The United States military on the outset of WWII was about the same size as Belgium's or Portugal's. A historically isolationist country like the US had no need for a significant standing army.
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/>
(\*) The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_ref-Digital_History_41-1>
And Isolationism/Non Interventionism (I don't differentiate) dominated American politics. Perhaps most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and saw Germany as the clear aggressor, But they did not see it as any of America's business. America's brand of Isolationism, did not advantage either the aggressor or victim. We saw ourselves as small fish, easily devoured when the big fish quarreled. Also, Lindberg and Joe Kennedy painted admirable images of Hitler raising the German people out of despair and poverty and making them productive again. America was against the punitive actions taken by the victors of WWI against Germany. Americans believed these actions had impoverish Germany, and Americans had empathy for the German's economic hardships. That Hitler and the Nazi's were changing this unfair impoverishment in Germany was a good thing right! This argument played on US sympathies. Isolationism was well supported by America's political leadership, reflecting the support it had with the population.
Source (<http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp>). See Paragraph 8. Source (<http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html>)
America was by no means a militarily significant power on the level of Britain, France or Germany at the time. Remember, Belgium was overrun by the Germans in an afternoon. The US military which trained with stove pipes and broom sticks instead of mortars and machine guns as late as 1941, were seen as no match for even the weakest of those big three. Perhaps a match for Belgium, by contemporary wisdom.
(\*) "as late as 1941, U.S infantry mortar squads used stove pipes as simulated mortars, Machine-guns were improvised from broom sticks."
<http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/645160.pdf>
Maybe not as well equipped as Belgium's. Isolationists made note that Germany had just defeated the strongest army in the world in France (contemporary wisdom 1938), and had the second strongest Army the UK on the ropes.. what were we going to do; especially all the way over in Europe. In the history of modern day Europe no foreign military had ever staged a successful invasion of the continent, and the US barely had a military!!
This argument given where the US was in 1938 on the outset of WWII, is even today a very logical, historically supported, and thus persuasive argument (give it a listen bellow) even though in hind site it proved to be entirely wrong.
The America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh Speech September 11, 1941 Des Moines
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI>
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just won reelection in 1940, famously stating "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
This statement came due to a political necessity, even FDR a man running for an unprecedented 3rd term as president did not have the political legs to confront directly the non interventionists.
10/40/1940 Campaign Address in Boston Ma.
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887>
Of coarse today we know Roosevelt was already actively involved in impeachable offenses to provide Britain with significant material aid.
Roosevelt was against Germany, and was working behind the scenes to keep the UK in the war, to prepare the US military, to change US public opinion, and to get us into the war as quickly as he could.
Roosevelt made the statement in Boston because he would not have been elected had he not. Roosevelt was a consummate politician who knew the country would not support another foreign war and his hands were tied legally from supporting Britain.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. Britain had little cash. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The US military believed Great Britain would surrender after the surrender of France, and any weapons sent to her would ultimately end up in German hands. On this basis they opposed sending weapons to the UK. President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in any foreign(European) conflict.
(Sept 1940) Just a month before Roosevelt made his famous declaration in Boston to stay out of the war, He had begun transferring significant aid to Britain illegally. Britain could not afford to legally purchase the munitions she required so Roosevelt got creative with non monetary exchanges (base leases in North America). Because these exchanges were non monetary they were in violation of US law. In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to make any payments for supplies. So Roosevelt went even further. On December 17, 1940 Roosevelt proposed lend lease of supplies. Making the analogy if your neighbors house is on fire and he wants to borrow your hose, of coarse you are going to lend him your hose, and after the fire is out, you don't want his money; you want your hose back. Roosevelt ear marked 1 billion dollars in war aid for Great Britain and Russia along lend lease.
Just 4 months before Pearl Harbor Congress believing disarmament to be the surest way to ensure America's neutrality had nearly disbanded the US Military. The measure being defeated in the house by a single vote in August 1941.
Source (<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/opinion/l-the-vote-that-saved-the-army-in-the-days-after-pearl-harbor-028191.html>) See: The Vote(august 1941)That Saved the Army in the Days After Pearl Harbor -
That's the environment the United States and FDR had to deal with, and how strong the Isolationists were.... And of coarse ultimately the United States did not decide to over come it's isolationism tendencies, or even it's pro German tendencies. The United States was attacked, and her sons and daughters were murdered in a surprise attack, infuriating the nation. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the United States.
There was no choice for war made in the United States to enter WWII. The "choice" to enter the war on behalf of the allies was not made in Washington DC. It was made in Tokyo and Berlin. Amazingly Germany had been bending over backwards to not provoke America into the war on Hitlers direction. He was aware of the delicate dance FDR was stepping. After Japan declared war, in arguable the stupidest move of the war. Germany followed suit and likewise declared war on the US in perhaps the second stupidest move.
Dec 7th, 1941 -- Japan declares war on the United States
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire>
December 8, 1941, the United States Congress declared war on Japan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan>
Dec 11, 1941 -- Germany Declares War on the United States
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states>
On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)>
Although Hitler made a few stupid moves during the war, some of which compete on the scale with declaring war on the US while his failure to do so arguable could have kept the US out of the European theatre at least for a while. Hitler's pact with Japan did not require Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor.. Thus Hitler literally forced FDR's hand, to FDR and I imagine Churchill's everlasting gratitude. This solved all of the US political problems and allowed the US to come into the war committed and unified even though just days before the war she was far from that.
Uniting a badly divided America, and ensuring she would be fully committed to the Allies. | Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine pretty much dictated that the United States will be fighting alongside the British, who were the other naval superpower, rather than Germany which was a land power.
Japan is an interesting case, while at the start of WWII it demolished the British navy, raw racism precluded any possibility of alliance. Recall Japanese immigrants were subject to all kinds of exclusions in the United States at the time, and the implementation of internment.
In any case, the United States wasn't about to share the Pacific anyway. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | I know the answer for the Second World War. The political parties and organizations were all pro Allies except three notable groups:
[German American Bund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund)
This was a Nazi organization supported by Germans in the USA. It evolved simultaneously with the NSDAP, but never got enough support to have any notable power. When the war broke out, the organization became unfavored in many ways: there was a tax investigation, and later they refused to be drafted so the members got fined for $10000 and 5 years in jail. By the mid-late war the leaders were in jail or had their citizenship revoked, so the whole organization stopped working.
[Silver Legion of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America)
This was a fascist party in USA which ran in the elections of 1936, but never really got more than 10000 members. Right after Pearl Harbor, the local police occupied the HQ of the Silver Legion and the membership of the party left as the war went on.
And one more notable and popular organization is the [America First Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee), which boasted famous aviator Charles Lindbergh as a spokesman. They wouldn't enter into the war on the Axis side, but they strongly argued against entering on any side, even the Allies'. I mention them, because if their points had gotten approval — such as opposing the Lend Lease Agreement, or being neutral — it could have seriously affected the outcome of the Second World War.
**So for the Second World War: there was no doubt that the USA was a pro-Allies power, as these organizations were a small minority when Pearl Harbor occurred, and most of the people supported the Allies' cause.** | Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine pretty much dictated that the United States will be fighting alongside the British, who were the other naval superpower, rather than Germany which was a land power.
Japan is an interesting case, while at the start of WWII it demolished the British navy, raw racism precluded any possibility of alliance. Recall Japanese immigrants were subject to all kinds of exclusions in the United States at the time, and the implementation of internment.
In any case, the United States wasn't about to share the Pacific anyway. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | During WW1, the U-Boat attacks DID have a significant effect on turning American opinion against Imperial Germany. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war without the sinking of the Lusitania or another similar provocative event. It is often forgotten in this day and age that the second largest ethnic heritage group in the United States is German, outnumbered only by the English. The rebranding and suppression of German culture during WW1 was significant, far beyond anything before or since in this country. Those who laugh/sneer at "Freedom Fries" probably think nothing of eating cream cheese, or as it used to be known prior to WW1, schmeerkase. Stop and think about it for a moment. Why does the second largest heritage group in America has such a small distinct cultural footprint today?
With regards to WW2, US entry without provocation was much more likely. Contrary to what others have said, the US was not "grossly unprepared" for the war. During WW2, the US Navy took delivery of 9 brand spankin' new battleships, 2 battlecruisers, and 2 dozen fleet carriers. ALL of the battleships were under construction before the war started, as were a third of the carriers. The expansion of the Army started in 1940. Almost every major weapon system used by the US during WW2 was designed before the war, and either in development or production when the war started. The upshot is "grossly unprepared" is a gross overstatement. Unprepared? Yes, certainly tactically on that Sunday morning in December. Preparing? Definitely. The US was rearming with a speed and breadth that is astounding. | **Bottom line up front.**
Yes their was a doubt. Germany had a vocal advocacy in the US as large or larger than did the UK. The UK had historical ties and FDR. Ultimately though neither was enough to move Isolationist America. America did not declare war on Germany or Japan first. They declared war on us and only then did we reciprocate. And some folks in the US are still hot about that even today.. (aka Pat Buchanan ).
**Longer but the same Answer**
The United States had been a strictly isolationist country devoid of all foreign security treaties and neutral in all European wars from 1789 (George Washington's farewell Address) - April 1917 until we committed for the Allies in WWI.
George Washington Farwell Address ( See Foreign Relations & Trade )
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_relations_and_free_trade>
United States non-interventionism, (SEE) No entangling alliances (19th century), and Non-interventionism before entering World War II
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#No_entangling_alliances_.2819th_century.29>
America entered WWI for more pragmatic reasons than the sinking of the Lusitania or Zimmermann Note. Our banking system lead by [JP Morgan](https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/25783813-peter-palms/4550806-role-j-p-morgan-providing-loans-england-france-world-war-souring-loans-became-apparent) was heavily invested in the success of the Allies. US banks funded the Allies war effort. JP Morgan organized a syndicate of about 2200 American banks and floated loans exceeding $500 million to the Allies.
That was big money in 1912. The British sold off their holdings of American securities and by late 1916 were dependent on unsecured loans for further purchases. If the United States had not entered into that war and the Allies had lost our economy would have taken a significant hit.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr>.
The US had pragmatic reasons for involving ourselves in that war. The US was not afraid of Mexico in 1917, we were at war with troops on the ground in Mexico in 1917, we had invaded Mexico in response to Poncho Via's raids. We knew they posed no risk to our security.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition#Aftermath>
========================================================================
As for WWII, there was a strong pro German faction in the United States lead by World Famous Industrialist Henry Ford, Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Kennedy, and American Aviation Hero Charles Lindberg. Consisting of organizations like the American First Committee, The German American Bund, and Friends of New Germany. Nazi Germany's interests were well represented and supported in a fractured pre WWII America. The Latter two, The German American Bund and Friends of New Germany were basically clones of the Germany's Nazi Party operating openly in the United States.
<https://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/fdr_outsmarts_them_all_henry_ford_joseph_kennedy_charles_lindbergh_and_the_american_entrance_into_world_war_ii/>
German American Bund
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund>
Friends of New Germany
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_New_Germany>
Ford being a famous respected industrialist and infamous anti semite, who had long ago captured the worlds imagination. Kennedy being one of the wealthiest and successful men in the United States would latter achieve infamy and political death when he favorable compared the Nazi Party to the American Democratic party (of which he was a leader). Lindberg being perhaps the most famous American ever, and one of the most respected who speeches still can be listened too and found persuasive in why the US should stay out of that war. The pro German, and anti war FDR critics were outspoken and influential. Even stronger though than the pro German faction was the symbiotic Isolationist faction. Not to be confused with pacifism, America's brand of Isolationism as first outlined by Washington in 1789 proposed the US not getting involved in European wars, but did not suggest America should refrain from conducting her own wars to protect her interests. These two beliefs (1)Isolationist from European entanglements, and (2) those who favored Nazi Germany; worked together because for Germany's purposes an truly isolationist United States was sufficient to its needs.
The influential "American First Committee" characterized by anti-semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters. It was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Membership included future US Presidents, future Supreme Court Justices, and other future famous government leaders.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee>
Even though we were a wealthy, and populous country we did not have a military. The United States military on the outset of WWII was about the same size as Belgium's or Portugal's. A historically isolationist country like the US had no need for a significant standing army.
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/>
(\*) The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_ref-Digital_History_41-1>
And Isolationism/Non Interventionism (I don't differentiate) dominated American politics. Perhaps most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and saw Germany as the clear aggressor, But they did not see it as any of America's business. America's brand of Isolationism, did not advantage either the aggressor or victim. We saw ourselves as small fish, easily devoured when the big fish quarreled. Also, Lindberg and Joe Kennedy painted admirable images of Hitler raising the German people out of despair and poverty and making them productive again. America was against the punitive actions taken by the victors of WWI against Germany. Americans believed these actions had impoverish Germany, and Americans had empathy for the German's economic hardships. That Hitler and the Nazi's were changing this unfair impoverishment in Germany was a good thing right! This argument played on US sympathies. Isolationism was well supported by America's political leadership, reflecting the support it had with the population.
Source (<http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp>). See Paragraph 8. Source (<http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html>)
America was by no means a militarily significant power on the level of Britain, France or Germany at the time. Remember, Belgium was overrun by the Germans in an afternoon. The US military which trained with stove pipes and broom sticks instead of mortars and machine guns as late as 1941, were seen as no match for even the weakest of those big three. Perhaps a match for Belgium, by contemporary wisdom.
(\*) "as late as 1941, U.S infantry mortar squads used stove pipes as simulated mortars, Machine-guns were improvised from broom sticks."
<http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/645160.pdf>
Maybe not as well equipped as Belgium's. Isolationists made note that Germany had just defeated the strongest army in the world in France (contemporary wisdom 1938), and had the second strongest Army the UK on the ropes.. what were we going to do; especially all the way over in Europe. In the history of modern day Europe no foreign military had ever staged a successful invasion of the continent, and the US barely had a military!!
This argument given where the US was in 1938 on the outset of WWII, is even today a very logical, historically supported, and thus persuasive argument (give it a listen bellow) even though in hind site it proved to be entirely wrong.
The America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh Speech September 11, 1941 Des Moines
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI>
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just won reelection in 1940, famously stating "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
This statement came due to a political necessity, even FDR a man running for an unprecedented 3rd term as president did not have the political legs to confront directly the non interventionists.
10/40/1940 Campaign Address in Boston Ma.
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887>
Of coarse today we know Roosevelt was already actively involved in impeachable offenses to provide Britain with significant material aid.
Roosevelt was against Germany, and was working behind the scenes to keep the UK in the war, to prepare the US military, to change US public opinion, and to get us into the war as quickly as he could.
Roosevelt made the statement in Boston because he would not have been elected had he not. Roosevelt was a consummate politician who knew the country would not support another foreign war and his hands were tied legally from supporting Britain.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. Britain had little cash. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The US military believed Great Britain would surrender after the surrender of France, and any weapons sent to her would ultimately end up in German hands. On this basis they opposed sending weapons to the UK. President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in any foreign(European) conflict.
(Sept 1940) Just a month before Roosevelt made his famous declaration in Boston to stay out of the war, He had begun transferring significant aid to Britain illegally. Britain could not afford to legally purchase the munitions she required so Roosevelt got creative with non monetary exchanges (base leases in North America). Because these exchanges were non monetary they were in violation of US law. In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to make any payments for supplies. So Roosevelt went even further. On December 17, 1940 Roosevelt proposed lend lease of supplies. Making the analogy if your neighbors house is on fire and he wants to borrow your hose, of coarse you are going to lend him your hose, and after the fire is out, you don't want his money; you want your hose back. Roosevelt ear marked 1 billion dollars in war aid for Great Britain and Russia along lend lease.
Just 4 months before Pearl Harbor Congress believing disarmament to be the surest way to ensure America's neutrality had nearly disbanded the US Military. The measure being defeated in the house by a single vote in August 1941.
Source (<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/opinion/l-the-vote-that-saved-the-army-in-the-days-after-pearl-harbor-028191.html>) See: The Vote(august 1941)That Saved the Army in the Days After Pearl Harbor -
That's the environment the United States and FDR had to deal with, and how strong the Isolationists were.... And of coarse ultimately the United States did not decide to over come it's isolationism tendencies, or even it's pro German tendencies. The United States was attacked, and her sons and daughters were murdered in a surprise attack, infuriating the nation. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the United States.
There was no choice for war made in the United States to enter WWII. The "choice" to enter the war on behalf of the allies was not made in Washington DC. It was made in Tokyo and Berlin. Amazingly Germany had been bending over backwards to not provoke America into the war on Hitlers direction. He was aware of the delicate dance FDR was stepping. After Japan declared war, in arguable the stupidest move of the war. Germany followed suit and likewise declared war on the US in perhaps the second stupidest move.
Dec 7th, 1941 -- Japan declares war on the United States
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire>
December 8, 1941, the United States Congress declared war on Japan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan>
Dec 11, 1941 -- Germany Declares War on the United States
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states>
On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)>
Although Hitler made a few stupid moves during the war, some of which compete on the scale with declaring war on the US while his failure to do so arguable could have kept the US out of the European theatre at least for a while. Hitler's pact with Japan did not require Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor.. Thus Hitler literally forced FDR's hand, to FDR and I imagine Churchill's everlasting gratitude. This solved all of the US political problems and allowed the US to come into the war committed and unified even though just days before the war she was far from that.
Uniting a badly divided America, and ensuring she would be fully committed to the Allies. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | I know the answer for the Second World War. The political parties and organizations were all pro Allies except three notable groups:
[German American Bund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund)
This was a Nazi organization supported by Germans in the USA. It evolved simultaneously with the NSDAP, but never got enough support to have any notable power. When the war broke out, the organization became unfavored in many ways: there was a tax investigation, and later they refused to be drafted so the members got fined for $10000 and 5 years in jail. By the mid-late war the leaders were in jail or had their citizenship revoked, so the whole organization stopped working.
[Silver Legion of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America)
This was a fascist party in USA which ran in the elections of 1936, but never really got more than 10000 members. Right after Pearl Harbor, the local police occupied the HQ of the Silver Legion and the membership of the party left as the war went on.
And one more notable and popular organization is the [America First Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee), which boasted famous aviator Charles Lindbergh as a spokesman. They wouldn't enter into the war on the Axis side, but they strongly argued against entering on any side, even the Allies'. I mention them, because if their points had gotten approval — such as opposing the Lend Lease Agreement, or being neutral — it could have seriously affected the outcome of the Second World War.
**So for the Second World War: there was no doubt that the USA was a pro-Allies power, as these organizations were a small minority when Pearl Harbor occurred, and most of the people supported the Allies' cause.** | **Bottom line up front.**
Yes their was a doubt. Germany had a vocal advocacy in the US as large or larger than did the UK. The UK had historical ties and FDR. Ultimately though neither was enough to move Isolationist America. America did not declare war on Germany or Japan first. They declared war on us and only then did we reciprocate. And some folks in the US are still hot about that even today.. (aka Pat Buchanan ).
**Longer but the same Answer**
The United States had been a strictly isolationist country devoid of all foreign security treaties and neutral in all European wars from 1789 (George Washington's farewell Address) - April 1917 until we committed for the Allies in WWI.
George Washington Farwell Address ( See Foreign Relations & Trade )
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_relations_and_free_trade>
United States non-interventionism, (SEE) No entangling alliances (19th century), and Non-interventionism before entering World War II
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#No_entangling_alliances_.2819th_century.29>
America entered WWI for more pragmatic reasons than the sinking of the Lusitania or Zimmermann Note. Our banking system lead by [JP Morgan](https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/25783813-peter-palms/4550806-role-j-p-morgan-providing-loans-england-france-world-war-souring-loans-became-apparent) was heavily invested in the success of the Allies. US banks funded the Allies war effort. JP Morgan organized a syndicate of about 2200 American banks and floated loans exceeding $500 million to the Allies.
That was big money in 1912. The British sold off their holdings of American securities and by late 1916 were dependent on unsecured loans for further purchases. If the United States had not entered into that war and the Allies had lost our economy would have taken a significant hit.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr>.
The US had pragmatic reasons for involving ourselves in that war. The US was not afraid of Mexico in 1917, we were at war with troops on the ground in Mexico in 1917, we had invaded Mexico in response to Poncho Via's raids. We knew they posed no risk to our security.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition#Aftermath>
========================================================================
As for WWII, there was a strong pro German faction in the United States lead by World Famous Industrialist Henry Ford, Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Kennedy, and American Aviation Hero Charles Lindberg. Consisting of organizations like the American First Committee, The German American Bund, and Friends of New Germany. Nazi Germany's interests were well represented and supported in a fractured pre WWII America. The Latter two, The German American Bund and Friends of New Germany were basically clones of the Germany's Nazi Party operating openly in the United States.
<https://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/fdr_outsmarts_them_all_henry_ford_joseph_kennedy_charles_lindbergh_and_the_american_entrance_into_world_war_ii/>
German American Bund
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund>
Friends of New Germany
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_New_Germany>
Ford being a famous respected industrialist and infamous anti semite, who had long ago captured the worlds imagination. Kennedy being one of the wealthiest and successful men in the United States would latter achieve infamy and political death when he favorable compared the Nazi Party to the American Democratic party (of which he was a leader). Lindberg being perhaps the most famous American ever, and one of the most respected who speeches still can be listened too and found persuasive in why the US should stay out of that war. The pro German, and anti war FDR critics were outspoken and influential. Even stronger though than the pro German faction was the symbiotic Isolationist faction. Not to be confused with pacifism, America's brand of Isolationism as first outlined by Washington in 1789 proposed the US not getting involved in European wars, but did not suggest America should refrain from conducting her own wars to protect her interests. These two beliefs (1)Isolationist from European entanglements, and (2) those who favored Nazi Germany; worked together because for Germany's purposes an truly isolationist United States was sufficient to its needs.
The influential "American First Committee" characterized by anti-semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters. It was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Membership included future US Presidents, future Supreme Court Justices, and other future famous government leaders.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee>
Even though we were a wealthy, and populous country we did not have a military. The United States military on the outset of WWII was about the same size as Belgium's or Portugal's. A historically isolationist country like the US had no need for a significant standing army.
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/>
(\*) The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_ref-Digital_History_41-1>
And Isolationism/Non Interventionism (I don't differentiate) dominated American politics. Perhaps most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and saw Germany as the clear aggressor, But they did not see it as any of America's business. America's brand of Isolationism, did not advantage either the aggressor or victim. We saw ourselves as small fish, easily devoured when the big fish quarreled. Also, Lindberg and Joe Kennedy painted admirable images of Hitler raising the German people out of despair and poverty and making them productive again. America was against the punitive actions taken by the victors of WWI against Germany. Americans believed these actions had impoverish Germany, and Americans had empathy for the German's economic hardships. That Hitler and the Nazi's were changing this unfair impoverishment in Germany was a good thing right! This argument played on US sympathies. Isolationism was well supported by America's political leadership, reflecting the support it had with the population.
Source (<http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp>). See Paragraph 8. Source (<http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html>)
America was by no means a militarily significant power on the level of Britain, France or Germany at the time. Remember, Belgium was overrun by the Germans in an afternoon. The US military which trained with stove pipes and broom sticks instead of mortars and machine guns as late as 1941, were seen as no match for even the weakest of those big three. Perhaps a match for Belgium, by contemporary wisdom.
(\*) "as late as 1941, U.S infantry mortar squads used stove pipes as simulated mortars, Machine-guns were improvised from broom sticks."
<http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/645160.pdf>
Maybe not as well equipped as Belgium's. Isolationists made note that Germany had just defeated the strongest army in the world in France (contemporary wisdom 1938), and had the second strongest Army the UK on the ropes.. what were we going to do; especially all the way over in Europe. In the history of modern day Europe no foreign military had ever staged a successful invasion of the continent, and the US barely had a military!!
This argument given where the US was in 1938 on the outset of WWII, is even today a very logical, historically supported, and thus persuasive argument (give it a listen bellow) even though in hind site it proved to be entirely wrong.
The America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh Speech September 11, 1941 Des Moines
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI>
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just won reelection in 1940, famously stating "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
This statement came due to a political necessity, even FDR a man running for an unprecedented 3rd term as president did not have the political legs to confront directly the non interventionists.
10/40/1940 Campaign Address in Boston Ma.
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887>
Of coarse today we know Roosevelt was already actively involved in impeachable offenses to provide Britain with significant material aid.
Roosevelt was against Germany, and was working behind the scenes to keep the UK in the war, to prepare the US military, to change US public opinion, and to get us into the war as quickly as he could.
Roosevelt made the statement in Boston because he would not have been elected had he not. Roosevelt was a consummate politician who knew the country would not support another foreign war and his hands were tied legally from supporting Britain.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. Britain had little cash. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The US military believed Great Britain would surrender after the surrender of France, and any weapons sent to her would ultimately end up in German hands. On this basis they opposed sending weapons to the UK. President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in any foreign(European) conflict.
(Sept 1940) Just a month before Roosevelt made his famous declaration in Boston to stay out of the war, He had begun transferring significant aid to Britain illegally. Britain could not afford to legally purchase the munitions she required so Roosevelt got creative with non monetary exchanges (base leases in North America). Because these exchanges were non monetary they were in violation of US law. In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to make any payments for supplies. So Roosevelt went even further. On December 17, 1940 Roosevelt proposed lend lease of supplies. Making the analogy if your neighbors house is on fire and he wants to borrow your hose, of coarse you are going to lend him your hose, and after the fire is out, you don't want his money; you want your hose back. Roosevelt ear marked 1 billion dollars in war aid for Great Britain and Russia along lend lease.
Just 4 months before Pearl Harbor Congress believing disarmament to be the surest way to ensure America's neutrality had nearly disbanded the US Military. The measure being defeated in the house by a single vote in August 1941.
Source (<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/opinion/l-the-vote-that-saved-the-army-in-the-days-after-pearl-harbor-028191.html>) See: The Vote(august 1941)That Saved the Army in the Days After Pearl Harbor -
That's the environment the United States and FDR had to deal with, and how strong the Isolationists were.... And of coarse ultimately the United States did not decide to over come it's isolationism tendencies, or even it's pro German tendencies. The United States was attacked, and her sons and daughters were murdered in a surprise attack, infuriating the nation. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the United States.
There was no choice for war made in the United States to enter WWII. The "choice" to enter the war on behalf of the allies was not made in Washington DC. It was made in Tokyo and Berlin. Amazingly Germany had been bending over backwards to not provoke America into the war on Hitlers direction. He was aware of the delicate dance FDR was stepping. After Japan declared war, in arguable the stupidest move of the war. Germany followed suit and likewise declared war on the US in perhaps the second stupidest move.
Dec 7th, 1941 -- Japan declares war on the United States
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire>
December 8, 1941, the United States Congress declared war on Japan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan>
Dec 11, 1941 -- Germany Declares War on the United States
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states>
On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)>
Although Hitler made a few stupid moves during the war, some of which compete on the scale with declaring war on the US while his failure to do so arguable could have kept the US out of the European theatre at least for a while. Hitler's pact with Japan did not require Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor.. Thus Hitler literally forced FDR's hand, to FDR and I imagine Churchill's everlasting gratitude. This solved all of the US political problems and allowed the US to come into the war committed and unified even though just days before the war she was far from that.
Uniting a badly divided America, and ensuring she would be fully committed to the Allies. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | During WWII, there was less doubt about which side the US would join. War with Japan had been anticipated for years and a strategy of waging war adopted in the 20s called [War Plan Orange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Orange). With Japan's expansionist policies, and the US' territories in the pacific (Guam, Philippines, Wake) it was more a matter of *when* than *if*.
The US considered Germany less of a direct threat. Germany was not a great maritime power, seaborne invasion was not a threat. With no territorial interests in Europe, US had no direct stake in the war. There was a very strong isolationist movement in the US which Roosevelt had to carefully step around to supply the Allies. The more the US got involved in supplying arms to the Allies, the more they came into conflict with German U-boats, the more likely war became.
However, there is a great question of *when* the US would have entered WWII. It likely would not have been December 1941. The US military was grossly unprepared for war. In 1940 it was largely a reserve force of a few hundred thousand. Due to the delay in rearming and the chaos caused by rapid expansion, Army divisions were still being assembled, trained and brought up to strength. They were far from ready for the complicated logistical task of deploying overseas. The first viable, but rushed and flawed, US medium tank the [M3 Lee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee), was not in production until August 1941. The ubiquitous [M4 Sherman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman) would not roll off production lines until 1942. The US Navy, while prepared to fight a conventional war in the pacific, was unprepared for defensive submarine warfare as shown in [Operation Drumbeat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Drumbeat).
The Attack On Pearl Harbor was a strategically decisive *defeat* for the Axis in many ways. It forced the US to enter the war early, removing the need to maintain a veneer of neutrality for its own citizens and ramping up production earlier than it would have otherwise. It over strained the Japanese military who were now attacking in every direction, had they waited they could have fought a more concentrated defensive war with preparations, or no war at all!
Second, and this is often overlooked, Pearl Harbor caused [Germany to declare war on the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_%281941%29). It is often assumed it was the other way around, that the US automatically declared war on Germany, not the case. There was a great risk of having the US fight Japan and, wanting to put all its attention and resources into that war, not fight in Europe. Germany's declaration of war eliminated the possibility for the US to be knocked out of the war in Europe without firing a shot. | **Bottom line up front.**
Yes their was a doubt. Germany had a vocal advocacy in the US as large or larger than did the UK. The UK had historical ties and FDR. Ultimately though neither was enough to move Isolationist America. America did not declare war on Germany or Japan first. They declared war on us and only then did we reciprocate. And some folks in the US are still hot about that even today.. (aka Pat Buchanan ).
**Longer but the same Answer**
The United States had been a strictly isolationist country devoid of all foreign security treaties and neutral in all European wars from 1789 (George Washington's farewell Address) - April 1917 until we committed for the Allies in WWI.
George Washington Farwell Address ( See Foreign Relations & Trade )
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Foreign_relations_and_free_trade>
United States non-interventionism, (SEE) No entangling alliances (19th century), and Non-interventionism before entering World War II
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#No_entangling_alliances_.2819th_century.29>
America entered WWI for more pragmatic reasons than the sinking of the Lusitania or Zimmermann Note. Our banking system lead by [JP Morgan](https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/25783813-peter-palms/4550806-role-j-p-morgan-providing-loans-england-france-world-war-souring-loans-became-apparent) was heavily invested in the success of the Allies. US banks funded the Allies war effort. JP Morgan organized a syndicate of about 2200 American banks and floated loans exceeding $500 million to the Allies.
That was big money in 1912. The British sold off their holdings of American securities and by late 1916 were dependent on unsecured loans for further purchases. If the United States had not entered into that war and the Allies had lost our economy would have taken a significant hit.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr>.
The US had pragmatic reasons for involving ourselves in that war. The US was not afraid of Mexico in 1917, we were at war with troops on the ground in Mexico in 1917, we had invaded Mexico in response to Poncho Via's raids. We knew they posed no risk to our security.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition#Aftermath>
========================================================================
As for WWII, there was a strong pro German faction in the United States lead by World Famous Industrialist Henry Ford, Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Kennedy, and American Aviation Hero Charles Lindberg. Consisting of organizations like the American First Committee, The German American Bund, and Friends of New Germany. Nazi Germany's interests were well represented and supported in a fractured pre WWII America. The Latter two, The German American Bund and Friends of New Germany were basically clones of the Germany's Nazi Party operating openly in the United States.
<https://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/fdr_outsmarts_them_all_henry_ford_joseph_kennedy_charles_lindbergh_and_the_american_entrance_into_world_war_ii/>
German American Bund
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund>
Friends of New Germany
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_New_Germany>
Ford being a famous respected industrialist and infamous anti semite, who had long ago captured the worlds imagination. Kennedy being one of the wealthiest and successful men in the United States would latter achieve infamy and political death when he favorable compared the Nazi Party to the American Democratic party (of which he was a leader). Lindberg being perhaps the most famous American ever, and one of the most respected who speeches still can be listened too and found persuasive in why the US should stay out of that war. The pro German, and anti war FDR critics were outspoken and influential. Even stronger though than the pro German faction was the symbiotic Isolationist faction. Not to be confused with pacifism, America's brand of Isolationism as first outlined by Washington in 1789 proposed the US not getting involved in European wars, but did not suggest America should refrain from conducting her own wars to protect her interests. These two beliefs (1)Isolationist from European entanglements, and (2) those who favored Nazi Germany; worked together because for Germany's purposes an truly isolationist United States was sufficient to its needs.
The influential "American First Committee" characterized by anti-semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters. It was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Membership included future US Presidents, future Supreme Court Justices, and other future famous government leaders.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee>
Even though we were a wealthy, and populous country we did not have a military. The United States military on the outset of WWII was about the same size as Belgium's or Portugal's. A historically isolationist country like the US had no need for a significant standing army.
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/>
(\*) The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_ref-Digital_History_41-1>
And Isolationism/Non Interventionism (I don't differentiate) dominated American politics. Perhaps most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and saw Germany as the clear aggressor, But they did not see it as any of America's business. America's brand of Isolationism, did not advantage either the aggressor or victim. We saw ourselves as small fish, easily devoured when the big fish quarreled. Also, Lindberg and Joe Kennedy painted admirable images of Hitler raising the German people out of despair and poverty and making them productive again. America was against the punitive actions taken by the victors of WWI against Germany. Americans believed these actions had impoverish Germany, and Americans had empathy for the German's economic hardships. That Hitler and the Nazi's were changing this unfair impoverishment in Germany was a good thing right! This argument played on US sympathies. Isolationism was well supported by America's political leadership, reflecting the support it had with the population.
Source (<http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp>). See Paragraph 8. Source (<http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html>)
America was by no means a militarily significant power on the level of Britain, France or Germany at the time. Remember, Belgium was overrun by the Germans in an afternoon. The US military which trained with stove pipes and broom sticks instead of mortars and machine guns as late as 1941, were seen as no match for even the weakest of those big three. Perhaps a match for Belgium, by contemporary wisdom.
(\*) "as late as 1941, U.S infantry mortar squads used stove pipes as simulated mortars, Machine-guns were improvised from broom sticks."
<http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/645160.pdf>
Maybe not as well equipped as Belgium's. Isolationists made note that Germany had just defeated the strongest army in the world in France (contemporary wisdom 1938), and had the second strongest Army the UK on the ropes.. what were we going to do; especially all the way over in Europe. In the history of modern day Europe no foreign military had ever staged a successful invasion of the continent, and the US barely had a military!!
This argument given where the US was in 1938 on the outset of WWII, is even today a very logical, historically supported, and thus persuasive argument (give it a listen bellow) even though in hind site it proved to be entirely wrong.
The America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh Speech September 11, 1941 Des Moines
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI>
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had just won reelection in 1940, famously stating "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
This statement came due to a political necessity, even FDR a man running for an unprecedented 3rd term as president did not have the political legs to confront directly the non interventionists.
10/40/1940 Campaign Address in Boston Ma.
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887>
Of coarse today we know Roosevelt was already actively involved in impeachable offenses to provide Britain with significant material aid.
Roosevelt was against Germany, and was working behind the scenes to keep the UK in the war, to prepare the US military, to change US public opinion, and to get us into the war as quickly as he could.
Roosevelt made the statement in Boston because he would not have been elected had he not. Roosevelt was a consummate politician who knew the country would not support another foreign war and his hands were tied legally from supporting Britain.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. Britain had little cash. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The US military believed Great Britain would surrender after the surrender of France, and any weapons sent to her would ultimately end up in German hands. On this basis they opposed sending weapons to the UK. President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in any foreign(European) conflict.
(Sept 1940) Just a month before Roosevelt made his famous declaration in Boston to stay out of the war, He had begun transferring significant aid to Britain illegally. Britain could not afford to legally purchase the munitions she required so Roosevelt got creative with non monetary exchanges (base leases in North America). Because these exchanges were non monetary they were in violation of US law. In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to make any payments for supplies. So Roosevelt went even further. On December 17, 1940 Roosevelt proposed lend lease of supplies. Making the analogy if your neighbors house is on fire and he wants to borrow your hose, of coarse you are going to lend him your hose, and after the fire is out, you don't want his money; you want your hose back. Roosevelt ear marked 1 billion dollars in war aid for Great Britain and Russia along lend lease.
Just 4 months before Pearl Harbor Congress believing disarmament to be the surest way to ensure America's neutrality had nearly disbanded the US Military. The measure being defeated in the house by a single vote in August 1941.
Source (<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/opinion/l-the-vote-that-saved-the-army-in-the-days-after-pearl-harbor-028191.html>) See: The Vote(august 1941)That Saved the Army in the Days After Pearl Harbor -
That's the environment the United States and FDR had to deal with, and how strong the Isolationists were.... And of coarse ultimately the United States did not decide to over come it's isolationism tendencies, or even it's pro German tendencies. The United States was attacked, and her sons and daughters were murdered in a surprise attack, infuriating the nation. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the United States.
There was no choice for war made in the United States to enter WWII. The "choice" to enter the war on behalf of the allies was not made in Washington DC. It was made in Tokyo and Berlin. Amazingly Germany had been bending over backwards to not provoke America into the war on Hitlers direction. He was aware of the delicate dance FDR was stepping. After Japan declared war, in arguable the stupidest move of the war. Germany followed suit and likewise declared war on the US in perhaps the second stupidest move.
Dec 7th, 1941 -- Japan declares war on the United States
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire>
December 8, 1941, the United States Congress declared war on Japan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_on_Japan>
Dec 11, 1941 -- Germany Declares War on the United States
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states>
On 11 December 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States declaration of war against the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was still officially neutral during World War II. The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)>
Although Hitler made a few stupid moves during the war, some of which compete on the scale with declaring war on the US while his failure to do so arguable could have kept the US out of the European theatre at least for a while. Hitler's pact with Japan did not require Germany to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor.. Thus Hitler literally forced FDR's hand, to FDR and I imagine Churchill's everlasting gratitude. This solved all of the US political problems and allowed the US to come into the war committed and unified even though just days before the war she was far from that.
Uniting a badly divided America, and ensuring she would be fully committed to the Allies. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | I know the answer for the Second World War. The political parties and organizations were all pro Allies except three notable groups:
[German American Bund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund)
This was a Nazi organization supported by Germans in the USA. It evolved simultaneously with the NSDAP, but never got enough support to have any notable power. When the war broke out, the organization became unfavored in many ways: there was a tax investigation, and later they refused to be drafted so the members got fined for $10000 and 5 years in jail. By the mid-late war the leaders were in jail or had their citizenship revoked, so the whole organization stopped working.
[Silver Legion of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America)
This was a fascist party in USA which ran in the elections of 1936, but never really got more than 10000 members. Right after Pearl Harbor, the local police occupied the HQ of the Silver Legion and the membership of the party left as the war went on.
And one more notable and popular organization is the [America First Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee), which boasted famous aviator Charles Lindbergh as a spokesman. They wouldn't enter into the war on the Axis side, but they strongly argued against entering on any side, even the Allies'. I mention them, because if their points had gotten approval — such as opposing the Lend Lease Agreement, or being neutral — it could have seriously affected the outcome of the Second World War.
**So for the Second World War: there was no doubt that the USA was a pro-Allies power, as these organizations were a small minority when Pearl Harbor occurred, and most of the people supported the Allies' cause.** | During WW1, the U-Boat attacks DID have a significant effect on turning American opinion against Imperial Germany. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war without the sinking of the Lusitania or another similar provocative event. It is often forgotten in this day and age that the second largest ethnic heritage group in the United States is German, outnumbered only by the English. The rebranding and suppression of German culture during WW1 was significant, far beyond anything before or since in this country. Those who laugh/sneer at "Freedom Fries" probably think nothing of eating cream cheese, or as it used to be known prior to WW1, schmeerkase. Stop and think about it for a moment. Why does the second largest heritage group in America has such a small distinct cultural footprint today?
With regards to WW2, US entry without provocation was much more likely. Contrary to what others have said, the US was not "grossly unprepared" for the war. During WW2, the US Navy took delivery of 9 brand spankin' new battleships, 2 battlecruisers, and 2 dozen fleet carriers. ALL of the battleships were under construction before the war started, as were a third of the carriers. The expansion of the Army started in 1940. Almost every major weapon system used by the US during WW2 was designed before the war, and either in development or production when the war started. The upshot is "grossly unprepared" is a gross overstatement. Unprepared? Yes, certainly tactically on that Sunday morning in December. Preparing? Definitely. The US was rearming with a speed and breadth that is astounding. |
12,677 | From a British perspective in both WW1 and WW2 the USA have entered the war at a later stage and supported the allies.
The decision for the US to enter the war has often been portrayed to be based on particular acts of aggression against them. The sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Was there ever any doubt which side the USA would join? Is there evidence to suggest that these triggers decide which side the USA would join as well as the level of their involvement? | 2014/05/01 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12677",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/1674/"
] | I know the answer for the Second World War. The political parties and organizations were all pro Allies except three notable groups:
[German American Bund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund)
This was a Nazi organization supported by Germans in the USA. It evolved simultaneously with the NSDAP, but never got enough support to have any notable power. When the war broke out, the organization became unfavored in many ways: there was a tax investigation, and later they refused to be drafted so the members got fined for $10000 and 5 years in jail. By the mid-late war the leaders were in jail or had their citizenship revoked, so the whole organization stopped working.
[Silver Legion of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America)
This was a fascist party in USA which ran in the elections of 1936, but never really got more than 10000 members. Right after Pearl Harbor, the local police occupied the HQ of the Silver Legion and the membership of the party left as the war went on.
And one more notable and popular organization is the [America First Committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee), which boasted famous aviator Charles Lindbergh as a spokesman. They wouldn't enter into the war on the Axis side, but they strongly argued against entering on any side, even the Allies'. I mention them, because if their points had gotten approval — such as opposing the Lend Lease Agreement, or being neutral — it could have seriously affected the outcome of the Second World War.
**So for the Second World War: there was no doubt that the USA was a pro-Allies power, as these organizations were a small minority when Pearl Harbor occurred, and most of the people supported the Allies' cause.** | During WWII, there was less doubt about which side the US would join. War with Japan had been anticipated for years and a strategy of waging war adopted in the 20s called [War Plan Orange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Orange). With Japan's expansionist policies, and the US' territories in the pacific (Guam, Philippines, Wake) it was more a matter of *when* than *if*.
The US considered Germany less of a direct threat. Germany was not a great maritime power, seaborne invasion was not a threat. With no territorial interests in Europe, US had no direct stake in the war. There was a very strong isolationist movement in the US which Roosevelt had to carefully step around to supply the Allies. The more the US got involved in supplying arms to the Allies, the more they came into conflict with German U-boats, the more likely war became.
However, there is a great question of *when* the US would have entered WWII. It likely would not have been December 1941. The US military was grossly unprepared for war. In 1940 it was largely a reserve force of a few hundred thousand. Due to the delay in rearming and the chaos caused by rapid expansion, Army divisions were still being assembled, trained and brought up to strength. They were far from ready for the complicated logistical task of deploying overseas. The first viable, but rushed and flawed, US medium tank the [M3 Lee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee), was not in production until August 1941. The ubiquitous [M4 Sherman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman) would not roll off production lines until 1942. The US Navy, while prepared to fight a conventional war in the pacific, was unprepared for defensive submarine warfare as shown in [Operation Drumbeat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Drumbeat).
The Attack On Pearl Harbor was a strategically decisive *defeat* for the Axis in many ways. It forced the US to enter the war early, removing the need to maintain a veneer of neutrality for its own citizens and ramping up production earlier than it would have otherwise. It over strained the Japanese military who were now attacking in every direction, had they waited they could have fought a more concentrated defensive war with preparations, or no war at all!
Second, and this is often overlooked, Pearl Harbor caused [Germany to declare war on the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_%281941%29). It is often assumed it was the other way around, that the US automatically declared war on Germany, not the case. There was a great risk of having the US fight Japan and, wanting to put all its attention and resources into that war, not fight in Europe. Germany's declaration of war eliminated the possibility for the US to be knocked out of the war in Europe without firing a shot. |
121,563 | Over the years various versions of .NET have been deployed to my client machines via WSUS. Now it seems that on many machines these installations have hosed eachother, and certain .NET security updates are failing.
I verified that I can run the .NET cleanup tool to get rid of all the .NET installations on a client, and I can then push out .NET 3.5 via WSUS. This seems to have solved the problems I'm having on the machine I tried it on.
So the question is: if I've got .NET 3.5, is there any reason to also have previous versions installed? | 2010/03/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/121563",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2189/"
] | .NET is backwards compatible to an extent, but you have to compare between versions of the framework. What they do state is that it is side-by-side compatible, which is the problem you're faced with. There is definitely a reason to have other versions installed. An app can be written to target a specific version and if this version is not present on a machine then the app will fail. | No, .net is not backward compatible. MS reserves the right to make changes. 2.0 u to 3.5 are IIRC, but that is more a "lucky side". The concet is th have al frameworks installed that are needed, and an application targets the framework it was compiled against - this allows MS to clean up new versions and introduce non-compatible changes. |
121,563 | Over the years various versions of .NET have been deployed to my client machines via WSUS. Now it seems that on many machines these installations have hosed eachother, and certain .NET security updates are failing.
I verified that I can run the .NET cleanup tool to get rid of all the .NET installations on a client, and I can then push out .NET 3.5 via WSUS. This seems to have solved the problems I'm having on the machine I tried it on.
So the question is: if I've got .NET 3.5, is there any reason to also have previous versions installed? | 2010/03/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/121563",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2189/"
] | Backwards compatible is a bad term to use. .NET 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 are their own frameworks that have no compatibility between each other. .NET 3.0 and 3.5 are super sets of the 2.0 framework, using the .NET 2.0 base framework, with additional dll's to provide additional features (3.0 included things like WCF and WWF, 3.5 had things like LINQ). In terms of application requirements:
* 1.0 apps requires .NET 1.0 to be installed.
* 1.1 apps requires .NET 1.1 to be installed.
* 2.0 apps requires .NET 2.0, 3.0, or 3.5 to be installed.
* 3.0 apps requires .NET 3.0 or 3.5 to be installed.
* 3.5 apps requires .NET 3.5 to be installed.
I'm fairly certain that .NET 4.0 follows the same model as 2.0 - 3.5 (2.0 base with additional feature dlls). So installing .NET 3.5 will cover you for .NET 2.0 - 3.5 applications. You'll need to install .NET 1.1 if you run any 1.1 apps (same for 1.0 apps). | .NET is backwards compatible to an extent, but you have to compare between versions of the framework. What they do state is that it is side-by-side compatible, which is the problem you're faced with. There is definitely a reason to have other versions installed. An app can be written to target a specific version and if this version is not present on a machine then the app will fail. |
121,563 | Over the years various versions of .NET have been deployed to my client machines via WSUS. Now it seems that on many machines these installations have hosed eachother, and certain .NET security updates are failing.
I verified that I can run the .NET cleanup tool to get rid of all the .NET installations on a client, and I can then push out .NET 3.5 via WSUS. This seems to have solved the problems I'm having on the machine I tried it on.
So the question is: if I've got .NET 3.5, is there any reason to also have previous versions installed? | 2010/03/11 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/121563",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2189/"
] | Backwards compatible is a bad term to use. .NET 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 are their own frameworks that have no compatibility between each other. .NET 3.0 and 3.5 are super sets of the 2.0 framework, using the .NET 2.0 base framework, with additional dll's to provide additional features (3.0 included things like WCF and WWF, 3.5 had things like LINQ). In terms of application requirements:
* 1.0 apps requires .NET 1.0 to be installed.
* 1.1 apps requires .NET 1.1 to be installed.
* 2.0 apps requires .NET 2.0, 3.0, or 3.5 to be installed.
* 3.0 apps requires .NET 3.0 or 3.5 to be installed.
* 3.5 apps requires .NET 3.5 to be installed.
I'm fairly certain that .NET 4.0 follows the same model as 2.0 - 3.5 (2.0 base with additional feature dlls). So installing .NET 3.5 will cover you for .NET 2.0 - 3.5 applications. You'll need to install .NET 1.1 if you run any 1.1 apps (same for 1.0 apps). | No, .net is not backward compatible. MS reserves the right to make changes. 2.0 u to 3.5 are IIRC, but that is more a "lucky side". The concet is th have al frameworks installed that are needed, and an application targets the framework it was compiled against - this allows MS to clean up new versions and introduce non-compatible changes. |
35,153 | Keeping the strategic consequences of blowing up an actual satellite as technology demonstration aside, I want to assess it from a purely scientific/technological standpoint.
To demonstrate the success of a developed A-SAT missile, what could be the alternative way(s) of testing, other than blowing up a real satellite?
For instance, I think a missile launched towards a parametric/specific target corridor in space with 'in-the-loop' simulated target tracking, could be used to see if systems performed well. It might have it's limitations, but I'm trying to see how close we can come to the test objectives achieved by blowing up a satellite, without actually blowing up one.
Is there a rationale behind choice of impact testing (boom!) with a physical target over other methods? If so, how significant is the advantage for the former? | 2019/03/29 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35153",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/5975/"
] | One could in theory launch a very low orbit "satellite", about half-way around the world from where you plan to intercept it, intercept it at the peak point, and have it reenter in either case roughly at the point of origin. That starts to look a lot like a ballistic missile test, which is dangerous, and it really requires a launch point almost half-way around the globe. That requirement could bre relaxed, but at increased rocket performance. In addition, such objects won't look like satellites that have been deployed for some time, they probably can't deploy their solar panels that quickly, for instance.
Short of that, the next best thing is to intercept in a very low orbit, such as the Indian test did, or the US "Operation Burnt Frost", which technically wasn't an anti-satellite test, but an effort to make sure toxic fuel didn't crash and hurt or kill someone. | It's a good question. For most military capabilities it's important to make it *clear to everyone else* that you have the capability, and that it works. Making a bunch of debris and lighting up the internet was probably an integral part of the recent test by India, which makes it *a demonstration* as much as it was a test.
An alternative, debris-less testing methodology that was scored electronically for example would not have the same convincing effect, and would be met with substantial skepticism, as were some early reports of the US testing of "Star Wars technology".
For example (hat tip to [@Ohsn](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35114/what-did-indias-recently-tested-asat-vehicle-really-look-like?noredirect=1#comment110866_35114)): |
35,153 | Keeping the strategic consequences of blowing up an actual satellite as technology demonstration aside, I want to assess it from a purely scientific/technological standpoint.
To demonstrate the success of a developed A-SAT missile, what could be the alternative way(s) of testing, other than blowing up a real satellite?
For instance, I think a missile launched towards a parametric/specific target corridor in space with 'in-the-loop' simulated target tracking, could be used to see if systems performed well. It might have it's limitations, but I'm trying to see how close we can come to the test objectives achieved by blowing up a satellite, without actually blowing up one.
Is there a rationale behind choice of impact testing (boom!) with a physical target over other methods? If so, how significant is the advantage for the former? | 2019/03/29 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35153",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/5975/"
] | One could in theory launch a very low orbit "satellite", about half-way around the world from where you plan to intercept it, intercept it at the peak point, and have it reenter in either case roughly at the point of origin. That starts to look a lot like a ballistic missile test, which is dangerous, and it really requires a launch point almost half-way around the globe. That requirement could bre relaxed, but at increased rocket performance. In addition, such objects won't look like satellites that have been deployed for some time, they probably can't deploy their solar panels that quickly, for instance.
Short of that, the next best thing is to intercept in a very low orbit, such as the Indian test did, or the US "Operation Burnt Frost", which technically wasn't an anti-satellite test, but an effort to make sure toxic fuel didn't crash and hurt or kill someone. | My original reaction was “hit recently-launched 200kg brick of dry ice”. Think of it as the sublime target: It’ll break up, increasing the surface area immensely, and shortly be gone.
Unfortunately, the radar reflectivity of bulk CO2 is really poor. Even a 1m2 corner reflector would be very hard to track.
Covering it or coating it pretty much defeats the purpose; even a couple microns of metal coating leave be a remnant hazard. |
35,153 | Keeping the strategic consequences of blowing up an actual satellite as technology demonstration aside, I want to assess it from a purely scientific/technological standpoint.
To demonstrate the success of a developed A-SAT missile, what could be the alternative way(s) of testing, other than blowing up a real satellite?
For instance, I think a missile launched towards a parametric/specific target corridor in space with 'in-the-loop' simulated target tracking, could be used to see if systems performed well. It might have it's limitations, but I'm trying to see how close we can come to the test objectives achieved by blowing up a satellite, without actually blowing up one.
Is there a rationale behind choice of impact testing (boom!) with a physical target over other methods? If so, how significant is the advantage for the former? | 2019/03/29 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35153",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/5975/"
] | My original reaction was “hit recently-launched 200kg brick of dry ice”. Think of it as the sublime target: It’ll break up, increasing the surface area immensely, and shortly be gone.
Unfortunately, the radar reflectivity of bulk CO2 is really poor. Even a 1m2 corner reflector would be very hard to track.
Covering it or coating it pretty much defeats the purpose; even a couple microns of metal coating leave be a remnant hazard. | It's a good question. For most military capabilities it's important to make it *clear to everyone else* that you have the capability, and that it works. Making a bunch of debris and lighting up the internet was probably an integral part of the recent test by India, which makes it *a demonstration* as much as it was a test.
An alternative, debris-less testing methodology that was scored electronically for example would not have the same convincing effect, and would be met with substantial skepticism, as were some early reports of the US testing of "Star Wars technology".
For example (hat tip to [@Ohsn](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35114/what-did-indias-recently-tested-asat-vehicle-really-look-like?noredirect=1#comment110866_35114)): |
35,311,406 | For example, when we use Espresso with a listview, we're supposed to populate it prior to using it right? I couldn't figured it out how to do that properly.
I mean is it possible via Espresso itself or do I need to set it up in a method with a @Before annotation.
Thanks | 2016/02/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35311406",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1388943/"
] | If you're ok with an external Email Service then look for one that offers a Web Service API (which I assume your firewall is ok with).
SendGrid for example: <https://sendgrid.com/docs/API_Reference/Web_API/mail.html> | Use Database Mail.
[Click here](http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/08/23/sql-server-2008-configure-database-mail-send-email-from-sql-database/).
Pass your mail list from c# to Database.From there write a procedure to send mail.
We can easily monitor sent mails. |
56,897 | What is your view or argument? | 2018/11/07 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/56897",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/35737/"
] | Here is one concept of objectivity, taken from [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/).
Let's take objective properties to be qualities of an object that exist independently of a perception of that object; for example, the primality of the number 7, or the atomic mass of hydrogen. The intuition being that these facts would remain even if there was no one around to perceive them.
In *[The View from Nowhere](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_View_From_Nowhere.html?id=5cryOCGb2nEC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)* Thomas Nagel identifies three steps to identifying such objective properties.
**First** we must recognise that our perceptions are caused by causal processes (light reflecting off objects into our eyes and sounds hitting our eardrums etc.) and the effects those processes have on our sense organs and brains.
**Second** we must consider that these causal processes also act on other things (than ourselves) and sometimes never act on anything at all. Think of a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear, it intuitively seems that something must happen in that situation and that something must be detachable from a human perspective.
**Finally** we must form a conception of an entity's nature that is detached from our perspective, hence the title of the book, The View From Nowhere. Only by abstracting out our perspectival experience of the object are we able to gain a sense of objectivity. | My childhood tutor in philosophy suggested that objectivity and subjectivity are a single spectrum. An attribute of the attributes that we assign objects.
Its value on this spectrum might be estimated by how much we expect the attribute to vary from perspective to perspective.
Unfortunately, the assignment of objectivity/subjectivity of an attribute is subjective itself.
As a side note, the acknowledgment of any form of objectivity is always in question, as we have yet to define truly objective proofs even for things as seemingly concrete as mathematics.
Hope this helps, interesting question. |
56,897 | What is your view or argument? | 2018/11/07 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/56897",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/35737/"
] | Taking the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Emergent Properties"](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub) as a starting point, and asserting that all subjective properties are identical to emergent properties, then we can take all the systems and substances which are not called "emergent" to be whatever's objective.
The article asserts that there may be no objects at all, other than "simple physical structures," that do not have an emergent component.\* Under my assertion, this means that pretty much everything has subjective parts and objective parts.
>
> Talk of ["composite systems *lacking* emergent features"] is a convenient fiction suited to human perceptual and linguistic proclivities." (bracketed expression inserted by me)
>
>
> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub>
>
>
>
Under my assertion that subjectivity implies emergence and vice-versa, this means that anything that's not an atom has subjective qualities in addition to its objective qualities. This seems easily true, on the thought that not all things are the sums of their parts.
So I think that objective may be defined quite apart from subjective and not on a sliding scale. But it appears that there just aren't any things (other than simple ones like atoms) which are not compositions of their objective and subjective nature and properties.
>
> \* Composite objects having ontologically emergent features appear to be truer unities than those lacking such features.
>
>
> | My childhood tutor in philosophy suggested that objectivity and subjectivity are a single spectrum. An attribute of the attributes that we assign objects.
Its value on this spectrum might be estimated by how much we expect the attribute to vary from perspective to perspective.
Unfortunately, the assignment of objectivity/subjectivity of an attribute is subjective itself.
As a side note, the acknowledgment of any form of objectivity is always in question, as we have yet to define truly objective proofs even for things as seemingly concrete as mathematics.
Hope this helps, interesting question. |
56,897 | What is your view or argument? | 2018/11/07 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/56897",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/35737/"
] | Here is one concept of objectivity, taken from [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/).
Let's take objective properties to be qualities of an object that exist independently of a perception of that object; for example, the primality of the number 7, or the atomic mass of hydrogen. The intuition being that these facts would remain even if there was no one around to perceive them.
In *[The View from Nowhere](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_View_From_Nowhere.html?id=5cryOCGb2nEC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)* Thomas Nagel identifies three steps to identifying such objective properties.
**First** we must recognise that our perceptions are caused by causal processes (light reflecting off objects into our eyes and sounds hitting our eardrums etc.) and the effects those processes have on our sense organs and brains.
**Second** we must consider that these causal processes also act on other things (than ourselves) and sometimes never act on anything at all. Think of a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear, it intuitively seems that something must happen in that situation and that something must be detachable from a human perspective.
**Finally** we must form a conception of an entity's nature that is detached from our perspective, hence the title of the book, The View From Nowhere. Only by abstracting out our perspectival experience of the object are we able to gain a sense of objectivity. | Dr. David R. Hawkins approaches this subject in his book, 'I: Reality and Subjectivity'; what he says is that reality is always subjective, whether a thing is proven true or not in a scientific way, because it was made from a point of view and it inherently involves viewer's perspective.
Also, 'Observer effect' theory from quantum mechanics states that simply observing a situation or a phenomenon changes their structure as well as every conscious subject can affect reality in the same manner.
That being said, I tend to believe that the idea of objectiveness is only a narrowing of human perception, thus a limitation of consciousness regarding that an observation or a statement is made with an intention and it lacks objectivity.
Some of Mr. Hawkins' most appropriate statements related to this topic would be: "Truth is only that which is verifiable by the realization of subjective experiential reality", and, "There is no inherent authority of 'truth' to any concept except for the subjective value ascribed to it." |
56,897 | What is your view or argument? | 2018/11/07 | [
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/56897",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/35737/"
] | Taking the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Emergent Properties"](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub) as a starting point, and asserting that all subjective properties are identical to emergent properties, then we can take all the systems and substances which are not called "emergent" to be whatever's objective.
The article asserts that there may be no objects at all, other than "simple physical structures," that do not have an emergent component.\* Under my assertion, this means that pretty much everything has subjective parts and objective parts.
>
> Talk of ["composite systems *lacking* emergent features"] is a convenient fiction suited to human perceptual and linguistic proclivities." (bracketed expression inserted by me)
>
>
> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub>
>
>
>
Under my assertion that subjectivity implies emergence and vice-versa, this means that anything that's not an atom has subjective qualities in addition to its objective qualities. This seems easily true, on the thought that not all things are the sums of their parts.
So I think that objective may be defined quite apart from subjective and not on a sliding scale. But it appears that there just aren't any things (other than simple ones like atoms) which are not compositions of their objective and subjective nature and properties.
>
> \* Composite objects having ontologically emergent features appear to be truer unities than those lacking such features.
>
>
> | Dr. David R. Hawkins approaches this subject in his book, 'I: Reality and Subjectivity'; what he says is that reality is always subjective, whether a thing is proven true or not in a scientific way, because it was made from a point of view and it inherently involves viewer's perspective.
Also, 'Observer effect' theory from quantum mechanics states that simply observing a situation or a phenomenon changes their structure as well as every conscious subject can affect reality in the same manner.
That being said, I tend to believe that the idea of objectiveness is only a narrowing of human perception, thus a limitation of consciousness regarding that an observation or a statement is made with an intention and it lacks objectivity.
Some of Mr. Hawkins' most appropriate statements related to this topic would be: "Truth is only that which is verifiable by the realization of subjective experiential reality", and, "There is no inherent authority of 'truth' to any concept except for the subjective value ascribed to it." |
948,177 | We have an Autoscaling Group in AWS that we manually scale up and down at the time being. Our ASG is currently attached to one Target Group, which has all of our prod servers in it.
Before using the ASG, we would add and remove servers to the Target Groups manually from the Target Group console, and the nodes would deregister after draining properly. We have a very stateful application so the deregistration delay is really important for us.
Yesterday when scaling down through the ASG interface (specifically by asking for a lower number of desired instances), all the connections dropped instantly, which dropped hundreds of connections instantly instead of honoring the five minute draining policy of the target group.
How do I make my ASG honor my draining policy?
I have tried this:
[AWS ASG With Application LB and Connection Draining](https://serverfault.com/questions/815195/aws-asg-with-application-lb-and-connection-draining) but it does not set the connections to "draining", but just "terminating: waiting", and my health checks are healthy so I don't think it is actually stopping new connections/draining. | 2019/01/09 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/948177",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/494088/"
] | As described in the [linked answer](https://serverfault.com/questions/815195/aws-asg-with-application-lb-and-connection-draining) you will need an **[ASG Lifecycle hook](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/ec2/userguide/lifecycle-hooks.html)** to start with.
Whenever the *Terminating* event occurs fire up a *Lambda function* and in that Lambda **deregister your instance** from the *Target Group* using **[deregister-targets](https://boto3.amazonaws.com/v1/documentation/api/latest/reference/services/elbv2.html#ElasticLoadBalancingv2.Client.deregister_targets)**. That should move it to *Draining* phase, then wait however long you need to wait and once the instance is drained continue with the termination.
Hope that helps :) | The above shouldn't be required unless you need to do additional tasks other than just wait for the deregistration delay set on the target group, or the instance needs to be up for some time after the deregistration delay ends. Make sure to check what the deregistration delay is on the target group
When the ASG scales in (for example, from lowering the desired capacity, as you're doing). It should make a deregister call to any Classic Load Balancers or Target Groups associated with it, and then wait for those deregister calls to finish before it terminates the instance.
On the TargetGroup the status should be listed as 'draining' and on the activity history of the ASG it will temporarily list the state of that event as 'Waiting for ELB connection draining'
If you have a terminating lifecycle hook, the instance will be deregisterd from the target group before the lifecycle hook starts. Since you had the instance in the 'terminating:wait' state, it sounds like your instance was in the middle of a terminating lifecycle hook and should have already waited for the deregistration delay.
As a side note, Classic Load Balancers use 'connection draining' which is different than Application Load Balancers 'deregistration delay'. Connection draining will end as soon as there are no more inflight connections to that instance, or at the configured timeout, whichever is shorter. |
68,154,536 | I am running a piece of code in R. Its parallelized, running in 8 cores. Interestingly enough, when my memory usage reaches 15 and something GB, it drops to 10GB (my max memory is 16GB). I am curious of what is actually happening in the background? In the end, I get the complete data from all 8 cores, so I assume that data doesn't get lost. Does the pc stores it somewhere in SSD to free memory?
For more information, I loop over a time series data and perform a lot calculations, which I store in multiple vectors. When code finishes looping, it stores all the previous vectors in a list.
While running code, if I start opening many chrome tabs, which require a lot of memory, my code running time may take longer but still retrieves all data (sometimes crashes).
Very curious of what is happening? | 2021/06/27 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/68154536",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11209750/"
] | It's impossible to say without the specific code, but most likely, it's due to R's garbage collection running only when necessary and only when more memory needs to be allocated - unlike other languages like Python, R does not immediately garbage-collect objects when they reach out of scope, and in particular if the R objects have an underlying pointer to a C/C++ object, garbage collection can he held out until very late after the object is unreachable.
If this variable memory usage is a problem, you can try adding explicit calls to `gc()` at key points in your code. | Yes, you are right pc sometimes usage the hard disk as memory. it is known as Swap memory. When your ram gets overloaded it sends some of the data to the hard and stores them there temporarily. |
33,020 | I want to develop a very simple Extension which :
* searches the current contact\_id
* then verifies if he is recorded for a given event (event\_id as a parameter)
* then, depending on the result, echoes a message or opens an URL.
I read that, to develop an extension, I first had to :
* install Civix,
* which requires installing first git and composer
... which seems very complicated to me for such a simple program.
Is there a way to write and upload directly the code in the Extension directory, whithout all these prerequisites ? | 2019/09/12 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/33020",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/2787/"
] | git and composer aren't necessary to install civix. In the [README](https://github.com/totten/civix/blob/master/README.md) it suggests multiple ways to install civix. The first one is a simple download: <https://download.civicrm.org/civix/civix.phar>. | Yes, you could also just create a folder with the name of your extension in the extension folder of CiviCRM, and code from there. But that requires you to understand the folder and file structure required for extensions so it will actually be easier with civix. It is not a prerequisite but it helps a lot! |
194,747 | >
> He crashed the car into a wreck where the police inspected the debris.
>
>
>
I am assuming where is a pronoun here. The question is whether the word that precede where must be a location. From most examples, it seems that if it's a pronoun it must refer to a noun preceding it unless it's at the start of a sentence. Is this the case? Also, note that wreck refers to the state and not the location; hence, the question. | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194747",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/88150/"
] | For clarity, I would say *more eccentric than planet Earth's*, the possessive clarifying that the orbit of Earth is what is discussed. Otherwise the comparison is between orbits and Earth as a planet, which may be the source of the error. | The sentence appears to compare "orbits" with "planet Earth". This is probably not what the writer intended. Instead they intended to compare "orbits of comets" with "the orbit of the planet Earth".
>
> The orbits of comets are more eccentric than that of planet Earth...
>
>
>
But as noted in a comment, native speakers are not robots, and we could follow the intended meaning perfectly well. There is no need to mark this as an error. Similar expressions occur frequently without causing problems. |
50,972 | It is commonplace in Christianity today to close prayers "in Jesus' name, amen". I don't see any prayer in the apostolic writings prayed in this way. When does this first emerge in history? | 2016/08/01 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50972",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/30170/"
] | A definitive answer to this question will be elusive, but here are some preliminary findings that give some idea and hopefully inspire more research.
As we'll see, the exact English phrase, "in Jesus' name, amen," appears to be a fairly recent development, as do its variations. But it appears earlier in other languages, notably Latin and German. Thus, we'll follow this outline:
* Phrase in translation (German, Latin)
* Traditional forms in English
* Exact phrase and its variations in English
Phrase in translation
=====================
The earliest example of something similar to "in Jesus' name, amen" that I've found comes from the 5th century, in Latin:
>
> In nomine Iesu Christi, Amen. ([source](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2&rumpfid=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum&id=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum,%20%20%20%20%20%201&level=99&level9798=&satz=1&hilite_id=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum,%20%20%20%20%20%201&string=nomine!%3E%3E!iesu!%3E%3E!amen&binary=&corpus=2&target=&lang=0&home=&von=suchergebnis&hide_apparatus=1&inframe=1&jumpto=1#1))
>
> In Jesus Christ's name, amen.
>
>
>
And in the early 8th century:
>
> In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. ([source](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Auctores_varii_088_cps2&rumpfid=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702&id=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702,%20%20%20%20%20%201&level=99&level9798=&satz=1&hilite_id=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702,%20%20%20%20%20%201&string=nomine!%3E%3E!iesu!%3E%3E!amen&binary=&corpus=2&target=&lang=0&home=&von=suchergebnis&hide_apparatus=1&inframe=1&jumpto=1#1))
>
> In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.
>
>
>
Interestingly, the form also turns up much earlier in German than in English. For example, in 1538:
>
> In den Namen Jesu Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=nOeTJ4alfoEC&pg=PT16&dq=%22jesu+amen%22))
>
>
>
And in 1687:
>
> Im Namen Jesu! Amen! ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=idY-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA221&dq=namen+%22jesu+amen%22))
>
>
>
Traditional forms in English
============================
Prayers using the [trinitarian formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula) – "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" – can be found early in church history, and it's thus not surprising that early English prayer books used it. More interesting is the frequent ending of prayers with a variation on "Jesus Christ." Over 50 prayers in the [1689 Book of Common Prayer](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ) use his name in a phrase immediately before "Amen," such as:
>
> through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. ([page 167](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA167))
>
> through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. ([183](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA183))
>
> but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. ([190](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA190))
>
> for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. ([40](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA40))
>
>
>
Yet the phrase in question does not appear. Nor does it appear in the popular non-conformist [*Method for Prayer*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XLFVAAAAYAAJ) (1710) by Matthew Henry. The influence of such works, particularly the BCP, may have been a significant factor in the relatively late appearance of "in Jesus' name, amen" in English.
Phrase in English
=================
Definitively identifying the earliest use of this phrase in English would require the use of more corpora than I have at my disposal. The University of Michigan's Middle English corpus [yields no results](http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme?type=proximity&rgn=full+text&q1=iesus&op2=near&q2=amen&amt2=40&op3=near&q3=&amt3=40&cite1=&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search), so I turn then to Google Books. There, the earliest variation of this phrase in English appears in 1778:
>
> All which we beg for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=pMYUAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PR23&dq=%22name+of+jesus+christ+amen%22))
>
>
>
And the exact phrase for the first time only in 1840:
>
> We ask all in Jesus' name. Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=X7xFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA155&dq=%22jesus+name,+amen%22))
>
>
>
Summary
=======
I haven't uncovered written evidence for the use of this phrase in English prior to the 18th century, even though it appears in other European languages much earlier – as early as the 5th century in Latin.
It's certainly possible that this lack of evidence is due to a limited written record (or access to it). But the fact that my sources have *German* instances of this phrase in the 16th and 17th centuries, but no *English* ones, suggests that the influence of early English prayer books helped ensure that "in Jesus' name, amen" was not commonly employed. Apparently only after Protestantism split further and revivals spread did the phrase come into common usage and eventually become ubiquitous. | "Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." John 14:13-14 (ESV)
Was the beginning of the use when read literally by the denotation. It is shown to by more so of a hypothetical sense according to:
Lincoln, Andrew (2005). Gospel According to St John: Black's New Testament Commentaries. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Although it seems nigh impossible you find the definitive first time in history because not everything that happened was recorded or documented in historical records. |
50,972 | It is commonplace in Christianity today to close prayers "in Jesus' name, amen". I don't see any prayer in the apostolic writings prayed in this way. When does this first emerge in history? | 2016/08/01 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50972",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/30170/"
] | A definitive answer to this question will be elusive, but here are some preliminary findings that give some idea and hopefully inspire more research.
As we'll see, the exact English phrase, "in Jesus' name, amen," appears to be a fairly recent development, as do its variations. But it appears earlier in other languages, notably Latin and German. Thus, we'll follow this outline:
* Phrase in translation (German, Latin)
* Traditional forms in English
* Exact phrase and its variations in English
Phrase in translation
=====================
The earliest example of something similar to "in Jesus' name, amen" that I've found comes from the 5th century, in Latin:
>
> In nomine Iesu Christi, Amen. ([source](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2&rumpfid=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum&id=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum,%20%20%20%20%20%201&level=99&level9798=&satz=1&hilite_id=Perpetuus_Turonensis_cps2,%20Testamentum,%20%20%20%20%20%201&string=nomine!%3E%3E!iesu!%3E%3E!amen&binary=&corpus=2&target=&lang=0&home=&von=suchergebnis&hide_apparatus=1&inframe=1&jumpto=1#1))
>
> In Jesus Christ's name, amen.
>
>
>
And in the early 8th century:
>
> In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. ([source](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Auctores_varii_088_cps2&rumpfid=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702&id=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702,%20%20%20%20%20%201&level=99&level9798=&satz=1&hilite_id=Auctores_varii_088_cps2,%20Appendix,%20702,%20%20%20%20%20%201&string=nomine!%3E%3E!iesu!%3E%3E!amen&binary=&corpus=2&target=&lang=0&home=&von=suchergebnis&hide_apparatus=1&inframe=1&jumpto=1#1))
>
> In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.
>
>
>
Interestingly, the form also turns up much earlier in German than in English. For example, in 1538:
>
> In den Namen Jesu Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=nOeTJ4alfoEC&pg=PT16&dq=%22jesu+amen%22))
>
>
>
And in 1687:
>
> Im Namen Jesu! Amen! ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=idY-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA221&dq=namen+%22jesu+amen%22))
>
>
>
Traditional forms in English
============================
Prayers using the [trinitarian formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula) – "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" – can be found early in church history, and it's thus not surprising that early English prayer books used it. More interesting is the frequent ending of prayers with a variation on "Jesus Christ." Over 50 prayers in the [1689 Book of Common Prayer](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ) use his name in a phrase immediately before "Amen," such as:
>
> through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. ([page 167](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA167))
>
> through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. ([183](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA183))
>
> but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. ([190](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA190))
>
> for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. ([40](https://books.google.com/books?id=qGQ9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA40))
>
>
>
Yet the phrase in question does not appear. Nor does it appear in the popular non-conformist [*Method for Prayer*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XLFVAAAAYAAJ) (1710) by Matthew Henry. The influence of such works, particularly the BCP, may have been a significant factor in the relatively late appearance of "in Jesus' name, amen" in English.
Phrase in English
=================
Definitively identifying the earliest use of this phrase in English would require the use of more corpora than I have at my disposal. The University of Michigan's Middle English corpus [yields no results](http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme?type=proximity&rgn=full+text&q1=iesus&op2=near&q2=amen&amt2=40&op3=near&q3=&amt3=40&cite1=&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search), so I turn then to Google Books. There, the earliest variation of this phrase in English appears in 1778:
>
> All which we beg for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=pMYUAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PR23&dq=%22name+of+jesus+christ+amen%22))
>
>
>
And the exact phrase for the first time only in 1840:
>
> We ask all in Jesus' name. Amen. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=X7xFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA155&dq=%22jesus+name,+amen%22))
>
>
>
Summary
=======
I haven't uncovered written evidence for the use of this phrase in English prior to the 18th century, even though it appears in other European languages much earlier – as early as the 5th century in Latin.
It's certainly possible that this lack of evidence is due to a limited written record (or access to it). But the fact that my sources have *German* instances of this phrase in the 16th and 17th centuries, but no *English* ones, suggests that the influence of early English prayer books helped ensure that "in Jesus' name, amen" was not commonly employed. Apparently only after Protestantism split further and revivals spread did the phrase come into common usage and eventually become ubiquitous. | I don't think we will know exactly who the first person was who prayed in the name of Jesus, or exactly when this happened. However, in Acts 3:6 we see Peter use the name of Jesus in healing:
>
> Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I
> give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."
>
>
>
Even before the Acts of the Apostles, we see the seventy who were sent out to preach and heal, return with the following account:
>
> The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are
> subject to us in Your name." (Luke 10:17)
>
>
>
We also see in the scripture quoted by Victor, we pray in the name of Jesus, in faith, to receive:
>
> "Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be
> glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do
> it." John 14:13-14 (ESV)
>
>
>
**Why do we pray in the name of Jesus?**
Because of the complete work of the cross of Calvary, and what the name of Christ represents. Salvation, healing, deliverance, breakthrough, victory, a better life, a hope and a future etc.
i hope this helps! |
513 | What is the best way forward with answers that are severely edited; to the point where they no longer hold their original intent? In specific, I'm referencing [this post](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/a/19495/3191):
It's signaling the wrong thing to the community, but it's also saying the same thing as what [YLearn posted](https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/a/19499/3191) (which has a positive vote talley). On the surface, it *appears* that YLearn is also saying that this is totally wrong, but after further inspection, the answer has totally backpedalled.
Would the best course of action be to delete the original answer and post a new one? Does that responsibility fall on the person posting, or the community (since it's conveying a confusing message)? | 2015/06/29 | [
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/513",
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3191/"
] | I think it's very hard for the community to handle this properly. You can't expect every voter to review his or her voting decision (up or down) after every edit, it just won't happen. The smart thing to do in this case is for the poster not to change a reply so dramatically, but just delete the old answer and post a new one. | Actually, as I read the original question, the intent was to match a MAC within an L2TP payload. If that's the case, then Royston's original answer is 100% correct; there's no ACL language to look into the payload of a frame. As such, his edit merely looks like he's trying to copy-cat a positively voted answer.
Verdict: rollback to his original answer, lock if necessary to prevent further "wander edits" (as a last resort)
[Warning: Royston will absolutely flip out over this.]
**[edit, to be clear]**
Edits should not substantively change an answer. In such cases, one should delete an errant answer, and provide a different one. A downvoted "wrong" answer turned into a "right" answer would still have the downvotes counting against it, making it harder to float to the top as a good answer. (I'm sure that's documented somewhere on SE) |
15,411,220 | **Can anyone help me to code in WinRT for PAUSING and RESUMING recording audio files.**
Classes used are as follows:
**IRamdomAccessStream** for storing captured voice to random stream.
**Windows.Media.Capture.MediaCapture** for capturing audio voice.
**Windows.Storage.StorageFile** for storing file.
Please help me with the code that how to pause the stream and again on resume the captured voice append to the existing stream.
waiting 4 the reply..
Thank you. | 2013/03/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/15411220",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2136022/"
] | Not sure why this had been down voted. Have a look at [this sample](http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/Media-Capture-Sample-adf87622), it should get you started. | The sample linked above provides indeed a good start about how to work with audio/video capture within a WinRT app.
However, there's no scenario in the samples replying the original question:
It seems indeed there are no methods that support pausing in MediaCapture.
The only Store App available that supports pausing while recording that I can see it's [Windows Sound Recorder from Microsoft](http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/app/9f03273f-fe0b-4ed8-9bc8-c2f256375490).
I assume that App is written in C++ and uses a custom sink instead to record audio which also supports appending data to an existing stream. |
62,391 | Could someone help me find what kind of illness is that and how to treat it?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVKNL.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NX3wz.jpg) | 2022/05/23 | [
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/62391",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com",
"https://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/39555/"
] | Looks like it might be oedema caused by waterlogged roots. It occurs when roots take up more water than the plant can use or evaporate away through pores on its leaves. It may be very humid out or the water too warm. Make sure you wait until the soil is at least dry-ish before watering and that you have drainage holes on your container.
I would also double check your fertilizer and how often you're using it. Too much fertilizer can cause this as well.
Disease is always a possibility. | Looks like scale. Search the questions on this site using the words “bay” and “scale” and you will see good answers. |
102,832 | I noticed messages were not being sent from the Gmail app. I checked to make sure auto sync is enabled and it is. Any ideas? Beside the message it just says sending. I have other email accounts used by the Gmail app (e.g. yahoo) and they work fine. Also I can send and receive find from Outlook on my computer. I don't know what else information to give so feel free to ask for more. I'm using Xperia Z2 with Android 4.4 | 2015/03/17 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/102832",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/17808/"
] | From the phone app, tap the Action Overflow button (...) in the top-right corner, then tap Call History. Tap any entry, then Details, and it will show you the date, time, and LENGTH of call, or calls (individually, in a list) if multiple were grouped together. | To my knowledge, there is not (and never has been) a native way to achieve this. However, that doesn't mean it's not possible: for most of the details, it's just the frontend that's missing (data is available in the resp. "data providers"). But to investigate the data, you would need a 3rd party app.
There's a manually curated list of hand-picked apps available on my Android website you could chose from: [Statistics for calls, messages, data](http://android.izzysoft.de/applists/category/named/office_contacts_statistics). Depending on what features you favour (how much details you need, how fancy it should look, etc.), different pieces of it might suit you.
If you prefer to get a few choices introduced closer, head over to [SoftwareRecs](https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/336/185) (the link goes to their rules: SR is quite strict for what questions – or answers – must contain to not be "dropped"). |
102,832 | I noticed messages were not being sent from the Gmail app. I checked to make sure auto sync is enabled and it is. Any ideas? Beside the message it just says sending. I have other email accounts used by the Gmail app (e.g. yahoo) and they work fine. Also I can send and receive find from Outlook on my computer. I don't know what else information to give so feel free to ask for more. I'm using Xperia Z2 with Android 4.4 | 2015/03/17 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/102832",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/17808/"
] | From the phone app, tap the Action Overflow button (...) in the top-right corner, then tap Call History. Tap any entry, then Details, and it will show you the date, time, and LENGTH of call, or calls (individually, in a list) if multiple were grouped together. | Here is the solution (but needs root in some cases). It wasn't showing for me too even after updating the Contacts app. And then I found that the Contacts app on my relative's phone shows:
>
> 
>
>
>
I realize that she had an old version. Even if I deleted all the updates, it is still older than mine (by the way, both run on Pie Android One phone). She sent me the APK of Contacts but I couldn't install it because it older version. So, I opened Titanium Backup, pressed and hold on Contacts, turned it into a user app, uninstalled it, installed the version that she sent to me, and then make it a system app again with Titanium Backup (or any alternative app that transforms a system app into a user app), and it worked really well.
Anyway, the version that shows the time of the call is 3.0.7.210756853. So you should uninstall the updates of the app (from app info, then the top-right corner, and uninstall updates).
Then, if you have a version older than 3.0.7.210756853, you don't need root or Titanium Backup or that kind of stuff. All you have to do is to download this version and install it.
But if you uninstalled the updates and it is still newer than 3.0.7.210756853, you should have root and do what I explained above. |
102,832 | I noticed messages were not being sent from the Gmail app. I checked to make sure auto sync is enabled and it is. Any ideas? Beside the message it just says sending. I have other email accounts used by the Gmail app (e.g. yahoo) and they work fine. Also I can send and receive find from Outlook on my computer. I don't know what else information to give so feel free to ask for more. I'm using Xperia Z2 with Android 4.4 | 2015/03/17 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/102832",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/17808/"
] | From the phone app, tap the Action Overflow button (...) in the top-right corner, then tap Call History. Tap any entry, then Details, and it will show you the date, time, and LENGTH of call, or calls (individually, in a list) if multiple were grouped together. | In the 'Recent Calls' list or 'Recents', touch the name of the person/business. NOT the picture or letter icon/initial, which will open the contact - or the phone icon, which will call them again.
If you touch the Name itself, it should drop down another menu with "Video call", "Message" AND "History". Touch History and you'll have a list of calls made WITH Duration. |
15,756,140 | Have this design problem and trying to find a best way to implement it using JMS.
Web App has single Listener and multiple Producer and multiple WorkerBee. Listener pushes messages from its queue to WorkerBee. All of the messages produced are queued in a Listener. I want to implement a process than can send messages from Listener queue to each WorkerBee using some kind of load balancing process. Only single instance of the message occurs in the Listener queue or in the WorkerBee queue.
Whats the best way to do it? Does JMS sounds like a good choice here? How would I push the message from Listener queue to WorkerBee queue?
Open for suggestion :) And appreciate your response. | 2013/04/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/15756140",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1871879/"
] | Messaging is good choice for such task. I think you should use **Apache Camel** framework as routing platform for described purposes. It allows to divide business logic from integration level in quite graceful way.
**Camel** supports plenty of components "out-of-box" including [JMS endpoints](http://camel.apache.org/).
You can delegate to one of your WorkerBee's using [Load Balancer](http://camel.apache.org/load-balancer.html) pattern. | JMS sounds a good option, since you have multiple instances of WorkerBee, make all WorkerBee listen to a single queue, e.g. to InWorkBeeQueue.
Now you can publish messages from Web App listener to InWorkBeeQueue. Write a simple java JMS producer code to publish messages to this queue. Depending on whichever instance of WorkBee is free, it will read message from InWorkBeeQueue and process it.
If you want to avoid writing new JMS producer code, you can directly map messages from Web app queue to InWorkBeeQueue using Apache Camel routes. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.